Community >> View Thread

Author
The Avenger


Location: New Jersey
Member Since: Thu Dec 02, 2021


This is a pretty long interview but it's a highly readable introduction to the New Right. The people being interviewed are the hosts of the podcast, Know Your Enemy, which I very recently started listening to. In this instance, the enemy is the New Right.

https://newrepublic.com/article/164643/illiberal-upstarts-reinvent-conservatism

These people are not libertarians and they're not corporate lapdogs. They're in favor of a welfare state but only if it's structured in accordance with their beliefs, and what they believe in is the moral theology of the Catholic Church, which they want to impose not only on our institutions but on our very brains.

And you know how my originalist approach to the text of the Constitution seems problematic to some here? Well, the New Right is discarding originalism in favor of Catholic natural law theology. Because that's what happens when you stop limiting yourself to the actual text and your best guess as to the original intent. You find yourself with nothing to stop you from applying whatever arbitrary paradigm you happen to like.

Here's an article:
https://newrepublic.com/article/161162/originalism-dead-long-live-catholic-natural-law

By the way, Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh, and Barrett are Catholic.



Posted with Google Chrome 101.0.4951.54 on Windows 10
bd2999 

Moderator

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008



    Quote:
    This is a pretty long interview but it's a highly readable introduction to the New Right. The people being interviewed are the hosts of the podcast, Know Your Enemy, which I very recently started listening to. In this instance, the enemy is the New Right.


I am aware of them but thank you for the link. I am glad they have a transcript. I often can read it faster than listening to it for some things. May give them a listen at some point too, I only listen to podcasts occasionally.


    Quote:
    https://newrepublic.com/article/164643/illiberal-upstarts-reinvent-conservatism



    Quote:
    These people are not libertarians and they're not corporate lapdogs. They're in favor of a welfare state but only if it's structured in accordance with their beliefs, and what they believe in is the moral theology of the Catholic Church, which they want to impose not only on our institutions but on our very brains.


The catholic church surprises me. Given the influence of the conservative evangelical movement within the US, I am surprised it is not based on that or more an abstract view of Christianity, being most view the US as being a nation founded on Christian principles.

It does seem like a growing movement in conservatism has theocratic ambitions. I am unsure of the number exactly but it does seem larger than before and some are already in power.


    Quote:
    And you know how my originalist approach to the text of the Constitution seems problematic to some here? Well, the New Right is discarding originalism in favor of Catholic natural law theology. Because that's what happens when you stop limiting yourself to the actual text and your best guess as to the original intent. You find yourself with nothing to stop you from applying whatever arbitrary paradigm you happen to like.


While I agree with your concern on the application of a theocratic based state it is hypothetically prevented by the First Amendment.

I hate to break this next part to you but there is not a judge alive or who has lived that has taken the strict intention as written. Even the guys on the court now that claim to will modify definitions as needed. And that has been the case throughout US history.

The fact that there are unenumerated rights should also not be that controversial to you. Given the 14th Amendment and the 9th Amendment in particular.

It is simply not always clear what was meant in certain views. And there are clearly different views on the matter. Consider the Establishment Clause alone. Conservative judges are happy enough to ignore it or break it down when it seems pretty clear that the reading indicates that state sponsored religion is not ok, but the language as it is does not inform us as to where the specific line is. And Courts have fought about it for ages.

The Constitution itself is also full of alot of material that does not count as such anymore. Militias are rarely used for instance so what does the Second Amendment mean?

I agree with literalist at times, but I often think it is only applied to attack opposed points of view. It does not specifically say x so it is not allowed assumes black and white and the law is clearly not like that.

And even if the Founder's were fairly perfect for their time one could make the case that the system on the whole is something of a failure given political realities. As it says nothing about the internet or regulation of it and as a society we are not doing much about it. Instead we apply what is there.

The Constitution also does not specifically mention alot of things there are rights too. Marriage being one of the easiest ones is not listed, but marriages hold from one state to another, even just considering the classic heterosexual kind.

Sorry for the tangent. I agree with your general point that nobody should be ruled by anothers religion or really beliefs but I just think the law and Constitution are very vague in certain areas.





    Quote:
    By the way, Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh, and Barrett are Catholic.


Which is fine, it should not matter. People can be whatever they want. I have more concerns with Roberts friendliness to business, Thomas's hostility towards any befinicial regulation, Alito being a partisan and Kavanaugh being apparently out for revenge in his approval hearings.

Barrett I know I do not agree with, but I do not know enough to comment.






Look Raist bunnies...
Posted with Google Chrome 101.0.4951.54 on Windows 10
The Avenger


Location: New Jersey
Member Since: Thu Dec 02, 2021



    Quote:
    The catholic church surprises me. Given the influence of the conservative evangelical movement within the US, I am surprised it is not based on that or more an abstract view of Christianity, being most view the US as being a nation founded on Christian principles.



I recommend this article:
https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-secrets-of-leonard-leo-the-man-behind-trumps-supreme-court-pick

When is a conspiracy theory not a conspiracy theory? When it's true.

To know what's really going on in the American judiciary, including and especially the Supreme Court, one has to become knowledgeable about the Federalist Society and, perhaps even more crucially, the Knights of Malta.



    Quote:
    While I agree with your concern on the application of a theocratic based state it is hypothetically prevented by the First Amendment.



Unfortunately, no, it's not. All the First Amendment does, in this context, is prohibit the establishment of a state religion. This is easily circumvented. Simply legislate in accordance with your religion's moral theology, without explicitly referencing your religion. Don't say, "Catholicism opposes abortion." Say, instead, "Conservatism opposes abortion."



    Quote:
    I hate to break this next part to you but there is not a judge alive or who has lived that has taken the strict intention as written. Even the guys on the court now that claim to will modify definitions as needed. And that has been the case throughout US history.



I don't know why I keep receiving comments like, "I hate to break this next part to you," which seem, to me, to be disrespectful.

In this instance, I will simply reply that I know most judges won't restrict themselves in accordance with originalism. They won't restrict themselves at all. I am saying that I wish they would. My entire concern is the existence of an omnipotent and unassailable judiciary. Such a judiciary seems great when it agrees with your particular ethos. Comes a time when it agrees with your opponents, and suddenly its omnipotence and unassailability will seem like problems to you. Unfortunately, it will be too late to do anything about it.



    Quote:
    The fact that there are unenumerated rights should also not be that controversial to you. Given the 14th Amendment and the 9th Amendment in particular.



Unenumerated rights of course exist. But what are they? We don't know - because they're unenumerated!

Suppose I say to you, "All married men have the right to demand sex from their wives, and punish non-compliance." You say, "No they don't!" I say, "Sure they do. It's unenumerated!"



    Quote:
    It is simply not always clear what was meant in certain views. And there are clearly different views on the matter. Consider the Establishment Clause alone. Conservative judges are happy enough to ignore it or break it down when it seems pretty clear that the reading indicates that state sponsored religion is not ok, but the language as it is does not inform us as to where the specific line is. And Courts have fought about it for ages.



Which is precisely why I want legislatures to legislate. Put it in writing.



    Quote:
    The Constitution itself is also full of alot of material that does not count as such anymore. Militias are rarely used for instance so what does the Second Amendment mean?



The Framers wanted to make sure their states would not be disarmed by the federal government. An honest application of originalism would show that a lot of what's in the Constitution is there to protect state rights, not individual rights.

But see, here's the point: originalism is something that's amenable to debate. We can gather evidence for conflicting points of view and have it out on the intellectual arena. It isn't the arbitrary whims of omnipotent and unassailable judges.

But I'm willing to entertain some other principle that could be used to tell judges to their faces, "You're wrong."

On another thread I proposed the following:


The Freedoms Amendment

The Supreme Court shall pass no new judgment that decreases or restricts the freedoms of individuals, and shall invalidate any new action of the federal or state legislature which decreases or restricts the freedoms of individuals. No individual shall be understood as having, nor be newly granted, the right or freedom to decrease or restrict the freedoms of any other individual on any grounds whatsoever, including religious.




    Quote:
    Sorry for the tangent. I agree with your general point that nobody should be ruled by anothers religion or really beliefs but I just think the law and Constitution are very vague in certain areas.



Which is why I want legislatures to legislate.



    Quote:

      Quote:
      By the way, Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh, and Barrett are Catholic.


    Which is fine, it should not matter. People can be whatever they want. I have more concerns with Roberts friendliness to business, Thomas's hostility towards any befinicial regulation, Alito being a partisan and Kavanaugh being apparently out for revenge in his approval hearings.



Unfortunately, the excessive influence of Catholic natural law theology on the United States judiciary is not, in my opinion, fine. It does matter.



Posted with Google Chrome 101.0.4951.54 on Windows 10
bd2999 

Moderator

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008



    Quote:

      Quote:
      The catholic church surprises me. Given the influence of the conservative evangelical movement within the US, I am surprised it is not based on that or more an abstract view of Christianity, being most view the US as being a nation founded on Christian principles.






    Quote:
    When is a conspiracy theory not a conspiracy theory? When it's true.



    Quote:
    To know what's really going on in the American judiciary, including and especially the Supreme Court, one has to become knowledgeable about the Federalist Society and, perhaps even more crucially, the Knights of Malta.



    Quote:


      Quote:
      While I agree with your concern on the application of a theocratic based state it is hypothetically prevented by the First Amendment.



    Quote:

    Unfortunately, no, it's not. All the First Amendment does, in this context, is prohibit the establishment of a state religion. This is easily circumvented. Simply legislate in accordance with your religion's moral theology, without explicitly referencing your religion. Don't say, "Catholicism opposes abortion." Say, instead, "Conservatism opposes abortion."


True enough, although it would prevent a Theocracy in the most absolute and technical terms, but in many respects in name only. Pending how the Courts would rule on its meaning. It is already being widdled down a fair bit from classical understanding.


    Quote:


      Quote:
      I hate to break this next part to you but there is not a judge alive or who has lived that has taken the strict intention as written. Even the guys on the court now that claim to will modify definitions as needed. And that has been the case throughout US history.



    Quote:

    I don't know why I keep receiving comments like, "I hate to break this next part to you," which seem, to me, to be disrespectful.


Quite so, I chose words very poorly. No disrespect was meant.


    Quote:
    In this instance, I will simply reply that I know most judges won't restrict themselves in accordance with originalism. They won't restrict themselves at all. I am saying that I wish they would. My entire concern is the existence of an omnipotent and unassailable judiciary. Such a judiciary seems great when it agrees with your particular ethos. Comes a time when it agrees with your opponents, and suddenly its omnipotence and unassailability will seem like problems to you. Unfortunately, it will be too late to do anything about it.


I suppose in a perfect world. I just do not see the judiciary as ever being perfect anywhere. I do agree with what you are saying in general, although my thoughts are not it is not so much a debate based on what the law says but about how much one thinks politics, political thought and ideology shade the views of a law.

It seems like over the last however many decades we (of which I include myself) have become deluded with the idea of a judiciary that rises above it all where that probably never existed. It has always has been political.


    Quote:


      Quote:
      The fact that there are unenumerated rights should also not be that controversial to you. Given the 14th Amendment and the 9th Amendment in particular.



    Quote:

    Unenumerated rights of course exist. But what are they? We don't know - because they're unenumerated!


Yes, but my point is that they were considered important enough to include. Why would it have been bothered with then?


    Quote:
    Suppose I say to you, "All married men have the right to demand sex from their wives, and punish non-compliance." You say, "No they don't!" I say, "Sure they do. It's unenumerated!"


It would seem more of a reach than most such rules that I know of so far. Particularly in the context of the rest of the document itself. Which is how I personally would view it. But that is of course seen through my ideology.

But they are in there and do not need to always be spelled out clearly.

It is a problem and makes the footing shakier for ideological readings, but it is what it is.


    Quote:


      Quote:
      It is simply not always clear what was meant in certain views. And there are clearly different views on the matter. Consider the Establishment Clause alone. Conservative judges are happy enough to ignore it or break it down when it seems pretty clear that the reading indicates that state sponsored religion is not ok, but the language as it is does not inform us as to where the specific line is. And Courts have fought about it for ages.



    Quote:

    Which is precisely why I want legislatures to legislate. Put it in writing.


Oh, I would love if legislatures did much of anything. Particularly at the federal level. That system is made not to work or to avoid progress unless it is in the face.

And often state governments have started down the path to regressivism. IMO.


    Quote:


      Quote:
      The Constitution itself is also full of alot of material that does not count as such anymore. Militias are rarely used for instance so what does the Second Amendment mean?



    Quote:

    The Framers wanted to make sure their states would not be disarmed by the federal government. An honest application of originalism would show that a lot of what's in the Constitution is there to protect state rights, not individual rights.


To a point, although there are a number of books that cover the topic in depth and it is not straight forward. This is highlighted by the fact that there were multiple versions of the amendment (and others) that were clearer but were rejected.

It may well have been about state's rights but how does that translate to modern times? Part of it talk about no restriction on the right and the other about a militia. Should we take that literally and translate to national guard only? Do people need to bring their own guns, like they did when they initially passed the amendment. Is it moot after a standing army is in place?

There is for sure nothing on a personal right to bare arms, that was a recent right or restrictions not being ok. Even judges around the time of the founding held that restrictions and such were ok.

To me, it is just a strangely worded Amendment. I would recommend the 2nd Amendment a History in particular. Not saying you are uninformed or anything, just saying I found it very interesting.


    Quote:
    But see, here's the point: originalism is something that's amenable to debate. We can gather evidence for conflicting points of view and have it out on the intellectual arena. It isn't the arbitrary whims of omnipotent and unassailable judges.


I suppose, but somebody would need to make the call in the end. Whose evidence is more compelling and that person is not going to be perfect.

Hypothetically, it sounds good but I do not think it always works out how we may want it to.

I know many judges will quote historical texts when convenient and will not do so correctly as ruled by the academic field.


    Quote:
    But I'm willing to entertain some other principle that could be used to tell judges to their faces, "You're wrong."



    Quote:
    On another thread I proposed the following:



    Quote:

    The Freedoms Amendment



    Quote:
    The Supreme Court shall pass no new judgment that decreases or restricts the freedoms of individuals, and shall invalidate any new action of the federal or state legislature which decreases or restricts the freedoms of individuals. No individual shall be understood as having, nor be newly granted, the right or freedom to decrease or restrict the freedoms of any other individual on any grounds whatsoever, including religious.


I like the concept, but not sure I agree with it as it is. As is, hypothetically wouldn't it exempt someone from being sent to prison as the law they broke would be unconstitutional given it violates their freedom?


    Quote:

      Quote:
      Sorry for the tangent. I agree with your general point that nobody should be ruled by anothers religion or really beliefs but I just think the law and Constitution are very vague in certain areas.



    Quote:

    Which is why I want legislatures to legislate.


I think a couple threads down I was more in the camp of making Amendments easier to pass. I am fine with states passing laws. The issue comes in when the judiciary reviews them.

What is Constitutional or not is sometimes easy to figure and sometimes not and it often depends on what court you are in front of. It is one of the reason so many cases anymore go around trying to find the most conservative judge they can to make the broadest ruling possible to stop any action. At least the trend at the moment.


    Quote:


      Quote:

        Quote:
        By the way, Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh, and Barrett are Catholic.



      Quote:
      Which is fine, it should not matter. People can be whatever they want. I have more concerns with Roberts friendliness to business, Thomas's hostility towards any befinicial regulation, Alito being a partisan and Kavanaugh being apparently out for revenge in his approval hearings.



    Quote:

    Unfortunately, the excessive influence of Catholic natural law theology on the United States judiciary is not, in my opinion, fine. It does matter.


It may well. Like I said initially I would need to check out the link provided in more detail etc.

I just am in the boat that I give folks on matters of religion the benefit of the doubt. I do not know how they practice or what they believe. I have known many Catholics for instance and most do not really follow the church that closely at all.

That is all I meant. It should not make a difference what the faith or lack of faith of a judge is. Their job should be the same. In a perfect world.






Look Raist bunnies...
Posted with Google Chrome 101.0.4951.54 on Windows 10
The Avenger


Location: New Jersey
Member Since: Thu Dec 02, 2021



    Quote:

      Quote:
      But I'm willing to entertain some other principle that could be used to tell judges to their faces, "You're wrong."

      On another thread I proposed the following:
      The Freedoms Amendment
      The Supreme Court shall pass no new judgment that decreases or restricts the freedoms of individuals, and shall invalidate any new action of the federal or state legislature which decreases or restricts the freedoms of individuals. No individual shall be understood as having, nor be newly granted, the right or freedom to decrease or restrict the freedoms of any other individual on any grounds whatsoever, including religious.


    I like the concept, but not sure I agree with it as it is. As is, hypothetically wouldn't it exempt someone from being sent to prison as the law they broke would be unconstitutional given it violates their freedom?



Yes. By design. If a new law (the word "new" in the amendment is important) decreases or restricts freedom, it would be invalidated by the Supreme Court, and anyone who went to prison for violating this law would have to be released. That's exactly the outcome I want. So, for example, if a new law made abortion a crime, the Supreme Court would be obligated to strike down that law, due to the Freedoms Amendment.

The single most important thing about the United States is that we uphold and defend freedom. That's the hill we must be willing to die on. Whether the Christian Right likes it or not.



Posted with Google Chrome 101.0.4951.54 on Windows 10
bd2999 

Moderator

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008



    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:
        But I'm willing to entertain some other principle that could be used to tell judges to their faces, "You're wrong."



        Quote:
        On another thread I proposed the following:
        The Freedoms Amendment
        The Supreme Court shall pass no new judgment that decreases or restricts the freedoms of individuals, and shall invalidate any new action of the federal or state legislature which decreases or restricts the freedoms of individuals. No individual shall be understood as having, nor be newly granted, the right or freedom to decrease or restrict the freedoms of any other individual on any grounds whatsoever, including religious.



      Quote:
      I like the concept, but not sure I agree with it as it is. As is, hypothetically wouldn't it exempt someone from being sent to prison as the law they broke would be unconstitutional given it violates their freedom?



    Quote:

    Yes. By design. If a new law (the word "new" in the amendment is important) decreases or restricts freedom, it would be invalidated by the Supreme Court, and anyone who went to prison for violating this law would have to be released. That's exactly the outcome I want. So, for example, if a new law made abortion a crime, the Supreme Court would be obligated to strike down that law, due to the Freedoms Amendment.


Wouldn't it also apply if new forms of fraud or activities were also made illegal but them being illegal is a benefit to society on net?

I am all for lessening the load on the legal system and citizens but there are going to be reasonable laws that outlaw various activities that were not previously considered.


    Quote:
    The single most important thing about the United States is that we uphold and defend freedom. That's the hill we must be willing to die on. Whether the Christian Right likes it or not.


I mean I suppose so, although to me freedom can have a vastly different meaning to different people. A libertarian for instance views their freedom as protection from government that they do not wish to grant any power.

I am more towards the other end where I think part of a government's primary goal is to work to improve the life of those who live within it. I see upholding freedoms as part of that, but I also see various actions as net goods while a libertarian would see them as violations of their freedoms.






Look Raist bunnies...
Posted with Google Chrome 101.0.4951.54 on Windows 10
The Avenger


Location: New Jersey
Member Since: Thu Dec 02, 2021



    Quote:

      Quote:

      Yes. By design. If a new law (the word "new" in the amendment is important) decreases or restricts freedom, it would be invalidated by the Supreme Court, and anyone who went to prison for violating this law would have to be released. That's exactly the outcome I want. So, for example, if a new law made abortion a crime, the Supreme Court would be obligated to strike down that law, due to the Freedoms Amendment.


    Wouldn't it also apply if new forms of fraud or activities were also made illegal but them being illegal is a benefit to society on net?



We could add a parenthetical like this: "(The foregoing does not apply to new laws forbidding victimization of others.)"



    Quote:

      Quote:
      The single most important thing about the United States is that we uphold and defend freedom. That's the hill we must be willing to die on. Whether the Christian Right likes it or not.


    I mean I suppose so, although to me freedom can have a vastly different meaning to different people. A libertarian for instance views their freedom as protection from government that they do not wish to grant any power.



I lean libertarian.



    Quote:
    I am more towards the other end where I think part of a government's primary goal is to work to improve the life of those who live within it. I see upholding freedoms as part of that, but I also see various actions as net goods while a libertarian would see them as violations of their freedoms.



Building infrastructure, providing a safety net, and facilitating upward mobility through things like education are all laudable goals, but first we need to be protected from tyranny. It's not either/or. It's first, second, third, fourth. First is freedom.



Posted with Google Chrome 101.0.4951.54 on Windows 10
bd2999 

Moderator

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008



    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:

        Yes. By design. If a new law (the word "new" in the amendment is important) decreases or restricts freedom, it would be invalidated by the Supreme Court, and anyone who went to prison for violating this law would have to be released. That's exactly the outcome I want. So, for example, if a new law made abortion a crime, the Supreme Court would be obligated to strike down that law, due to the Freedoms Amendment.



      Quote:
      Wouldn't it also apply if new forms of fraud or activities were also made illegal but them being illegal is a benefit to society on net?



    Quote:

    We could add a parenthetical like this: "(The foregoing does not apply to new laws forbidding victimization of others.)"



    Quote:


      Quote:

        Quote:
        The single most important thing about the United States is that we uphold and defend freedom. That's the hill we must be willing to die on. Whether the Christian Right likes it or not.



      Quote:
      I mean I suppose so, although to me freedom can have a vastly different meaning to different people. A libertarian for instance views their freedom as protection from government that they do not wish to grant any power.



    Quote:

    I lean libertarian.


That is fine, I was just being illustrative.


    Quote:


      Quote:
      I am more towards the other end where I think part of a government's primary goal is to work to improve the life of those who live within it. I see upholding freedoms as part of that, but I also see various actions as net goods while a libertarian would see them as violations of their freedoms.



    Quote:

    Building infrastructure, providing a safety net, and facilitating upward mobility through things like education are all laudable goals, but first we need to be protected from tyranny. It's not either/or. It's first, second, third, fourth. First is freedom.


I suppose, but freedom can be such a vague term that it is often easier to say than it is to really do much with. What is freedom to one is very different for freedom to another.

Not saying it is not a laudable goal. Because protecting freedom and providing various things are great in principle. In practice it seems like almost every good intention can be exploited by somebody.

It is sort of the story of humanity, not unique to the US. In the US among our many battles seems to be where one person's religious freedom ends and another person's right to be begins. As freedom of religion is now very much a sword and used more to seemingly hack into others rights than as a shield to protect their ability to worship.




Look Raist bunnies...
Posted with Google Chrome 101.0.4951.54 on Windows 10
The Avenger


Location: New Jersey
Member Since: Thu Dec 02, 2021



    Quote:
    I suppose, but freedom can be such a vague term that it is often easier to say than it is to really do much with. What is freedom to one is very different for freedom to another.



    Quote:
    Not saying it is not a laudable goal. Because protecting freedom and providing various things are great in principle. In practice it seems like almost every good intention can be exploited by somebody.



    Quote:
    It is sort of the story of humanity, not unique to the US. In the US among our many battles seems to be where one person's religious freedom ends and another person's right to be begins. As freedom of religion is now very much a sword and used more to seemingly hack into others rights than as a shield to protect their ability to worship.



You seem to operate in a general spirit of pessimism. Am I right about that? If not, then where does your optimism reside? What positive goals do you tend to think are achievable? What values do you tend to think we humans can fulfill?

I, for my part, readily assume that positive goals can be achieved and positive values can be fulfilled. Not perfection - there is no perfection on the earth - but perfection has never been necessary.

As for which goals are positive - I admire and support any goal that incorporates the values of freedom, innovation, integrity, health, and joy. Where these five values are held high, humanity will rise and advance. Nor does everyone need to agree on the details of these five values. There is no uniformity of purpose or method where freedom reigns. But uniformity has never been necessary.





Posted with Google Chrome 101.0.4951.54 on Windows 10
Late Great Donald Blake 

Moderator

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 7,517




Posted with Google Chrome 101.0.4951.54 on Windows 10
bd2999 

Moderator

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008



    Quote:

      Quote:
      I suppose, but freedom can be such a vague term that it is often easier to say than it is to really do much with. What is freedom to one is very different for freedom to another.

      Quote:

        Quote:
        Not saying it is not a laudable goal. Because protecting freedom and providing various things are great in principle. In practice it seems like almost every good intention can be exploited by somebody.

        Quote:

          Quote:
          It is sort of the story of humanity, not unique to the US. In the US among our many battles seems to be where one person's religious freedom ends and another person's right to be begins. As freedom of religion is now very much a sword and used more to seemingly hack into others rights than as a shield to protect their ability to worship.



    Quote:

    You seem to operate in a general spirit of pessimism. Am I right about that? If not, then where does your optimism reside? What positive goals do you tend to think are achievable? What values do you tend to think we humans can fulfill?


Pessimism or realism depending on the point of view. I think it is more a realization that the if we are talking politics within the US in particular that at almost any level I have just seem too many things needed die or never get traction while things that are more "culture wars" and surface dressing get pushes and do little other than divide.

It would depend on what you mean goals and on what level. Do you mean like things we should strive for as humans?

The question of what can we do to, in the sense of what would we be able to do, is a depressing one to me. As at the moment I would say not much.


    Quote:
    I, for my part, readily assume that positive goals can be achieved and positive values can be fulfilled. Not perfection - there is no perfection on the earth - but perfection has never been necessary.


I do not think there needs to be perfection, but am more in the camp that I do not see much good coming out of any front on most issues.


    Quote:
    As for which goals are positive - I admire and support any goal that incorporates the values of freedom, innovation, integrity, health, and joy. Where these five values are held high, humanity will rise and advance. Nor does everyone need to agree on the details of these five values. There is no uniformity of purpose or method where freedom reigns. But uniformity has never been necessary.


Those would be good goals I think, but I would probably add environment in it for me. For me as a person it is a positive goal because at best it touches on health and some of the others in addition to improving the world we live in. In practical terms it improves many debates we are currently having at the Federal and State levels, as they will get worse otherwise.

However, based on experience within the US political system I am also of the mind that the chances of any action being taken and then being upheld are near zero.

In abstract terms I can come up with a list of what the priorities should be and it probably would not be that different from you in the end. I am just skeptical that anything gets done on those fronts given history. It usually takes some major political will to accomplish anything and the context of how it was done is often fought about for ages after.

So, pessimism covers me well I suppose. Sort of like you can tell with freedom discussions. I am all for freedom and liberty. I just think it gets complicated to determine what to do in given situations when two people's liberty or freedom collide. My impulse would be all things being equal to the one that does the most good or harms the fewest in society. Since the former moral judgement is hard to capture and is not often a good way to legislate as it often defines things as good vs evil. And more realistically in the system we have power is most important. It feels like too much is done because one can or pure politics as opposed to actually doing much to help somebody.






Look Raist bunnies...
Posted with Google Chrome 101.0.4951.64 on Windows 10
bd2999 

Moderator

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008


I would imagine that you would take his side anyway since he was discussing things with me. ;\-\)





Look Raist bunnies...
Posted with Google Chrome 101.0.4951.64 on Windows 10
The Avenger


Location: New Jersey
Member Since: Thu Dec 02, 2021



    Quote:
    Pessimism or realism depending on the point of view. I think it is more a realization that the if we are talking politics within the US in particular that at almost any level I have just seem too many things needed die or never get traction while things that are more "culture wars" and surface dressing get pushes and do little other than divide.



    Quote:
    It would depend on what you mean goals and on what level. Do you mean like things we should strive for as humans?



Yes.



    Quote:
    The question of what can we do to, in the sense of what would we be able to do, is a depressing one to me. As at the moment I would say not much.



That's the vibe I was getting from you. OK.



    Quote:

      Quote:
      I, for my part, readily assume that positive goals can be achieved and positive values can be fulfilled. Not perfection - there is no perfection on the earth - but perfection has never been necessary.


    I do not think there needs to be perfection, but am more in the camp that I do not see much good coming out of any front on most issues.



I continue to think you don't see much good because you confuse the good with the perfect. I take the view that a thousand things can be wrong, but if one thing is right, that's good. If two things are right, that's better.

But more to the point, I take realism as a spectrum. One one end is unrealistic optimism. On the other end is unrealistic pessimism. At the center is a balance of realistic optimism and realistic pessimism: a balance we can consciously maintain. We'll know we've achieved a realistic balance when we clearly see good reasons both for optimism and pessimism. For example, I'm realistically pessimistic about ever eliminating the nonsense of Christian sexual morality from American culture as a whole, but I'm realistically optimistic about eventually eliminating it from the culture of the Northeastern American states, where I live.



    Quote:

      Quote:
      As for which goals are positive - I admire and support any goal that incorporates the values of freedom, innovation, integrity, health, and joy. Where these five values are held high, humanity will rise and advance. Nor does everyone need to agree on the details of these five values. There is no uniformity of purpose or method where freedom reigns. But uniformity has never been necessary.


    Those would be good goals I think, but I would probably add environment in it for me. For me as a person it is a positive goal because at best it touches on health and some of the others in addition to improving the world we live in. In practical terms it improves many debates we are currently having at the Federal and State levels, as they will get worse otherwise.



Why does the environment matter to you? What's the core value? There may be more than one, for you. From what you say above, human health is one core value underpinning your environmentalism. Is it the only one or are there others?

Environmentalism was becoming a stable, normalized concern in America, where reasonable people on both sides of the question could find a balanced middle ground - and then global warming took over green activism, and suddenly we were back to an unstable, abnormal polarity of extremes, with one side wanting to dismantle modern civilization to save endangered species, while the other side seems hellbent on ignoring green concerns entirely, since no compromise seems possible. Whenever we see politics polarizing us with no possibility of compromise, we can be sure we're being manipulated.



    Quote:
    However, based on experience within the US political system I am also of the mind that the chances of any action being taken and then being upheld are near zero.



The first step toward finding solutions will be to categorically reject a no-compromise mentality on either side of the question. Dismantling civilization is out of the question. Allowing a mass extinction event is likewise out of the question. Compromise is mandatory. The enemy of progress is the no-compromise mentality. It must be quashed.



    Quote:
    In abstract terms I can come up with a list of what the priorities should be and it probably would not be that different from you in the end. I am just skeptical that anything gets done on those fronts given history. It usually takes some major political will to accomplish anything and the context of how it was done is often fought about for ages after.



By negotiation or by warfare, humanity will always return to homeostasis. The only question is which of the two it will take. Negotiation is better. Warfare may be unavoidable. The United States, beset by a difference of opinion regarding slavery, had to fight a civil war to achieve homeostasis. With prohibition of alcohol, we did better. We didn't quite have to fight a civil war. Gangsters and cops fought their own, more limited, bloody struggle, and then sanity regained the ascendancy. Both of those fights were about freedom. In the end, freedom, our own or that of other people, is the one thing many of us are willing to die for.



    Quote:
    So, pessimism covers me well I suppose. Sort of like you can tell with freedom discussions. I am all for freedom and liberty. I just think it gets complicated to determine what to do in given situations when two people's liberty or freedom collide. My impulse would be all things being equal to the one that does the most good or harms the fewest in society. Since the former moral judgement is hard to capture and is not often a good way to legislate as it often defines things as good vs evil. And more realistically in the system we have power is most important. It feels like too much is done because one can or pure politics as opposed to actually doing much to help somebody.



Sounds like you subscribe to utilitarianism. Many people do. Even Mister Spock. Utilitarianism is color-blind and class-blind, so it frustrates both the left and the right. A centrist party could rise up, grounded in utilitarianism. They'd get my vote. But only if they included freedom as a form of the good.



Posted with Google Chrome 101.0.4951.64 on Windows 10
Late Great Donald Blake 

Moderator

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 7,517


But I think we can all agree it was in really bad taste for me to weigh in like this and contribute nothing lol


LGDB


Posted with Google Chrome 101.0.4951.54 on Windows 10
bd2999 

Moderator

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008



    Quote:
    But I think we can all agree it was in really bad taste for me to weigh in like this and contribute nothing lol



    Quote:

    LGDB


Meh, free to post as you like. Same as anybody else I suppose.




Look Raist bunnies...
Posted with Google Chrome 101.0.4951.54 on Windows 10
bd2999 

Moderator

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008



    Quote:

      Quote:
      Pessimism or realism depending on the point of view. I think it is more a realization that the if we are talking politics within the US in particular that at almost any level I have just seem too many things needed die or never get traction while things that are more "culture wars" and surface dressing get pushes and do little other than divide.

      Quote:

        Quote:
        It would depend on what you mean goals and on what level. Do you mean like things we should strive for as humans?



    Quote:

    Yes.



    Quote:


      Quote:
      The question of what can we do to, in the sense of what would we be able to do, is a depressing one to me. As at the moment I would say not much.



    Quote:

    That's the vibe I was getting from you. OK.



    Quote:


      Quote:

        Quote:
        I, for my part, readily assume that positive goals can be achieved and positive values can be fulfilled. Not perfection - there is no perfection on the earth - but perfection has never been necessary.



      Quote:
      I do not think there needs to be perfection, but am more in the camp that I do not see much good coming out of any front on most issues.



    Quote:

    I continue to think you don't see much good because you confuse the good with the perfect. I take the view that a thousand things can be wrong, but if one thing is right, that's good. If two things are right, that's better.


I don't agree with that but I come off as I come off I guess.

It is more that important issues rarely get much of any real movement. And the underlying issues rarely if ever get addressed. An individual can do good things but unless some things are taken on at a national sort of level many problems will linger and potentially fester. Which is where I see the pessimism. And that usually infests local politics as well.


    Quote:
    But more to the point, I take realism as a spectrum. One one end is unrealistic optimism. On the other end is unrealistic pessimism. At the center is a balance of realistic optimism and realistic pessimism: a balance we can consciously maintain. We'll know we've achieved a realistic balance when we clearly see good reasons both for optimism and pessimism. For example, I'm realistically pessimistic about ever eliminating the nonsense of Christian sexual morality from American culture as a whole, but I'm realistically optimistic about eventually eliminating it from the culture of the Northeastern American states, where I live.


I suppose, but I generally am looking at it as not expecting much of anything particularly useful from federal and state governments that is not just a band aid at the present.

It would depend on our particular discussion point as to my feelings of optimism or pessimism on a given issue.


    Quote:


      Quote:

        Quote:
        As for which goals are positive - I admire and support any goal that incorporates the values of freedom, innovation, integrity, health, and joy. Where these five values are held high, humanity will rise and advance. Nor does everyone need to agree on the details of these five values. There is no uniformity of purpose or method where freedom reigns. But uniformity has never been necessary.



      Quote:
      Those would be good goals I think, but I would probably add environment in it for me. For me as a person it is a positive goal because at best it touches on health and some of the others in addition to improving the world we live in. In practical terms it improves many debates we are currently having at the Federal and State levels, as they will get worse otherwise.



    Quote:

    Why does the environment matter to you? What's the core value? There may be more than one, for you. From what you say above, human health is one core value underpinning your environmentalism. Is it the only one or are there others?


It would probably be summed up in something like preservation I guess. With regards to preservation of the natural world. There are alot of reasons to do it, but honestly I think it is worth it for its own sake in addition to the sheer fact that it is hard for many other issues to matter if you do not have a world worth living in.

I mean some things I think would be important to live by on any level would be curiosity, empathy, integrity, equality, equity, health, discovery, individuality and respect. I would add the preservation in there as well but I mentioned it already.


    Quote:
    Environmentalism was becoming a stable, normalized concern in America, where reasonable people on both sides of the question could find a balanced middle ground - and then global warming took over green activism, and suddenly we were back to an unstable, abnormal polarity of extremes, with one side wanting to dismantle modern civilization to save endangered species, while the other side seems hellbent on ignoring green concerns entirely, since no compromise seems possible. Whenever we see politics polarizing us with no possibility of compromise, we can be sure we're being manipulated.


I disagree with this, at least with the phrasing. As this is not an idea of both sides are purely to blame. It more or less breaks down that we only have one political party that acknowledges or cares much about the problem in even a lip service way.

There are, of course, conservatives who have proposed solutions, but they are largely ignored.

For the most part the biggest drivers of climate denial are the same that drive alot of science denial. It tends to be those with what I consider an unreasonable degree of dislike for regulation of any sort and those seeking to avoid being hampered economically. After those balls are rolling though it does become part of political identity.

I am honestly open to many proposals but there are not serious ones and the problem is the longer it goes the worse it gets and more drastic measures are required. Were efforts taken decades ago smaller changes would be needed. At some point drastic changes would be required if one sought to avoid the worst impacts.


    Quote:

      Quote:
      However, based on experience within the US political system I am also of the mind that the chances of any action being taken and then being upheld are near zero.



    Quote:

    The first step toward finding solutions will be to categorically reject a no-compromise mentality on either side of the question. Dismantling civilization is out of the question. Allowing a mass extinction event is likewise out of the question. Compromise is mandatory. The enemy of progress is the no-compromise mentality. It must be quashed.


I am not sure. I do think at this point more drastic action is required than what would have been ten or twenty years ago. I do not think it takes the world changing but the later we get the worse it is.

And no action, the easiest action, leads to mass extinctions. I mean that is the path we are likely already on. The Great Barrier Reef alone is doing very poorly.

I honestly would love it if there were conservative, liberal and other points of view on dealing with the problem being discussed but it often never is outside of scientific literature and occasional news articles.

Fact is, it requires changes at levels and adjustments to the way humans do things. Does not mean the world must stop, but there needs to be changes IMO. I am fine with compromise but they need to be real changes.

And realistically, at this point, it is probably too late for alot of it.


    Quote:


      Quote:
      In abstract terms I can come up with a list of what the priorities should be and it probably would not be that different from you in the end. I am just skeptical that anything gets done on those fronts given history. It usually takes some major political will to accomplish anything and the context of how it was done is often fought about for ages after.



    Quote:

    By negotiation or by warfare, humanity will always return to homeostasis. The only question is which of the two it will take. Negotiation is better. Warfare may be unavoidable. The United States, beset by a difference of opinion regarding slavery, had to fight a civil war to achieve homeostasis. With prohibition of alcohol, we did better. We didn't quite have to fight a civil war. Gangsters and cops fought their own, more limited, bloody struggle, and then sanity regained the ascendancy. Both of those fights were about freedom. In the end, freedom, our own or that of other people, is the one thing many of us are willing to die for.


Sure, I am not against freedom. I just think the irony of freedom is that when you have it, the rest of the fights are what it is to keep it and what it means for different groups. As our modern idea of freedom is different than in other places and times.

Sort of like the irony of science advancements. Vaccines for instance have been historically so successful that growing numbers of people have been finding that they do not need them because what is the point? A victims of their own success.

In political terms there is a growing authoritarian movement in the US and threats to elections (not acknowledging election results). It is part of their freedom to do it I guess to a point but it threatens the nature of democracy and freedom.


    Quote:


      Quote:
      So, pessimism covers me well I suppose. Sort of like you can tell with freedom discussions. I am all for freedom and liberty. I just think it gets complicated to determine what to do in given situations when two people's liberty or freedom collide. My impulse would be all things being equal to the one that does the most good or harms the fewest in society. Since the former moral judgement is hard to capture and is not often a good way to legislate as it often defines things as good vs evil. And more realistically in the system we have power is most important. It feels like too much is done because one can or pure politics as opposed to actually doing much to help somebody.



    Quote:

    Sounds like you subscribe to utilitarianism. Many people do. Even Mister Spock. Utilitarianism is color-blind and class-blind, so it frustrates both the left and the right. A centrist party could rise up, grounded in utilitarianism. They'd get my vote. But only if they included freedom as a form of the good.


I would have to imagine any form of government that is by any account good would have to have freedom. I am not arguing against freedom by any stretch. There have just always been struggles with what it means over time and whose freedom is more important in the end. Usually, the wealthy tend to get more nods than the poor.

I mean I guess in general that would be right but there do need to be protections for the minority. Equality and the like or starting from the same place to actual have it mean something. Otherwise it can lead to oppression quickly. In general though, sure I think the majority should rule in a system within reason. It is more frustrating when a minority can rule society.

I also find one of the great tragedies of the US to be the low participation rate. I get it. Although I always vote and am in a state that never goes my way but I always do. Between gerrymandering and demographics I am meaningless, but too stubborn to do anything else.






Look Raist bunnies...
Posted with Google Chrome 101.0.4951.54 on Windows 10
Late Great Donald Blake 

Moderator

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 7,517




Posted with Google Chrome 101.0.4951.54 on Windows 10
The Avenger


Location: New Jersey
Member Since: Thu Dec 02, 2021



    Quote:
    It is more that important issues rarely get much of any real movement. And the underlying issues rarely if ever get addressed. An individual can do good things but unless some things are taken on at a national sort of level many problems will linger and potentially fester. Which is where I see the pessimism. And that usually infests local politics as well.



Solving issues completely is what I mean by perfection. It has never existed, does not now exist, and never will. No major issue in human culture will ever be solved completely. Acknowledging that is what I mean by realistic pessimism. Realistic optimism is acknowledging that some aspects of life will improve for some people in some places at some periods of time, and then deciding whether to expend one's energy, money, and time in the name of such possibilities.

It suddenly occurs to me that what I'm advocating is a Serenity Prayer philosophy. Changeable? Boldly attempt it. Unchangeable? Serenely accept it. Which path in a given instance? Apply the wisdom of experience, one's own and that of humanity's long history, which means, be realistic.

If the unchangeable dwarfs the changeable, what of it? Apply the philosophy regardless.



    Quote:
    I suppose, but I generally am looking at it as not expecting much of anything particularly useful from federal and state governments that is not just a band aid at the present.



With regard to the federal government, you're right. With regard to state governments, I guarantee the overturning of Roe v. Wade will trigger immediate action in all 50 states. Whether you like what gets done will depend on what your values are, and which state you live in.

I value the freedom to be left alone and I live in New Jersey, so I will be pleased.



    Quote:

      Quote:
      Why does the environment matter to you? What's the core value? There may be more than one, for you. From what you say above, human health is one core value underpinning your environmentalism. Is it the only one or are there others?


    It would probably be summed up in something like preservation I guess. With regards to preservation of the natural world. There are alot of reasons to do it, but honestly I think it is worth it for its own sake in addition to the sheer fact that it is hard for many other issues to matter if you do not have a world worth living in.



That's a good articulation. Preserving the environment is, for you, (1) an end in itself and (2) the prerequisite for many other ends, like, presumably, mitigating world hunger. Being able to say things clearly is important.



    Quote:
    I mean some things I think would be important to live by on any level would be curiosity, empathy, integrity, equality, equity, health, discovery, individuality and respect. I would add the preservation in there as well but I mentioned it already.



That's a good list. A person could develop an ethos around a list like that.

Is there a practical difference between curiosity and discovery? Between equality and equity?



    Quote:

      Quote:
      Environmentalism was becoming a stable, normalized concern in America, where reasonable people on both sides of the question could find a balanced middle ground - and then global warming took over green activism, and suddenly we were back to an unstable, abnormal polarity of extremes, with one side wanting to dismantle modern civilization to save endangered species, while the other side seems hellbent on ignoring green concerns entirely, since no compromise seems possible. Whenever we see politics polarizing us with no possibility of compromise, we can be sure we're being manipulated.


    I disagree with this, at least with the phrasing. As this is not an idea of both sides are purely to blame. It more or less breaks down that we only have one political party that acknowledges or cares much about the problem in even a lip service way.



Yes, but that party has a contingent who would dismantle civilization without blinking an eye. A good articulation of their insane philosophy is found here:
https://deepgreenresistance.org/



    Quote:
    For the most part the biggest drivers of climate denial are the same that drive alot of science denial. It tends to be those with what I consider an unreasonable degree of dislike for regulation of any sort and those seeking to avoid being hampered economically. After those balls are rolling though it does become part of political identity.



True. The fossil fuel industry has been selling out the biosphere in the name of profits.



    Quote:
    I am honestly open to many proposals but there are not serious ones and the problem is the longer it goes the worse it gets and more drastic measures are required. Were efforts taken decades ago smaller changes would be needed. At some point drastic changes would be required if one sought to avoid the worst impacts.



Atomic energy is one part of a coherent strategy, yet many on the left have an irrational fear of it.



    Quote:

      Quote:

      The first step toward finding solutions will be to categorically reject a no-compromise mentality on either side of the question. Dismantling civilization is out of the question. Allowing a mass extinction event is likewise out of the question. Compromise is mandatory. The enemy of progress is the no-compromise mentality. It must be quashed.


    I am not sure. I do think at this point more drastic action is required than what would have been ten or twenty years ago. I do not think it takes the world changing but the later we get the worse it is.



Drastic change may be needed but tearing down civilization and starting again from scratch must be unequivocally off the table, as that would be too drastic.



    Quote:
    And no action, the easiest action, leads to mass extinctions. I mean that is the path we are likely already on. The Great Barrier Reef alone is doing very poorly.



It is, I agree, and I certainly acknowledge that doing nothing is the cowardly, foolish path. I would counsel a major reinvestment in atomic energy.



    Quote:
    I honestly would love it if there were conservative, liberal and other points of view on dealing with the problem being discussed but it often never is outside of scientific literature and occasional news articles.



Conservatives want a reinvestment in atomic energy.



    Quote:
    Sure, I am not against freedom. I just think the irony of freedom is that when you have it, the rest of the fights are what it is to keep it and what it means for different groups. As our modern idea of freedom is different than in other places and times.



The fights never end. The only variable is whether these fights take the form of negotiation or warfare, and if the latter, to what extent.

The reason freedom must constantly be renegotiated is this: Power is constantly looking for new arenas in which to ruthlessly dominate.



    Quote:
    In political terms there is a growing authoritarian movement in the US and threats to elections (not acknowledging election results). It is part of their freedom to do it I guess to a point but it threatens the nature of democracy and freedom.



Authoritarianism is anti-freedom and must be resisted by a freedom-loving people with every resource available.



    Quote:
    I mean I guess in general that would be right but there do need to be protections for the minority. Equality and the like or starting from the same place to actual have it mean something. Otherwise it can lead to oppression quickly. In general though, sure I think the majority should rule in a system within reason. It is more frustrating when a minority can rule society.



No minority should rule at all, and no majority should rule without checks and balances.



    Quote:
    I also find one of the great tragedies of the US to be the low participation rate. I get it. Although I always vote and am in a state that never goes my way but I always do. Between gerrymandering and demographics I am meaningless, but too stubborn to do anything else.



I support the ideas that (1) voting day should be a national holiday and (2) voting should be mandatory. I know the second point seems anti-freedom but in the long run it's pro-freedom, because more people voting means more voices being heard, which improves the validity of the vote, and makes crazy anti-freedom outcomes harder to achieve. Free country or not, sometimes doing what's pro-freedom in the long run must be forced upon the populace.



Posted with Google Chrome 101.0.4951.64 on Windows 10
bd2999 

Moderator

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008



    Quote:

      Quote:
      It is more that important issues rarely get much of any real movement. And the underlying issues rarely if ever get addressed. An individual can do good things but unless some things are taken on at a national sort of level many problems will linger and potentially fester. Which is where I see the pessimism. And that usually infests local politics as well.



    Quote:

    Solving issues completely is what I mean by perfection. It has never existed, does not now exist, and never will. No major issue in human culture will ever be solved completely. Acknowledging that is what I mean by realistic pessimism. Realistic optimism is acknowledging that some aspects of life will improve for some people in some places at some periods of time, and then deciding whether to expend one's energy, money, and time in the name of such possibilities.


Oh, I agree. I guess my impression is more that not much of note gets done in even a bite sized format. I would love if it did.

That is a broad statement and I am aware of that, some things do get done, but often in a way that accomplishes seemingly little.


    Quote:
    It suddenly occurs to me that what I'm advocating is a Serenity Prayer philosophy. Changeable? Boldly attempt it. Unchangeable? Serenely accept it. Which path in a given instance? Apply the wisdom of experience, one's own and that of humanity's long history, which means, be realistic.

    If the unchangeable dwarfs the changeable, what of it? Apply the philosophy regardless.


I mean it sounds good, but I am still of the mind it does not change much other than as a hypothetical. In principle it sounds good. If we consider current politics culture war stuff drives most things and to be frank it is not close to being the pressing issue it is made out to be and distracts too much and divides.

And it is gradually absorbing all other issues. Or at least seemingly so.

I am honestly fine with gradual work on a problem, as if we are talking national scale it is usually not one cause and there needs to be a multiple pronged approach. We just do not see it too much or it gets killed in court.


    Quote:


      Quote:
      I suppose, but I generally am looking at it as not expecting much of anything particularly useful from federal and state governments that is not just a band aid at the present.



    Quote:

    With regard to the federal government, you're right. With regard to state governments, I guarantee the overturning of Roe v. Wade will trigger immediate action in all 50 states. Whether you like what gets done will depend on what your values are, and which state you live in.


True enough.


    Quote:
    I value the freedom to be left alone and I live in New Jersey, so I will be pleased.


I generally do as well, but in this issue it is a shame so many will be oppressed by their state governments as to what they can and cannot do or must do.

I was always pro-choice, partly because everyone was open to do what was medically needed for their situation. If you are pro-life than good for you and so on. Getting the option taken to me is the tragedy and the potential suffering it causes. At least in some states that will perform no exception total bans.


    Quote:


      Quote:

        Quote:
        Why does the environment matter to you? What's the core value? There may be more than one, for you. From what you say above, human health is one core value underpinning your environmentalism. Is it the only one or are there others?



      Quote:
      It would probably be summed up in something like preservation I guess. With regards to preservation of the natural world. There are alot of reasons to do it, but honestly I think it is worth it for its own sake in addition to the sheer fact that it is hard for many other issues to matter if you do not have a world worth living in.



    Quote:

    That's a good articulation. Preserving the environment is, for you, (1) an end in itself and (2) the prerequisite for many other ends, like, presumably, mitigating world hunger. Being able to say things clearly is important.


Indeed. I did not know I was in class again.


    Quote:


      Quote:
      I mean some things I think would be important to live by on any level would be curiosity, empathy, integrity, equality, equity, health, discovery, individuality and respect. I would add the preservation in there as well but I mentioned it already.



    Quote:

    That's a good list. A person could develop an ethos around a list like that.



    Quote:
    Is there a practical difference between curiosity and discovery? Between equality and equity?


To me one leads to the other. Curiosity is the desire to learn. Discovery is finding something worth pursuing. Although there is alot of overlap and they mix.

I am a scientist by training. If you are not curious you never find anything and the discovery is that ah ha moment where you found something to dig deeper on.

Although I admit that discovery is not a great term but to me they seem distinct if interrelated.


    Quote:


      Quote:

        Quote:
        Environmentalism was becoming a stable, normalized concern in America, where reasonable people on both sides of the question could find a balanced middle ground - and then global warming took over green activism, and suddenly we were back to an unstable, abnormal polarity of extremes, with one side wanting to dismantle modern civilization to save endangered species, while the other side seems hellbent on ignoring green concerns entirely, since no compromise seems possible. Whenever we see politics polarizing us with no possibility of compromise, we can be sure we're being manipulated.



      Quote:
      I disagree with this, at least with the phrasing. As this is not an idea of both sides are purely to blame. It more or less breaks down that we only have one political party that acknowledges or cares much about the problem in even a lip service way.



    Quote:

    Yes, but that party has a contingent who would dismantle civilization without blinking an eye. A good articulation of their insane philosophy is found here:
    https://deepgreenresistance.org/


I am not disagreeing that such a group does not exist. They do. They just do not have much real sway. Even among the left they are sort of an extreme position in the US that is largely ignored. Climate change denial (or practically similar positions) are the default starting place of the other side.

That is what I am attempting to get at.


    Quote:


      Quote:
      For the most part the biggest drivers of climate denial are the same that drive alot of science denial. It tends to be those with what I consider an unreasonable degree of dislike for regulation of any sort and those seeking to avoid being hampered economically. After those balls are rolling though it does become part of political identity.



    Quote:

    True. The fossil fuel industry has been selling out the biosphere in the name of profits.



    Quote:


      Quote:
      I am honestly open to many proposals but there are not serious ones and the problem is the longer it goes the worse it gets and more drastic measures are required. Were efforts taken decades ago smaller changes would be needed. At some point drastic changes would be required if one sought to avoid the worst impacts.



    Quote:

    Atomic energy is one part of a coherent strategy, yet many on the left have an irrational fear of it.


Sadly true. I am honestly for anything that is a solution. The only thing with nuclear power to me has more to do with economic sustainability. That could be boosted by subsidies I guess.

But I personally am for it in addition to use of renewables and other sorts of power that may become available that is carbon neutral.


    Quote:


      Quote:

        Quote:

        The first step toward finding solutions will be to categorically reject a no-compromise mentality on either side of the question. Dismantling civilization is out of the question. Allowing a mass extinction event is likewise out of the question. Compromise is mandatory. The enemy of progress is the no-compromise mentality. It must be quashed.



      Quote:
      I am not sure. I do think at this point more drastic action is required than what would have been ten or twenty years ago. I do not think it takes the world changing but the later we get the worse it is.



    Quote:

    Drastic change may be needed but tearing down civilization and starting again from scratch must be unequivocally off the table, as that would be too drastic.


Agreed. you have to build on the foundations you have but it still would potentially be drastic changes.


    Quote:


      Quote:
      And no action, the easiest action, leads to mass extinctions. I mean that is the path we are likely already on. The Great Barrier Reef alone is doing very poorly.



    Quote:

    It is, I agree, and I certainly acknowledge that doing nothing is the cowardly, foolish path. I would counsel a major reinvestment in atomic energy.


I would support it. I would prefer it be a general package deal with other energy sources, but it could be viewed as a baseline to supplement the others or just be the base energy type in different regions depending on the availability of other types.


    Quote:


      Quote:
      I honestly would love it if there were conservative, liberal and other points of view on dealing with the problem being discussed but it often never is outside of scientific literature and occasional news articles.



    Quote:

    Conservatives want a reinvestment in atomic energy.


Some do. And I think it is a good suggestion. What appears to be a fairly large part of the movement does not even believe there is a problem. And the representatives at the state and federal levels often ignore, do nothing or pretend it is not a problem. Or at worst a conspiracy.

I would be on board a solution that included nuclear power but I am unaware of any serious push in political circles to try and push for it as a serious solution. And it would take political action on a large scale to get it done.


    Quote:


      Quote:
      Sure, I am not against freedom. I just think the irony of freedom is that when you have it, the rest of the fights are what it is to keep it and what it means for different groups. As our modern idea of freedom is different than in other places and times.



    Quote:

    The fights never end. The only variable is whether these fights take the form of negotiation or warfare, and if the latter, to what extent.



    Quote:
    The reason freedom must constantly be renegotiated is this: Power is constantly looking for new arenas in which to ruthlessly dominate.



    Quote:


      Quote:
      In political terms there is a growing authoritarian movement in the US and threats to elections (not acknowledging election results). It is part of their freedom to do it I guess to a point but it threatens the nature of democracy and freedom.



    Quote:

    Authoritarianism is anti-freedom and must be resisted by a freedom-loving people with every resource available.


Yeah


    Quote:


      Quote:
      I mean I guess in general that would be right but there do need to be protections for the minority. Equality and the like or starting from the same place to actual have it mean something. Otherwise it can lead to oppression quickly. In general though, sure I think the majority should rule in a system within reason. It is more frustrating when a minority can rule society.



    Quote:

    No minority should rule at all, and no majority should rule without checks and balances.


Agreed. Although what those checks and balances are can matter a great deal. As in many cases it seems majority rule is a reasonable way to govern. You need the checks without question, but what they are and how they are viewed and interpreted can be problematic.


    Quote:


      Quote:
      I also find one of the great tragedies of the US to be the low participation rate. I get it. Although I always vote and am in a state that never goes my way but I always do. Between gerrymandering and demographics I am meaningless, but too stubborn to do anything else.



    Quote:

    I support the ideas that (1) voting day should be a national holiday and (2) voting should be mandatory. I know the second point seems anti-freedom but in the long run it's pro-freedom, because more people voting means more voices being heard, which improves the validity of the vote, and makes crazy anti-freedom outcomes harder to achieve. Free country or not, sometimes doing what's pro-freedom in the long run must be forced upon the populace.


I am fine with either. For the most part I do not look at mandatory things as always anti-freedom. It depends on what the end goal is with them. But I imagine that varies.

I think it should be a holiday and should be as easy as possible. The more buy in the more reflective of actual will it is and the less pigeon hold things get.

I have enjoyed the discussion but probably my last reply in this thread to avoid it pushing some other active threads below it off too much.






Look Raist bunnies...
Posted with Google Chrome 101.0.4951.64 on Windows 10

Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2022 Powermad Software