PDA

View Full Version : Liberals Are Losing the Culture Wars



Chris
11-08-2015, 11:27 AM
Politics shouldn't even be about social change.

Liberals Are Losing the Culture Wars (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/11/liberals-are-losing-the-culture-war/414175/)


In Tuesday’s elections, voters rejected recreational marijuana, transgender rights, and illegal-immigrant sanctuaries; they reacted equivocally to gun-control arguments; and they handed a surprise victory to a Republican gubernatorial candidate who emphasized his opposition to gay marriage.

Democrats have become increasingly assertive in taking liberal social positions in recent years, believing that they enjoy majority support and even seeking to turn abortion and gay rights into electoral wedges against Republicans. But Tuesday’s results—and the broader trend of recent elections that have been generally disastrous for Democrats not named Barack Obama—call that view into question. Indeed, they suggest that the left has misread the electorate’s enthusiasm for social change, inviting a backlash from mainstream voters invested in the status quo.

Consider these results:


Ohio voters rejected a ballot initiative to legalize recreational marijuana by a 30-point margin.

Voters in Houston—a strongly Democratic city—rejected by a 20-point margin a nondiscrimination ordinance that opponents said would lead to “men in women’s bathrooms.”

The San Francisco sheriff who had defended the city’s sanctuary policy after a sensational murder by an illegal immigrant was voted out.

Two Republican state senate candidates in Virginia were targeted by Everytown for Gun Safety, former New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg’s gun-control group. One won and one lost, leaving the chamber in GOP hands.

Matt Bevin, the Republican gubernatorial nominee in Kentucky, pulled out a resounding victory that defied the polls after emphasizing social issues and championing Kim Davis, the county clerk who went to jail rather than issue same-sex marriage licenses. Bevin told the Washington Post on the eve of the vote that he’d initially planned to stress economic issues, but found that “this is what moves people.”



...Liberals love to point out the fractiousness of the GOP, whose dramatic fissures have racked the House of Representatives and tormented party leaders. But as Matt Yglesias recently pointed out, Republican divisions are actually signs of an ideologically flexible big-tent party, while Democrats are in lockstep around an agenda whose popularity they too often fail to question. Democrats want to believe Americans are on board with their vision of social change—but they might win more elections if they meet voters where they really are.

Kurmugeon
11-08-2015, 12:02 PM
In the 2016 Presidential Elections, which are what COUNTS in an increasingly Imperial Presidency run country...

The Dems will roll out their massive Illegal Immigrant Voter Fraud Machine.

If we do not insist upon Voter ID in 2016, the Lefties will seize permanent control of the nation.

Keep in mind, you CAN use the Voter Fraud Machine in the general election.

It is far, far, more efficient to use the Voter Fraud Machine in the Primary, to select the opposition Candidate you can come closest to beating in a fair General election.

Then you do not have to push anywhere near so hard in the General Election, thereby reducing the chances of having the Fraud Votes challenged!

Also,...



Illegal Immigrants who vote, do NOT vote just once!



-

Common
11-08-2015, 12:31 PM
Well this thread sounds good but all you need to do is go back to last few Scotus rulings to see that liberals are actually winning. One battle in one state does not make for winning the war.

Just to be clear I disagree with many Liberal Culture ideals

Chris
11-08-2015, 12:35 PM
Well this thread sounds good but all you need to do is go back to last few Scotus rulings to see that liberals are actually winning. One battle in one state does not make for winning the war.

Just to be clear I disagree with many Liberal Culture ideals


That seems to indicate a widening divide between the people and their government.

Gypsy
11-08-2015, 12:49 PM
Ohio voters didn't approve of only 10 companies supplying pot. Proponents of legalization were against the law as it was written. It had nothing to do with social change.

domer76
11-08-2015, 01:06 PM
Politics shouldn't even be about social change.

Liberals Are Losing the Culture Wars (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/11/liberals-are-losing-the-culture-war/414175/)

Same sex marriage is a done deal. As well as equal protection under the law for gays, regardless what a particular community votes in. The 'men in women's bathroom' was a scam, an effective one, bought by low information idiots. Let the lawsuits begin.

Nationally legalizing MJ is only a matter of time.

The social Neanderthals can win in pockets throughout the nation. On a national scale, it's a losing proposition

Chris
11-08-2015, 01:08 PM
Same sex marriage is a done deal. As well as equal protection under the law for gays, regardless what a particular community votes in. The 'men in women's bathroom' was a scam, an effective one, bought by low information idiots. Let the lawsuits begin.

Nationally legalizing MJ is only a matter of time.

The social Neanderthals can win in pockets throughout the nation. On a national scale, it's a losing proposition

Again, all court decisions reflecting the widening gap between the people and the federal government.

Social/cultural warriors, right and left, are neanderthals.

Mac-7
11-08-2015, 02:11 PM
Drugs kill more people than cars or guns

http://www.syracuse.com/opinion/index.ssf/2015

Kurmugeon
11-08-2015, 02:20 PM
Drugs kill more people than cars or guns

http://www.syracuse.com/opinion/index.ssf/2015

But Pot, if not smoked, there by introducing tar and other carcinogenic toxins into the lungs and sinuses, does not often cause violent behavior.

I am told that habitual use might cause obesity, because of changes in appetite, and lowering of physical activity.

The principle reason that Pot causes deaths, is that it trains people to seek chemical highs, and acts as a gateway to harsher illegal drugs.

What ever happened to the emotional high of shooting a perfect "Swoosh" shot in basket ball, a cute woman's kiss, or a child's happy giggle... or similar "Rewards"?

Would a dedicated "Christian Culture Warrior" have any success in trying to re-instill the values that honor such "Rewards" as more valuable, than a chemical high?

There are potentially two sides and directions to a "Culture War".

Could a "Core Values" counter attack be made by Christian and Other dedicated people of conscience?

-

Chris
11-08-2015, 02:40 PM
Drugs kill more people than cars or guns

http://www.syracuse.com/opinion/index.ssf/2015

Link fix: http://www.syracuse.com/opinion/index.ssf/2015/11/drugs_kill_more_americans_than_guns_or_car_crashes _by_the_numbers.html#incart_river

You are conflating marijuana--part of the topic--with heroin, methamphetamine and prescription medication. That doesn't fly even by your link.

Common
11-08-2015, 03:21 PM
That seems to indicate a widening divide between the people and their government.

No actually what it is, is refuting the articles claim. I think the divide between the people and the govt is as much of the population as this forum likes to indicate it is

Chris
11-08-2015, 03:22 PM
No actually what it is, is refuting the articles claim. I think the divide between the people and the govt is as much of the population as this forum likes to indicate it is

But the OP provides many examples of differences between the people and liberalism and the government.

Common
11-08-2015, 03:39 PM
But the OP provides many examples of differences between the people and liberalism and the government.

Many differences yes but does that translate into a majority ? You specifically said divide between people and their govt and I agree its more prevelent now than in the past. I do think however when obama leaves the whitehouse that will change somewhat. Obama hating is driving some of it.

domer76
11-08-2015, 03:41 PM
Again, all court decisions reflecting the widening gap between the people and the federal government.

Social/cultural warriors, right and left, are neanderthals.

Those who have disregard for any government structure at all should simply STFU

Chris
11-08-2015, 03:41 PM
Many differences yes but does that translate into a majority ? You specifically said divide between people and their govt and I agree its more prevelent now than in the past. I do think however when obama leaves the whitehouse that will change somewhat. Obama hating is driving some of it.

I didn't read anything in the OP about Obama. And we're not a majoritarian democracy. Most of the matters should be left to the states, if not the people themselves, they are social issues after all.

Captain Obvious
11-08-2015, 04:11 PM
Well this thread sounds good but all you need to do is go back to last few Scotus rulings to see that liberals are actually winning. One battle in one state does not make for winning the war.

Just to be clear I disagree with many Liberal Culture ideals

Yeah, I sort of agree with that assessment too, you can't look at a handful of events and suggest they're a trend or a norm.

I don't know if I agree with the term "culture war" also because I think liberal cultural ideology is mental masturbation at it's finest, especially when they have to employ tactics like political correctness to cover up what are basically societal failures.

Liberals have ideology and while it looks great on paper, in practical sense there are many, many failures, to which they then blame conservatives and try to stack the deck generally at others expenses.

Conservative social ideology is bullshit in large part also but in a different way. They use things like "family", "faith" hypocritically in order to give the institution more power and control. Liberals do this also but they enslave their support by enabling them into cyclical failure.

Mac-7
11-08-2015, 04:12 PM
But Pot, if not smoked, there by introducing tar and other carcinogenic toxins into the lungs and sinuses, does not often cause violent behavior.

I am told that habitual use might cause obesity, because of changes in appetite, and lowering of physical activity.

The principle reason that Pot causes deaths, is that it trains people to seek chemical highs, and acts as a gateway to harsher illegal drugs.

What ever happened to the emotional high of shooting a perfect "Swoosh" shot in basket ball, a cute woman's kiss, or a child's happy giggle... or similar "Rewards"?

Would a dedicated "Christian Culture Warrior" have any success in trying to re-instill the values that honor such "Rewards" as more valuable, than a chemical high?

There are potentially two sides and directions to a "Culture War".

Could a "Core Values" counter attack be made by Christian and Other dedicated people of conscience?

-

It's also been reported that pot lowers IQ in adolescents

Mac-7
11-08-2015, 04:14 PM
Link fix: http://www.syracuse.com/opinion/index.ssf/2015/11/drugs_kill_more_americans_than_guns_or_car_crashes _by_the_numbers.html#incart_river

You are conflating marijuana--part of the topic--with heroin, methamphetamine and prescription medication. That doesn't fly even by your link.

Pot by itself may not kill

But one drug often leads to another that does kill

Captain Obvious
11-08-2015, 04:14 PM
Pot by itself may not kill

But one drug often leads to another that does kill

Kinda like alcohol is often used in tandem with illicit drugs?

Captain Obvious
11-08-2015, 04:15 PM
It's also been reported that pot lowers IQ in adolescents

You misspelled RW political hackery.

Chris
11-08-2015, 04:24 PM
It's also been reported that pot lowers IQ in adolescents

Care to post the study, summarize it, tell us how much loss, explain the shortcomings of the study?

Also, do you know if the study has been scientifically replicated?

Chris
11-08-2015, 04:26 PM
Pot by itself may not kill

But one drug often leads to another that does kill

It can in addictive personalities. Do you have evidence or mere anecdote?

Chris
11-08-2015, 04:28 PM
Yeah, I sort of agree with that assessment too, you can't look at a handful of events and suggest they're a trend or a norm.

I don't know if I agree with the term "culture war" also because I think liberal cultural ideology is mental masturbation at it's finest, especially when they have to employ tactics like political correctness to cover up what are basically societal failures.

Liberals have ideology and while it looks great on paper, in practical sense there are many, many failures, to which they then blame conservatives and try to stack the deck generally at others expenses.

Conservative social ideology is bullshit in large part also but in a different way. They use things like "family", "faith" hypocritically in order to give the institution more power and control. Liberals do this also but they enslave their support by enabling them into cyclical failure.

The point can however be made that legal centralism, decisions at the federal level, just do not on-size-fits-all people at the local level.

Mac-7
11-08-2015, 04:34 PM
Care to post the study, summarize it, tell us how much loss, explain the shortcomings of the study?

Also, do you know if the study has been scientifically replicated?

The report came from Europe

But I really don't care if you believe it or not so no I'm not going io hunt it down for you

Kurmugeon
11-08-2015, 04:47 PM
It's also been reported that pot lowers IQ in adolescents

I know studies have been done that show that THC interferes with brain chemistry mechanisms which allow short term memory to be converted to long term memory.

In fact, the drugs that were developed to stop car accident victims from being mentally traumatized by car crash injuries, were a spin off from that research. They block the formation of permanent memories of the crash and the pain of the injuries.

My 8 year old daughter was one who benefited from those drugs, after a particularly bad car crash.

But if used routinely, particularly as "After-School" entertainment, the routine loss of long term memories, even if the effects were not permanent, would make academic achievement difficult.

With little high achievement, academics would not be "Fun".

The brain is like any other part of the body, the more it is used, the more developed it becomes.

A person who never runs, will usually get weak heart/lungs/leg muscles.

IQ tests are designed to test the ability to learn, reason, and decipher, not a test of memorized knowledge or learned skills.

An IQ test is designed to prevent a bias toward those with large academic knowledge from being given an edge.

But a person who has little success at routine academics, would be inclined to spend less time in intellectual pursuits, and therefore would have a "Soft and Out of Condition" Brain, and likely score lower on IQ tests, even if the effects of the THC were not permanent.

The effects of not routinely challenging your brain to complex reasoning tasks, keeping it in top condition, would definitely show in an IQ test.

-

Chris
11-08-2015, 04:50 PM
The report came from Europe

But I really don't care if you believe it or not so no I'm not going io hunt it down for you

So you haven't a clue what it actually found or whether it's been replicated.

Also, no, it didn't come from Europe.

Cigar
11-08-2015, 05:27 PM
:laugh: Losing the Culture Wars ... Really, sure is news to Liberals :laugh:

Have you been sleep for the last 7 years :grin:

Chris
11-08-2015, 05:32 PM
:laugh: Losing the Culture Wars ... Really, sure is news to Liberals :laugh:

Have you been sleep for the last 7 years :grin:


You're winning the government, not the people.

It's none of government's business.

Common
11-08-2015, 06:40 PM
I didn't read anything in the OP about Obama. And we're not a majoritarian democracy. Most of the matters should be left to the states, if not the people themselves, they are social issues after all.

The leave it to the state stuff is nonsense this isnt the United States of Texas or New Hampshire

Mac-7
11-08-2015, 06:49 PM
Well this thread sounds good but all you need to do is go back to last few Scotus rulings to see that liberals are actually winning. One battle in one state does not make for winning the war.



Its the liberal way

300 million citizens say one thing and 5 unelected dictators overrule them

Gypsy
11-08-2015, 06:51 PM
Its the liberal way

300 million citizens say one thing and 5 unelected dictators overrule them

5 unelected dictators?

Mac-7
11-08-2015, 06:55 PM
5 unelected dictators?


Aka lib judges

OGIS
11-08-2015, 06:55 PM
Ohio voters didn't approve of only 10 companies supplying pot. Proponents of legalization were against the law as it was written. It had nothing to do with social change.

Tried to give you a "reputation" up on this, but got the message that I've given out too many in the last few hours. WTH? I don't think I've given out very many today. What's going on?

Kurmugeon
11-08-2015, 06:58 PM
Its the liberal way

300 million citizens say one thing and 5 unelected dictators overrule them
Three Votes for the Conservative-Justices under the Thumb,
Seven Votes for the RINO Aile Crossers in halls of Congress,
Five Progressive-Justices to betray the Common Man doomed to die,

One for the Dark Lord on his dark throne
In the Land of Amerika, where the Media lies.
One Obama-Veto to rule them all, One Obama-Veto to find them,
One Obama-Veto to bring them all and in the darkness bind them
In the Land of Amerika, where the Media lies.

-

Mac-7
11-08-2015, 07:04 PM
Three Votes for the Conservative-Justices under the Thumb,
Seven Votes for the RINO Aile Crossers in halls of Congress,
Five Progressive-Justices to betray the Common Man doomed to die,

One for the Dark Lord on his dark throne
In the Land of Amerika, where the Media lies.
One Obama-Veto to rule them all, One Obama-Veto to find them,
One Obama-Veto to bring them all and in the darkness bind them
In the Land of Amerika, where the Media lies.

-

The sad thing is the libs who see no difference between dems and repubs and will happily welcome hillary as the next president while bragging about how much survival food they have stockpiled.

Mister D
11-08-2015, 07:06 PM
Tried to give you a "reputation" up on this, but got the message that I've given out too many in the last few hours. WTH? I don't think I've given out very many today. What's going on?

Clearly someone is upset that you have exposed the dominionist network and their plans for world domination.

Peter1469
11-08-2015, 07:11 PM
The sad thing is the libs who see no difference between dems and repubs and will happily welcome hillary as the next president while bragging about how much survival food they have stockpiled.

Who is happily welcoming Hillary? You?

Gypsy
11-08-2015, 07:23 PM
Aka lib judges

5 were nominated by Republican Presidents, 4 were nominated by Democratic Presidents. All were confirmed by not necessarily the people we voted for but elected. But you know this. You're just being contrary.

Chris
11-08-2015, 07:23 PM
Tried to give you a "reputation" up on this, but got the message that I've given out too many in the last few hours. WTH? I don't think I've given out very many today. What's going on?

We're setting limits. Explanation soon enough.

Gypsy
11-08-2015, 07:24 PM
Who is happily welcoming Hillary? You?

This may be the first election I sit out.

Chris
11-08-2015, 07:25 PM
Who is happily welcoming Hillary? You?

A vote for an establishment Rep is a vote for Hillary.

Rand Paul called her a neocon other day, and with good reason.

Chris
11-08-2015, 07:25 PM
Its the liberal way

300 million citizens say one thing and 5 unelected dictators overrule them

Or it's Congress, or the President. Being elected doesn't justify anything.

Gypsy
11-08-2015, 07:26 PM
We're setting limits. Explanation soon enough.

I like to thank the people I want to thank when I want to thank them. Is that enough thanks? lol

Chris
11-08-2015, 07:27 PM
I like to thank the people I want to thank when I want to thank them. Is that enough thanks? lol

No limit on thanks.

OGIS
11-08-2015, 07:28 PM
But Pot, if not smoked, there by introducing tar and other carcinogenic toxins into the lungs and sinuses, does not often cause violent behavior.

Actually, the science is still not settled on that. AFAIK no valid studies (similar to the tobacco studies) have been done on the toxicity of cannabis smoke. There are invalid NIDA show studies, where rats were put in oxygen-deficient atmospheres choked with cannabis smoke, the equivalent of 5,000 joints smoked in less than an hour. These results are, of course, laughably contemptible. Aside from that people assume that the toxicity would be similar (minus, of course, the poison nicotine, which is NOT in cannabis). That is, however a dangerous assumption: done the other direction it would let you assume that you could breathe poison sumac smoke as easily as tobacco smoke. And then you would be dead.


I am told that habitual use might cause obesity, because of changes in appetite, and lowering of physical activity.

I know several overweight and diabetic seniors here who are using the Durban Poison strain to reduce appetite. Also, there's some metastudy that indicated that for heavy pot smokers their BMI and risk of diabetes were both lower. Physical activity lowered? I LOVE walking while high. I know "pothead" seniors here who are into all kinds of physical activity, mainly bike riding. But I like the Sativas; an Indica person, or one with a high-CBD strain, might indeed be more sedentary.


The principle reason that Pot causes deaths, is that it trains people to seek chemical highs, and acts as a gateway to harsher illegal drugs.

Hmmmm..... is that your way of saying that it is a Gateway Drug? If so, then please provide some statistical proof of that, because I think that's a Reefer Madness meme. Alcohol and tobacco are far more likely to do that.

The argument that people can buy harder drugs from dealers who also sell pot is also invalid. If cannabis was legal, and not insanely taxed, people would buy from legal stores, not "dealers" on street corners. Tell me: when was the last time you went into a liquor store and bought meth? Tell me: when was the last time you went into a liquor store and bought illegally distilled white lightning?


What ever happened to the emotional high of shooting a perfect "Swoosh" shot in basket ball, a cute woman's kiss, or a child's happy giggle... or similar "Rewards"?

Still there, bro. Just modified, possibly enhanced, by the high.


Would a dedicated "Christian Culture Warrior" have any success in trying to re-instill the values that honor such "Rewards" as more valuable, than a chemical high?

I've known more than a few Christian Hippy Stoners. When my wife and I were homeless we accepted Friday night spaghetti dinners at the digs on one couple who were all three. You could smell the scent of damn good hash when you were in line to get your plate.


There are potentially two sides and directions to a "Culture War".
Could a "Core Values" counter attack be made by Christian and Other dedicated people of conscience?

Attack away. But don't use force. I wonder which side has the most firepower?

Intellectually, those in favor of liberty do. Physically? We may see.

OGIS
11-08-2015, 07:33 PM
Yeah, I sort of agree with that assessment too, you can't look at a handful of events and suggest they're a trend or a norm.

I don't know if I agree with the term "culture war" also because I think liberal cultural ideology is mental masturbation at it's finest, especially when they have to employ tactics like political correctness to cover up what are basically societal failures.

Liberals have ideology and while it looks great on paper, in practical sense there are many, many failures, to which they then blame conservatives and try to stack the deck generally at others expenses.

Conservative social ideology is bull$#@! in large part also but in a different way. They use things like "family", "faith" hypocritically in order to give the institution more power and control. Liberals do this also but they enslave their support by enabling them into cyclical failure.

Dammit! Stop surprising me! Every time I slot you into a "Troll but fun to read" pigeonhole you go and say something intelligent.

OGIS
11-08-2015, 07:33 PM
It's also been reported that pot lowers IQ in adolescents

Citation, please.

Peter1469
11-08-2015, 07:34 PM
This may be the first election I sit out.


We shall see what is on the ballot.

Mister D
11-08-2015, 07:35 PM
Dammit! Stop surprising me! Every time I slot you into a "Troll but fun to read" pigeonhole you go and say something intelligent.

You call everyone who won't humor your more bizarre comments a troll, OGIS. :rollseyes:

OGIS
11-08-2015, 07:35 PM
I know studies have been done that show that THC interferes with brain chemistry mechanisms which allow short term memory to be converted to long term memory.

In fact, the drugs that were developed to stop car accident victims from being mentally traumatized by car crash injuries, were a spin off from that research. They block the formation of permanent memories of the crash and the pain of the injuries.

My 8 year old daughter was one who benefited from those drugs, after a particularly bad car crash.

But if used routinely, particularly as "After-School" entertainment, the routine loss of long term memories, even if the effects were not permanent, would make academic achievement difficult.

With little high achievement, academics would not be "Fun".

The brain is like any other part of the body, the more it is used, the more developed it becomes.

A person who never runs, will usually get weak heart/lungs/leg muscles.

IQ tests are designed to test the ability to learn, reason, and decipher, not a test of memorized knowledge or learned skills.

An IQ test is designed to prevent a bias toward those with large academic knowledge from being given an edge.

But a person who has little success at routine academics, would be inclined to spend less time in intellectual pursuits, and therefore would have a "Soft and Out of Condition" Brain, and likely score lower on IQ tests, even if the effects of the THC were not permanent.

The effects of not routinely challenging your brain to complex reasoning tasks, keeping it in top condition, would definitely show in an IQ test.

-


Citation, please.

OGIS
11-08-2015, 07:39 PM
Three Votes for the Conservative-Justices under the Thumb,
Seven Votes for the RINO Aile Crossers in halls of Congress,
Five Progressive-Justices to betray the Common Man doomed to die,

One for the Dark Lord on his dark throne
In the Land of Amerika, where the Media lies.
One Obama-Veto to rule them all, One Obama-Veto to find them,
One Obama-Veto to bring them all and in the darkness bind them
In the Land of Amerika, where the Media lies.

-

OK, thumbs up for a cool analogy. Dumb, but stylish. I'd give you a reputation, but apparently I've used my allotment for the day.

Chris
11-08-2015, 07:42 PM
Citation, please.

Mac doesn't know, he just heard about it.

http://www.pnas.org/content/109/40/E2657.full.pdf (.PDF)

Pay attention to actual findings, shortcomings--and the fact no one else has replicated the findings.

jimmyz
11-08-2015, 07:44 PM
Dammit! Stop surprising me! Every time I slot you into a "Troll but fun to read" pigeonhole you go and say something intelligent.

Trolls can surprise. I'm a troll to those of different political leanings. But I surprise them every 6th post.

Kurmugeon
11-08-2015, 07:57 PM
Citation, please.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/scientists-explain-marijuana-short-term-memory-loss/

OGIS
11-08-2015, 09:55 PM
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/scientists-explain-marijuana-short-term-memory-loss/

A-HAH! So that was the methodology behind that study. I knew about it but never drilled down to the theory behind it (the astrocytes). I just looked at the methodology and populations. Good study. BUT.... What the people that cite that study always fail to mention is that the study itself determined that those neuronal disconnects are temporary.

What I sometimes experience are sudden memories that I had forgotten, sometimes from childhood... but can't remember why the hell I walked from the living room to the kitchen. But I remember later. Or I simply do a strange little "work through" from some prior action, this triggering the memory.

My theory is that pot goes through the mind like a old fashioned, crazed, switchboard operator and switches connections, which eventually switch back.

I think it was this same study that noted that neural connects are actually increased. Again, this was spun by the Drug Warriors as "ZOMFG BRAIN STRUCTURE CHANGES!!111!!!", failing to mention, of course, than many substances, including coffee and most OTC pain relievers, can trigger the same kind of changes.

Also, as the original article in Nature states:

"A study2 (http://www.nature.com/news/how-marijuana-makes-you-forget-1.10152#b2) published in 2010 showed that people who smoke strains of marijuana containing high concentrations of an ingredient called cannabidiol do not experience memory impairments. These strains may be the best ones to harness for medicinal purposes."

When I smoke high CBD weed (which I hate because of the couchlock, so I rarely do so) I notice that my temporary forgetfulness is far, far less noticeable.

But there are strains that can have any possible effect you might wish. At https://www.leafly.com/explore they now have 1621 strains listed. And every one of them has at least one unique genetic variant and at least one cannabinoid/terpene profile. (Growing conditions and amount of light can affect this profile, even if the genetics are identical.)

OGIS
11-08-2015, 10:53 PM
Mac doesn't know, he just heard about it.

http://www.pnas.org/content/109/40/E2657.full.pdf (.PDF)

Pay attention to actual findings, shortcomings--and the fact no one else has replicated the findings.

Yeah, I wasn't impressed.

donttread
11-08-2015, 11:12 PM
That seems to indicate a widening divide between the people and their government.

Yes, but many of the people are too distracted to notice

Mac-7
11-09-2015, 01:59 PM
Mac doesn't know, he just heard about it.

http://www.pnas.org/content/109/40/E2657.full.pdf (.PDF)

Pay attention to actual findings, shortcomings--and the fact no one else has replicated the findings.

There are findings released every day by hired guns in academia that promote or refute other findings

Science has been corrupted by liberalism and money

Kurmugeon
11-09-2015, 02:03 PM
If you want to use tonnes of Pot or even harder drugs, I won't be the person calling on the Government to stop you.

As long as you're not driving or operating heavy machinery, etc. I don't care what you do.

I believe you will lower your IQ, shorten your life, lower your motivation to do great works, and trouble your interpersonal relationships with such behavior, but I'd give you the freedom to do so... Just don't ask me to pay for the consequences.

-

Chris
11-09-2015, 02:15 PM
There are findings released every day by hired guns in academia that promote or refute other findings

Science has been corrupted by liberalism and money

The authors of the study you brought up, they themselves discussed the short-comings of the study.

But I see now that anything that disagrees with you is a conspiracy. How can you ever get a glimpse of truth that way?

exploited
11-09-2015, 02:38 PM
If you look at the demographics, it is plainly obvious that liberal values will dominate the political landscape in the future. The one and only exception to this is the immigration debate, and the only reason that might go conservative is because it will be necessary to protect liberalism from heavily religious, traditional cultures.

This is to be expected though, because liberal values always reign supreme. That is because they are really nothing more than the expansion of privileges to people who didn't have them before. This process has always occured in the West, and so long as we embrace ideas of liberty and equality, will continue far into the future.

Chris
11-09-2015, 02:41 PM
If you look at the demographics, it is plainly obvious that liberal values will dominate the political landscape in the future. The one and only exception to this is the immigration debate, and the only reason that might go conservative is because it will be necessary to protect liberalism from heavily religious, traditional cultures.

This is to be expected though, because liberal values always reign supreme. That is because they are really nothing more than the expansion of privileges to people who didn't have them before. This process has always occured in the West, and so long as we embrace ideas of liberty and equality, will continue far into the future.

"the political landscape" which is the point of the OP. The people and the political are two different things. The liberal has learned rent seeking political power.

Oppenheimer, The State, was speaking economically, but it applies here: "There are two fundamentally opposed means whereby man, requiring sustenance, is impelled to obtain the necessary means for satisfying his desires. These are work and robbery, one’s own labor and the forcible appropriation of the labor of others."

exploited
11-09-2015, 02:46 PM
"the political landscape" which is the point of the OP. The people and the political are two different things. The liberal has learned rent seeking political power.

Oppenheimer, The State, was speaking economically, but it applies here: "There are two fundamentally opposed means whereby man, requiring sustenance, is impelled to obtain the necessary means for satisfying his desires. These are work and robbery, one’s own labor and the forcible appropriation of the labor of others."

This is a good thing. The wealthy and the middle class have used tremendous force to sustain their position in the world. For a long time, that force was within acceptable boundaries. With today's wealth inequality, that is no longer the case. Vast quantities of wealth and power have been simply stolen from people, and they are organizing to get it back. Good for them.

Mac-7
11-09-2015, 02:52 PM
The authors of the study you brought up, they themselves discussed the short-comings of the study.

But I see now that anything that disagrees with you is a conspiracy. How can you ever get a glimpse of truth that way?

I'm sure all the academics agree the studies have shortcoming

That means more studies and job security

Kurmugeon
11-09-2015, 02:52 PM
"the political landscape" which is the point of the OP. The people and the political are two different things. The liberal has learned rent seeking political power.

Oppenheimer, The State, was speaking economically, but it applies here: "There are two fundamentally opposed means whereby man, requiring sustenance, is impelled to obtain the necessary means for satisfying his desires. These are work and robbery, one’s own labor and the forcible appropriation of the labor of others."

The problem with robbery, and in that, I include "socialism", is that sooner or later, you run out of victims and other people's money.

-

exploited
11-09-2015, 02:54 PM
The problem with robbery, and in that, I include "socialism", is that sooner or later, you run out of victims and other people's money.

-

I'm guessing here that patents, government roads, the military, science funding, etc. are not socialistic? I tend to find when people attempt to compare socialism with robbery, what they are really referring to isn't robbery, but social programs they don't agree with. Those they do are either "necessary," or fine because some guys three hundred years ago said it was so.

Chris
11-09-2015, 03:02 PM
This is a good thing. The wealthy and the middle class have used tremendous force to sustain their position in the world. For a long time, that force was within acceptable boundaries. With today's wealth inequality, that is no longer the case. Vast quantities of wealth and power have been simply stolen from people, and they are organizing to get it back. Good for them.

Yes, via political means, i.e., the government that sells out to the rich its political favors. Same is in the economical world the social world is being taken over by special interest groups. Government has no business meddling in econoical or social issues.

Chris
11-09-2015, 03:03 PM
I'm sure all the academics agree the studies have shortcoming

That means more studies and job security


Mac, you were the one brought up the academic study. Now you've turned hostile to your witness.

exploited
11-09-2015, 03:08 PM
Yes, via political means, i.e., the government that sells out to the rich its political favors. Same is in the economical world the social world is being taken over by special interest groups. Government has no business meddling in econoical or social issues.

I disagree, the government must be involved, as it is government force that provides the framework for capitalism (private property, patents, etc). To first make it impossible to survive without capital, and then do nothing to ensure that it is distributed at least somewhat sanely, is no better than a closed economic system like communism.

OGIS
11-09-2015, 03:09 PM
There are findings released every day by hired guns in academia that promote or refute other findings

Science has been corrupted by liberalism and money


The authors of the study you brought up, they themselves discussed the short-comings of the study.

But I see now that anything that disagrees with you is a conspiracy. How can you ever get a glimpse of truth that way?


I'm sure all the academics agree the studies have shortcoming

That means more studies and job security

And thus we seen the end spiral of Southern Democrat know-nothing-ism devolving into total ignorance of science, culture, economics... indeed, everything except the Buy Bull. They believe nothing because they can trust nothing.

Common Sense
11-09-2015, 03:12 PM
I don't know if the OP equates liberals losing so called culture wars. The Ohio example is a bit misleading. That pot bill was voted down by legalization groups because it would benefit only corporate producers.

The country is and has been moving left for some time.I don't see that changing any time soon. Acceptance of gay marriage is just one example.

Chris
11-09-2015, 03:13 PM
The problem with robbery, and in that, I include "socialism", is that sooner or later, you run out of victims and other people's money.

-

And you disincentivize work. Why should I slave for a master government?

(Not socialism, but let's not get bogged down in terms.)

Chris
11-09-2015, 03:15 PM
I don't know if the OP equates liberals losing so called culture wars. The Ohio example is a bit misleading. That pot bill was voted down by legalization groups because it would benefit only corporate producers.

The country is and has been moving left for some time.I don't see that changing any time soon. Acceptance of gay marriage is just one example.


Still it was politics that sought benefit for only corporate producers--probably easier to tax. --That was only one example of the disatance between the government and the people.

The country has been moving left politically. Not the people.

Chris
11-09-2015, 03:17 PM
I disagree, the government must be involved, as it is government force that provides the framework for capitalism (private property, patents, etc). To first make it impossible to survive without capital, and then do nothing to ensure that it is distributed at least somewhat sanely, is no better than a closed economic system like communism.

Why must government be involved? The basic for free market capitalism goes back to prehistoric times in division of labor, specialisation and trade, long, long, long before the state appeared.

Common Sense
11-09-2015, 03:19 PM
Still it was politics that sought benefit for only corporate producers--probably easier to tax. --That was only one example of the disatance between the government and the people.

The country has been moving left politically. Not the people.

I disagree.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/183413/americans-continue-shift-left-key-moral-issues.aspx?utm_source=Social%20Issues&utm_medium=newsfeed&utm_campaign=tiles

exploited
11-09-2015, 03:21 PM
Why must government be involved? The basic for free market capitalism goes back to prehistoric times in division of labor, specialisation and trade, long, long, long before the state appeared.

Sure, and the basis for take-what-I-want politics goes back much, much further.

Property rights are the bedrock of capitalism, and property rights are guaranteed through government violence. It is therefore perfectly natural that government plays some role in establishing what is and is not acceptable in terms of economic outcomes. An approach intended to preserve a decent amount of economic equality, while maximizing personal liberty, is obviously vastly superior than the government simply deciding that it is impossible to survive without capital and then doing nothing when wealth consolidates.

Chris
11-09-2015, 03:29 PM
Sure, and the basis for take-what-I-want politics goes back much, much further.

Property rights are the bedrock of capitalism, and property rights are guaranteed through government violence. It is therefore perfectly natural that government plays some role in establishing what is and is not acceptable in terms of economic outcomes. An approach intended to preserve a decent amount of economic equality, while maximizing personal liberty, is obviously vastly superior than the government simply deciding that it is impossible to survive without capital and then doing nothing when wealth consolidates.

Politics comes with the state which came much, much later than free-market exchange. The modern state has only been around perhaps 1-2% of the time man gas existed.

Take what you can is political.

Rights are not political violence either.

exploited
11-09-2015, 03:40 PM
Politics comes with the state which came much, much later than free-market exchange. The modern state has only been around perhaps 1-2% of the time man gas existed.

Take what you can is political.

Rights are not political violence either.

Politics has been around since the first caveman gazed longingly at the leaders harem. It was not invented by the state, it did not come about due to the state, it is merely the application and discussion of rules that will govern a group. Native Americans used to banish those who violated social norms; other cultures would outright murder them. As far back as we can measure, we see politics, and violence, always intertwined.

Rights are definitely violent, we just realize the utility of that violence. If I go to an apple orchard, and take some apples without asking, that is stealing, no? And stealing can be met with force, within reasonable limits, by private and public parties, correct? Being able to do that is because society has decided to recognize the orchard owners right to the land, and that right comes about by purchasing it and gaining title, a process equally as reliant upon government force. At no point along the way does it become non-violent - we have just decided that this particular form of violence is socially and economically beneficial. Meanwhile the thief did nothing more than eat fruit grown on a tree.

This is the fatal flaw in the libertarian position: property rights are the most violent social agenda in history, undeniably useful, but still just groups of people agreeing to use force against others in the name of a common goal.

As it relates to our discussion, the government has made it largely illegal to live off the land. It has made it impossible to survive without participating economically. It therefore has some responsibility to regulate the outcomes of its programs.

Chris
11-09-2015, 03:57 PM
I disagree.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/183413/americans-continue-shift-left-key-moral-issues.aspx?utm_source=Social%20Issues&utm_medium=newsfeed&utm_campaign=tiles

A political poll.

Chris
11-09-2015, 03:59 PM
Politics has been around since the first caveman gazed longingly at the leaders harem. It was not invented by the state, it did not come about due to the state, it is merely the application and discussion of rules that will govern a group. Native Americans used to banish those who violated social norms; other cultures would outright murder them. As far back as we can measure, we see politics, and violence, always intertwined.

Rights are definitely violent, we just realize the utility of that violence. If I go to an apple orchard, and take some apples without asking, that is stealing, no? And stealing can be met with force, within reasonable limits, by private and public parties, correct? Being able to do that is because society has decided to recognize the orchard owners right to the land, and that right comes about by purchasing it and gaining title, a process equally as reliant upon government force. At no point along the way does it become non-violent - we have just decided that this particular form of violence is socially and economically beneficial. Meanwhile the thief did nothing more than eat fruit grown on a tree.

This is the fatal flaw in the libertarian position: property rights are the most violent social agenda in history, undeniably useful, but still just groups of people agreeing to use force against others in the name of a common goal.

As it relates to our discussion, the government has made it largely illegal to live off the land. It has made it impossible to survive without participating economically. It therefore has some responsibility to regulate the outcomes of its programs.

Politics has not been around until the coercive state emerge in recent times.

Your assumptions are faulty. What foows on those assumptions cannot be true.

I see even you end up blaming the government.

exploited
11-09-2015, 04:01 PM
Politics has not been around until the coercive state emerge in recent times.

Your assumptions are faulty. What foows on those assumptions cannot be true.

I see even you end up blaming the government.

So Rome didn't have politics? Or did the modern coercive state emerge before then?

None of that post assumes anything. It is all very basic stuff, and I invite you to point out which argument in particular was an assumption.

Chris
11-09-2015, 04:08 PM
So Rome didn't have politics? Or did the modern coercive state emerge before then?

None of that post assumes anything. It is all very basic stuff, and I invite you to point out which argument in particular was an assumption.

Rome wasn't millions of years ago.

No, your argument was based on faulty assumptions which I already pointed out.

exploited
11-09-2015, 04:11 PM
Rome wasn't millions of years ago.

No, your argument was based on faulty assumptions which I already pointed out.

Sorry, I didn't see where you pointed them out, and looking back, I still can't find any specific rebuttal to any specific argument. Would you mind linking me to your post? Or perhaps just copy-pasting?

So when exactly did the coercive state emerge? I could keep on guessing your timeframe for when politics was invented, but it would be easier if you just told me. Did the Egyptians who built the pyramids not have politics? Did the coercive state emerge after them?

Chris
11-09-2015, 04:17 PM
Sorry, I didn't see where you pointed them out, and looking back, I still can't find any specific rebuttal to any specific argument. Would you mind linking me to your post? Or perhaps just copy-pasting?

So when exactly did the coercive state emerge? I could keep on guessing your timeframe for when politics was invented, but it would be easier if you just told me. Did the Egyptians who built the pyramids not have politics? Did the coercive state emerge after them?

You quoted me, didn't you read what you quoted? Politics emerged with the emergence of thecoercive state. Economies based on Division of labor, specialization and trade of property millions of years before that. The state has existed only 1 to 2% of man's existence. Not sure why I need to repeat these simple facts.

exploited
11-09-2015, 04:51 PM
You quoted me, didn't you read what you quoted? Politics emerged with the emergence of thecoercive state. Economies based on Division of labor, specialization and trade of property millions of years before that. The state has existed only 1 to 2% of man's existence. Not sure why I need to repeat these simple facts.

The problem being that none of those concepts are intrinsic to capitalism. They are concepts that have existed under all economic and political systems. The Sumerians, for instance, established division of labor, resulting in increased productivity and trade. Other cultures traded goods far and wide. Still others had subjects and citizens specialize. It wasn't until the 1400s that private property, as understood today, was even a concept.

Further, you haven't at all addressed when exactly the coercive state emerged. This is important because you claim that politics was invented by that cooercive state. Please identify at least an era when you think politics was invented, or provide me with the name of the first cooercive state.

The reason why you feel compelled to grossly distort history is to confirm your ideological convictions. That much is plainly obvious. Rather than address the fact that property rights is 100% reliant upon government force, you'll claim that politics was invented by coercive states at some point in the last seven million years. When? By who? Your inability and unwillingness to specify speaks volumes about the quality of your larger points.

Tahuyaman
11-09-2015, 05:22 PM
The liberals aren't winning the culture war when the issues are on the ballot. When the voters reject their ideas, then have the activist courts overturn the will of the people.

Chris
11-09-2015, 05:28 PM
The problem being that none of those concepts are intrinsic to capitalism. They are concepts that have existed under all economic and political systems. The Sumerians, for instance, established division of labor, resulting in increased productivity and trade. Other cultures traded goods far and wide. Still others had subjects and citizens specialize. It wasn't until the 1400s that private property, as understood today, was even a concept.

Further, you haven't at all addressed when exactly the coercive state emerged. This is important because you claim that politics was invented by that cooercive state. Please identify at least an era when you think politics was invented, or provide me with the name of the first cooercive state.

The reason why you feel compelled to grossly distort history is to confirm your ideological convictions. That much is plainly obvious. Rather than address the fact that property rights is 100% reliant upon government force, you'll claim that politics was invented by coercive states at some point in the last seven million years. When? By who? Your inability and unwillingness to specify speaks volumes about the quality of your larger points.


Huh?

Hold on. Your initial premise was the state is necessary. But man existed without it 98% of his existence. It is not necessary. Premise is false. You can't argue from it.

Indeed, division of labor, specialization, and trade have existed for as long as man has. So of course it has continued to exist the last 2% of his existence under various political systems that try to redesign and manage it, including some that try to do away with it.

Sumerians? The first instance of division of labor, specialization and trade was that between men and women.

I did not claim politics was invented by the coercive state, I said they emerged together.

Where have I distorted history when I speak of prehistory?

It is you with your ideology that worships the state who thinks it is necessary.

exploited
11-09-2015, 05:38 PM
Huh?

Hold on. Your initial premise was the state is necessary. But man existed without it 98% of his existence. It is not necessary. Premise is false. You can't argue from it.

Indeed, division of labor, specialization, and trade have existed for as long as man has. So of course it has continued to exist the last 2% of his existence under various political systems that try to redesign and manage it, including some that try to do away with it.

Sumerians? The first instance of division of labor, specialization and trade was that between men and women.

I did not claim politics was invented by the coercive state, I said they emerged together.

Where have I distorted history when I speak of prehistory?

It is you with your ideology that worships the state who thinks it is necessary.

This is the problem though: you refuse to specify when the first coercive state came into existence. In order for us to "test" your 98% hypothesis, you are going to have to tell me exactly when the coercive state, and thus politics, came into being. You are then going to have to demonstrate that, prior to that point, coercion and politics did not exist. That is an extremely uphill battle, IMO, and I'd be glad to discuss that position with you, but first you need to go ahead and define your terms.

When did the first coercive state come into existence?

Chris
11-09-2015, 05:44 PM
This is the problem though: you refuse to specify when the first coercive state came into existence. In order for us to "test" your 98% hypothesis, you are going to have to tell me exactly when the coercive state, and thus politics, came into being. You are then going to have to demonstrate that, prior to that point, coercion and politics did not exist. That is an extremely uphill battle, IMO, and I'd be glad to discuss that position with you, but first you need to go ahead and define your terms.

When did the first coercive state come into existence?


History records the rise of the coercive state. The anthropological record is ~98% older.

Was it 99%, 97%...what if only 1% of man's existence was without the state. Your premise that the state is necessary is false.

exploited
11-09-2015, 05:45 PM
History records the rise of the coercive state. The anthropological record is ~98% older.

Was it 99%, 97%...what if only 1% of man's existence was without the state. Your premise that the state is necessary is false.

So your assertion is that because a different species lived without the state, and died by the time they were 30, often in horrible and violent circumstances, the state isn't necessary?

I see.

Chris
11-09-2015, 05:49 PM
So your assertion is that because a different species lived without the state, and died by the time they were 30, often in horrible and violent circumstances, the state isn't necessary?

I see.

No. Try again.

Chris
11-09-2015, 05:52 PM
Modern man alone has existed ~200,000 years. The State emerged perhaps ~6000 years ago (the rise of what we call civilization, out of which the state emerges).

Again, what's it matter, man existed without this thing you insist is necessary to his existence. That is plainly false.

exploited
11-09-2015, 05:53 PM
No. Try again.

Interesting. So when I said that the state is necessary because the state established property rights, an idea that didn't exist in it's modern form until the 1400s, your rebuttal is that human beings lived without the state 0.8-2 million years ago, and therefore the state isn't necessary? Because, I gotta tell you, that doesn't make any sense.

Refugee
11-09-2015, 05:53 PM
You have to hand exploited this one Chris. If by the ‘State’ it’s implied that a power structure existed, that’s completely true and there’s an element of coerciveness in that. State, chief, or whatever you want to call it, a power structure, has always been there.

Peter1469
11-09-2015, 06:27 PM
The liberals aren't winning the culture war when the issues are on the ballot. When the voters reject their ideas, then have the activist courts overturn the will of the people.

Pretty much the way it goes.

Chris
11-09-2015, 06:38 PM
I disagree, the government must be involved, as it is government force that provides the framework for capitalism (private property, patents, etc). To first make it impossible to survive without capital, and then do nothing to ensure that it is distributed at least somewhat sanely, is no better than a closed economic system like communism.


Interesting. So when I said that the state is necessary because the state established property rights, an idea that didn't exist in it's modern form until the 1400s, your rebuttal is that human beings lived without the state 0.8-2 million years ago, and therefore the state isn't necessary? Because, I gotta tell you, that doesn't make any sense.

There's your original claim.

But all that existed prior to the emergence of the state. The anthropological record demonstrates the existence of division of labor, specialization and trade of property that far back, before the emergence of the state. The state is not necessary.

The million years was an error. I meant modern man, who has existed ~200,000.

Chris
11-09-2015, 06:42 PM
You have to hand exploited this one Chris. If by the ‘State’ it’s implied that a power structure existed, that’s completely true and there’s an element of coerciveness in that. State, chief, or whatever you want to call it, a power structure, has always been there.



Tribal man did not have the state. Tribal man revolved around family, it's authority, religion, and property were all familia. There was no concept of individual. Even clans were familial. The modern state comes much later.

exploited
11-09-2015, 06:44 PM
There's your original claim.

But all that existed prior to the emergence of the state. The anthropological record demonstrates the existence of division of labor, specialization and trade of property that far back, before the emergence of the state. The state is not necessary.

The million years was an error. I meant modern man, who has existed ~200,000.

Private property most certainly did not exist as a concept in that era.

Chris
11-09-2015, 06:44 PM
Private property most certainly did not exist as a concept in that era.

What did people trade?

exploited
11-09-2015, 06:46 PM
What did people trade?

So you're conflating the idea of sovereign force over a particular piece of land, as well as absolute legal authority over personal possessions, with the concept of some guy trading four apples for a pear?

texan
11-09-2015, 06:47 PM
Politics shouldn't even be about social change.

Liberals Are Losing the Culture Wars (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/11/liberals-are-losing-the-culture-war/414175/)

It doesn't feel like they are with the Political Correctness being used as an attack dog for the idiotic far left.

domer76
11-09-2015, 06:51 PM
Interesting. So when I said that the state is necessary because the state established property rights, an idea that didn't exist in it's modern form until the 1400s, your rebuttal is that human beings lived without the state 0.8-2 million years ago, and therefore the state isn't necessary? Because, I gotta tell you, that doesn't make any sense.

Give it up. He's an anarchist and a fool that will make up that kind of bullshit until the cows come home.

Refugee
11-09-2015, 07:05 PM
Tribal man did not have the state. Tribal man revolved around family, it's authority, religion, and property were all familia. There was no concept of individual. Even clans were familial. The modern state comes much later.

No, of course it didn’t, but he had the same authority over him as today. The authority was then the man with the biggest stick and he was allowed to have what the biggest stick told him.

Chris
11-09-2015, 07:12 PM
No, of course it didn’t, but he had the same authority over him as today. The authority was then the man with the biggest stick and he was allowed to have what the biggest stick told him.

No, tribal Chiefs did not have monopoly control. I suggest you read some anthropology like Clastres' Against the State. Tribal leaders served the people and when they failed were replaced. It's similar to Carribean Pirates. Or early "Dark Ages" feudalism.

Chris
11-09-2015, 07:14 PM
So you're conflating the idea of sovereign force over a particular piece of land, as well as absolute legal authority over personal possessions, with the concept of some guy trading four apples for a pear?

Uh, no, said nothing of the sort.

It would probably help were you to distinguish free market capitalism from the state capitalism you're arguing about.

exploited
11-09-2015, 07:17 PM
Uh, no, said nothing of the sort.

It would probably help were you to distinguish free market capitalism from the state capitalism you're arguing about.

So government would not regulate private property, would not enforce contracts or patents and would not regulate access to commonly owned natural resources?

Is that the free market capitalism you're talking about?

Chris
11-09-2015, 07:19 PM
So government would not regulate private property, would not enforce contracts or patents and would not regulate access to commonly owned natural resources?

Not until government was created could it do anything. Don't put the cart of government before the horse of economy.

exploited
11-09-2015, 07:21 PM
Not until government was created could it do anything. Don't put the cart of government before the horse of economy.

Okay, but how can capitalism function without government? Who enforces contracts? Who delineates property? Who settles property disputes?

Refugee
11-09-2015, 07:24 PM
No, tribal Chiefs did not have monopoly control. I suggest you read some anthropology like Clastres' Against the State. Tribal leaders served the people and when they failed were replaced. It's similar to Carribean Pirates. Or early "Dark Ages" feudalism.

Oh, I wouldn’t read that, too heavy for me.
Tribal chiefs, absolute monarchies, take your pick. They served themselves and unless you had a bigger stick, you served them and if you did have a bigger stick, then you replaced them.

exploited
11-09-2015, 07:26 PM
No, tribal Chiefs did not have monopoly control. I suggest you read some anthropology like Clastres' Against the State. Tribal leaders served the people and when they failed were replaced. It's similar to Carribean Pirates. Or early "Dark Ages" feudalism.

So the decision to dispose of the leader... Would you call that a political decision?

domer76
11-09-2015, 07:50 PM
So the decision to dispose of the leader... Would you call that a political decision?

I tried to warn you

Chris
11-09-2015, 07:56 PM
Oh, I wouldn’t read that, too heavy for me.
Tribal chiefs, absolute monarchies, take your pick. They served themselves and unless you had a bigger stick, you served them and if you did have a bigger stick, then you replaced them.


I see you're not interested in accuracy.

Chris
11-09-2015, 08:03 PM
So the decision to dispose of the leader... Would you call that a political decision?

No, it was a social decision. There was no state, no politics involved.

Let me explain some more, from Clastres' Against the State. And this held for tribes in American generally--there were exceptions. So, generally, the tribal leader was chosen by the people for his verbal skills because these were important in settling disputes. The chief's responsibilities also included providing gifts of food and other necessities to the tribe. So you see, as arbitrator and provided, he served the people. The only thing he gained was being able to have many wives. But when hard times came along and he couldn't provide the tribe with food, they got rid of him for someone who could serve them better.

Politics is completely different. Returning to Oppenheimer, the political means is the use of the coercive state to get what is, well, not yours and not earned by you. You just don't see that in primitive tribes.

exploited
11-09-2015, 08:05 PM
No, it was a social decision. There was no state, no politics involved.

Let me explain some more, from Clastres' Against the State. And this held for tribes in American generally--there were exceptions. So, generally, the tribal leader was chosen by the people for his verbal skills because these were important in settling disputes. The chief's responsibilities also included providing gifts of food and other necessities to the tribe. So you see, as arbitrator and provided, he served the people. The only thing he gained was being able to have many wives. But when hard times came along and he couldn't provide the tribe with food, they got rid of him for someone who could serve them better.

Politics is completely different. Returning to Oppenheimer, the political means is the use of the coercive state to get what is, well, not yours and not earned by you. You just don't see that in primitive tribes.

Chris
11-09-2015, 08:10 PM
So government would not regulate private property, would not enforce contracts or patents and would not regulate access to commonly owned natural resources?

Is that the free market capitalism you're talking about?


OK, so to summarize, prior to this, you claimed government was necessary to capitalism. But it's been shown that a market system arose naturally in primitive society around division of labor, specialization and trade, and that existed nearly 200,000 years before anything like the coercive state arose.

So now you're shifting your argument to this, but the government regulates property, enforces contracts, and control natural resources. Here you assume that just because the government tries to do these things it must and even ought to. Yet all these things are regulated, enforces and controlled outside the state by people in society, be it neighbors exchanging things, the black market or international trade. So, that government does it is not reason to believe it must for the same functions can and are performed in society without the state. Moreover, that government does these things cannot imply it ought to without committing the naturalistic fallacy, what is is just not necessarily what ought to be.

exploited
11-09-2015, 08:27 PM
OK, so to summarize, prior to this, you claimed government was necessary to capitalism. But it's been shown that a market system arose naturally in primitive society around division of labor, specialization and trade, and that existed nearly 200,000 years before anything like the coercive state arose.

So now you're shifting your argument to this, but the government regulates property, enforces contracts, and control natural resources. Here you assume that just because the government tries to do these things it must and even ought to. Yet all these things are regulated, enforces and controlled outside the state by people in society, be it neighbors exchanging things, the black market or international trade. So, that government does it is not reason to believe it must for the same functions can and are performed in society without the state. Moreover, that government does these things cannot imply it ought to without committing the naturalistic fallacy, what is is just not necessarily what ought to be.

...What?

You understand that you are trying to equivocate primitive, sustenance-level trading with capitalism, right? We are talking about people scavenging communal, typically seasonal lands and then trading goods for other goods (barter). That is not capitalism. This is capitalism:

Wikipedia


Capitalism is an economic system in which trade, industry, and the means of production are privately owned and operated to maximize profit, with the price system providing price signals for the factors of production.[1][2] Central characteristics of capitalism include private property, capital accumulation, wage labour and, in some situations, fully competitive markets.[3][4] In a capitalist economy, the parties to a transaction typically determine the prices at which they exchange assets, goods, and services.[5]

Or this:

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/capitalism


An economic and political system in which a country’s trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state:

an era of free-market capitalism
private ownership is a key feature of capitalism

It is nothing less than historical revisionism to equate tribal economies to capitalist ones. The whole idea is nonsense - land was communally owned by the tribe. The reason why government is necessary for capitalism is because it's literally necessary for capitalism - if there aren't property rights, if land (and thus capital) isn't privately owned, it cannot be capitalism.

Chris
11-09-2015, 08:51 PM
...What?

You understand that you are trying to equivocate primitive, sustenance-level trading with capitalism, right? We are talking about people scavenging communal, typically seasonal lands and then trading goods for other goods (barter). That is not capitalism. This is capitalism:

Wikipedia



Or this:

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/capitalism



It is nothing less than historical revisionism to equate tribal economies to capitalist ones. The whole idea is nonsense - land was communally owned by the tribe. The reason why government is necessary for capitalism is because it's literally necessary for capitalism - if there aren't property rights, if land (and thus capital) isn't privately owned, it cannot be capitalism.


I'm not trying to equivocate. You are and then knocking the strawman you create. Unimpressive.

Oh, my, you resort to wikipedia to define capitalism. Blackboard definitions.

And then the oxford dictionary, wow. Already said you were talking about state capitalism.

I said free market capitalism. Catch up.

exploited
11-09-2015, 08:53 PM
I'm not trying to equivocate. You are and then knocking the strawman you create. Unimpressive.

Oh, my, you resort to wikipedia to define capitalism. Blackboard definitions.

And then the oxford dictionary, wow. Already said you were talking about state capitalism.

I said free market capitalism. Catch up.

...

You've lost me.

Describe capitalism without a state. How would it function? Who owns what?

Chris
11-09-2015, 08:58 PM
...

You've lost me.

Describe capitalism without a state. How would it function? Who owns what?


Voluntary exchange. You own yourself, you own what you mix labor with, you own what you inherit, you own what you exchange. Existed from time immemorial. Still exists today. It's what the state tried to control.

exploited
11-09-2015, 09:48 PM
Voluntary exchange. You own yourself, you own what you mix labor with, you own what you inherit, you own what you exchange. Existed from time immemorial. Still exists today. It's what the state tried to control.

What happens when somebody rips me off? Do I just grab my pointy stick and go after him?

Chris
11-09-2015, 09:58 PM
What happens when somebody rips me off? Do I just grab my pointy stick and go after him?

Reputation and the principle of continuous dealings (first described by Adam Smith, Lectures on Jurisprudence).

But, yes, you have the right to defend yourself.

What recourse do you have under the state? Many thefts go uninvestigated. Even if caught, it's unlikely you'll get your property back.

exploited
11-09-2015, 09:59 PM
Reputation and the principle of continuous dealings (first described by Adam Smith, Lectures on Jurisprudence).

But, yes, you have the right to defend yourself.

Ah, I get it.

Chris
11-09-2015, 10:00 PM
Ah, I get it.

More later, Fargo is on...

Refugee
11-10-2015, 06:29 AM
I see you're not interested in accuracy.

It’s not accuracy Chris; authority didn’t begin with the printing press and absolute monarchy wasn’t something people voted in. What you get in books is the recent evolvement of capitalism , democracy and the rule of law. It wasn’t always so. Where did these Monarchs, chiefs and landowners come from; certainly not from some idealistic view that ‘the people’ living in consensus communities chose them. It’s where the terms, serfs and peasants comes from.

Chris
11-10-2015, 07:09 AM
It’s not accuracy Chris; authority didn’t begin with the printing press and absolute monarchy wasn’t something people voted in. What you get in books is the recent evolvement of capitalism , democracy and the rule of law. It wasn’t always so. Where did these Monarchs, chiefs and landowners come from; certainly not from some idealistic view that ‘the people’ living in consensus communities chose them. It’s where the terms, serfs and peasants comes from.


What about the innacuracy of moving goalposts? Unable to defend long time existence of the state you switch to authority. Of course you find natural, undesigned, organic authority in the tribal family. But that's a far cry diiferent that the artificial, designed, organized state.

zelmo1234
11-10-2015, 07:18 AM
Well this thread sounds good but all you need to do is go back to last few Scotus rulings to see that liberals are actually winning. One battle in one state does not make for winning the war.

Just to be clear I disagree with many Liberal Culture ideals

When you have to gain your victory through the courts, you have not gained social change, you have pissed people off.

While these victories seem to be victories, they are the very reason that the people are voting against them on the ballot.

zelmo1234
11-10-2015, 07:21 AM
One of the things that was mentioned in this thread is the Presidential election and the importance of it.

This is a clear sign that the constitution is under attack and the designed system of limited government is failing.

If the country was being run as the constitution intended, you Gov would have much more to say about your life than the President.

Refugee
11-10-2015, 07:27 AM
What about the innacuracy of moving goalposts? Unable to defend long time existence of the state you switch to authority. Of course you find natural, undesigned, organic authority in the tribal family. But that's a far cry diiferent that the artificial, designed, organized state.

I’m not moving the goalposts; I never mentioned the ‘long time existence of the state.’
I’m saying that authority is inherent in all societies and occurred long before the ‘State.’ The only difference now is that we have laws to protect against excesses. The law you now live under and are forced to obey is no different from that of the law you would have lived under 500 years ago and would have been forced to obey, in that it comes from a higher authority.
The ‘State’ is simply a progression and replaces the absolutism that existed previously. You now have rights, but even those come from a higher authority. The individual will no longer hit you with his big stick, but if you don’t obey, the State will.

Kurmugeon
11-10-2015, 07:52 AM
When you have to gain your victory through the courts, you have not gained social change, you have pissed people off.

While these victories seem to be victories, they are the very reason that the people are voting against them on the ballot.

There is a reckoning coming to the Lefties, and it cannot come too soon, or be too harsh.

-

Common Sense
11-10-2015, 08:14 AM
There is a reckoning coming to the Lefties, and it cannot come too soon, or be too harsh.

-

Ooooo, scary...good luck with that.

Refugee
11-10-2015, 08:40 AM
There is a reckoning coming to the Lefties, and it cannot come too soon, or be too harsh.

-

I work in a communist police State. I might start a thread up on the forum warning what’s going to happen, but the backlash sort of puts me off.

Chris
11-10-2015, 09:14 AM
I’m not moving the goalposts; I never mentioned the ‘long time existence of the state.’
I’m saying that authority is inherent in all societies and occurred long before the ‘State.’ The only difference now is that we have laws to protect against excesses. The law you now live under and are forced to obey is no different from that of the law you would have lived under 500 years ago and would have been forced to obey, in that it comes from a higher authority.
The ‘State’ is simply a progression and replaces the absolutism that existed previously. You now have rights, but even those come from a higher authority. The individual will no longer hit you with his big stick, but if you don’t obey, the State will.


The argument started with the necessity of the state, that's where you joined in defending it.


I’m saying that authority is inherent in all societies and occurred long before the ‘State.’

That's what I've been arguing so why are you arguing with me?


The ‘State’ is simply a progression...

Evolution is not progressive.

Chris
11-10-2015, 09:15 AM
I work in a communist police State. I might start a thread up on the forum warning what’s going to happen, but the backlash sort of puts me off.


Yet you seem to defend the state as progress. How then is not the communist police state not progress? Love to see you argue with yourself.

OGIS
11-10-2015, 09:59 AM
It’s not accuracy Chris; authority didn’t begin with the printing press and absolute monarchy wasn’t something people voted in. What you get in books is the recent evolvement of capitalism , democracy and the rule of law. It wasn’t always so. Where did these Monarchs, chiefs and landowners come from; certainly not from some idealistic view that ‘the people’ living in consensus communities chose them. It’s where the terms, serfs and peasants comes from.

Most often from local bandit chiefs who realized that stealing the crop seed of the peasants they terrorized was counterproductive, and that those same peasants needed to be protected from other bandits. Thus were taxes and armies reborn after the fall of Rome. If you trace back the origins of European nobility back far enough you will find local gangsters.

This meme is celebrated in "The Seven Samurai" and "The Magnificent Seven." The reason these films are celebrated is that they say things about the origin of the State that most people never think about.

The other dynamic, of course, is the "How do we get these dumbasses to do stuff that needs to be done?" factor. The early Water Empires are a case in point. To exist, they needed large masses of people to do hard and dirty work to built irrigation systems. But the Bell Curve rules all: every population falls within it. Half of the population is dumber than dirt and the smarter people tired of constantly trying to get them to do stuff that needs to be done. It is much more efficient to hire blokes with pointy sticks to force them to do the work.

Chris
11-10-2015, 10:09 AM
Most often from local bandit chiefs who realized that stealing the crop seed of the peasants they terrorized was counterproductive, and that those same peasants needed to be protected from other bandits. Thus were taxes and armies reborn after the fall of Rome. If you trace back the origins of European nobility back far enough you will find local gangsters.

Protected is a nice euphemism. They were protecting themselves, needing slaves as workers and soldiers as well as taxable subjects. As Hoppe argues, in A Short History of Man: Progress and Decline, not only did private property emerge from familial property with the rise of agriculture, but so did the beginnings of the state begin to emerge from familial authority--though it took till the Enlightenment and Industrial Revolution for the modern coercive state to form.

Chris
11-10-2015, 06:17 PM
But back to topic, Warning alarms for liberals (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/nov/9/tammy-bruce-warning-alarms-liberals/)


According to Real Clear Politics, 63.8 percent of Americans believe the country is on the wrong track. This could explain, in part, the amazing victories for conservatives during last Tuesday’s local and state elections.

Across the board, liberal pet issues lost while conservatives won elected office. Liberal cities led the pack in rejecting what we’ve always been told are “trends” or a reflection of a “changing” America. Well, not so fast....

Common Sense
11-10-2015, 06:28 PM
But back to topic, Warning alarms for liberals (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/nov/9/tammy-bruce-warning-alarms-liberals/)

It's an opinion piece written by a conservative. I don't think it's an objective view of reality.

Chris
11-10-2015, 06:44 PM
It's an opinion piece written by a conservative. I don't think it's an objective view of reality.

Opinion piece that provides the evidence that supports that opinion, posted on a forum of opinions.

You don't say much yourself, what, you don't like it?

Common Sense
11-10-2015, 07:06 PM
Opinion piece that provides the evidence that supports that opinion, posted on a forum of opinions.

You don't say much yourself, what, you don't like it?

It's cherry picking a few events and calling it a trend. One of which was actually a victory of sorts for the left, the Ohio pot legalization issue.

Mister D
11-10-2015, 07:11 PM
When you say something negative about the left they come slobbering like Pavlov's mutts. It's like ringing the bell. Ain't that right, Sense? :smiley:

Common Sense
11-10-2015, 07:22 PM
Lol...

Chris
11-10-2015, 07:30 PM
It's cherry picking a few events and calling it a trend. One of which was actually a victory of sorts for the left, the Ohio pot legalization issue.

"According to Real Clear Politics, 63.8 percent of Americans believe the country is on the wrong track."

That's pretty broad.

I think what you're not getting is when I speak of liberalism I speak of advocacy for and dependence on big government, which could easily include many Republicans, especially neocons and social cons. That 63.8 percent is Americans unhappy with their government.

OGIS
11-10-2015, 10:47 PM
But back to topic, Warning alarms for liberals (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/nov/9/tammy-bruce-warning-alarms-liberals/)

I - actually my antivirus software - dislikes opening Washington Times links. I think they often try to plant crap on my laptop. They are stilled owned by the Moonies, aren't they?

Tammi Bruce is an interesting lady. Lesbian, gun owner, conservative, feminist. I have in the past often agreed with her positions.

But I simply can't see supporting any of the maniacs in the Republican clown car this time around.

OGIS
11-10-2015, 10:53 PM
It's cherry picking a few events and calling it a trend. One of which was actually a victory of sorts for the left, the Ohio pot legalization issue.

I'm beginning to get seriously pissed off by the outright lies of the conservatives and the Drug Warriors over this. For MONTHS leading up to this vote I corresponded with medical marijuana advocates, potheads and stoners in Ohio. Almost to a man they were against that legalization measure. It got voted down by the stoners, not the anti-drug crowd.