.

I'll sign off with a thought:

I can think of two different, incompatible states of equilibrium toward which the mind can general converge after being subjected to repeated criticism.

In one scenario, the individual is forced to question his / her beliefs, forcing him / her to gradually drop many previously held assumptions, and to encompass old ideas within a more expansive perspective.

In the other scenario, the individual tragically fails to realize the value of scrutinizing previously held beliefs on an equal playing field, alongside new and foreign ideas, making sure to forget just what actor is associated with which one. This individual reacts by becoming defensive, interpreting criticism as a personal attack, and turns to rationalization and dogma, as beautifully exemplified by your description of conservative psychology:


To which I'll add::
[QUOTE=David Hilbert]Sometimes it happens that a man's circle of horizon becomes smaller and smaller, and as the radius approaches zero it concentrates on one point. And then that becomes his point of view. [/QUOTE]

.

.

Which is why I was anxious to hear what he really believes. You know, tell us just why he supports certain legislation in certain situations.

But you're saying the problem lies deeper than that--at the interface between primitive psychology and the organs of power--and that to give conservatives a listening ear is to lose from the start, with nothing to be gained (since primitive psychology can't possibly serve as the foundation for a meaningful discussion), and everything to be lost (since it surrenders to the infected individual everything it wanted in the first place--to waste our time in a faux-discussion, accomplishing only to further spread faulty ideas, without the possibility of correcting them).

Yes, I definitely played that game.

And to everybody who's asleep: Reid and I are very, very sorry for what we've done to this thread.

.

.

TBQH, I kinda doubt he'd want to post in this thread at all, after basically being called a conservative troll (in so many words), and almost (though not quite directly) compared to someone with developmental disabilities.

Which is not to detract from your general points (which are well received). I simply feel a little uncomfortable being so presumptuously negative about Wookie in his absence.

But working-class neoliberals are retarded.

.

.

unbelievable. what a son of a *****.

I mean he literally says "stop trying to understand the universe, nerds, and make me an iphone."

Okay, so the supreme court has agreed to hear the case against the ACA, in the current term, meaning a ruling will come down in late June or early July (according to that blog).

So, Wookie, what's it going to be? Now that you've won some seats in Congress, what will you Republicans do if the Supreme court strikes down subsidies to states that don't have state-run exchanges, and depend on federal subsidies? Hopefully something, because if you look at this map, it's mostly the conservative states that are in peril:

Holy ****. I had no idea there physically existed libertarian "philosophers" (heh) that so beautifully embraced the faulty nature of their core assumptions with impunity sufficient in magnitude to craft the most elegant reductio ad absurdum of their system that I've ever seen.

I've actually never seen a youtube video that's made me want to physically confront the person, until....

It's like he's concocted a potent mixture of willful ignorance, arrogance, and base consumer values into some kind of maximally retarded belief system. The existence of this video makes me sadder than any beauty pageant speech.

The iPhone runs on transistors. Bardeen, Brattain, and Shockley were physicists. If this guy were in charge in the 1940's when Bardeen, et. al. invented the transistor, he'd probably tell Bell Labs executives to stop fiddling around with physics research and build him a better rotary dial telephone.

(And call them nerds.)

I'm a little ashamed to say that I wasn't completely convinced before, but I now firmly believe that every single broadcaster in conservative talk radio is 100% disingenuous, and literally believes nothing s/he is saying.

With people like this, there is literally no need to even pretend to tell the truth.

We're doomed.

I have a proposition: anybody smart enough to succeed at anything can't possibly be a conservatard. Therefore, all successful conservative opinion-makers are 100% (malicious) liars.

Wookie, do you feel outnumbered? Where have all the conservative posters gone? Please circle one of the following choices:

A.) There are none. Conservatives aren't smart enough to use the internet
B.) We scared them all away because their ideas don't stand up to scrutiny
C.) We scared them all away because we're all bullies
D.) ________________________

You're welcome, Dr. Jones. To be perfectly honest, I had the intention of checking back in and reviewing the many posts that have followed mine and then trying to dive back in. The fact is, you have provided so much content here that I'm just simply going to start here. Everyone can assume that I have read little to nothing after this post, although I will try to catch up. First off, I want to let you know, Dr. Jones, that I have been somewhat skeptical of you for some time. You posted once in the aftermath of the Boston bombing something that led me to believe you follow questionable news sources or, at least, jumped readily to conspiratorial conclusions. This post was so well reasoned that I think that was a fluke. One that you quickly apologized for back then so you have the benefit of the doubt.



Books are written about many things by many people with many motives. I think in could be argued that minorities are clearly duped into voting against their own interests when they vote Democrat but let's not get wrapped up in DvR just yet.



This reminds me of a couple things. First, "question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear." Also, I'm currently in a technical school. Each class is 20 days long. All of the tests are multiple choice. Sometimes there is a debate about the correct answer for a question. Through observation I noticed that often we are arguing about why the "correct" answer is wrong. An argument that, of course, is only made when someone chose a different selection. I noticed that the argument to be made shouldn't have been for why the "right" answer was wrong but why the other answer somebody chose is right. It's a very subtle a simple difference, but very important.

I had to cut out your section on private property but I appreciate the context. It just opens up a discussion by itself. One that I really would like to have because I have strong feeling about property and income.



Could you please expand or elaborate on your points in this paragraph.



What would you consider is obedience to conservative principles? Or, more simply, could you try to list or define what you consider to be conservative principles?



I would also like you to expand on this.



You might have to remind me to come back to that one.

Since you're relatively new, I just want to point out that, now that I'm back, it's pretty much a one man show. There used to be at least some diversity here but it's pretty slim now. Some here will say I do this and that, the real fact is that I don't have the time to point-by-point debate everyone that disagrees with me (um, almost all of you!). I get up before 5, put in a full day as a student, when I get home try to do the things a guy has to do around the house, with the family, homework, etc. I fall asleep on the couch more times than I'd like to admit. It's a fact of life that the guy that spent too much time here was banned and things are different now.

Unless you're willing to immediately yield a sound and valid argument for that lil opinion, I think you would make a lot fewer enemies by not sharing it in public in the future.

It could be argued that the civil war was about states rights, but...

At the risk of triggering an inevitable "no true scotsman" self-defense:

Conservative leaders and influential supporters openly follow a philosophy based upon an unquestioned axiomatic model of human behavior, called Praxeology. We don't need to tell you what we "consider" to be conservative principles, because the conservatives themselves proudly and openly volunteer the specifics of their philosophy and faith.

This is not our concept of reality, this is absolute, objective fact, and if you aren't already familiar with this fact and comfortable with the parts of their opinions they don't share on camera, you perhaps shouldn't be voting for them.




By the way, one of their axioms is that inflation <=> an increase of money supply, even though actual evidence from real life tells us that inflation => an increase of money supply. This is just one example of many, but basically their entire axiomatic system is demonstrably false and based upon specious reasoning to begin with. So you'd better also be comfortable identifying yourself with morons, because hoo boy, in terms of economics and personal philosophy the short bus sure doesn't get much shorter than under neoliberalism.

On that note, I absolutely love the standard neoliberal argument that the disadvantaged are hurt by charity because then they never become motivated enough to better themselves.

"Like the parable," they say, "if you teach a man to fish...."

But they don't teach the man to fish. They don't want to. Republicans are more than happy to shovel money into free healthcare and social security for old people, but "welfare" programs like education subsidies and needs-based financial aid for young people who want to work are always the first to get slashed.

For Republicans, it's not "if you teach a man to fish...", it's "if he can't figure it out on his own, he deserves to starve." And, of course, the man whose father taught him how to fish is always better off.



This is neoliberalism at its core. The Republican party, the Democratic party, the Tea Party and especially the Libertarian party - none of it works, none of it is based on sound reasoning, and it is fundamentally at odds with Christianity. It is not possible to be a good Christian and vote for any of these people.

Oh my. Well, just to warn you, you're going to need some thick skin to get through the remainder. And, TBH, I'm not sure how good a use of your time that will be, unless you enjoy being called a conservative retard and talked down to.



That post of mine was made in haste, very soon after the bombings occurred, and was based purely on speculation on my part. It happened to be completely wrong, which made me regret portraying it as fact.



Here's the book I'm talking about. I have not read it.



Very good. Questions are more important than answers, and answers without context are worse than useless.



See:




Don't you know this already?



That last bit you quoted from me was just my conclusion. It's not really a new one on these boards, and if you want to see it expanded, just read any post by Jon`C on the topic of social class and American politics and pretend what he's saying is true.



See my post immediately above yours.

Ouch--major typo in that last post. Originally I wrote "Questions are more important with answers", corrected to "Questions are more important than answers"

I had an idea for a revised welfare program that I figure that most people could get behind. Instead of sending people tiny checks to eke out a living while they may or may not try to get a job with their meager job skills, how about this:

In order to collect welfare, they must attend vocational classes which are offered based on economic need. A CCC style program could be used to give workers much needed experience and retraining, while improving social infrastructure, or renting out laborers to businesses that need temporary labor. Since these programs would be expensive, they would pay a liviable but slightly below average wage for the skill, and possibly have an inconvienint start time, like 5AM. If you can't show up to work or classes, you are evaluated for mental illness, and treated accordingly. If you are just lazy, you would be provided a case worker who would give you counseling on getting your life back together. If you still don't show up, you are banned from the program for a year.

It would be a large short term investment, but it would likely pay off in the long run. Politically, it should answer the conservative complaints about welfare recipients being lazy, while also adressing liberal complaints that there is no way to get ahead.

I don't think something like this is politically possible anymore, but in a purely economic sense I can see at least two major problems:

A secondary concern is that such a program distracts from an unemployed person's main goal: finding a job. Some states have been experimenting with making unemployment benefits conditional upon doing unpaid work for "experience". Not only does this detract from the employee's market value (why hire a secretary when the government will give you one for free?) but also makes it much harder to apply for jobs and schedule interviews.

My main concern is that it assumes education is sufficient for success, rather than only necessary. Recent productivity increases have cut much deeper into the marginal utility of labor than most people believe; most recent productivity research suggests that there simply isn't enough work for everyone. The most common complaint of corporate workers is that they aren't given enough work to do. The layoffs that started in 2007 were a long time coming and had nothing to do with the economic downturn. In this environment, giving extra education just raises the bar for resume screening. This is especially true since, outside of a few speciality occupations, no jobs actually require schooling.


In the long run, I don't think any social program designed to connect workers with employers is going to solve anything.

I think the only good long-term solution is to put a bullet in Malthusianism: give people enough food, shelter, and essential services to lead a comfortable life outside of employment. It's better for workers, since without the threat of imminent death the price of labor would start to reflect economic value again, and it's better for employers because it would make wages less sticky.

Another benefit is that it would give people with enough ambition the freedom to independently pursue profit (which is the real reason the neoliberals would fight it).

The older I get, the more I become convinced that the fundamental philosophy of conservativism is (still) slavery.

When a vindictive conservative tells you to stop being lazy and get a job, it's not because s/he wants you to better yourself. It's because s/he is angry that the system has failed to induce you to use keep those idle hands busy toward the end of enriching the ruling class.

Also, Obi, aside from the economic reasons, your idea could never work for political ones. Your fundamentally flawed assumption is that it is still possible to exploit the power of ideas to do good in politics. But, almost by definition, any good idea is going to violate some conservative assumption. The term conservative really is an apt name for it's movement. It's like what Clinton said in response to questions about his opponent's age: he wasn't worried about his age, but the age of his ideas.

You can't apply creative problem solving in American politics when the set of acceptable solutions is drastically reduced to a tiny subspace of what is possible, due to arbitrary conservative ideology.

Another thing I've realized as I've gotten older is just how much the success of all of society--in all domains--rests on the ideas of a very small number of highly creative and intelligent individuals or groups. Everything else is just cargo cult.

Every damn job requires you to sign an IP assignment agreement now, even part-time minimum-wage retail jobs. Nobody with a traditional employer can ever benefit from their creative work. Why would anybody seek to innovate in our culture, unless they're one of the blessed few who are professional innovators?

CLASS WARFARE IS A MALICIOUS LIE OF THE POORS.


....


EMPLOYEE, SIGN OVER ALL HOPE TO CLASS MOBILITY OR WE WILL STARVE YOU TO DEATH. HAIL HITLER.


- every neoliberal, including the poor ones like Wookie06

That's a good point. It was easy for me to overlook the possibility that more people aren't using their creative potential (for their own benefit), simply because they've been conditioned by society to accept that gainful employment basically means exchanging your sovereignty (in so many ways) just to survive.

The basic fallacy of being a conservative to me is to say that because you've accepted certain tradeoffs (not all of which are prudent in the first place), you then have to then rationalize taking the negatives of that tradeoff--to the extreme! I.e., you accept that you have to work for somebody else in a complex society, but in order to reconcile your place in society with your conservative worldview, you then go further, and tell yourself that the reason you aren't wealthier is because you've done something wrong, and only need to do better and hope for the best.

And yet, the irony is that the political movement that espouses that conservative philosophy is the one that's holding you back from doing so, perhaps much more so than any personal failing.

It's like conservatives believe so strongly that the whole system will collapse if they allow one person to get food stamps without working, and are subsequently terrified against having any critical thought about the matter.

No, just double down and work hard--don't look at the man behind the curtain, he's not secretly ****ing you in the ass.

This is the kind of thing that I think should be the subject of a popular movement in support of legislation.

However, I can see how there will be counter-arguments which argue about the essential need for clarity when it comes to the legal right of a company to assert legal superiority over its employees when it comes to big projects. For example, think of the lost productivity if a big project (say, the Java language) were prevented from being released, because one employee wanted to assert IP rights.

In The Netherlands, we have something of a system that has some similarities to what Obi_Kwiet is suggesting. Over here, if you're without a job, two things can happen. If you have built up enough reserves (those reserves are built by paying a monthly tax on your income), you can live off these reserves which grant you 70-75% of your last earned income for a limited number of months (depending on how long you've worked). If you don't have these reserves, the government will pay you a bare minimum monthly to get by. You are required to follow a certain trajectory of classes focused on job orientation, finding motivation, learning how to present yourself, your resume, etcetera. Aditionally you have to spend 3 hours, twice a week, soliciting for jobs in class. You're required to do at least 10 serious applications (sometimes more) per week. In some cases they'll give you an opportunity to build some experience; they'll arrange a somewhat appropriate job for you at a company, and you'll have to work for 2 to 3 months without getting a normal pay, but as a requisite for keeping your government-paid 'social minimum'. The company has to promise a 6 month contract if you perform well during this test period.


While some aspects of the program work, the biggest problem with it is exactly what you're saying: companies will simply exploit this. I know of several people in my social circle who did such a work experience program, and none of them ended up getting the 6 month contract, because all a company has to do is make up some bull**** excuse and 'hire' the next guy who's going to work for them for free for the next 3 months.

The past year or so they've been switching to new programs where temp agencies, if they're seriously interested, have to give you a 6 month contract right away, albeit at minimum wage.

.

Suddenly, reading A People's History of the United States appears to not have been a complete waste of my time (at least it helped me to comprehend at least a bit of this conversation).

Exactly.



THIS.... this is so true. I don't know why more people don't realize this.