White people...

[Nihilist_santa]

Originally Posted by JurisDictum [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

That's a very stange view of history. Everything was great black when only wealthy white males could vote (slave owners often) -- but then everything got screwed up by special interest....did it ever occur to you that slave holding was a special interest?

Again how do you explain unions getting the 8 hour work week if democracy only ever serves the interest of the powerful?

I g2g but let me just say...when you disagree with me. Your disagreeing with mainstream academic thought. Don't fool yourself into thinking I'm just making my own shit up.

Exactly that. Its called a Timocracy and the people who have a say should be those with a vested interest (your land owners). Otherwise you have special interest voting for a slice of the pie but contributing nothing. This isnt new its the rise and fall of civilizations. Plato posited 5 regimes and the last phase before a Tyranny is democracy.

By the time of the civil war the industrial revolution had began. Slavery was an unsustainable strategy and was on its way out. I like how the left only shows how the left has done anything for workers. Lets not mention people like Henry Ford who essentially created the weekend and was the first person to realize you get better workers with better pay. It was all the unions! You should really get into some Thomas Sowell a thing or two about the effects of these leftist interventions on the market. For one he claims backs are adversely affected by minimum wage and affirmative action. He uses data to back up his claims. I have yet to see him debate with someone and lose.

[Scrapiron]

Sadly, humanity consumes itself with the questions of who should be the ruler. Meanwhile, those bold enough to claim no need for a ruler are shunned.

[Nihilist_santa]

A hierarchy will form within any system. Just look at p99.

[Raev]

Originally Posted by JurisDictum [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

That's a very stange view of history. Everything was great black when only wealthy white males could vote (slave owners often) -- but then everything got screwed up by special interest....did it ever occur to you that slave holding was a special interest?

Again how do you explain unions getting the 8 hour work week if democracy only ever serves the interest of the powerful?

I g2g but let me just say...when you disagree with me. Your disagreeing with mainstream academic thought. Don't fool yourself into thinking I'm just making my own shit up.

First, mainstream academic thought in useless disciplines like history or economics primarily serves to justify the ruling class. In other words, it's complete shit. Secondly, I think you should go back and chat with your marxist professor, because everything you say is just confused.

Unions get concessions because they are a special interest group and democracy serves the special interests. Like any special interest group, they don't really serve the interests of the majority, though. The California teachers and prison guards unions for example are in the process of bankrupting the state, the auto unions have nearly wrecked Detroit, etc.

Slaveholders are of course a special interest group . . . what is your point? Remember that the Emancipation Proclamation was not issued until years into the Civil War when Lincoln needed a morale boost. And while I am not a huge fan of the institution of slavery, was its abolition really worth 650,000 killed? The Civil War is still the bloodiest war in American history.

Obviously not everything was perfect in 1775. They didn't have penicillin, automobiles, or the Internet. What I am saying is that life in the United States improved because of small government and individual liberty, not unions or democracy, and now that we no longer have the former things are rapidly going down hill. I believe even women are less happy now than they were in 1970, despite the massive 'achievements' of feminism.

[Scrapiron]

Originally Posted by Raev [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

... the auto unions have nearly wrecked Detroit, etc.

I'm assuming you've not been to Detroit, (lucky you) no need to use the word "nearly" here, its pretty f'n wrecked.

[JurisDictum]

Originally Posted by Scrapiron [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Because this 'mainstream academic thought' of which you speak couldn't possibly be wrong.

It's more authoritative than 1 nut on the internet. I just want you guys to know when I talk about that cycles of power or the reasoning behind why Sweden has universal healthcare and we don't -- its not like I just came up with it myself and decided post it on p99.

A guy named John Gaventa came up with that shit in Power and Powerlessness 1980 (based on other work before him) and we have considered the studies he did convincing ever since. Meanwhile a half dozen nuts probably wrote some book about how impossible democracy is or how good years for wine cause war -- and we don't take them as seriously.

I'm just saying you should be aware of that before going the ad hominem rout. If I say "I think" or "personally" blah blah then its different. If you leave this about the merit of ideas, I'm happy to keep it in that arena.

It's not surprising conservatives find my ideas convoluted. Conservatives value intellectual closure, and are uncomfortable with ambiguity. They mistrust new sources of information and like to keep things in a world view narrative rather than delve down into details. We're getting to the point where we can identify if someone is a conservative by their brain.

There are advantages to being conservative minded. But they rarely come up in discussions about big complicated systems with lots of nuances -- were new information needs to be taken in constantly. That's basically a conservative nightmare.

[Raev]

I specifically told you that my ideas on democracy vs special interest groups are right out of Mancur Olson. Since you believe anything that is published by a professor, here you go: http://www.amazon.com/Rise-Decline-N...3085986&sr=1-1

Originally Posted by JurisDictum

It's not surprising conservatives find my ideas convoluted. Conservatives value intellectual closure, and are uncomfortable with ambiguity. They mistrust new sources of information and like to keep things in a world view narrative rather than delve down into details. We're getting to the point where we can identify if someone is a conservative by their brain.

I guess when you are losing an argument you go for the long, boring insults.

[Nihilist_santa]

Originally Posted by JurisDictum [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It's more authoritative than 1 nut on the internet. I just want you guys to know when I talk about that cycles of power or the reasoning behind why Sweden has universal healthcare and we don't -- its not like I just came up with it myself and decided post it on p99.

A guy named John Gaventa came up with that shit in Power and Powerlessness 1980 (based on other work before him) and we have considered the studies he did convincing ever since. Meanwhile a half dozen nuts probably wrote some book about how impossible democracy is or how good years for wine cause war -- and we don't take them as seriously.

I'm just saying you should be aware of that before going the ad hominem rout. If I say "I think" or "personally" blah blah then its different. If you leave this about the merit of ideas, I'm happy to keep it in that arena.

It's not surprising conservatives find my ideas convoluted. Conservatives value intellectual closure, and are uncomfortable with ambiguity. They mistrust new sources of information and like to keep things in a world view narrative rather than delve down into details. We're getting to the point where we can identify if someone is a conservative by their brain.

There are advantages to being conservative minded. But they rarely come up in discussions about big complicated systems with lots of nuances -- were new information needs to be taken in constantly. That's basically a conservative nightmare.

Your ideas are convoluted because they are an idealism. Egalitarianism is idealism. It is not observed reality. You keep bringing up the Nordics but ignore the vast wealth they accumulated through capitalist means and a homogeneous culture which is OK with sharing with like people. Otherwise they would be Valenzuela or Vietnam. Like all leftist you only come up with excuses for why your ideas fail when put into practice. The rights ideas are observed reality for centuries.

[Scrapiron]

Originally Posted by JurisDictum [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It's more authoritative than 1 nut on the internet. I just want you guys to know when I talk about that cycles of power or the reasoning behind why Sweden has universal healthcare and we don't -- its not like I just came up with it myself and decided post it on p99.

A guy named John Gaventa came up with that shit in Power and Powerlessness 1980 (based on other work before him) and we have considered the studies he did convincing ever since. Meanwhile a half dozen nuts probably wrote some book about how impossible democracy is or how good years for wine cause war -- and we don't take them as seriously.

I'm just saying you should be aware of that before going the ad hominem rout. If I say "I think" or "personally" blah blah then its different. If you leave this about the merit of ideas, I'm happy to keep it in that arena.

It's not surprising conservatives find my ideas convoluted. Conservatives value intellectual closure, and are uncomfortable with ambiguity. They mistrust new sources of information and like to keep things in a world view narrative rather than delve down into details. We're getting to the point where we can identify if someone is a conservative by their brain.

There are advantages to being conservative minded. But they rarely come up in discussions about big complicated systems with lots of nuances -- were new information needs to be taken in constantly. That's basically a conservative nightmare.

Either you don't know what 'Ad Hominem' means or you had trouble processing my statement. Perhaps you could do some introspective analysis on what it means to mistake a comment like mine as ad Hominem.

Also I could take your statements seriously, I'd really like to, but then you went on this whole conservative labeling kick right after your ad hominem mistake thing? WTF is up with that?

[JurisDictum]

Originally Posted by Raev [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

First, mainstream academic thought in useless disciplines like history or economics primarily serves to justify the ruling class. In other words, it's complete shit. Secondly, I think you should go back and chat with your marxist professor, because everything you say is just confused.

Your right, better listen to the Koch brothers and adopt their ideology instead. Obviously the majority of people with a PHD in political science, is first and foremost concerned about justifying the ruling class. That's all the do. Where as the Koch's and their think tanks have our real interest in mind. Or maybe we should listen to creepy youtube videos on the internet -- they obvious know what their talking about. Maybe you don't like those entities -- but you sure agree with them a lot.

I agree with you on economics, so do most academics. They know some useful things but their models don't reflect universal truths about "the economy" that exist independent of government and society. The economy can't be separated from governments and society like that. You have to realize a certain subset of economists are the ones tapped by government-- not necessarily reflecting mainstream opinion outside the beltway.

History is somewhat dependent on where you learn it. It's a lot better in college than high school generally speaking. There was no justifying of the ruling class in any courses I took. My high school was very pro-Israel slanted...but its common in America outside of middle east experts (who are usually holding back their real thoughts).

Democracy is a spectrum -- just so were clear. There are different definitions, but everyone agrees that there is no such thing is a "pure" democracy currently. And some argue we should call it Pluralities or various other stupid names they make up. But we find that the difference between places like England and Russia to differentiate the two.

All I'm saying is that just because we haven't had universal healthcare or 2ndary education yet -- doesn't mean its impossible. You seem to think this is a crackpot idea with no connection with reality...I feel comfortable on the ground I'm standing on with that one.

Maybe later ill post some shit about physical anthropology and why blacks aren't dumber and they really aren't one "race." It's not really my area and your the first person i met in a long time that pushed back on this. I friend who teaches Physical Anthropology and I can probably just ask him.