Rationalskepticism,lol part III.

[pErvinalia]

I'll get to this tomorrow. But the point with freedom is that no sane side of politics believe in literal total freedom. Both sides impose restrictions on freedom. Each side imposes a different set of restrictions. To claim that the left is somehow less caring about freedom is ridiculous. It's based on the simplistic caricature by conservatives that they are for freedom and the left is against freedom.

Regarding individual/group rights... protecting less powerful groups directly protects individual rights. That's the point. That individuals can't be discriminated against due to any inherent personal or systemic characteristics. So it protects the individual against irrational majoritarian attacks, whether that be by members of a more powerful group in society, or the state itself.

[Strontium Dog]

But the left concerns themselves far more with "freedom from". Which is why they advocate, for instance, restrictions on free speech to protect poor little lambs from having their fee-fees offended, with those who dare to express an "offensive" opinion made to suffer under the full weight of the law (see: RatSkep).

"Freedom to", AKA Real Freedom, is a more important freedom in my book, and should always take precedence.

[MrJonno]

Is freedom to kick out brown and foreign people, a freedom to or a freedom from. It's about the only freedom anyone in the UK really cares about these days anyway

[Forty Two]

Is someone suggesting that there is an individual right to kick people out?

[Seth]

A neocon is just a libertarian with the balls to do something about it.

Neocons are not libertarian. Libertarian foreign policy stances are incompatible with neoconservative foreign policy stances.

While neocons tend to be somewhat supportive of classical liberal economics, which tends to be consistent with libertarian positions on that point, the rest of neoconservatism is diametrically opposed to libertarianism. Even on economics, libertarians tend to be against budget deficits and tend to be very much supportive of the ideas of Hayek, whereas neoconservatives are not. Libertarians agree that the growth of government influence on society and public welfare is "the road to serfdom" as Hayek put it, but neoconservatives are not against the growth of government influence on society and public welfare.

My take on what Brian is saying is something I've been on about for a while. Most right libbos aren't actually libertarians at all. They are neoliberals (via my definition which I linked to in an essay on my blog earlier in the thread) and neocons (just look at Seth). If you are a right libertarian you have to go the whole hog and you wind up holding psychopathic views like Murray Rothbard does.

So how do you figure I'm either a "neocon" or a "neoliberal?" And what sort of "psychopathic" views does this Rothbard person hold?

[Seth]

Neocons grew out of the left-wing of politics. That's how come they advocate top-down regime change. The idea that you can alter things from the top downwards is plucked straight from Marxian doctrine.

that's a simplistic view. Authoritarianism isn't solely a left or right thing. It infects both sides. Arguably, it's more of a rightist concept as it gels nicely with the respect for hierarchies and disrespect for individual autonomy inherent in conservatism.

See, you do understand that liberal fascism exists! Bravo!

As for "disrespect for individual autonomy inherent in conservatism" I'd really like to know how you come to that conclusion without also coming to the same conclusion about leftist hierarchies and disrespect for individual autonomy inherent in collectivism.

[Seth]

While I think the Seth and his Doggie are referring to the travel of political outlooks, like the idealistic Hippies of the 1960-70s becoming the avaricious Yuppies of the 1980-90s, pointing this out says nothing about what neoconservatism is. It's roots in the progressive politics of an earlier era is a historical detail, not a defining feature.

Of course it's a defining feature. You don't get to be a "neocon" unless you're first a liberal who has become disillusioned with the failings of socialism. If you've never been a socialist and you've never migrated from socialism you're just a plain old conservative, not a "neocon."

The point being that "neoconservatism" is a Frankensteinian melding of liberal social policy with right-wing foreign policy. In other words, it's the product of mugged liberals realizing they've been had.

[Seth]

Yeah, that sounds about right. In a sense Marxism is actually a conservative ideology, in that it has an elite element to it. And that definitely morphs into full on conservatism under Lenin and Stalin

It's laughable that you call Lenin and Stalin "conservatives."

Do you even know the meaning of "conservatism" or have you again formed some psychopathic strawman in your own tiny mind that you call "conservatism?"

Here's the actual definition:

Full Definition of conservatism

1 capitalized a : the principles and policies of a Conservative party b : the Conservative party

2a : disposition in politics to preserve what is established b : a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change; specifically : such a philosophy calling for lower taxes, limited government regulation of business and investing, a strong national defense, and individual financial responsibility for personal needs (as retirement income or health-care coverage)

3: the tendency to prefer an existing or traditional situation to change

That's why the Anarchists like Luxomburgh etc broke away from the Socialists as they could see the authoritarian aspect to it and knew it was the antithesis to democratic socialism.

For all the good it did them.

That's why the 4-axis political spectrum (left:right; authoritarian:libertarian) is most accurate and relevant. Yes, Marxism came out of the left, but it's not really accurate to call Stalin a leftist. He was probably more of a centrist highly authoritarian. Progressivism and authoritarianism aren't really logical bedfellows like conservatism and authoritarianism is. I doubt you'd find many actually progressives who rate high up on the Authoritarian scale. But you will find plenty of Fascists who rate high on the conservatism scale.

I'd also like to know what your definition of "progressive" is, because it's clearly not related to "Progressivism" as defined by Progressives, which is pretty damned authoritarian. Do you mean, by "progressive", a political philosophy akin to the neo-anarchist hippie model of everybody smoking dope and smelling of pachouli oil?

Or by "progressive" do you mean "democratic socialism on steroids that rapes the rich and enslaves the poor to the welfare state for no better reason than that I hate the rich and want to take what they have and redistribute it to others"? That sounds like pure-quill Marxism to me.

About the only thing you're consistent in your arguments about is your hatred for "big corporations" and "the rich." Everything else seems to be mutable in the moment.

So what do you really believe? Why don't you publish your manifesto here so we can understand both your motivations and your plan for everyone who is not you?

[Seth]

And why the fuck are we discussing this in the "dis ratskep thread"??

Probably should be a split.

[JimC]

And why the fuck are we discussing this in the "dis ratskep thread"??

Probably should be a split.

Splitter!

[Seth]

While I think the Seth and his Doggie are referring to the travel of political outlooks, like the idealistic Hippies of the 1960-70s becoming the avaricious Yuppies of the 1980-90s, pointing this out says nothing about what neoconservatism is. It's roots in the progressive politics of an earlier era is a historical detail, not a defining feature.

Humph! Some idealistic hippies from the 70's became sensible, non-avaricious, cardigan-wearing, gin-swilling maths teachers!

And the vast majority of hippies became that way when they had children and realized that they had a greater duty to their children and their children's future than they did to their own selfish pleasure-seeking juvenile behaviors and had to join the rest of society to earn a living. And once they did that, and 40 percent of their labor input was taken from them and given to the "neohippies" in the ghettos, they became quite middle-class and conservative. And their kids grew up understanding that "tradition" has its place as a societal stabilizer and "gradual change" is far less disruptive and likely to put one in the gutter than radicalism, and that since business owners prefer societal and economic stability they tend not to hire radicals to work for them it's far easier to get a job if one stops being quite so radical.

Being a hippie is great fun until Daddy's trust fund runs out and you can't afford to buy nappies, much less weed.

[Seth]

Neocons have always been Republican as far as Merkin politics are concerned, that is, the far right.

You are absolutely wrong.

Neoconservatism (commonly shortened to neocon) is a political movement born in the United States during the 1960s among Democrats who became disenchanted with the party's domestic and especially foreign policy.

Hmm, fair enough.

Interesting, the first thing I saw on that page was a big red Elephant and the fact it was part of a series of articles on Conservatism in the US.

Neocons may originally have come from disenchanted Dems, but it's obvious they went to the other side, and thus, are effectively Republicans.

Not exactly. We call them "RINOs", which means "Republicans In Name Only." And they have indeed co-opted the actual Republican party to the extent that there is more than a little agitation to disband the party altogether and form a new one that excludes the neocon RINO contingent...like Paul Ryan.

[Seth]

Neocons grew out of the left-wing of politics. That's how come they advocate top-down regime change. The idea that you can alter things from the top downwards is plucked straight from Marxian doctrine.

that's a simplistic view. Authoritarianism isn't solely a left or right thing. It infects both sides. Arguably, it's more of a rightist concept as it gels nicely with the respect for hierarchies and disrespect for individual autonomy inherent in conservatism.

Indeed, and inherent in Progressivism and other collectivist ideals.

What a load of shit. Progressivism doesn't worship hierarchy. That's one of the prime defining features of conservatism.

Not really. Conservatism doesn't eschew change, it just doesn't think radical change is useful, and it says little or nothing about worshiping hierarchy.

And progressives believe strongly in individual rights free of government interference regarding things of a natural nature - eg. race, sexual orientation, and gender etc.

That sounds like you're supporting LIbertarianism.

They also believe in protecting individuals from power imbalances such as employer-employee relations, and state vs individual justice representation.

It's pretty clear that you are using your own definition of "progressivism" but that much is true of the classic definition of Progressivism.

You are basically trying to argue that progressivism is conservatism. Which is nonsensical.

I think the problem is you don't understand what Progressivism actually is. I think you're an Anarcho-Marxist. You want your liberties to be entirely unfettered but you want other people's liberties to be closely fettered if their beliefs and actions conflict with your desire for ultimate liberty. In particular you advocate class warfare with the "rich" and "big corporations" despite the fact that they are the direct source of the money you need to enjoy your unfettered freedom.

Modern progressives tend to be sympathetic to communist and marxist ideals,

Absolute bollocks. What, are you a Seth clone now??

Well, you seem to be claiming progressive tendencies and you certainly have demonstrated repeatedly that you are sympathetic to communist and Marxist ideals...so long as they are only applied to your perceived enemies but not to you. I think that makes you an Anarcho-Marxist-Hypocratist.

This is why a lot of Progressives these days view things like "freedom of speech" as "so last century." http://www.spectator.co.uk/2014/11/free ... mfortable/

Freedom has NEVER meant total freedom.

Except for you. Then again NOBODY but you has ever made that claim so your response is a strawman and a non-sequitur.

Neither side of politics believes this. So this point that you and other conservatives keep raising is disingenuous.

His point is that Progressives are happy to constrain speech that disagrees with or disputes the tenets of Progressivism while simultaneously expressing outrage that anyone would have the temerity to criticize Progressivism or constrain THEIR speech. This is proven absolutely by Woodrow Wilson's imprisonment of more than a hundred thousand people for "seditious speech" prior to America's entry into WWI. In that respect Progressivism is as intolerant of dissent as any pure-quill Marxist totalitarian tyranny. Orwell had it right, except that "Big Brother" is actually Progressivism thinly disguised.

[Seth]

Not individual rights -- collective rights. Group rights. Individual rights relate to autonomy of the individual. But, Progressives tend to want to limit individual autonomy, because individual liberty results in oppression, so they say.

Exactly. "Wrongspeak" and even "wrongthink" are at least "microaggressions" against the defined oppressed classes. In fact, today, just being white is, in and of itself, an open aggression against people of color.

You shouldn't have freedom of speech and I'll sign that petition to repeal the American First Amendment (Freedom of Speech, Press, Assembly, Religion and Petition), because individual liberty in that regard can be offensive and hurtful to some "groups." And, privileged groups should be limited, and marginalized groups should be advantaged. It's not about individual rights at all. If it were, you wouldn't have Progressives today advancing the same position regarding media, movies, music, video games, etc., that douchebag conservatives advanced in the 80s and 90s.

Well said.

They also believe in protecting individuals from power imbalances such as employer-employee relations, and state vs individual justice representation.

Always in terms of groups, though, and not in terms of "individuals." That's why Progressives tend to hold the position that blacks can't be racist, and women can't be sexist, etc. They view these things in terms of identity politics and they redefine individual rights into group rights. No longer is racism and sexism the discrimination against or hatred of an individual because of race or sex. To them, it's hatred/discrimination based on race/sex PLUS membership in a privileged group. So, Bahar Mustafa cannot be sexist against men or racist against whites. She's a minority woman, so she can't be sexist or racist.

Again, well said.

I get where you are coming from -- you want to be progressive, because progressive is supposed to stand for change and progress and moving forward, and making things better for people. Conservatism is supposed to be backwards and holding society back and preserving the status quo instead of making things better. But, today, Progressivism is highly reactionary, and is highly autocratic, and is not liberal when it comes to individual rights and liberties.

That's why you get Progressive students in universities coming out en masse demanding things of their university administrations -- and what do they demand? Censorship. Control. Protection from offense. Rules. They are asking for the administration to exercise authority. Progressives are the ones who were asking for major universities to exercise control over Halloween Costumes.

The reason for the divide here is terminology. The term "Progressive" itself is nothing more than a renaming of "democratic socialism" which is itself a renaming of Marxism. The goals remain the same...the actual goals, not the ones propagandized to the lumpen proletariat of course. Marxism has done this time and again. When a particular label becomes a pejorative in the minds of the proletariat for whatever reason, Marxists simply find a new name and repackage the same old swill in a shiny new container. "Progressive" is a fabulous fabulism and a brilliant political move because nobody wants to be "regressive," and everybody wants to believe that they are for "progress". But of course the devil is in the details, and "Progressivism" and "Progressive" have nothing whatever to do with progress or, as you cogently point out, individualism. It's a pure collectivist doctrine of repackaged Marxism. All Progressives do is massage the identification of the "bourgeoisie" slightly to aim the Marxist cannon at a convenient enemy. Right now it's "identity politics" galore and it's not "class" warfare in the sense of rich versus poor, it's pure, unadulterated race warfare agitated by the Marxist elite, who will use and use up anyone, no matter who they are, in the interests of forwarding the Marxist cause of destroying capitalism and imposing Marxist central-control state socialism.

They don't give a fuck how many blacks or Pakistanis are killed in riots, in fact the more that get killed the better...for them. And it is usually the Marxist elite themselves who foment such disorder, making use of the dependent-class useful idiots as their cannon fodder.

[Seth]

I'll get to this tomorrow. But the point with freedom is that no sane side of politics believe in literal total freedom.

No one but you has ever made or even implied this argument. You are erecting a strawman, and it's a huge one.

Both sides impose restrictions on freedom. Each side imposes a different set of restrictions.

Yup.

To claim that the left is somehow less caring about freedom is ridiculous.

No it's not, it's demonstrably true. The left does not, and cannot tolerate dissent or, as Stalin put it, "counterrevolutionary propaganda." So, the left suppresses free speech, and every other freedom that might disparage collectivist doctrine because the Marxists in charge know perfectly well that if the lumpen proletariat come to understand that socialism cannot provide what it promises and that capitalism is the true path to economic success it will result in a wholesale rejection of socialism.

It's based on the simplistic caricature by conservatives that they are for freedom and the left is against freedom.

No, it's based on historical fact. No leftist society has ever tolerated open dissent from leftist collectivist doctrine. Ever.

Regarding individual/group rights... protecting less powerful groups directly protects individual rights. That's the point.

No it doesn't.

That individuals can't be discriminated against due to any inherent personal or systemic characteristics.

You mean like the investors in "big corporations" can't be discriminated against because of their inherent ability to invest money wisely and thereby generate profits?

Or do you mean like old, rich white men can't be discriminated against because they are old, rich and white?

So it protects the individual against irrational majoritarian attacks, whether that be by members of a more powerful group in society, or the state itself.

No, it protects the group, not the individual. The individual can and will be willingly sacrificed as a martyr to the cause of identity politics and Marxism. Ferguson, Missouri is a classic example. The riots in and around Ferguson were agitated and fomented by Marxist/socialist professional agitators who came to Ferguson explicitly to whip up sentiment against the police and cause the local populace to riot. Their specific intention was NOT to do anything other than provoke a reaction from law enforcement that would harm or kill many "poor black people" as a part of their larger specific intent of setting off an open race war in the US.

Fortunately they failed.

But the professional Marxist agitators who came to Ferguson had no interest in the well being or safety of the individuals of Ferguson, they were merely useful idiots to be stirred up and thrown in front of the guns of the police in hopes that they would be killed in large numbers.

So no, you're wrong.