Bob Altemeyer's - The Authoritarians

POSTED BY: HKCavalier
UPDATED: Friday, May 16, 2008 23:02
VIEWED: 10901
PAGE 1 of 2

1 2 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

HKCAVALIER

Thursday, May 8, 2008 5:08 AM

http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/

Just found this book. Pretty much sums it all up.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

FREMDFIRMA

Thursday, May 8, 2008 2:48 PM

*Gets out a fire extinguisher and takes a covering position*

SERGEANTX

Thursday, May 8, 2008 5:32 PM

Interesting stuff. This is the debate we should be having. The phony left/right stuff is little more than distraction.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

SIGNYM

Thursday, May 8, 2008 8:07 PM

Starts kinda slow. But I found the Global Change Game (beginning p 22) to be really, REALLY interesting.

Quote:
THE LOW RWA GAME
By carefully organizing sign-up booklets, I was able to get 67 low RWA students to play the game together on October 18th . (They had no idea they had been funneled into this run of the experiment according to their RWA scale scores; indeed they had probably never heard of right-wing authoritarianism.) Seven men and three women made themselves Elites. As soon as the simulation began, the Pacific Rim Elite called for a summit on the “Island Paradise of Tasmania.” All the Elites attended and agreed to meet there again whenever big issues arose. A world-wide organization was thus immediately created by mutual consent. ...

THE HIGH RWA GAME
The next night 68 high RWAs showed up for their ride, just as ignorant of how they had been funneled into this run of the experiment as the low RWA students had been the night before. The game proceeded as usual. Background material was read, Elites (all males) nominated themselves, and the Elites were briefed. Then the “wedgies” started. As soon as the game began, the Elite from the Middle East announced the price of oil had just doubled. A little later the former Soviet Union bought a lot of armies
and invaded North America. The latter had insufficient conventional forces to defend itself, and so retaliated with nuclear weapons. A nuclear holocaust ensued which killed everyone on earth--7.4 billion people--and almost all other forms of life which had the misfortune of co-habitating the same planet as a species with nukes.

When this happens in the Global Change Game, the facilitators turn out all the lights and explain what a nuclear war would produce. Then the players are given a second chance to determine the future, turning back the clock to two years before the hounds of war were loosed. The former Soviet Union however rebuilt its armies and
invaded China this time, killing 400 million people.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

FLETCH2

Thursday, May 8, 2008 8:17 PM

I believe Rue posted a link to this almost a year ago when we were discussing (among other things) the girl victimised by her McDonalds manager on the word of a "cop" who had phoned him and told him she was stealing. (IIRC the original thread was Abu Graib related.)

KWICKO

Thursday, May 8, 2008 9:22 PM

Kwicko puts on AwwwCrapper mask and best Bill Orally voice...

"Well, first off, he's a Canadian, so we know from that that he's a liberal, and since he's a professor at university, we can guarantee he's a liberal because universities don't allow conservatives, and conservatives don't need university because they already know everything anyway, and since he's not American we know for a fact that he hates America, and that he's a terrorist... Hey, wait - what's the plural form of "terrorist"? It's... terrorist, right? Yeah, he's a terrorist hanging out with a bunch of other terrorist. Or at least he's part of a muslim, and we all know how THEY are. Hell, I can't even tell 'em apart - they all look alike to me...

Well, anyway, all I know is that he's a leftie-liberal wing-nut dingbat, so none of his research should even be looked at, much less taken seriously!"

Takes off AwwwCrapper mask...

That about sum it up?

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

FLETCH2

Thursday, May 8, 2008 9:35 PM

You forgot the vague assertion that you are misrepresenting his viewpoint.

SIGNYM

Thursday, May 8, 2008 9:47 PM

The books really points out a couple of things I've been slowly realizing from discussions here about what causes such a high degree of authoritarianism:

Quote:
What sort of bad feelings are likely to be burning away inside
high RWAs that would create an urge to attack? I looked at a lot of possibilities.... guilt... envy... unsure God will punish the sinners?...

Well, maybe. But .... Authoritarian followers score highly on the Dangerous World scale, and it’s not just because some of the items have a religious context. High RWAs are, in general, more afraid than most people are. ... they were raised by their parents to be afraid of others, because both the parents and their children tell us so. ... Thus it turns out in experiments that a person’s fear predicts authoritarian aggression better than any other unpleasant feeling

The Releaser.
So what releases the aggressive impulse that comes from fear? What slides off the safety on the gun? This, it turns out, is a no-brainer... Almost everybody thinks she’s more moral than most. But high RWAs typically think they’re way, way better. They are the Holy Ones. They are the Chosen. They are the Righteous. They
somehow got a three-for-one special on self-righteousness. And self-righteousness
appears to release authoritarian aggression more than anything else.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

SIGNYM

Thursday, May 8, 2008 9:58 PM

Rap would find a way of twisting Altmeyer's name into something resembling "osama' and then running around screaming "THE END IS NEAR!", Hero would harrumph about respecting the law while protecting crooked cops, and Finn would wax eloquent about the Fall of the Roman Empire being caused by lack of respect for the homeland.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Thursday, May 8, 2008 10:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Rap would find a way of twisting Altmeyer's name into something resembling "osama' and then rubbing around screaming "THE END IS NEAR!", Hero would harrumph about respecting the law while protecting crooked cops, and Finn would wax eloquent about the Fall of the Roman Empire being caused by lack of respect for the homeland.

How did this thread devolve so fast into trolling?

KIRKULES

Thursday, May 8, 2008 10:26 PM

The questions he asks to determine the RWA level are obviously designed to identify right wing religious extremists. This is where his fear of the RWAs taking over America loses its credibility. The number of those in the Americas that would be considered religious extremists by his scale would be a very small percentage. I know it fits better with the "liberals" stereotype of "conservatives" to think of us all as religious extremists, but they are a very small minority of all conservatives. This site is a good example of that, most of the conservatives here are either religious moderates or atheists.

He also points out that not all RWAs are politically conservative.

"In North America people who submit to the established authorities to
extraordinary degrees often turn out to be political conservatives, 2 so you can call
them “right-wingers” both in my new-fangled psychological sense and in the usual
political sense as well. But someone who lived in a country long ruled by Communists
and who ardently supported the Communist Party would also be one of my
psychological right-wing authoritarians even though we would also say he was a
political left-winger. So a right-wing authoritarian follower doesn’t necessarily have
conservative political views."

CANTTAKESKY

Thursday, May 8, 2008 10:28 PM

Interesting excerpt, Sig.

Anarchists, in my experience, are very non-fearful, non-self-righteous folk. So it is consistent with his hypothesis.

RUE

Thursday, May 8, 2008 10:50 PM

"This is where his fear of the RWAs taking over America loses its credibility. The number of those in the Americas that would be considered religious extremists by his scale would be a very small percentage."

But you don't have to be religious to support the idea that authorities are the holders of a righteous code. So you get opinions like this:

it's OK to tase people when they're merely uncooperative rather than threatening
it's OK to trace 10% of all calls - only bad people have something to worry about
it's OK to torture people, and besides, it's not torture when we do it
it's OK for a president to lie the country into war, and besides Bush never lied ...

Recognize any of these ?

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

SIGNYM

Thursday, May 8, 2008 11:42 PM

Quote:
How did this thread devolve so fast into trolling?

Just emulating.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

SIGNYM

Friday, May 9, 2008 12:03 AM

Quote:
The questions he asks to determine the RWA level are obviously designed to identify right wing religious extremists. This is where his fear of the RWAs taking over America loses its credibility. The number of those in the Americas that would be considered religious extremists by his scale would be a very small percentage.

I disagree. Although the number of religious extemists on this board is low, there is a consistent 25% or so who self-identify with Xtain fundamentalism.

Quote:
I know it fits better with the "liberals" stereotype of "conservatives" to think of us all as religious extremists, but they are a very small minority of all conservatives. This site is a good example of that, most of the conservatives here are either religious moderates or atheists.

I think this is where this board is atypical of the general population. Nonetheless, I find his characterization of authoritarianism to be bang-on, even without the baggage of religion. I don't think it's coincidence that MOST people here have identified our local authoritarians' driving motivation as terror of the collapse as life as they know it, that their responses have been characterized by many people here very specifically as righteous and violent. Their whole approach to uncertainty is to circle the wagons and kill the enemy. It's at times almsot impossible to engage them in dialogue because of the endless banner-waving that they substitute for thoughtful discussion.

You can find authoritarians on both ends of the political spectrum; if someone is afraid enough of something they may revert to authoritarianism for that issue. OTOH some people are just authoritarian all the time, about everything.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

CHRISISALL

Friday, May 9, 2008 12:09 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

Takes off AwwwCrapper mask...

That about sum it up?

LOL! That was funny....

BWAHAHAHAHChrisisall

CHRISISALL

Friday, May 9, 2008 12:11 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

You can find authoritarians on both ends of the political spectrum; if someone is afraid enough of something they may revert to authoritarianism for that issue. OTOH some people are just authoritarian all the time, about everything.

Careful Signy, a bit in-the-middle sounding there, don't wanna tarnish your Evil Lefty image...

isall

RUE

Friday, May 9, 2008 2:35 AM

bump

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

FLETCH2

Friday, May 9, 2008 5:20 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I think this is where this board is atypical of the general population. Nonetheless, I find his characterization of authoritarianism to be bang-on, even without the baggage of religion. I don't think it's coincidence that MOST people here have identified our local authoritarians' driving motivation as terror of the collapse as life as they know it, that their responses have been characterized by many people here very specifically as righteous and violent.

There is a problem here and that's "investment" not necessarily of the financial kind but also of the emotional/intellectual kind. As I think I've mentioned I've lived in many countries each of which have their own way of doing things. Now establishing yourself in a new country is not easy, it costs money it costs time, you have to jump in the direction they want, when they want and do things THEIR way.

When I was younger I viewed it as an adventure, I was happy to sit in the "Ministry of X" and chat with folks there. I didn't mind (much) that they didnt tell me I needed to have document Y until I'd been queuing for 3 hours or that getting document Y meant 2 more hours waiting in a different queue. However, as I got older it became harder and harder to do all of that, the need to learn a new system every few years, put up with the ridiculous and arbitrary rules just wasn't for me any more. I didn't want to have to pack up house and move any more.

So here's a theory. When you are young, "right on" and radical you are not especially invested in society, not emotionally, intellectually or financially. If someone messes with it and changes the rules -- no big deal you were never keen on the old ones in any case. However, as people get older their capacity to deal with arbitrary change becomes less, they have spent time learning the systems, they have property, a job, a place in the world defined by the system of the day. They are far less likely to want to throw that over and start again. If you have spent 5 hours in queues to finally deliver document Y the last thing you want it to discover the next time that you now need document Z.

Over time people become resistant to change. That is by the way a good thing, because it means that the kind of forces that are needed to force radical changes have to have a lot of public support -- like the changes needed for a constitutional amendment.

So in general I don't think people are scared of change as much as tired by it. If you have spent time learning the current system and it works for you, you have some investment in keeping it as it is.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Friday, May 9, 2008 6:31 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Rap would find a way of twisting Altmeyer's name into something resembling "osama' and then running around screaming "THE END IS NEAR!", Hero would harrumph about respecting the law while protecting crooked cops, and Finn would wax eloquent about the Fall of the Roman Empire being caused by lack of respect for the homeland.

Well I think that proves the theory is bullshit, because I’ve never been in the camp of the Internal Decay theory of the Fall of Rome. Truth be told, that would be more your story then mine, if you knew what you were talking about.

If I thought anyone cared I would be happy to wax eloquent on the Fall of Rome. I think I could provide plenty of reason why it had nothing to do with lack of respect for the homeland, and a lot more to do with external influences, which of course makes a lot more sense because it’s difficult to understand how an Empire that lasted for 800 years just dissolves one day for no obvious internal reason.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

SIGNYM

Friday, May 9, 2008 12:31 PM

Quote:
Over time people become resistant to change. ... So in general I don't think people are scared of change as much as tired by it.

You haven't even opened the book, have you?

There is more to authoritarianism than response to change. I'm not a hugely adventurous person and- as you say- even less so as I get older. (I'm also not a big rule-breaker.)

But I don't rate high on the authoritarian scale because being authoritarian by HIS definition means that you not only believe in the accepted way of doing things (what you perceive as being accepted by "the authorities"), you also believe very strongly that everyone should follow all those same rules AND you will become violent in order to impose them on others. IMHO the violent part is what sets authoritarians apart from people who simply prefer to live placid, uneventful lives. His point is that authoritarians aren't simply tired folk, they're simmering with fear and anger.

So read the book before you start interpreting what he said, because you don't even KNOW what he said yet!

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

SIGNYM

Friday, May 9, 2008 12:47 PM

Quote:
Well I think that proves the theory is bullshit

So, you take my rather lame joke and use it as a reason to dismiss the whole book? Okay, if it makes you feel better I withdraw my joke.

But really- you'd reject a theory before you even know what it is? I'd say "Typical authoritarian!" to that! Just try reading the book. It's a quick read and it's based on studies, not just opinion. The interesting part is not so much in how he developed the scale and why people act that way but what else correlates with it.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Friday, May 9, 2008 1:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I'd say "Typical authoritarian!" to that!

Or to anything else I say.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

FLETCH2

Friday, May 9, 2008 1:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

So read the book before you start interpreting what he said, because you don't even KNOW what he said yet!

Actually, I read it all when Rue first posted it.

I wasn't talking about his book at all. i was talking about your interpretation of it, or more accurately, the points from a very long thesis that you felt the need to emphasize.

KWICKO

Friday, May 9, 2008 2:02 PM

Quote:
...it’s difficult to understand how an Empire that lasted for 800 years just dissolves one day for no obvious internal reason.

Difficult to understand, because it didn't happen overnight. It took 500 years to build the Roman Empire up, and another 500 for it to crummble and fall. It wasn't like the Romans just woke up one day, looked around, and went, "Dude, where's my empire?"

You can witness the same thing happening to the British Empire over the last 250 years or so. They hit a peak, they lose some ground, and it starts a slide toward something... if not LESSER, at least SMALLER.

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

CANTTAKESKY

Friday, May 9, 2008 2:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
AND you will become violent in order to impose them on others. IMHO the violent part is what sets authoritarians apart from people who simply prefer to live placid, uneventful lives.

From the anarchist and libertarian points of view, substitute "force" for "violence," and you see where we're coming from.

What are the objections to an anarchistic society? FEAR that society is going to collapse. SELF-RIGHTEOUSNESS that society has to have to have the rule of law to be moral. VIOLENCE that everyone must be forced to live under law.

On a smaller scale, forced vaccination fits into this model of authoritarianism. Fear, that diseases will run rampant and kill our kids. Self-righteousness that mass vaccination is the only moral thing to do to prevent mass deaths. Violence to force everyone to vaccinate because it is the only moral thing to do in context of fear.

Everyone seems authoritarian to us.

CANTTAKESKY

Friday, May 9, 2008 2:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
So in general I don't think people are scared of change as much as tired by it. If you have spent time learning the current system and it works for you, you have some investment in keeping it as it is.

Fletch, this is an eloquent argument--but it seems to have nothing to do with what we're talking about. I don't see anywhere where Signy or the author says authoritarianism is afraid of change.

Confused.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Friday, May 9, 2008 2:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Difficult to understand, because it didn't happen overnight. It took 500 years to build the Roman Empire up, and another 500 for it to crummble and fall. It wasn't like the Romans just woke up one day, looked around, and went, "Dude, where's my empire?"

Well, you’re first characterization of building the Roman Empire depends a lot on what you mean by “Empire.” I would argue that Rome was an “Empire” long before it is usually called that in the world Civ books, and certainly before 14 AD. Even at the time of the first Punic War, Rome had over a million potential soldiers at its disposal - that’s pretty remarkable for a culture that was still classical. The second characterization I don’t agree with at all. Rome did not take 500 years to crumble. It took less then a hundred. In the fourth century Rome was not in a state of decay, but rather at the height of it’s economic prosperity and military power. By the fifth century the East Roman Empire had vanished, replaced by Gothic successor states. The crumbling of the Eastern Roman Empire may have been witnessed from beginning to end by individuals.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

SIGNYM

Friday, May 9, 2008 3:00 PM

Quote:
Or to anything else I say.

It's just quite possible that's authoritarianism is an accurate characterization, Finn. For instance, in that very long discussion you and I had about "patriotism" it turned out I meant republicanism, more or less. You OTOH meant what seemed (to me) a rather large ball of things: adherence to a way of life, protection of place, and obedience to authority even if the authority is mistaken. In other discussions (about morality for example) you consistently bring very rigid rules to the discussion. And your posts about American intervention everywhere are quite righteous- you excuse killing and destruction on a vast scale by the ideals and motivations behind it. So, according to how I understand you, you're quite authoritarian: willing to kill for your beliefs (which include, confoundingly, freedom and the sanctity of human life).

But if you disagree with my assessment, maybe you should read the book and tell me how I'm wrong.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

SIGNYM

Friday, May 9, 2008 3:05 PM

Quote:
So read the book before you start interpreting what he said, because you don't even KNOW what he said yet!- Signy

Actually, I read it all when Rue first posted it.-Fletch2

The you're three steps ahead of me and Rue is ahead of all of us!

Quote:
I wasn't talking about his book at all. I was talking about your interpretation of it, or more accurately, the points from a very long thesis that you felt the need to emphasize.

Did my excerpts focus on fear of change? I didn't think so, but if that's the way it came across that's not what I intended, nor the author either.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

FLETCH2

Friday, May 9, 2008 3:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
So read the book before you start interpreting what he said, because you don't even KNOW what he said yet!- Signy

Actually, I read it all when Rue first posted it.-Fletch2
The you're three steps ahead of me and Rue is ahead of all of us!
Quote:
I wasn't talking about his book at all. I was talking about your interpretation of it, or more accurately, the points from a very long thesis that you felt the need to emphasize.
Did my excerpts focus on fear of change? I didn't think so, but if that's the way it came across that's not what I intended, nor the author either.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

You are absolutely correct. I seem to have misinterpreted the point you were trying to make. Apologies.

CHRISISALL

Friday, May 9, 2008 6:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
"Dude, where's my empire?"

LOL. I'll never be able to watch Gladiator again with an entirely straight face thanks to that one, Kwicko....

isall

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Friday, May 9, 2008 6:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
Or to anything else I say.
It's just quite possible that's authoritarianism is an accurate characterization, Finn.

And how could you possibly know that?

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

KWICKO

Friday, May 9, 2008 6:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
"Dude, where's my empire?"

LOL. I'll never be able to watch Gladiator again with an entirely straight face thanks to that one, Kwicko....

isall

Hey, just be glad I didn't Romanize "Dude"...

"Dudimus, where's my empire?"

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

KWICKO

Friday, May 9, 2008 7:02 PM

Quote:
The crumbling of the Eastern Roman Empire may have been witnessed from beginning to end by individuals.

So the American Empire COULD actually be crumbling from its height at the end of WWII, then. As with any empire's crumbling, it's a bit hard to see while it's going on - history gives a longer lens and a sharper view of critical events that, in the moment they were happening, just seemed like, well... EVENTS.

I'm not saying the US *IS* a crumbling, failing empire; I'm saying we COULD be, and how would we know if we were?

Capiche, paisanno?

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

KWICKO

Friday, May 9, 2008 7:05 PM

And, of course, you have schools of thought on when the Roman Empire started and when it officially ended. Constantine was a Holy Roman Emporer, as was Napoleon, and I believe Carolus Magnus was in there as well (better known as Charlemagne).

We can't agree on how long it lasted, or when the end began - was it the beginning of the end, or the end of the beginning? - but we can agree that the Empire didn't just skulk off into the night and disappear in a sudden "poof" and flash of light. It took a long time for the Roman Empire to fall - in fact, it took it the rest of its life!

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

KWICKO

Friday, May 9, 2008 7:07 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
"Dude, where's my empire?"

LOL. I'll never be able to watch Gladiator again with an entirely straight face thanks to that one, Kwicko....

isall

Okay, and this is just a joke, remember, but what occurred to me when I read that was, "Anyone who's watching Gladiator *again* isn't entirely straight to begin with..."

Sorry, man - I just couldn't resist is all. :)

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

GEEZER

Friday, May 9, 2008 7:11 PM

My RWA score was 54. Hmm.

I'd be interested in seeing a LWA score system with questions like:

"The government should use any means necessary to reduce carbon emmisions and repair the damage to nature caused by man-made global warming."

"To protect society, the government should be required to sieze all private firearmes, and be allowed to conduct warrantless searches to find them."

"Economically successful people and businesses gain their wealth only by exploiting individuals and society, so thay should be required to pay a majority of their income to the government for use in programs to help the less fortunate."

"Government officials who do not perform to our standards should be immediately fired and imprisoned, without the requirements of inditement, trial, or conviction."

"In our multi-cultural nation, freedom of speech does not apply to racist, sexist, xenophobic, homophobic, or religiously intolerant speech, and people who use it should be jailed."

"Keep the Shiny side up"

SIGNYM

Friday, May 9, 2008 7:38 PM

Quote:
And how could you possibly know that?

Because I gave you several examples that you posted which seem characteristic, which you seem intent on avoiding?

Hey, anyone who's trying that hard to avoid being characertized as "authoritarian" prolly already suspects they are!

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Friday, May 9, 2008 7:39 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
And, of course, you have schools of thought on when the Roman Empire started and when it officially ended. Constantine was a Holy Roman Emporer, as was Napoleon, and I believe Carolus Magnus was in there as well (better known as Charlemagne).

I don’t agree with this either. We can draw a distinction between the Roman state and its successor states. Certainly both the Goths and the Eastern Roman Empire drew that distinction. But you’re right that basically much of Europe is a successor state to the Roman Empire. Time tends to flow in continuity even though historians may wish to compartmentalize it. Even today the borders of Western European countries are those drawn by Rome. This doesn’t mean, however, that states exist continually because the region is continuously occupied, even if by successor states.

And ultimately the fall of the Western Roman Empire was not the fall of the Roman Empire. Rome, as an empire, would continue to exist with its capital in Constantinople for many, many more years.

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
We can't agree on how long it lasted, or when the end began - was it the beginning of the end, or the end of the beginning? - but we can agree that the Empire didn't just skulk off into the night and disappear in a sudden "poof" and flash of light. It took a long time for the Roman Empire to fall - in fact, it took it the rest of its life!

Once again I disagree with this assertion. The Western Roman Empire went from a major power in the fourth century to successor states by the 5th century. Archeology has added a great deal that is in stark contrast to the previously accepted narrative of a declining Roman Empire constantly at war with Barbarians. We now know that in the fourth century, the Western Roman Empire was not a state in decline or in internal rot, but was at is peak of wealth, civilization and power. Archeology has revealed the foundations of huge stone and brick buildings dating to the fourth century in parts of the Western Roman Empire previously thought to be backwoods. In fact, contemporary text often describes these regions as such, which suggest that these regions developed during the fourth or third century. Archeology has reveal massive agriculture on a scale never thought practiced during the Roman period. We are only now beginning to realize that by the second and third century Rome had developed a degree of sophistication in many ways tantamount to the 19th century - factories, clockwork, running water with off and on faucets, flushable toilets. We know from archeology that by the third century Rome was not the only major city, but rather almost every province had a huge city built of stone and brick most of which came close to rivaling Rome or Constantinople. It’s just not possible for Rome to have exhibited this kind of development and yet be in decline, but in 497, the Western Roman Empire was Gothic state and within fifty years all that technology and social development would be gone and the city of Rome, except for the Vatican Hill would be a ghost town.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

CHRISISALL

Friday, May 9, 2008 7:39 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
"Anyone who's watching Gladiator *again* isn't entirely straight to begin with..."

Oh Harve...!*

Chrisisall with the *vague Last Boyscout ref

RUE

Friday, May 9, 2008 7:41 PM

geezer

I see you didn't read the book. In fact those questions and questions a lot like that were asked - for example about pornography, Nazis, the environmnet - and oddly enough, more low-authoritarians than high authoritarians said - well, I don't like it but ...

***************************************************************
My score was 34, and no, I wasn't gaming the test. Whether you were or not is open to question.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Friday, May 9, 2008 7:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
And how could you possibly know that?
Because I gave you several examples that you posted which seem characteristic?

You gave me examples of your pompous drivel. You’ve never read anything I’ve ever said without manipulating it to fit me into one your little boxes. The patriotism discussion is perfect example of that. And this whole authoritarian bullshit is just your excuse to accuse people you don’t agree with of being fascists.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

SIGNYM

Friday, May 9, 2008 7:46 PM

"The government should use any means necessary to reduce carbon emmisions and repair the damage to nature caused by man-made global warming."
Yanno, I have to say one thing about the Global Change Game: authoritarians would certainly solve the (human) overpopulation problem!

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Friday, May 9, 2008 7:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
My RWA score was 54. Hmm.

Mine was 62.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

GEEZER

Friday, May 9, 2008 7:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
"The government should use any means necessary to reduce carbon emmisions and repair the damage to nature caused by man-made global warming."

Just out of curiosity, what would be your responses to this and the other three questions in my "LWA Score" test?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

SIGNYM

Friday, May 9, 2008 7:59 PM

Mine was 38. I think.

Quote:
Just out of curiosity, what would be your responses to this and the other three questions in my "LWA Score" test?

Well, first of all you had four additional quesitons, not three.

Secondly, coming up with valid questions isn't that easy. I once helped create a job skills test with professional test-developer, and there was a lot of after-the fact evaluation of the test itself. For example, one of the evaluations involved testing the concurrence of each question with the overall score. Two of the questions were exactly inverted: the higher the overall score, the lower the score on those questions. It turned out that one question was seriously ambiguous, and the key was mismarked for the other. The scores were checked to see of they evenly distributed (they were) or modal (not). Since this was a timed test, he also checked to see if almost everyone was able to finish the test within the alloted time (they were). So developing a meanginful test requires more than just a quirky sense of humor, a point that the author really kinda drills on! (You haven't read the book either?)

For example, one of your questions prolly would be eliminated because it doesn't reflect ALL of the characteristics of an authoritarian. Economically successful people and businesses gain their wealth only by exploiting individuals and society, so thay should be required to pay a majority of their income to the government for use in programs to help the less fortunate. probably doesn't reflect the level of aggression in a true authoritarian.

But to answer your questions (minus the one that I don't think is quite right) I would say:
Any means necessary? Of course not!
Absolutley not. NO. And no!

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

RUE

Friday, May 9, 2008 8:07 PM

"Yanno, I have to say one thing about the Global Change Game: authoritarians would certainly solve the (human) overpopulation problem!"

Actually - they didn't !

In several iterations of a global change game the only people who managed to solve the problems, including soaring populations and starvation, were the low-authoritarians.

The high-authoritarians divide up into two groups - followers and manipulators (my words, but essentially accurate).

When just followers played the game no one cooperated to do anything - b/c in a roomful of people that were all alike, they divided themselves up into 'us's' and 'them's'. And never got beyond that. The result - massive starvation and overpopulation.

In a group with mixed followers and manipulators the problems didn't get fixed b/c the manipulators were spending all their resources trying to grab power away from the other manipulators, while the followers - followed them. As in the previous example, the result was overpopulation and massive starvation - an addition, the planet was on the brink of global nuclear war. (A previous trial where there was no distinction between followers and manipulators lead to global nuclear war and planet destruction in 12 minutes - the fastest fatal scenario ever.)

In fact, the only non-fatal scenario was with low-authoritarians.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

GEEZER

Friday, May 9, 2008 8:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I see you didn't read the book.

Not all of it yet.

Quote:
In fact those questions and questions a lot like that were asked - for example about pornography, Nazis, the environmnet

Maybe questions about this stuff - although a wordsearch of the pdf. file doesn't show any questions about Nazis, just mentions - but not couched in the same way, requiring government intervention in the isues.

Quote:
My score was 34, and no, I wasn't gaming the test. Whether you were or not is open to question.

I wouldn't think of accusing you of gaming the test. I do wonder though; if there actually was a LWA test, would folks who scored particularly low on the RWA score higher on the LWA?

Note: Altemeyer apparently did create a LWA test, but I haven't been able to find it online yet.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

SIGNYM

Friday, May 9, 2008 8:20 PM

Rue, it looks like I'll have to finish the book!

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

SIGNYM

Friday, May 9, 2008 9:39 PM

Quote:
You gave me examples of your pompous drivel. You’ve never read anything I’ve ever said without manipulating it to fit me into one your little boxes. The patriotism discussion is perfect example of that.

Yanno Finn, I really spent a great deal of time trying to figure out what you were talking about. I asked a lot of questions trying to understand what "patriotism" meant to you. But the more I asked the more confused I got. It's pretty much the same with almost anything we talk about. I've gotten to the point where I believe that YOU don't understand what you're talking about. That you have not thought much about what you mean, tried to throw your definitions into different contexts to see where they fall, or approach them from different directions to see where you start to make exceptions, draw distinctions, create boundaries.

To you, definitions are not something to be understood, they're what you put on a bumper sticker or a banner to raise emotions. But I feel at least I tried... which is more than I can say of you. You have not asked me once what I meant by something. Not once.

Quote:
And this whole authoritarian bullshit is just your excuse to accuse people you don’t agree with of being fascists.

Did you ask what I meant? No? Are you once again putting words in my mouth? It's all about "us" and "them", isn't it, Finn?

For someone who cries a buckets of tears about being misunderstood you spend an awful lot of time misrepresenting others!

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Friday, May 9, 2008 10:07 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Did you ask what I meant? No? Are you once again putting words in my mouth? It's all about "us" and "them", isn't it, Finn?

For someone who cries a buckets of tears about being misunderstood you spend an awful lot of time misrepresenting others!

::tears, tears:: Cry all you want, Signym. I’ve been listening to you misrepresent me and manipulate the argument for years. Who do you think you’re fooling with this one-side authoritarian crap? If you want to discuss authoritarianism, that’s fine, but that’s not what you want. It really doesn’t surprise a lot people on this board that you were the first one to start throwing out names of people you wanted to accuse of being “authoritarian.” You’ve never tried to understand anything I’ve said. You’ve never for one minute cared what I think. I’m sorry you’re having trouble defining me in the simplest possible terms. Actually I don’t really give a shit. You can define me in any terms you want, but don’t expect me to do tricks for you.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

SIGNYM

Friday, May 9, 2008 10:24 PM

Quote:
Cry all you want, Signym. I’ve been listening to you misrepresent me and manipulate the argument for years.

Finn, mostly what I've done is ask you questions out of a strong desire to understand what you're saying. I can't help it if you find that offensive, somehow.

Quote:
Who do you think you’re fooling with this one-side authoritarian crap? If you want to discuss authoritarianism, that’s fine, but that’s not what you want. It really doesn’t surprise a lot people on this board that you were the first one to start throwing out names of people you wanted to accuse of being “authoritarian.”

No actually. That wasn't me. And it started out as a joke.

Quote:
You’ve never tried to understand anything I’ve said. You’ve never for one minute cared what I think.

I do care what you think. But you seem to conflate "thinking" with "feeling". It's not the same. I'm fully aware of how you feel. What I can't seem to figure out is what you think.

Quote:
I’m sorry you’re having trouble defining me in the simplest possible terms. Actually I don’t really give a shit. You can define me in any terms you want, but don’t expect me to do tricks for you.

I wouldn't want you to do tricks. Why would I want that?

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

KWICKO

Friday, May 9, 2008 10:39 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:

I'd be interested in seeing a LWA score system with questions like:

"The government should use any means necessary to reduce carbon emmisions and repair the damage to nature caused by man-made global warming."

Disagree. The government should set reasonable standards (CARB's idea of "reasonable" is a good example of what NOT reasonable standards look like) to encourage reducing carbon emissions and should encourage repairing the damage caused by global climate change, whether man-made or not. This would include - but not be limited to - promoting alternative energy research into such things as geothermal, wind, solar, etc.

Quote:
"To protect society, the government should be required to sieze all private firearmes, and be allowed to conduct warrantless searches to find them."

Disagree, strongly. The government should be required to prosecute gun CRIMES, but owning a gun is not in and of itself a crime. Warrantless searches are... well, for lack of a better word... UNWARRANTED in all cases.

Quote:
"Economically successful people and businesses gain their wealth only by exploiting individuals and society, so thay should be required to pay a majority of their income to the government for use in programs to help the less fortunate."

Disagree. People whose economic success is gained chiefly or solely by exploiting individuals and society in an unlawful manner should be fined and/or imprisoned, depending on the severity of their crimes, whether they be CEOs of big pharma, or your average street-level drug dealer. Taxes should be a flat-rate across the board, or a nationwide sales tax that is paid by everybody on everything they buy, with no loopholes and no exemptions.

Quote:
"Government officials who do not perform to our standards should be immediately fired and imprisoned, without the requirements of inditement, trial, or conviction."

Disagree. Government officials who break the law should be immediately suspended, investigated, and if indicted, tried, and convicted, should be fired and sent to prison. It's what we do to cops, if the system in place is followed.

Quote:
"In our multi-cultural nation, freedom of speech does not apply to racist, sexist, xenophobic, homophobic, or religiously intolerant speech, and people who use it should be jailed."

Disagree. Freedom of speech doesn't mean you can say whatever you want, whenever and wherever you want; it means you can't be imprisoned for doing so. That's not to say there aren't consequences to be paid for being a fucking idiot - just try calling your black boss the N-word, and see if he feels he's justified in firing your ass.

So how'd I score?

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Friday, May 9, 2008 11:00 PM

Take the patriotism discussion that you brought up. You asked me what I thought about patriotism and I naively thought you wanted an honest answer so I attempted to define how I saw patriotism, which by definition is love for one’s country. But you’re take on that discussion was that you were a model American, a lover of Republicanism, and I hated the founding fathers. That was essentially your conclusion, even though nothing I said could possible lead any reasonable person to that conclusion, but it was the conclusion you wanted, so you went with it, and you’re still going with it. You look back at that discussion as somehow pivotal in defining me as this or that. I still don’t know where you came up with that, but you want to define me in the simplest possible terms. “Authoritarian” is your current buzz word. You used to think I was a Christian Fundamentalist. Those were the funny days, when you would make some little sarcastic comment about me that only works if you think I’m a fundamentalists. I got some laughs out of some of those. You’re always looking for some little box to put me in.

Well, I’m going to help you out - I’m a fundamento-agnostic libero-conservative socio-capitalist authoritarian rebel. Put that label on a box and stick me in it.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

GEEZER

Saturday, May 10, 2008 12:51 AM

A possible example of a high LWA type?

Quote:
Celebrity chef Gordon Ramsay says British restaurants should be fined if they serve fruit and vegetables which are not in season.

He told the BBC that fruit and vegetables should be locally-sourced and only on menus when in season.

Mr Ramsay said he had already spoken to Prime Minister Gordon Brown about outlawing out-of-season produce.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7390959.stm

"Keep the Shiny side up"

SERGEANTX

Saturday, May 10, 2008 12:57 AM

I see about as many LWAs as RWAs. And it's sad, 'cause most of them don't even know it.

That's why I have so little patience with the left vs. right discussions. As far as I see, there are the jerkoffs that want to get into everyone elses business, and there are the people content to live and let live. Left and Right don't enter into it.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

SIGNYM

Saturday, May 10, 2008 1:17 AM

Quote:
Take the patriotism discussion that you brought up.

Okay

Quote:
You asked me what I thought about patriotism and I naively thought you wanted an honest answer so I attempted to define how I saw patriotism, which by definition is love for one’s country. But you’re take on that discussion was that you were a model American, a lover of Republicanism, and I hated the founding fathers. That was essentially your conclusion

So, here is part of the patriotism discussion:

----------------------
Satuday September 13, 2007

I do agree that one of Kucinich’s principles seems to be that American values are not important to promote, which I consider to be a pretty serious blow to any credibility as a leader of this country.- Finn

FINN- I know we've been through this b4, but either my memory is bad or I just didn't understand in the first place so: What ARE "American values"? We had a big discussion about "patriotism". I think we decided that I define it more as republicanism (small r). But you seem to define it more as "love of place" irrespective of what "the government" does. (I still haven't figured out what that means. I'm working on it!) So how does that translate to "American values"? What American values should we be exporting? -Signy

Saturday, September 15, 2007

Well, we finally get to a really interesting point... some place where we're not just trading insults... and then you disappear. And I'd still really like to know what you think are "American values" because I have a feeling this will be like our discussion of "patriotism": I might not "grok" what you think but I will kinda get the flavor. - Signy

I didn’t disappear, I just got bored with the discussion. It was approaching 250 posts – that’s usually the lifetime of most discussions… And as I remember my understanding of patriotism from that long ago thread was that it is defined as “love of country,” which could translate into any or all of several things including government, culture, geographic region, political philosophy or some food made from the guts of sheep. And your conclusion was that patriotism is republicanism and I hate the founding fathers because I didn’t express sole and unwavering agreement with everything you said. As far as Kucinich, his views are not realistic.- Finn

Don't mean to hijack the thread, but I would like to be clear on what you're saying. It's not that Kucinich doesn't support "American values" that bothers you? It's that his views are "unrealistic?" Also, if I left the impression that you were damned for not being a "republican"... I didn't mean to do that. It just seems to me that there are many nations with lovely scenery that speak the English language and have our approximate heritage, but the unique facet of America is supposedly our love of democracy and our fierce dedication to individual freedom. I mean, I love my native city (Buffalo) with all its faults and I have come to love my new city (LA) with all it's faults, I love my family and our family's heritage despite their faults but I would hardly call that "patriotism". And it's not exactly an unconditional love either- I try, where I can, to push things in a better direction. The reason WHY I love my country is for all the GOOD things it represents, and to me that means freedom and equality under the law. I just can't imagine loving the USA for the BAD things it does. Maybe you're able to extend a "warts and all" love that I feel for my personal connections to ALL of America.- Signy

{There is a long discussion among people about what "love" means and whether it means commitment or something else, then}

What is there to know? The US is superhumanly perfect in every conceivable way with no flaws whatsoever. ... You’ll find, if you decide to travel, that many nations also love democracy and have a fierce dedication to individual freedom. The US is not unique in that regard either. But as far as the patriotism thread was concerned, that was precisely the impression that I got, which was somewhat conf

SIGNYM

Saturday, May 10, 2008 1:48 AM

FINN

Digging backwards to the original discussion...

Thursday, July 11, 2007

For me, patriotism means watching our government to make sure it is REALLY representing the people, and doing so effectively. What does patriotism mean to you?- Signy

Your description of patriotism is a convenient excuse to be critical of a government run by an administration you don’t agree with, more then it is a love for your country, I suspect. A lot of people use patriotism as an excuse to attack the government. There isn’t anything wrong with being vigilant to preserve a liberal government (in fact I would say that it is incumbent upon us to be a free people), but that’s not necessarily patriotism. It’s probably better described as republicanism. You could argue that one could be a republican because they are patriotic, but I don’t think you can define patriotism as republicanism.

Patriotism is love for one’s country. It has nothing specifically to do with the government. You can love your country even if you live out in the woods away from any government involvement, or even if your government is an oppressive regime. Patriotism is the glue that holds us together as a nation. Laws and political boundaries aren’t enough. We must be American to be a country, and in order for us to be American we must want to be American. We must love our country. We must have a desire for our country to be successful, a single unifying idea that leads us forward as a people. We are an extremely diverse people and we are very proud of our individuality, and these things can be strength, but they are also a recipe for conflict and disagreement. Patriotism is an ideal that gives us a sense of unity, a sense of nationality, something that we can agree on, even if we agree on nothing else.- Finn

{That seemed unclear to me and included a lot of things, so I asked...}

Um, did you toss out one undefined term to define another? I'm not sure I know what "republicanism" means. ... What form would "patriotism" take if the government WAS an oppressive regime? What would patriotism in action look like to you?...

But I want my country to be successful too. We may have different ideas of success. ETA I don't know of ANY liberals who go around saying "I want my country to be a failure." I want my country to be a success. To me that means a transparent government, self-reliant production and energy, the availability of a decent-paying job for everyone who wants to work, safety from foreign enemies, and environmental stewardship so that generations of Americans after us can continue to prosper. It does NOT mean rampant corporatism. And I don't think we need to sacrifice our ideals in order to meet these goals.- Signy

Finn, I'm hoping you will respond to my vision of patriotism.-Signy
www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=29594

which, BTW, you never did

Now, I re-read that and nowhere did I conclude anything like you claim. All I did was ask questions and give my opinion.

But it seems you have a signifcicant problem with questions particularly since you can't seem to answer them, and then you get all pissed and attack me and accuse me of "manipulating" the conversation. Well I'm sorry that your logic skills are so weak that you think a few straightforward questions are "manipulation" but that's your problem, not mine.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

FLETCH2

Saturday, May 10, 2008 3:06 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
I see about as many LWAs as RWAs. And it's sad, 'cause most of them don't even know it.

That's why I have so little patience with the left vs. right discussions. As far as I see, there are the jerkoffs that want to get into everyone elses business, and there are the people content to live and let live. Left and Right don't enter into it.

SergeantX

Nah you're wrong. What you see here are frustrated wannabe "Elite's" folks that either think the world would be better if they were running it or fantasise that they lived in a world that appreciated their own extremely limited skill set. They don't count for a mess of beans between them and it upsets them all something fierce, which is why they come here to battle for ideologies that they somewhat vaguely believe better suit their interests.

You're not looking at followers here (well, maybe AUraptor and Jack) you are looking at frustrated leader types.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Saturday, May 10, 2008 4:02 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Now, I re-read that and nowhere did I conclude anything like you claim. All I did was ask questions and give my opinion.

Yeah, I didn’t find the particular passage I was thinking of either. It’s possible I’m mistaken or thinking of a different thread. On the off chance I was mistaken, please accept my apologies.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
But it seems you have a signifcicant problem with questions particularly since you can't seem to answer them, and then you get all pissed and attack me and accuse me of "manipulating" the conversation. Well I'm sorry that your logic skills are so weak that you think a few straightforward questions are "manipulation" but that's your problem, not mine.

Seems to me that I answer a lot of your questions. In fact, reading through that thread again, I can’t believe I let it go on that long. I must have not had anything to do that day, but I can’t imagine how. Nonetheless, these kinds of third degrees are tiresome, especially when you don’t appreciate the discussion, you just get frustrated and snarky wtih me for not giving you the answers you want to hear.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

FREMDFIRMA

Saturday, May 10, 2008 8:25 AM

Quote:
As far as I see, there are the jerkoffs that want to get into everyone elses business, and there are the people content to live and let live. Left and Right don't enter into it.

Amen.

Quote:
You're not looking at followers here (well, maybe AUraptor and Jack) you are looking at frustrated leader types.

Not sure I buy that one.

I sure as hell wouldn't wanna be in charge, in fact I happen to be currently trying to discourage an attempt to elect me to city council cause tellin other folk what to do comes at odds with my views on individual sovereignity.

And I really don't care for anyone else tellin ME what to do, I can run my own life without anyone else's interference, thank ya muchly.

Hell, I don't even believe in the leader-follower dynamic as a functionally effective system, so why would I feel the need to subscribe to either end of that trainwreck in the first place ?

-F

CITIZEN

Saturday, May 10, 2008 8:36 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
And, of course, you have schools of thought on when the Roman Empire started and when it officially ended. Constantine was a Holy Roman Emporer, as was Napoleon, and I believe Carolus Magnus was in there as well (better known as Charlemagne).

Well there was a Holy Roman empire through much of Europes history, and it wasn't dissolved until 1806, but it was more a Germanic than Roman empire. It was also less of a state and more of an alliance after the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, in fact Voltaire described it as "neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire".

Quote:
We can't agree on how long it lasted, or when the end began - was it the beginning of the end, or the end of the beginning? - but we can agree that the Empire didn't just skulk off into the night and disappear in a sudden "poof" and flash of light. It took a long time for the Roman Empire to fall - in fact, it took it the rest of its life!

The decline certainly took hundreds of years. The empire had started to partition and break up, whole areas coming under defacto control of 'Barbarian' tribes long before the Fifth Century. The Western Roman Empire never fully recovered from the crises of the third century.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

SERGEANTX

Saturday, May 10, 2008 10:05 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
Nah you're wrong. What you see here are frustrated wannabe "Elite's" folks that either think the world would be better if they were running it or fantasise that they lived in a world that appreciated their own extremely limited skill set.

Actually, I wasn't talking about 'here', just the world in general.

It's probably worth making a distinction between leaders and authoritarians. I can certainly imagine a libertarian leader, and there have been a few. You can also be a 'follower' without being authoritarian. The crucial thing is where we're being led.

But I gather you were somewhat more interested in making a tongue-in-cheek jab at the inflated egos that our board inspires.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

SIGNYM

Saturday, May 10, 2008 1:48 PM

Quote:
That's why I have so little patience with the left vs. right discussions. As far as I see, there are the jerkoffs that want to get into everyone elses business, and there are the people content to live and let live. Left and Right don't enter into it.

Have you read the book? It appears not. The critical distinction that you seem to be missing is that authoritarians are willing to apply violence to get their way. So they applaud tasing people who're guilty of mouthing off, for example, or invading a nation that posed no conceivable threat, or support the death penalty

I know... in your mind, anyone who supports any form of 'government" whatsoever is equally guilty of being authoritarian. But it's a continuum. Try being more tolerant of people who aren't EXACTLY on your point in the spectrum, you'll be a better Libertarian that way.

Quote:
The crucial thing is where we're being led.

Yeah, that's what they all say. And it's a very dangerous path that excuses all kinds of demagoguery. Haevn't you learned from the excesses of monopolism ("building a better future someday") and the "dictatorship of the proletariat"? Trying to create a better end through inconsistent means only creates more of the same.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

FREMDFIRMA

Saturday, May 10, 2008 2:10 PM

That would depend on how one defines intolerance.

Verbal smackdowns and not taking shit is a far cry from either initiating violent action, or encouraging a government to take violent action on your behalf.

Just because one distances themself from the actual use of violence by getting someone else to do it for them, doesn't absolve them of responsibility if they initiated it, oh hell no.

Cause if you wanna make THAT argument, then Shrub himself is blameless because HE never shot at an Iraqi in his life.

Just because you don't use the force PERSONALLY, doesn't mean you ain't using it.

-F
*EDIT - I see the post this was in response to was edited before I finished this one, but imma leave this one as it is anyhow.

SIGNYM

Saturday, May 10, 2008 2:10 PM

Quote:
Seems to me that I answer a lot of your questions. In fact, reading through that thread again, I can’t believe I let it go on that long. I must have not had anything to do that day, but I can’t imagine how. Nonetheless, these kinds of third degrees are tiresome, especially when you don’t appreciate the discussion, you just get frustrated and snarky wtih me for not giving you the answers you want to hear.

Please -re-read what I dug up. Did I get snarky? The only snark seemed to be coming from you.

Finn, having a dialogue does not mean two people bashing each other over the head with their respective placards. Nobody learns anything that way except maybe to get a bigger, stouter placard for next time. Sometimes learning involves questions... as an amateur historian, have you never heard of the Socratic method? Perhaps you have such a problem answering questions because you don't ask them. You don't ask me, you don't ask our leaders, you don't even ask yourself: what does that mean? Under what circumstances would I apply that? What will it lead to?

Quote:
It’s possible I’m mistaken or thinking of a different thread. On the off chance I was mistaken, please accept my apologies.

Accepted.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

SERGEANTX

Saturday, May 10, 2008 4:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Have you read the book? It appears not. The critical distinction that you seem to be missing is that authoritarians are willing to apply violence to get their way. So they applaud tasing people who're guilty of mouthing off, for example, or invading a nation that posed no conceivable threat, or support the death penalty

I started to, but those "take a quiz to find out what you are" things grew tedious for me long ago. A while back we were giving people a similar test to see if people were 'libertarians'. Results showed that 60-70 percent of us are secretly libertarian. That was obvious bullshit, even though it told me what I wanted to hear. Point being, these tests may be nice entertainment, but they tell us nothing worthwhile.

Now, I'm not saying the whole book is bullshit - I haven't read it yet. But if the point is to paint authoritarianism as an exclusively right-wing thing, it seems a stretch. Statist liberal ambitions, from nationalizing industry all the way down to banning public smoking, are every bit as much about violence as their right-wing parallels.

Quote:
Try being more tolerant of people who aren't EXACTLY on your point in the spectrum, you'll be a better Libertarian that way.

It's not clear to me what constitutes 'tolerance' in your reality. It's a very rare thing when I get in the mood to force my views on someone else. If you're asking me to be 'tolerant' of them forcing theirs on me, that's just typical liberal doublespeak.

I'm guessing you see things like busting up families because they won't immunize their kids, or raiding the homes of people who won't play along with your great society plans, as 'non-violent', but you're kidding yourself and you know it. Liberals are just as happy use violence to achieve their aims as conservatives. They've just got a different list of aims.

There are good guys and bad guys on both sides of the left/right puppet show. In my first post on this thread, I'd hoped that's where the book was headed. If we're going to get back to a civil society we need to recognize that and stop electing more authoritarians just because they're on the other side of the aisle.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

FLETCH2

Saturday, May 10, 2008 4:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:

But I gather you were somewhat more interested in making a tongue-in-cheek jab at the inflated egos that our board inspires.

SergeantX

Indeed... sorry about that.

I do realise that there are both leaders and followers and that either can be Authoritarian. One of the points Altemeyer makes is that it isn't authoritarian leaders you have to worry about, because in the main they are ineffectual and in competition with each other for converts. It's the followers that are the problem because they provide the leader with willing storm troopers.

SERGEANTX

Saturday, May 10, 2008 4:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
One of the points Altemeyer makes is that it isn't authoritarian leaders you have to worry about, because in the main they are ineffectual and in competition with each other for converts. It's the followers that are the problem because they provide the leader with willing storm troopers.

That's definitely a point worth making. I just see those types on both sides is all.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

FREMDFIRMA

Saturday, May 10, 2008 8:28 PM

Ah, but that's the key, innit ?

Strip them of their stormtroopers, and they're just another loudmouth.

But that would require folks to think for themselves, and try getting THAT concept through our public "education" system.

3 suspended for not standing for Pledge of Allegiance
http://www.startribune.com/nation/18800444.html

For the record, I too refused to utter the pledge in 1978, due to the belief that "liberty and justice for all"* was a lie, and I hated "their god" with a passion even at the time.

And we DID win that one, even back then.

-Frem
*"Liberty and Justice for all" doesn't mean much to someone consistently treated as subhuman on the mere basis of their age now does it ?

HKCAVALIER

Saturday, May 10, 2008 8:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
I started to, but those "take a quiz to find out what you are" things grew tedious for me long ago. A while back we were giving people a similar test to see if people were 'libertarians'. Results showed that 60-70 percent of us are secretly libertarian. That was obvious bullshit, even though it told me what I wanted to hear. Point being, these tests may be nice entertainment, but they tell us nothing worthwhile.

Hey Sarge,

The point of the book is emphatically not to "find out what you are." It's a lot more serious than that. The book represents 20 years of research. And Altemeyer doesn't claim that his "authoritarians" are politically conservative necessarily--only that they are conformists who follow their leaders even when their leaders sell them out. His research has been focused on answering the question, "Why would a person do such crazy a thing?" He's approached the question as a scientist and that opening questionnaire is a distillation of the issues he's discovered that best flush out the blind follower from the rest of the population.

Please, give the book a little more of your time. As Signy said, it starts out slow, but the picture it ultimately paints is pretty compelling, I'd say.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

HKCAVALIER

Saturday, May 10, 2008 9:15 PM

Here's a bit I found particularly troubling and relevant:

Quote:
...I gave the inferences test that Mary Wegmann had used to two large samples of students at my university. In both studies high RWAs (that is, people who scored high on that questionnaire--people, by the way, who scored a good deal higher than either Geezer or Finn) went down in flames more than others did. They particularly had trouble figuring out that an inference or deduction was wrong.

To illustrate, suppose they had gotten the following syllogism:

All fish live in the sea.
Sharks live in the sea..
Therefore, sharks are fish.

The conclusion does not follow, but high RWAs would be more likely to say the reasoning is correct than most people would. If you ask them why it seems right, they would likely tell you, “Because sharks are fish.” In other words, they thought the reasoning was sound because they agreed with the last statement. If the conclusion is right, they figure, then the reasoning must have been right. Or to put it another way, they don’t “get it” that the reasoning matters--especially on a reasoning test.

This is not only “Illogical, Captain,” as Mr. Spock would say, it’s quite dangerous, because it shows that if authoritarian followers like the conclusion, the logic involved is pretty irrelevant. The reasoning should justify the conclusion, but for a lot of high RWAs, the conclusion validates the reasoning. Such is the basis of many a prejudice, and many a Big Lie that comes to be accepted. Now one can easily overstate this finding. A lot of people have trouble with syllogistic reasoning, and high RWAs are only slightly more likely to make such mistakes than low RWAs are. But in general high RWAs seem to have more trouble than most people do realizing that a conclusion is false.

Deductive logic aside, authoritarians also have trouble deciding whether empirical evidence proves, or does not prove, something. They will often think some thoroughly ambiguous fact verifies something they already believe in. So if you tell them that archaeologists have discovered a fallen wall at ancient Jericho, they are more likely than most people to infer that this proves the Biblical story of Joshua and the horns is true--when the wall could have been knocked over by lots of other groups, or an earthquake, and be from an entirely different era (which it is).

High RWAs similarly think the fact that many religions in the world have accounts of a big flood proves that the story of Noah is true--when the accounts vary enormously, big floods hardly mean the story of the ark, etcetera also occurred, and the tale of Noah was likely adapted from an earlier Sumerian myth. They are sure that accounts of near-death experiences in which people say they traveled through a dark tunnel toward a Being of Light prove the teachings of Christianity are true--even though these stories also vary enormously, the “Being” is usually interpreted according to whom one expects to meet at death, and the vision could just be an hallucination produced by an oxygen-depleted brain.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

FREMDFIRMA

Sunday, May 11, 2008 12:20 AM

Me, I am just throwin popcorn cause this guy ain't tell me nothin I haven't known in detail for nearly twenty years - although he did put it in a format the average folk is capable of understanding, cause I sure as hell haven't ever managed to get it across myself.

I wonder if we can't turn their own tables on them though, since they seem so all fired up to have any dissent from the established order classified as a mental illness....

It occurs to me that basing on this we could add an entry to the DSM-IV and effectively class THEM as nutcakes.

Believe me, I'd feel a lot more comfortable with these yahoos in a padded cell than at the gears and levers of our Government, that's for damn sure.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

CANTTAKESKY

Tuesday, May 13, 2008 7:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
The critical distinction that you seem to be missing is that authoritarians are willing to apply violence to get their way.

I think the thing you're missing is that violence and force are the same thing.

CITIZEN

Tuesday, May 13, 2008 8:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Now, I'm not saying the whole book is bullshit - I haven't read it yet. But if the point is to paint authoritarianism as an exclusively right-wing thing, it seems a stretch. Statist liberal ambitions, from nationalizing industry all the way down to banning public smoking, are every bit as much about violence as their right-wing parallels.

He does say Right-Wing Authoritarianism is more prevalent than Left-Wing Authoritarianism, but he is using Left and Right as different terms to their current meaning. In fact he's using a more traditional meaning of the terms. For instance someone who violently supported the Soviet Government is termed a Right-Wing Authoritarian, even though they'd be left wing politically.

The idea is that Right-Wing Authoritarians support the established order, and Left-Wing Authoritarians are opposed to the established order.

CITIZEN

Tuesday, May 13, 2008 8:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Strip them of their stormtroopers, and they're just another loudmouth.

There's a somewhat humorous 'rant' aimed at religion by a British comic where he says something similar:
http://themuttsnuts.wordpress.com/2007/11/07/marcus-brigstocke-on-reli
gion/

"Now, I know that most religious folk are moderate and reasonable and wear tidy jumpers and eat cheese, like real people. And on hearing this they'll mainly feel pity for me, rather than issue a death sentence. But they have to accept that they are the power base for the nutters. Without their passive support the loonies in charge of these faiths would just be loonies, safely locked away and medicated -- somewhere nice with a view of some trees where they can claim they have a direct channel to god between sessions making tapestry coasters, watching Teletubbies and talking about their days in the Hitler Youth."

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

SIGNYM

Tuesday, May 13, 2008 8:39 PM

Quote:
I think the thing you're missing is that violence and force are the same thing.

One can be forceful without being violent.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

FLETCH2

Tuesday, May 13, 2008 8:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
I think the thing you're missing is that violence and force are the same thing.
One can be forceful without being violent.
.

But that relies on the other person being cooperative and reacting to you being "forceful" in the way you desire. A more jaundiced view is that you being "forceful" is really you being coersive ie backed by the threat of violence.

Bare in mind also that you are talking to someone that believes mailing out a tax demand is a violent act, or is at least backed by the threat of violence. The force continum you work with and the one CTS uses have very different scales.

CANTTAKESKY

Tuesday, May 13, 2008 9:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
One can be forceful without being violent.

You mean you can threaten violence without being violent?

So a RWA can be "forceful without being violent" by telling an abortion clinic that unless they shut down, he will hire mercs to kidnap and imprison the owners, and maybe even the employees.

And as Fletch pointed out, they will simply cooperate because force, instead of violence, was used?

SIGNYM

Tuesday, May 13, 2008 10:06 PM

Quote:
But that relies on the other person being cooperative and reacting to you being "forceful" in the way you desire. A more jaundiced view is that you being "forceful" is really you being coersive ie backed by the threat of violence.

Bare in mind also that you are talking to someone that believes mailing out a tax demand is a violent act, or is at least backed by the threat of violence. The force continum you work with and the one CTS uses have very different scales.

I'll use your answer as a paradigm for Sarge's and Frem's as well.

This is a typical slippery slope argument. So, if tearing off fingernails is torture, what about waterboarding? If waterboarding is torture, what about sleep deprivation? If sleep deprivation is torture, what about questioning someone for 10 hours straight? If questioning someone for 10 hours straight is torture, what about questioning them under bright lights for 2 hours? If two hours under bright lights is torture, what about yelling? If yelling is torture, what about questioning them without their usual cuppa coffee?

Yes, it's a continuum. But being on a continuum doesn't mean it's all the same, does it?

Frem, for example, seems to think that ALL governments are bad. But there are governments... and then there governments. George Bush's government is not the same as Olafur Grimssons'. SOME governments actually work with a minimum of violence because they do what people want them to do. And Sarge seems to think that if you favor breaking up families to stop incest then you're obviously in favor of breaking up families who don't enforce proper toothbrushing. This kind of conflation is just... silly... and something that I expect to hear from the right wing but not from you.

ETA: CTS- This applies to you also.

Forceful: strong, emphatic, and confident; effective

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

CANTTAKESKY

Tuesday, May 13, 2008 10:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Forceful: strong, emphatic, and confident; effective

Whoa!

All right. We are talking about two different things here. Not a continuum. Not at all.

You are talking about a manner of being assertive, being forceful.

I am talking about force, the threat of violence behind all legislation. Legislation is not about the public being assertive about what they want. Legislation is not a strong recommendation or a guideline. Legislation is, if you don't do what we want, you will suffer physical consequences. And if you do not cooperate with physical consequences, we will physically kidnap you and imprison you with ugly mean people. Threat of violence, see?

So legislation is not "forceful" as in assertive. It IS force, as in threat of violence. This is a standard foundation in all political science scholarship; I didn't think I had to explain it.

Back to the original point, violence and threat of violence are on a continuum. So instead of using the word "force," which appears to be confusing to you, let's just use the terms "violence" and "threat of violence." (No more slippery slope from "force" to "forceful.")

My understanding is that you think threat of violence is acceptable, but violence is some RWA trait. Anarchists and libertarians think they are both signs of authoritarianism and to be avoided unless it is absolutely necessary. See?

RUE

Tuesday, May 13, 2008 10:52 PM

"Legislation is not a strong recommendation or a guideline. Legislation is, if you don't do what we want, you will suffer physical consequences."

Sometimes legislation is - if you need medical care we can provide it. If you need R&D we can do that. If your children need an education we have schools and teachers.

Sometimes it is - if you steal, we will take your stolen goods. If you pollute, we will stop you from polluting.

Not every bit of legislation ends up at the point of a gun, as you seem to imply.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

SIGNYM

Tuesday, May 13, 2008 11:01 PM

I'm not sure that violence (or its threat) are necessary or useful, even for the maintenance of "the state". After all, look at the USA: We have the highest incarceration rate AND the highest murder rate. If we're using jail time (which in the USA means homosexual rape, and beatings... in other words, violence) as the antidote for lawlessness, it's not working very well, is it? Even in the case of self-defense... the prime example of "justified violence"... the only reason to use violence is because it's quick. If there were some sort of "freeze action" button, that could be used instead.

So many people think that violence is effective. It seems to me that is just an indication of how immature we are in our understanding of how societies work. Basically, we hit things with hammers.

To equate statism with violence might be historically useful, but I'm not sure it's a bona fide link. And if statism and violence are decoupled... or can be decoupled... where does that leave libertarians and anarchists?

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

GEEZER

Tuesday, May 13, 2008 11:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Sometimes legislation is - if you need medical care we can provide it. If you need R&D we can do that. If your children need an education we have schools and teachers...
Not every bit of legislation ends up at the point of a gun, as you seem to imply.

In these three cases you left out the implied "...and we'll force other people to pay for it". Pretty much anything the government does relies on tax dollars to fund it, and making sure that people pay does sometimes end up coming at the point of a gun.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

FLETCH2

Tuesday, May 13, 2008 11:09 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
This kind of conflation is just... silly... and something that I expect to hear from the right wing but not from you.

Did I become a leftist all of a sudden? I must have missed that memo!

Still, I am not making this point, just clarifying that the frames of reference being used here are very different. It seems to me that once you start down this path with CTS or Frem we are just looking at a very long thread in which nothing is resolved.

Imagine a scientific theory where you have to blow up the Earth to know if the the theory is true. You can make guesses as to what you might discover, perhaps do small experiments that prove inconclusive due to lack of scale. Without the big test there is no way to absolutely prove the theory so it remains untried because doing the experiment is so dire.

That is where we are with the whole Fremworld/"Right anarchist" discussion. They have a complete unified theory that everything relates to but no conclusive experiment (for obvious reasons) you have another theory that works as well, the two probably can't be reconciled and we can't do the defining experiment. So we will argue forever on data points.

Just trying to head off the waste of bandwidth.

FREMDFIRMA

Tuesday, May 13, 2008 11:35 PM

Quote:
Frem, for example, seems to think that ALL governments are bad.

Incorrect.

I see them as an inherently flawed and all too easily exploited means of allowing larger collectives of people to act in concert - and only necessary because of our lack of social and emotional development, a lack that is very much encouraged by a Government to preserve it's own status quo.

But when they act in direct contravention to the wishes of the people they were created to serve, set themselves up as lords, and proceed to nitpick, invade and generally meddle with and wreck the lives of the very folk who's lot they were intended to protect and improve, then yeah, that's bad.

And when it gets to the point where the people are incapable of rectifying that fact because the government has 'pocketed' all the legal means of doing so, and completely outguns them besides - then based on this superiority takes ever broader encroachments and treats them as peons because of it... then that is evil.

Quote:
But there are governments... and then there governments. George Bush's government is not the same as Olafur Grimssons'.

Exactly, just because ours is an overblown, monstrous and abusive piece of political bloatware doesn't mean everyone else on the planet fucked it up as badly as we have.

Quote:
SOME governments actually work with a minimum of violence because they do what people want them to do.

Ding! Ding! Ding! - we have a winner!

Like I've said twenty times and more, the PRIMARY thing that I WANT, from a Police Force or a Government, is for them to DO THEIR JOB, and do it with a bare minimum of waste, fraud and abuse - were they to actually DO that, instead of neglecting it utterly while crapping on, exploiting and generally abusing the folk they're supposed to be working for, I wouldn't be so all-fired crabby about it.

Case in point, our alphabet-intel agencies, from their very inception they've spent so much effort spying on, harrassing, and otherwise generally crapping on the very folk they are supposed to be protecting, often in direct contravention of their own charters and applicable law - and yet have been wholly, utterly and completely ineffective at their assigned role, if anything, their meddling and plots have made things WORSE, and reduced our national security on pure blowback.

If I hire a guy to mow my lawn, and he runs my dog over with the mower, wipes out my flowerbeds and proceeds to crash the mower into the fence cause he's drunk off his ass - and then not only hightails it with the job undone, then comes back and extorts payment at gunpoint, AND sticks you with the bill for repairs to his mower and medical bills for his injuries...

You can imagine I wouldn't be pleased with his work nor keen on paying him, and I file our current Government in the same category of utter incompetence and maliciousness, since their incompetence doesn't deserve payment and they extract it under threat of violence/incarceration anyhows.

My issue isn't that they exist, it's that they are often incompetent, wasteful, and abusive, not to mention extortive, since you cannot withhold payment due to these things.

For mine own, my suggestion to remedy that would be a schedule form attached to the 1040 with which a citizen could decide for themselves where in the budget every penny goes - that measure alone would chop the HELL out of many current abuses by de-funding the machinery of their operations.

There, now is my position clear ?

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

FREMDFIRMA

Tuesday, May 13, 2008 11:37 PM

Quote:
Not every bit of legislation ends up at the point of a gun, as you seem to imply.

Bullshit.

If you chose to not comply, the State will absolutely and inevitably reach that point, especially if you choose to actively resist it's measures.

Refuse to comply - they send threats, which, if defied soon escalate to them sending a man with a gun to forcibly kidnap and imprison you.

Resist that in any kind of effective way, and he WILL kill you.

Every single piece of legislation, from a parking fine to a Class 1 Felony, has that threat behind it, every single one.

Because that is how it is enforced, with the threat of violence.

Which is why I think people should really THINK before encouraging legislation, and ponder whether it's really worth killing someone over should they choose to actively resist it.

Really, would you kill someone over a parking ticket, or building a toolshed without a permit - is that worth a persons life ?

We got so many laws NOW there's no way in hell to obey them all, much less enforce them all, and we oughta smack a sunset provision on every single one, not no extendable bullshit factor neither, a right-out cut-down automatic delete, requiring the whole damn thing to be done from scratch when the deadline runs out.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

FREMDFIRMA

Tuesday, May 13, 2008 11:38 PM

Quote:
To equate statism with violence might be historically useful, but I'm not sure it's a bona fide link. And if statism and violence are decoupled... or can be decoupled... where does that leave libertarians and anarchists?

Happy.

-F

SIGNYM

Tuesday, May 13, 2008 11:39 PM

Quote:
In these three cases you left out the implied "...and we'll force other people to pay for it". Pretty much anything the government does relies on tax dollars to fund it, and making sure that people pay does sometimes end up coming at the point of a gun.

Not necessarily. What if the government simply garnishes your paycheck, or confiscates what it deems to be its share? Or what if you're punished by having a couple of very large men show up (no guns) and simply hustle you way to some very boring place?

And on an only mariginally-related note (but interesting nonetheless)

More decision-makers bring less efficiency
Quote:
It’s the other Parkinson’s: the progressive degeneration of a committee’s ability to make decisions as the committee adds more members.

English historian Cyril Northcote Parkinson observed in the 1950s that decision making is severely impaired in committees of more than 20 people. Now physicists have shown that the size of a country’s executive cabinet appears to be linked to that country’s overall efficiency, and they have found a possible mathematical explanation.

Stefan Thurner, a physicist at the Medical University of Vienna, and his collaborators looked at the overall efficiency of virtually every government on the globe, as measured by United Nations and World Bank indicators taking into account factors such as literacy, life expectancy and wealth.

The researchers then looked at each country’s executive cabinet. “Cabinets are a good representation of countries,” Thurner says. Common sense would suggest that smaller cabinets would find it easier to reach a consensus. But to get the rest of the country behind a decision, cabinets also have to be large enough to represent of a wide range of constituencies, Thurner says. “Behind every minister there is a set of lobbyists, interest groups and a large bureaucracy.”

On average, the team found, a country’s development was tied to the size of its executive cabinet. For example, Iceland, which the United Nations ranks as the world’s most developed country, has a cabinet of just 12 members; the United States, which ranks 12th, has 17 cabinet members; Myanmar and the Ivory Coast, with 35-strong cabinets, rank 132nd and 166th.

The researchers also tried to figure out exactly how a committee’s size affects its efficiency and to explain Parkinson’s 20-person rule.

The team simulated committees as networks in which each member was a node. Before a vote, each member’s opinion could be influenced by those of its immediate neighbors in the network; adjacent nodes could represent, for example, ministers belonging to the same political party. The simulation found that committees of 10 members or less could almost always reach a consensus (with one mysterious exception for the number 8). For larger committees, the chances of getting to a consensus were lower, and the chances decreased even more rapidly for committees of 20 or more. The results show that Parkinson’s law is not an accident, but “a robust consequence of the opinion-formation model,” Thurner says.

“It’s interesting that they find a correlation,” says Yaneer Bar-Yam of the New England Complex Systems Institute in Cambridge, Mass. However, Bar-Yam points out that the correlation is only true on average. In fact, the data show some important exceptions. For example, Australia, Canada and New Zealand have large cabinets but high efficiency scores. A committee’s effectiveness, Bar-Yam says, strongly depends on how the committee is organized. “One of the great examples today is Wikipedia,” he says. The online encyclopedia manages to function despite being written and edited by thousands of volunteers because of the way it’s structured, he says.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

SIGNYM

Tuesday, May 13, 2008 11:44 PM

Quote:
Because that is how it is enforced, with the threat of violence.

You have no imagination.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

RUE

Wednesday, May 14, 2008 12:26 AM

Frem, CTS, 6-ix

You need to go live in Sweden for a while.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

CANTTAKESKY

Wednesday, May 14, 2008 12:28 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
What if the government simply garnishes your paycheck, or confiscates what it deems to be its share? Or what if you're punished by having a couple of very large men show up (no guns) and simply hustle you way to some very boring place?

You don't see any of these scenarios as violent?

What if the Bob Roberts University simply garnishes your paycheck, or confiscates what it deems to be its share? Or what if BRU sends a couple of very large men with no guns to hustle you to some boring place?

All physical actions taken against you, against your will, is violent. The illusion that violence doesn't exist only comes if you cooperate with the coercion.

If I were to NOT cooperate, and physically go to my paycheck garnisher (be it govt or BRU) and physically take my share back from their petty cash box, you'd see some violence. At that point, both of us have to decide how much physical violence we are willing to use to keep that money. If I were to resist those large men coming to take me to Cleveland OH, you'd see some violence. I'd either have to punch them to fight them off or they'd have to punch me.

If you don't use violence to get things accomplished as a community, you'd have the kind of cooperative anarchism Frem, HK, and I have been talking about.

Here is the heart of the debate. Read it carefully, because this is what distinguishes my view of government from yours.

Govt/legislation is defined as violence/threat of violence. Everything else is voluntary cooperation, which I advocate and have no objections to.

RUE

Wednesday, May 14, 2008 12:35 AM

CTS

You seem to have some sadly off-kilter notion that there has ever been a society without any rules or enforcement. Even the most 'primitive' and 'uorganized' cultures have non-negotiable rules - usually more, more intrusive, and more harshly enforced than in places with formal government.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

SIGNYM

Wednesday, May 14, 2008 12:57 AM

Quote:
What if the government simply garnishes your paycheck, or confiscates what it deems to be its share?- Signy
You don't see any of these scenarios as violent?-CTS

No.

Let's put it another way...

Let's say someone has agreed to pay you a certain amount for a car but then they welch on the deal and drive off w/o paying. So you get the broker/ bank through whom you've arranged the payment to take the money directly out of his account and give it to you w/o his express order. Alternatively, you and a couple of buddies go to his house and tow the car away.

Is that violent?

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

FLETCH2

Wednesday, May 14, 2008 1:30 AM

Sig, unlike you CTS is more property centric. "Messing with her stuff" be it sending people round or taking money from her account is "violence against her property" even if you don't do physical violence to her. Also by their rules once you initiate violence they have the right to respond accordingly. So garnish her wages and she may shoot you, because ya-know you started on the violence thing.

RUE

Wednesday, May 14, 2008 2:36 AM

I suspect for CTS any reaction would be violence, even shunning.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

KWICKO

Wednesday, May 14, 2008 3:18 AM

Quote:
What if the government simply garnishes your paycheck, or confiscates what it deems to be its share?

Do they not already do this? Don't you, as an employee, have taxes withheld and paid to the government?

What if you didn't pay your payroll taxes? You don't suppose someone would come around threatening violence or incarceration if you didn't pay up?

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

CANTTAKESKY

Wednesday, May 14, 2008 3:45 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Let's put it another way...

Let's say someone has agreed to pay you a certain amount for a car but then they welch on the deal and drive off w/o paying. So you get the broker/ bank through whom you've arranged the payment to take the money directly out of his account and give it to you w/o his express order. Alternatively, you and a couple of buddies go to his house and tow the car away.

Is that violent?

It involves threat of violence. As I said, if you want to talk about a continuum, you start with threat of violence to actual violence.

Let me put it another way...

Let's say some RWAs from the Pat Robertson Ministry send a couple of large unarmed men into your place of business and demand payment for their protection of the morality of the neighborhood. They move towards your cash register, you protest but step aside, and they remove a good sum of money from your store. You continue to protest, but they ignore you and leave.

Is that violent?

Then sometime later, those RWA's go to your home and tell you that everyone believes in evolution has to live in the Evolution District. They send 10 large unarmed men to physically carry you and your belongings to your new home.

Is that violent?

CANTTAKESKY

Wednesday, May 14, 2008 3:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
Also by their rules once you initiate violence they have the right to respond accordingly. So garnish her wages and she may shoot you, because ya-know you started on the violence thing.

I can speak for myself, thank you very much. What you said is incorrect.

Violence exists on a continuum. On one end, you have a mere threat of violence. Then you have physical grabbing and removal. Then you have stepping on my toes on purpose. You go all the way to the other end, where you have extreme violence of rape, torture, and death.

Libertarians and anarchists do not go around shooting people who step on our toes, ok? At most, the "eye for an eye" principle advocates an equal level of violence in retaliation or in self-defense. Many libertarians are actually pacifists, so they don't advocate any violence in return at all.

So by "our rules," there is a huge range of possible responses to threats of violence and physical removal of personal property, depending on the individual and the situation.

1 2 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE