Politics Discussion Thread (Heated Arguing Warning)

[Bacchus]

Say you have an education system that is run by a combination of private and volunteer schools (no government-run schools at all). Without a state capable and willing to use violence, there is no way to enforce a minimum/common level of standards, no way to ensure that everyone gets into a school, no way to ensure that the private schools don't buy up the volunteer-run schools, driving them out of business, and forming a for-profit monopoly on education.

Truly universal standards are an ambivalent thing, actually. The universal standard in psychiatry not so long ago was shock therapy, and that was considered more scientifically sound than something as vague as psychotherapy. In some countries, "clinical psychiatry" of the shock/lobotomy variety was strictly enforced by the state, which banned alternative treatment as charlatans. Actually, many people may well have benefited from avoiding the "standard" treatment, see the sad story of Hemingway for an example. And, of course, on the opposite side of the spectrum, truly universal standards leave no place for local improvements -- again, something very prominent in Russia at the moment, where great teachers have to spend hours and hours filling out paperwork, which is only useful for controlling really bad teachers, who don't know how to teach, if it's useful at all. I think the major distinction between the pro-state and state-skeptical point of view here is whether one believes in human potential and desire for progress. If you do, you are not afraid for people to experiment, even knowing that sometimes experiments will go wrong, and besides, you realize that any standard-setting is itself a huge experiment which might turn out to be awful, and then it would be mean that the entire country was in error. Diversity, pluralism, and a space for human creativity are all good things -- and they are removed once you start enforcing standards violently and universally.

If you separate the government from the services it provides and end its ability to enforce standards, all you'll end up with is that service being monopolized by a corporation or other for-profit entity, that will use violence (like withholding services if you don't pay).

The vast majority of services, including something so basic and life-critical as food is separated from the government and works fine. Food, actually, has a particularly interesting story, because it traditionally was something that governments sought to control very tightly, including precisely on the rationales that you are suggesting -- anti-monopoly, standard enforcement, etc. And eventually the developed world was able to defeat regular famines only when the government stopped being so heavily involved in the matter. It also took a lot of change in thought, people just couldn't fathom that food could be left to nobody's control, even less to the profit motive. The history of grain markets in Europe and the accessory political economy makes for some of the best reading in social sciences, I highly recommend any good book on the subject. These books also tell you very vividly how the fear of monopolies is usually overblown -- monopolies that are maintained purely by conspiracy are very, very difficult to maintain.

[Mr. Cairo]

Truly universal standards are an ambivalent thing, actually. The universal standard in psychiatry not so long ago was shock therapy, and that was considered more scientifically sound than something as vague as psychotherapy. In some countries, "clinical psychiatry" of the shock/lobotomy variety was strictly enforced by the state, which banned alternative treatment as charlatans. Actually, many people may well have benefited from avoiding the "standard" treatment, see the sad story of Hemingway for an example. And, of course, on the opposite side of the spectrum, truly universal standards leave no place for local improvements -- again, something very prominent in Russia at the moment, where great teachers have to spend hours and hours filling out paperwork, which is only useful for controlling really bad teachers, who don't know how to teach, if it's useful at all. I think the major distinction between the pro-state and state-skeptical point of view here is whether one believes in human potential and desire for progress. If you do, you are not afraid for people to experiment, even knowing that sometimes experiments will go wrong, and besides, you realize that any standard-setting is itself a huge experiment which might turn out to be awful, and then it would be mean that the entire country was in error. Diversity, pluralism, and a space for human creativity are all good things -- and they are removed once you start enforcing standards violently and universally.

You're right about standards actually, I benefited hugely from going to high school in a place where general life outcomes had a higher priority than meeting standards. However, you did not say how any of the other things I mentioned might be addressed in a non-state enforced way. Especially when it comes to ensuring universal access.

Re: food. While you are correct that direct government control over food production and distribution has in recent history been disastrous, the state still has an important role in ensuring that everyone gets enough food. When the functions of the state break down, people starve. Despite the crippling poverty that some people in America go through, no one starves to death. That cannot be guaranteed when the state lacks the power to do so.

In general, I have no problem with things being available from non-state providers, even education. But the thing that the state can do that nothing else can, is ensure that services are provided to everyone, that everyone goes to school, that everyone has enough to eat, etc etc. And today, the only way that the state is able to do this is through the implied threat of violence.

I agree with you that it is not the way it must be. In an ideal world all those things and more would be available to everyone without needing violence or the threat thereof. But as long as there's scarcity, that world cannot exist. In a post-scarcity society, then inequality becomes meaningless, and there would be no need for a state to ensure that everyone has enough. But at the same time concepts like "value" "profit" and "money" would lose all meaning, and I'm not sure how much you'd like that.

[Ichabod]

@Bacchus:

The history of grain markets in Europe and the accessory political economy makes for some of the best reading in social sciences, I highly recommend any good book on the subject.

Could you suggest some titles, please. I'm interested.

[Nicolae Carpathia]

[Gavagai]

Nicolae, every time you post, Trump gets another vote. Please, keep going.

[Commodore]

Nicolae, every time you post, Trump gets another vote. Please, keep going.

Solidifying the "Leave/Trump/LaPen/etc as memetic weapon" theory. It's a tribalist impulse, which is crummy, but very human.

[Bobchillingworth]

Nicolae, every time you post, Trump gets another vote. Please, keep going.

Thankfully the overbearing violence of the state prevents Russian anarcho-capitalists from voting in our elections.

[Bobchillingworth]

I always feel pity for fascists, btw. There are a lot of stupid and hateful ideologies in this world but only Fascism is unprotected from scorn by PC shield. If you speack about Islam in the same manner, in which Fascism is usually discussed, you'll be accused of "Islamophobia". If you dare to criticize Communism - you are dismissed as a sycophant of bourgeoisie. When a Muslim does mass-shooting - he is a lone madman, not representative of his community. When a fascist does mass shooting - this is a consequence of his ideology, of course, and another proof that Fascism is evil.
It feels that fascists have kind of drawn a short stick here. May be have something to do with them losing a war...

Islam is an extremely diverse system of spiritual and moral philosophies with hundreds of millions of peaceful followers. Fascism and Communism are extremist political ideologies of governance and policy. That you cannot understand the difference is astounding.

Also: people freely criticize Communism all the fucking time, what are you even on?


I think I'm going to have to abandon this thread. I'd like to think I have a decent tolerance for differences in political opinion, but this discourse has affected my opinions of some of you in a profoundly negative way, which I'd prefer not to impact our enjoyment of shared interests in gaming.

[Gavagai]

Islam is an extremely diverse system of spiritual and moral philosophies with hundreds of millions of peaceful followers. Fascism and Communism are extremist political ideologies of governance and policy.

Fascism and Communism are both diverse and have (or, at least, had) hundreds of millions of peaceful followers. I bet there were a lot of citizens of Nazi Germany and Mussolini Italy who were perfectly nice guys and sincerely beilived their government propaganda. I know for sure that there were good people in USSR who were and are also hard-core Stalinists, my own grandmother is case in point. For people like her Communism wasn't an extremist ideology but a mainstream belief.
On the other hand, Islam, in contrast to many other religions, places very heavy emphasis on law and politics, it is in many respects a political ideology, not just a spiritual system.
(This has understandable historical reasons - this is the only world religion which was founded by a head of state - and of a very aggressive and belligerent one. Actually, those parts of Quaran which were divined during earlier years when Mohammed was a nobody, are mostly ponies and unicorns. It is the parts which pertain to later years are the most bloodthirsty and from them groups like ISIS derive inspiration. So, it is very possible that Christians just got lucky that Jesus never became the king of Judea.)
Anyway, I'm pretty sure that most of Muslims are peaceful people, not unlike my grandmother, and that they just don't comprehend how evil is the faith to which they used to adhere from childhood. Still, this shouldn't be relevant for our judgement of Islam. And Islam does include some very bad stuff and it's not a coincidence that in most Muslim countries gays and women are treated much worse than in American Bible belt. How anyone can be blind to it always escaped my reason.

I think I'm going to have to abandon this thread. I'd like to think I have a decent tolerance for differences in political opinion, but this discourse has affected my opinions of some of you in a profoundly negative way, which I'd prefer not to impact our enjoyment of shared interests in gaming.

Sad to hear it, exactly the reason I was at first reluctant to post. For me it's easier - I always assume that any person with whom I interact most probably holds beliefs which I would consider stupid, evil or disgusting. But liberals typically communicate with other liberals, so for them political differences are always an unpleasant surprise.

[SevenSpirits]

Gavagai, the main problem I have with libertarianism is the fact that we keep getting new people.

Children are born with nothing except their future earning potential, and to not enforce transfer of some existing wealth to them is to accept slavery.