Democrats are compulsive self mutilators

The best place for discussion of current events. News about Buddhists and Buddhism is particularly welcome.
Post Reply
User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 28529
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Democrats are compulsive self mutilators

Post by Malcolm » Fri Oct 19, 2018 4:29 pm

Nemo wrote:
Fri Oct 19, 2018 1:30 pm
Malcolm wrote:
Thu Oct 18, 2018 5:33 pm
Queequeg wrote:
Thu Oct 18, 2018 4:41 pm
I'm not particularly down on the ideals of full socialist economies...
I am. Give "Road to Serfdom" a good read. See if you can poke holes in Hayek's arguments. I don't think you can.
So you haven't read enough Hayek to know he was for free public healthcare, a basic income and radical free education where knowledge was completely accessible for everyone.
Awfully presumptuous of you. That said, a person may be mistaken in one area of their thinking without being totally mistaken in all areas of their thinking. Take yourself for example.
But most of his economic theories turned out to be a bust. China and the business models of Walmart and Amazon refute them completely.
Umm, no. Amazon and Walmart are monopolies that need to be broken up, just as Standard Oil was broken up. Hayek, in his book, speaks of the dangers of permitting monopolies to form.
As does all of Europe, Canada, Australia NZ, etc not turning into totalitarian states because they have government planning.


I guess you don't really get the gist of Hayek's argument, so I will reproduce it here for your edification:
The dispute between the modern planners and their opponents is, therefore, not a dispute on whether we ought to choose intelligently between the various possible organizations of society; it is not a dispute on whether we ought to employ foresight and systematic thinking in planning our common affairs. It is a dispute about what is the best way of so doing. The question is whether for this purpose it is better that the holder of coercive power should confine himself in general to creating conditions under which the knowledge and initiative of individuals are given the best scope so that they can plan most successfully; or whether a rational utilization of our resources requires central direction and organization of all our activities according to some consciously constructed “blueprint.”
Hayek, F. A.. The Road to Serfdom: Text and Documents--The Definitive Edition: Text and Documents--The Definitive Edition (The Collected Works of F. A. Hayek, Volume 2) (p. 85). University of Chicago Press. Kindle Edition.
Road to Serfdom was reactionary to the Commies of his day trying to do top down state capitalism and calling it communism. Even Hayek would admit it was his worst and most ideological work. Keynes is the one who economics proved was right.
Keynes was quite fond of Road to Serfdom, in fact, and praised it when it was published, despite the fact that the two were often at loggerheads. Keynes even wrote to Hayke in 1944:
“morally and philosophically I find myself in agreement with virtually the whole of it; and not only in agreement with it, but in a deeply moved agreement.”
Hayek, F. A.. The Road to Serfdom: Text and Documents--The Definitive Edition: Text and Documents--The Definitive Edition (The Collected Works of F. A. Hayek, Volume 2) (pp. 23-24). University of Chicago Press. Kindle Edition.

Road to Serfdom does little in the way of offering proposals and solutions. Indeed, one of the main criticism is of the book is that it primarily focused on right and left-wing collectivism in general.

With respect to things like universal health care, free education, and so on -- these things are not within the purview of what Hayek is defining as "central planning" or "collectivism."

So again, for those who are willing to be seduced by the term "socialism," I think a review of Hayek's little book is important. Reading it does not necessarily entail subscribing to Van Mises' Austrian School of Economics and so on. But Road to Serfdom certainly points out the deficiencies of centralized planning of whole economies:
We must centrally direct economic activity if we want to make the distribution of income conform to current ideas of social justice. “Planning,” therefore, is wanted by all those who demand that “production for use” be substituted for production for profit. But such planning is no less indispensable if the distribution of incomes is to be regulated in a way which to us appears to be the opposite of just. Whether we should wish that more of the good things of this world should go to some racial élite, the Nordic men, or the members of a party or an aristocracy, the methods which we shall have to employ are the same as those which could insure an equalitarian distribution.
Hayek, F. A.. The Road to Serfdom: Text and Documents--The Definitive Edition: Text and Documents--The Definitive Edition (The Collected Works of F. A. Hayek, Volume 2) (p. 84). University of Chicago Press. Kindle Edition.

This is the consequence of centralized planning of economies:
It is the price of democracy that the possibilities of conscious control are restricted to the fields where true agreement exists and that in some fields things must be left to chance. But in a society which for its functioning depends on central planning this control cannot be made dependent on a majority’s being able to agree; it will often be necessary that the will of a small minority be imposed upon the people, because this minority will be the largest group able to agree among themselves on the question at issue. Democratic government has worked successfully where, and so long as, the functions of government were, by a widely accepted creed, restricted to fields where agreement among a majority could be achieved by free discussion; and it is the great merit of the liberal creed that it reduced the range of subjects on which agreement was necessary to one on which it was likely to exist in a society of free men. It is now often said that democracy will not tolerate “capitalism.” If “capitalism” means here a competitive system based on free disposal over private property, it is far more important to realize that only within this system is democracy possible. When it becomes dominated by a collectivist creed, democracy will inevitably destroy itself.
Hayek, F. A.. The Road to Serfdom: Text and Documents--The Definitive Edition: Text and Documents--The Definitive Edition (The Collected Works of F. A. Hayek, Volume 2) (p. 109-110). University of Chicago Press. Kindle Edition.

I frankly see no compelling arguments that negate Hayek's basic thesis here, despite whatever faults his other work may bear.
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


[A]nything at all that is well spoken is the word of the Buddha.

-- Ārya-adhyāśaya-sañcodana-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra

The different sūtras in accord with the emptiness
taught by the Sugata are definitive in meaning;
One can understand that all of those Dharmas in
which a sentient being, individual, or person are taught are provisional in meaning.

-- Samadhirāja Sūtra

User avatar
Queequeg
Global Moderator
Posts: 6387
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: Democrats are compulsive self mutilators

Post by Queequeg » Fri Oct 19, 2018 4:39 pm

PeterC wrote:
Fri Oct 19, 2018 1:23 pm
Time doesn’t permit a point-by-point discussion on these but they are all very well-researched topics. On the legal system, compare cost of litigation, timelines and ability to frustrate access to civil suits by expensive discovery in the US, UK, Australia, Canada, Hong Kong, Singapore - the major common law jurisdictions. The difference is stark.
You are right that time does not permit. This is a broad question with many sub categories. Your summary conclusion doesn't hold up to close examination, and academic studies are themselves ambivalent about their findings. Strong conclusions are not the consensus. Admittedly, I do not closely follow the question but having studied and worked in the legal field in both the US and Japan and had an interest in comparative law in law school, I'm reasonably well versed in the subject.

One issue that you specifically mention - discovery - it may be that US discovery costs are more than in other jurisdictions. We also have the most liberal discovery laws. This is a principled choice in our legal system derivative of the commitment to due process. My personal experience with litigation in the US and Japan, part of the reason litigation costs are lower in Japan is the simple absence of litigation, and part of that is the lack of any effective discovery. Not being able to obtain evidence goes into the cost benefit analysis of whether to even try to litigate a dispute, discouraging a lot of litigation in Japan. Litigation is a complex process that involves many, many decisions.

As someone who regularly represents individual plaintiffs against big companies, I am very happy that such powerful discovery tools are available to us and that if a company plays around with discovery, they face very serious consequences. Meanwhile, I get access to communications between relevant parties about the very claims I am making and get access to the actual people involved, no matter how powerful they are, and get to look them in the eye and ask them questions. This is absolutely something that other legal systems would do well to adopt if the main goal is justice. It does make things more expensive, but better to have that option than none at all.

A developing country would do well to look at the US system, as well as many others, to figure out how to set up their judiciary to expeditiously and fairly settle disputes and enforce rights.
Banks are not the same the world over. They differ with regard to regulatory capital requirements, nature and degree of oversight, market structure (number of licenses in issue and the stratification of licenses between different types of financial services, role of NBFIs, etc.) and so forth. But in essence bank regulation is a simple matter: you treat them like utilities. I remember in 1999 during the Asian financial crisis when every country in ASEAN’s banks were teetering on the edge of collapse - except for Singapore. This wasn’t because Singapore had cleverer or more honest bankers; it was because MAS made them hold 10% tier 1 and 2% tier 2 capital. You’d think the world would have learned from that experience. Yet in the US - and many other places - the degree of regulatory capture was so profound that banks were able to run enormous levels of leverage pre-2007, and then basically not meaningfully reduce them afterwards.
Right. Everywhere but Singapore.

There is a lot that goes into bank regulation. Major financial centers are in competition to get business because capital moves freely across international borders. It goes where costs are least. Regulators have to balance regulation against killing their golden gooses.

What we really have are questions about philosophy and appetites for risk. The US system definitely weighs in favor of risk. On the other end of the spectrum you have some Asian banks that are very conservative. In the lead up to 2007-08, US banks were coming out of Glass-Steagall. They also took an approach that banks will rationally regulate themselves when it comes to capitalization. That obviously failed for a lot of reasons which only partially have to do with capitalization. It wasn't just US banks - everyone got caught up, and the real issue was the opacity of the derivatives that were getting traded which prevented accurate assessments of risk. In any event, requirements have been tightened up in the US, and its unlikely history will repeat exactly. We will likely have another crisis, but it won't be sub-prime lending, and US banks, at least, will be better able to absorb a major hit because of current regulations.

But that kind of talks around one major strength of banking in the US which is the flexibility and responsiveness of regulators. Contrast with other jurisdictions that weigh much more heavily on regulation.

In any event, its not something that a simple conclusion can be declared.
These are topics I know something about; I’m sharing an informed opinion. You’re free to dismiss it as vague or prejudiced, but really it’s not.
Right back at you. When you just give a laundry list and a dismissive " I’m quickly running out of topics" and then "Time doesn’t permit a point-by-point discussion" and then this - "I know something"... your attitude is fully displayed.
Those who, even with distracted minds,
Entered a stupa compound
And chanted but once, “Namo Buddhaya!”
Have certainly attained the path of the buddhas.

-Lotus Sutra, Expedient Means Chapter

There are beings with little dust in their eyes who are falling away because they do not hear the Dhamma. There will be those who will understand the Dhamma.
-Ayacana Sutta

User avatar
kirtu
Former staff member
Posts: 6175
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2010 5:29 pm
Location: Baltimore, MD

Re: Democrats are compulsive self mutilators

Post by kirtu » Fri Oct 19, 2018 4:42 pm

Malcolm wrote:
Fri Oct 19, 2018 4:29 pm
I frankly see no compelling arguments that negate Hayek's basic thesis here, despite whatever faults his other work may bear.
re: " The Road to Serfdom" - It's dated (it's a complete reaction to the rise of fascism in the 20 and 30's) and both Hayek's assumptions and conclusions are false. That should be sufficient reason to reject Hayek.

Then we have actual data points that show that post-WW2 social democracy (which of course Hayek would have been skeptical of) doesn't restrict freedom and guarantees (or virtually guarantees) the social good and maximizes individual freedom (of course most Americans and all European Liberals would deny this but they share the same cultic thinking).

Kirt
Kirt's Tibetan Translation Notes

"Even if you practice only for an hour a day with faith and inspiration, good qualities will steadily increase. Regular practice makes it easy to transform your mind. From seeing only relative truth, you will eventually reach a profound certainty in the meaning of absolute truth."
Kyabje Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche.

"Only you can make your mind beautiful."
HH Chetsang Rinpoche

User avatar
Queequeg
Global Moderator
Posts: 6387
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: Democrats are compulsive self mutilators

Post by Queequeg » Fri Oct 19, 2018 4:51 pm

Johnny Dangerous wrote:
Thu Oct 18, 2018 9:43 pm
Queequeg wrote:
Thu Oct 18, 2018 4:55 pm
Johnny Dangerous wrote:
Thu Oct 18, 2018 4:16 pm
As much as I loathe Trump, it's not as if most professional politicians do a "good" job. They usually do a job that helps them maintain power, and the status quo. Unless you are one of those people that somehow remembers the Obama, Bush or Clinton eras as these idyllic times, there's not much reason to trust career politicians either, regardless of the ugly spectacle of Trump and reality show politics. In fact many of the career politicians paved the way for someone Trump, years of expanded executive power, stomping all over the fourth amendment, allowing even further corporate graft, the list goes on and on. "Competent" technocrats enabled our system to get to the point it's at, so I don't see them and Trump as oppositional forces at all.

The idea that simply voting out Trump is going to reset things is questionable, Trump is a symptom of something that is going on all over, not just a one off an aberration. That isn't to say I don't want him gone of course.
What would your ideal president look like?

I'm not sure that's a productive question to me. A president being elected is a result of the nod from the prevailing power structure and politics of the time, combined with the (often engineered) whims of the electorate, and the various economic and social forces at play in securing certain voting outcomes. Additionally, a president is one guy, who often serves as a figurehead, certainly for the entire executive branch, if nothing else.

So I guess my answer is: A less powerful one. Particularly since 9-11 the executive branch has been steadily asking for increased power and authority, and both parties have pretty much granted it. Obama was ruthless is his persecution of wisteblowers, support of surveiilance, kill lists etc., and yet he gets endless breaks from his constituency for helping to set up the very system and set of precedents that Trump now works under. Someone Trump like is more of a problem due to this trend, he'd be bad regardless, but with a runaway executive branch all kinds of awful scenarios are possible. I want a less powerful president and less powerful executive branch period - one that has a harder time doing things like using the NSA to hoover up the information of random Americans, making extra-judicial kill lists, going after activists, etc.. Less of that please, whoever is in office.
You're kind of dodging the question... :smile:

You criticize specific things that one president or another did, but, if you could construct a person to be president what would they look like? What would be their message? What would be their platform?

I agree that the executive is getting too much power, and the increase in power is troubling. Something needs to be done... that's something I'd like a president to do something about - work with congress to hem in the powers of the executive.

The reason I asked you is because you are vocal in your displeasure with the way things are. I don't blame you. There is a lot to be unhappy about. That only goes so far, though. What would the ideal president and ideal USA look like? Once we have that, then we have something to actually take action on.

Not directed at you per se... more a general observation. It seems we have a lot of complaints and criticism about how things are, but no one seems to have any idea about how they should be. No vision. No ideal, nothing to work for, and so seems like a recipe for just more complaining. Maybe that's a feature of our time - that we simply don't have a shared narrative now - a story that binds us together and offers a path forward. Maybe one will emerge. I hope so, because this blind complaining just does not seem promising.
Those who, even with distracted minds,
Entered a stupa compound
And chanted but once, “Namo Buddhaya!”
Have certainly attained the path of the buddhas.

-Lotus Sutra, Expedient Means Chapter

There are beings with little dust in their eyes who are falling away because they do not hear the Dhamma. There will be those who will understand the Dhamma.
-Ayacana Sutta

User avatar
Queequeg
Global Moderator
Posts: 6387
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: Democrats are compulsive self mutilators

Post by Queequeg » Fri Oct 19, 2018 5:05 pm

Nemo wrote:
Fri Oct 19, 2018 2:48 pm
Chinese diplomacy comes out of trucks of money. $8 trillion earmarked for infrastructure projects across Asia, Europe and Africa. Gwadar Port Pakistan, 62 billion, 80% from China. Kyaukphyu, Rakhine State Myanmar 8 billion for oil and gas pipelines, a 5 million container a day port and a super highway to Kunming. This is everywhere in Asia. America can't even maintain it's own infrastructure. Big joke in Myanmar is the Irrawaddy bridge was built by China and some of the 9600 tonnes of steel was ripped out of American cities like Detroit to build it.

The BRI(belt road initiative) is like the Marshall Plan. It transforms geopolitics. America is a trading empire surrounded by a ring of steel, your military. With the completion of the Belt Road that supremacy is broken. You will no longer be the reserve currency and control global trade. This is very roughly 10 years away. Trump is of course accelerating this. Obama was trying to slow it down but failed. This is part of why you hate Russia, Myanmar and Duterte so much right now. They have chosen a side and they think American soft power is over.
https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diploma ... rte-turned
I agree with this 100%.

BRI is an amazing initiative. Anglos and others with their imperial approaches have been trying to get central Asia integrated with the world for about 2 centuries and done little. The BRI, basically paving the Silk Road, has a very good chance of doing it. China's game plan is no different than it has been for two centuries. Its just updated with technology.

I think the demise of American soft-power is premature. The hold on the imagination (media, entertainment) will far outlast real power. That's not to say it will hold the same position of dominance. Its not, however, going away.
Those who, even with distracted minds,
Entered a stupa compound
And chanted but once, “Namo Buddhaya!”
Have certainly attained the path of the buddhas.

-Lotus Sutra, Expedient Means Chapter

There are beings with little dust in their eyes who are falling away because they do not hear the Dhamma. There will be those who will understand the Dhamma.
-Ayacana Sutta

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 28529
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Democrats are compulsive self mutilators

Post by Malcolm » Fri Oct 19, 2018 5:13 pm

kirtu wrote:
Fri Oct 19, 2018 4:42 pm
Malcolm wrote:
Fri Oct 19, 2018 4:29 pm
I frankly see no compelling arguments that negate Hayek's basic thesis here, despite whatever faults his other work may bear.
re: " The Road to Serfdom" - It's dated (it's a complete reaction to the rise of fascism in the 20 and 30's) and both Hayek's assumptions and conclusions are false. That should be sufficient reason to reject Hayek.

Then we have actual data points that show that post-WW2 social democracy (which of course Hayek would have been skeptical of) doesn't restrict freedom and guarantees (or virtually guarantees) the social good and maximizes individual freedom (of course most Americans and all European Liberals would deny this but they share the same cultic thinking).

Kirt
These economies you mention are not centrally planned. I still have yet to find anyone who can raise compelling arguments against Hayek's basic thesis in Road to Serfdom. Basically, what you are calling "social democracies" are, in the parlance of modern economists, termed "Coordinated Market Economies" as opposed to the US, Britain, Canada, and Australia, which are termed "Liberal Market Economies."
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


[A]nything at all that is well spoken is the word of the Buddha.

-- Ārya-adhyāśaya-sañcodana-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra

The different sūtras in accord with the emptiness
taught by the Sugata are definitive in meaning;
One can understand that all of those Dharmas in
which a sentient being, individual, or person are taught are provisional in meaning.

-- Samadhirāja Sūtra

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 28529
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Democrats are compulsive self mutilators

Post by Malcolm » Fri Oct 19, 2018 5:15 pm

Queequeg wrote:
Fri Oct 19, 2018 5:05 pm

BRI is an amazing initiative.
Lhasa, 1959.
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


[A]nything at all that is well spoken is the word of the Buddha.

-- Ārya-adhyāśaya-sañcodana-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra

The different sūtras in accord with the emptiness
taught by the Sugata are definitive in meaning;
One can understand that all of those Dharmas in
which a sentient being, individual, or person are taught are provisional in meaning.

-- Samadhirāja Sūtra

User avatar
Queequeg
Global Moderator
Posts: 6387
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: Democrats are compulsive self mutilators

Post by Queequeg » Fri Oct 19, 2018 5:16 pm

kirtu wrote:
Fri Oct 19, 2018 4:42 pm
Malcolm wrote:
Fri Oct 19, 2018 4:29 pm
I frankly see no compelling arguments that negate Hayek's basic thesis here, despite whatever faults his other work may bear.
re: " The Road to Serfdom" - It's dated (it's a complete reaction to the rise of fascism in the 20 and 30's) and both Hayek's assumptions and conclusions are false. That should be sufficient reason to reject Hayek.

Then we have actual data points that show that post-WW2 social democracy (which of course Hayek would have been skeptical of) doesn't restrict freedom and guarantees (or virtually guarantees) the social good and maximizes individual freedom (of course most Americans and all European Liberals would deny this but they share the same cultic thinking).

Kirt
What does it mean to "maximize individual freedom" in your equation? One could say that individual freedom is maximized in an authoritarian state... in so far as its allowed as much as possible in the authoritarian state. Individual freedom is maximized... in that system.
Those who, even with distracted minds,
Entered a stupa compound
And chanted but once, “Namo Buddhaya!”
Have certainly attained the path of the buddhas.

-Lotus Sutra, Expedient Means Chapter

There are beings with little dust in their eyes who are falling away because they do not hear the Dhamma. There will be those who will understand the Dhamma.
-Ayacana Sutta

User avatar
Queequeg
Global Moderator
Posts: 6387
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: Democrats are compulsive self mutilators

Post by Queequeg » Fri Oct 19, 2018 5:18 pm

Malcolm wrote:
Fri Oct 19, 2018 5:15 pm
Queequeg wrote:
Fri Oct 19, 2018 5:05 pm

BRI is an amazing initiative.
Lhasa, 1959.
Its not the road that's bad... its the dudes who come down that road... which brings me back to - I don't think we want China dominating international affairs. Give it time, that road will also bring the world into China... that's another effect.
Those who, even with distracted minds,
Entered a stupa compound
And chanted but once, “Namo Buddhaya!”
Have certainly attained the path of the buddhas.

-Lotus Sutra, Expedient Means Chapter

There are beings with little dust in their eyes who are falling away because they do not hear the Dhamma. There will be those who will understand the Dhamma.
-Ayacana Sutta

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 28529
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Democrats are compulsive self mutilators

Post by Malcolm » Fri Oct 19, 2018 5:45 pm

Queequeg wrote:
Fri Oct 19, 2018 5:18 pm
Malcolm wrote:
Fri Oct 19, 2018 5:15 pm
Queequeg wrote:
Fri Oct 19, 2018 5:05 pm

BRI is an amazing initiative.
Lhasa, 1959.
Its not the road that's bad... its the dudes who come down that road... which brings me back to - I don't think we want China dominating international affairs. Give it time, that road will also bring the world into China... that's another effect.
Lhasa, 1959. Dream on.
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


[A]nything at all that is well spoken is the word of the Buddha.

-- Ārya-adhyāśaya-sañcodana-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra

The different sūtras in accord with the emptiness
taught by the Sugata are definitive in meaning;
One can understand that all of those Dharmas in
which a sentient being, individual, or person are taught are provisional in meaning.

-- Samadhirāja Sūtra

User avatar
Nemo
Posts: 887
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 3:23 am
Location: Canada

Re: Democrats are compulsive self mutilators

Post by Nemo » Fri Oct 19, 2018 6:45 pm

Malcolm wrote:
Fri Oct 19, 2018 5:15 pm
Queequeg wrote:
Fri Oct 19, 2018 5:05 pm

BRI is an amazing initiative.
Lhasa, 1959.
Economics has changed a lot since 1944 and geopolitics since 1959.
"It doesn't matter whether a cat is black or white, as long as it catches mice." -- Deng Xiaoping

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 28529
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Democrats are compulsive self mutilators

Post by Malcolm » Fri Oct 19, 2018 6:59 pm

Nemo wrote:
Fri Oct 19, 2018 6:45 pm
Malcolm wrote:
Fri Oct 19, 2018 5:15 pm
Queequeg wrote:
Fri Oct 19, 2018 5:05 pm

BRI is an amazing initiative.
Lhasa, 1959.
Economics has changed a lot since 1944 and geopolitics since 1959.
"It doesn't matter whether a cat is black or white, as long as it catches mice." -- Deng Xiaoping
The character of the Chinese government hasn't changed one little bit.

Lhasa, 1959. That is what letting the Chinese build a road to your door gets you, as Asia will find out, much to its regret.
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


[A]nything at all that is well spoken is the word of the Buddha.

-- Ārya-adhyāśaya-sañcodana-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra

The different sūtras in accord with the emptiness
taught by the Sugata are definitive in meaning;
One can understand that all of those Dharmas in
which a sentient being, individual, or person are taught are provisional in meaning.

-- Samadhirāja Sūtra

PeterC
Posts: 599
Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 12:38 pm

Re: Democrats are compulsive self mutilators

Post by PeterC » Sat Oct 20, 2018 2:04 am

Queequeg wrote:
Fri Oct 19, 2018 5:18 pm
Malcolm wrote:
Fri Oct 19, 2018 5:15 pm
Queequeg wrote:
Fri Oct 19, 2018 5:05 pm

BRI is an amazing initiative.
Lhasa, 1959.
Its not the road that's bad... its the dudes who come down that road... which brings me back to - I don't think we want China dominating international affairs. Give it time, that road will also bring the world into China... that's another effect.
Who is “We” in this sentence? This isn’t something that the US gets to decide

PeterC
Posts: 599
Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 12:38 pm

Re: Democrats are compulsive self mutilators

Post by PeterC » Sat Oct 20, 2018 2:06 am

Queequeg wrote:
Fri Oct 19, 2018 4:39 pm
These are topics I know something about; I’m sharing an informed opinion. You’re free to dismiss it as vague or prejudiced, but really it’s not.
Right back at you. When you just give a laundry list and a dismissive " I’m quickly running out of topics" and then "Time doesn’t permit a point-by-point discussion" and then this - "I know something"... your attitude is fully displayed.
The attitude I was displaying was, “think what you like, I don’t really have time to write essays on the Internet”. Interpret that as you wish. In any case I think we’ve drifted a bit from the original topic...
Last edited by PeterC on Sat Oct 20, 2018 2:45 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Johnny Dangerous
Global Moderator
Posts: 8350
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
Location: Olympia WA
Contact:

Re: Democrats are compulsive self mutilators

Post by Johnny Dangerous » Sat Oct 20, 2018 2:17 am

Queequeg wrote:
Fri Oct 19, 2018 4:51 pm


You're kind of dodging the question... :smile:
That's because the question is premised on something you believe in to one degree or another that I probably don't - some sort of unique quality in a president that would change things for the better. My view of politics doesn't revolve around elites leading "the people" into some notion of progress. Progress, (such as it exists) happens when "the people" push the elites to concede to something more humane than what they are used to, despite the fact that those elites must give ground to achieve it, that's about it.
You criticize specific things that one president or another did, but, if you could construct a person to be president what would they look like? What would be their message? What would be their platform?
Bernie is the only person I've ever seen come near a major public office that puts forth the sorts of values I am for, and even he is a politician that must work within the narrow confines of this system and it's set of assumptions, put simply, I don't think a president has a lot to do with what actually happens, but you can take the values I've espoused and safely assume that I would probably favor a candidate who was for reforming the things I mention, it's not complicated, I just don't think that personal qualities of presidents mean that much.

The reason I asked you is because you are vocal in your displeasure with the way things are. I don't blame you. There is a lot to be unhappy about. That only goes so far, though. What would the ideal president and ideal USA look like? Once we have that, then we have something to actually take action on.

Not directed at you per se... more a general observation. It seems we have a lot of complaints and criticism about how things are, but no one seems to have any idea about how they should be. No vision. No ideal, nothing to work for, and so seems like a recipe for just more complaining. Maybe that's a feature of our time - that we simply don't have a shared narrative now - a story that binds us together and offers a path forward. Maybe one will emerge. I hope so, because this blind complaining just does not seem promising.
So? Is there some rule that we need a really detailed plan for the future in order to object to things that are clearly morally objectionable and should change? Why? The critique of and within itself is of value, especially when a lot of he assumptions about "how things are" are predicated on what I consider to be false claims, and many of the things i'm complaining about are self-evidently wrong. I'm sorry you see it as "blind complaining", that's your prerogative, but it probably means we're done here. My reason for jumping into the conversation in the first place was that I think liberals who continue to vote for mainstream, corporate centrist Democratic candidates are, on many levels driving us further into our already dire situation. If you don't agree that's fine, but to me it's a valid criticism, and i don't need any kind of "plan" to make it, it's simply my opinion, and not "blind complaining".

So what do I think would help? Lots of stuff, but for the purposes of this conversation a Democratic party not run by corporate lackeys who mouth progressive platitudes while selling off the pieces of democracy..people who actually believe in a civic culture, and who regard citizens as more than passive consumers or consent machines... the only way that will happen is if people demand it, so complaining is quite justified in my opinion.
"it must be coming from the mouthy mastermind of raunchy rapper, Johnny Dangerous”

-Jeff H.

User avatar
Quay
Posts: 325
Joined: Mon May 16, 2016 6:07 pm

Re: Democrats are compulsive self mutilators

Post by Quay » Sat Oct 20, 2018 3:32 am

Nemo wrote:
Sun Oct 14, 2018 3:31 pm
D or R doesn't matter. Stop being a sucker and falling for this good cop, bad cop routine. The tick tock of parties is public theater. The elites always get what they want.
Do you really see no difference between FDR's postwar plan for America, the Second Bill of Rights, and Ronald Reagan's Morning in America/New American Century?

The cynical "they're all the same" is something our (meaning America in particular) ruling class has been selling for some time through corporate media. It generates apathy and low voter turnout here by design.

The elites do not always get what they want. Often of course and for the last two years quite often, but it's not inevitable. If Americans increased the voter turnout much is possible. But pushing the every-side-is-the same narrative makes the ruling class happy and not very many others. It is also very naive as it is a repetition of propaganda and not a reflection of facts.
"Knowledge is as infinite as the stars in the sky;
There is no end to all the subjects one could study.
It is better to grasp straight away their very essence--
The unchanging fortress of the Dharmakaya."

– Longchenpa.

User avatar
Quay
Posts: 325
Joined: Mon May 16, 2016 6:07 pm

Re: Democrats are compulsive self mutilators

Post by Quay » Sat Oct 20, 2018 3:41 am

Malcolm wrote:
Fri Oct 19, 2018 5:13 pm
...I still have yet to find anyone who can raise compelling arguments against Hayek's basic thesis in Road to Serfdom....
I think that is because there isn't one. :smile:

The problem most people seem to have with Hayek is not actually with his ideas but rather from the people that came after him and disingenuously used those ideas to push an allegedly totally laissez-faire system that looked bracing on paper and sounded vigorous in speeches but in actuality meant socialism for the rich and free enterprise for the poor.

Reminds me of the common joke in Soviet-era political science classes regarding centrally planned economies: If the Soviet Union was put in charge of the Sahara Desert, in less than a year there would be a shortage of sand.
"Knowledge is as infinite as the stars in the sky;
There is no end to all the subjects one could study.
It is better to grasp straight away their very essence--
The unchanging fortress of the Dharmakaya."

– Longchenpa.

User avatar
Nemo
Posts: 887
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 3:23 am
Location: Canada

Re: Democrats are compulsive self mutilators

Post by Nemo » Sat Oct 20, 2018 5:27 am

Quay wrote:
Sat Oct 20, 2018 3:32 am
Nemo wrote:
Sun Oct 14, 2018 3:31 pm
D or R doesn't matter. Stop being a sucker and falling for this good cop, bad cop routine. The tick tock of parties is public theater. The elites always get what they want.
Do you really see no difference between FDR's postwar plan for America, the Second Bill of Rights, and Ronald Reagan's Morning in America/New American Century?

The cynical "they're all the same" is something our (meaning America in particular) ruling class has been selling for some time through corporate media. It generates apathy and low voter turnout here by design.

The elites do not always get what they want. Often of course and for the last two years quite often, but it's not inevitable. If Americans increased the voter turnout much is possible. But pushing the every-side-is-the same narrative makes the ruling class happy and not very many others. It is also very naive as it is a repetition of propaganda and not a reflection of facts.
I don't think you understand how good cop, bad cop works. It means the cops collude to put on a show that makes you think one is good and the other is bad. But really they are tricking you and both work for the same boss. The good cop is only pretending to be your friend.

FDR was a fluke. One that cannot be repeated. Look what they did to Henry Wallace. You need grassroots movements without party affiliation if you want any meaningful change. The current Democratic party exists to prevent change. Like how they "Henry Wallace'd" Bernie Sanders.

User avatar
kirtu
Former staff member
Posts: 6175
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2010 5:29 pm
Location: Baltimore, MD

Re: Democrats are compulsive self mutilators

Post by kirtu » Sat Oct 20, 2018 4:51 pm

Queequeg wrote:
Fri Oct 19, 2018 5:16 pm
One could say that individual freedom is maximized in an authoritarian state... in so far as its allowed as much as possible in the authoritarian state. Individual freedom is maximized... in that system.
That is a completely unsupportable argument even as a thought experiment. Authoritarian systems always have a group that they marginalize, exclude and/or exterminate. The people belonging to those groups are systematically deprived of liberties. Therefore no authoritarian system can maximize freedom. There are other counterproofs as well (authoritarian systems concentrate power in a small group, etc.).
What does it mean to "maximize individual freedom" in your equation?
The classic formulation of maximum choice in action and experience as long as those choices/experiences do not impinge on others negatively *BUT* with the concept of a responsibility to society idealized by sharing resources and caring for all members of society (so the responsibilities are mutual between society, the environment and the individual). An idealized religious small c communist system although I certainly acknowledge that not all people would like to live in what is essentially a large monastery at least in the most ideal case (it would differ from an ideal monastery in that people are not bound by strict rules of discipline except for the essentials : no killing and caring for all).

Kirt
Kirt's Tibetan Translation Notes

"Even if you practice only for an hour a day with faith and inspiration, good qualities will steadily increase. Regular practice makes it easy to transform your mind. From seeing only relative truth, you will eventually reach a profound certainty in the meaning of absolute truth."
Kyabje Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche.

"Only you can make your mind beautiful."
HH Chetsang Rinpoche

User avatar
Quay
Posts: 325
Joined: Mon May 16, 2016 6:07 pm

Re: Democrats are compulsive self mutilators

Post by Quay » Sat Oct 20, 2018 9:59 pm

It would be nice if you'd answer the question: Do you really see no difference between FDR's postwar plan for America, the Second Bill of Rights, and Ronald Reagan's Morning in America/New American Century?
Nemo wrote:
Sat Oct 20, 2018 5:27 am
I don't think you understand how good cop, bad cop works. It means the cops collude to put on a show that makes you think one is good and the other is bad. But really they are tricking you and both work for the same boss. The good cop is only pretending to be your friend.
So your position is that there is no real difference between the parties and that it is all for show along the good-cop-bad-cop trope?
FDR was a fluke. One that cannot be repeated. Look what they did to Henry Wallace. You need grassroots movements without party affiliation if you want any meaningful change. The current Democratic party exists to prevent change. Like how they "Henry Wallace'd" Bernie Sanders.
He was not a fluke but rather one way of dealing with the mess created by the Hoover way of doing things, i.e. what we now call modern conservatism. He was violently opposed at the time and one can read all American politics since as either general agreement with his solutions or total opposition to them.

The current Democratic Party is divide into two wings, one of which wishes for business as usual and the other wishes to bring substantial change.

I think Henry Wallace was the real fluke.
"Knowledge is as infinite as the stars in the sky;
There is no end to all the subjects one could study.
It is better to grasp straight away their very essence--
The unchanging fortress of the Dharmakaya."

– Longchenpa.

Post Reply

Return to “News & Current Events”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 43 guests