Trump as tragicomedy

Other discussions not related to the Permanent Portfolio

Moderator: Global Moderator

User avatar
dualstow
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 7544
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:18 am
Location: next to emotional support peacock
Contact:

Re: Trump as tragicomedy

Post by dualstow » Sun Dec 30, 2018 4:56 am

dualstow wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 4:55 am
technovelist wrote:
Sat Dec 29, 2018 11:01 pm
dualstow wrote:
Sat Dec 29, 2018 2:48 pm
I want to hear technovelist say something he doesn't like about Trump, <snip>
Sure, that's easy.

I don't like his support for asset forfeiture.

I don't like the fact that he hasn't told the FDA to deschedule pot.

I don't like how many generals he has appointed to his cabinet.

Other than that, I can't think of much else offhand, but I could easily be overlooking something. Do you have anything specific you want to ask about?
That’s good, thank you!
Those are specific.
Good news everyone: AOC and Maxine Waters are going to oversee Wall Street.
All should be well from here on in. O0 #stockscreamroom
🦑
User avatar
moda0306
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 8018
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 9:05 pm
Location: Minnesota

Re: Trump as tragicomedy

Post by moda0306 » Sun Dec 30, 2018 5:58 am

dualstow wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 4:56 am
dualstow wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 4:55 am
technovelist wrote:
Sat Dec 29, 2018 11:01 pm


Sure, that's easy.

I don't like his support for asset forfeiture.

I don't like the fact that he hasn't told the FDA to deschedule pot.

I don't like how many generals he has appointed to his cabinet.

Other than that, I can't think of much else offhand, but I could easily be overlooking something. Do you have anything specific you want to ask about?
That’s good, thank you!
Those are specific.
Tech,

As an anarchist, you have no adverse-to-Trump position on...

- Beyond asset forfeiture, his serious anti-civil-libertarian stance on most issues (outside of being spied on himself, of course)?

- his position on free trade?

- his anti-immigration stance?

To me, Trump seems like a died-in-the-wool statist. I'm surprised any anarchist would like him unless they're extremely partial to tax cuts. "Librul tears" can only taste so good. Right?
technovelist
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4645
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2010 11:20 pm

Re: Trump as tragicomedy

Post by technovelist » Sun Dec 30, 2018 1:09 pm

moda0306 wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 5:58 am
dualstow wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 4:56 am
dualstow wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 4:55 am

That’s good, thank you!
Those are specific.
Tech,

As an anarchist, you have no adverse-to-Trump position on...

- Beyond asset forfeiture, his serious anti-civil-libertarian stance on most issues (outside of being spied on himself, of course)?

- his position on free trade?

- his anti-immigration stance?

To me, Trump seems like a died-in-the-wool statist. I'm surprised any anarchist would like him unless they're extremely partial to tax cuts. "Librul tears" can only taste so good. Right?
Please be more specific about his anti civil libertarian positions.

As for free trade, he seems to be doing a pretty good job getting other countries to lower trade barriers.

And as for immigration, it’s well known among libertarians that a welfare state and open borders are incompatible.
User avatar
moda0306
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 8018
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 9:05 pm
Location: Minnesota

Re: Trump as tragicomedy

Post by moda0306 » Sun Dec 30, 2018 1:19 pm

technovelist wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 1:09 pm
moda0306 wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 5:58 am
dualstow wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 4:56 am
Tech,

As an anarchist, you have no adverse-to-Trump position on...

- Beyond asset forfeiture, his serious anti-civil-libertarian stance on most issues (outside of being spied on himself, of course)?

- his position on free trade?

- his anti-immigration stance?

To me, Trump seems like a died-in-the-wool statist. I'm surprised any anarchist would like him unless they're extremely partial to tax cuts. "Librul tears" can only taste so good. Right?
Please be more specific about his anti civil libertarian positions.

As for free trade, he seems to be doing a pretty good job getting other countries to lower trade barriers.

And as for immigration, it’s well known among libertarians that a welfare state and open borders are incompatible.
Some so-called "libertarian" statists make a compromise on the immigration topic because they care more about the economic freedom of their class than the freedom of certain groups to travel and work as they please.

Anarchists usually reject any authority by the state. Even if a statist is promising them more desirable outcomes by using the state. If some freedom is incompatible with some statist policy, then that doesn't mean the freedom needs to be sacrificed via state force, if you're a principled anarchist.

I'll have to get back to you on more specifics on the civil lin issues in a bit.

And it's by no means clear to me that he's causing progress on trade as all I've heard argue that is partisan conservative boobs. But maybe I'm not looking in the right places.
jacksonM
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts: 140
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: Trump as tragicomedy

Post by jacksonM » Sun Dec 30, 2018 4:04 pm

Trump reminds me of my Dad. He was a Republican and mostly conservative but you really couldn't nail him down to any consistent political philosophy based on the things he said. He just didn't think things through that way. Probably a lot like most of us.
technovelist
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4645
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2010 11:20 pm

Re: Trump as tragicomedy

Post by technovelist » Sun Dec 30, 2018 9:30 pm

moda0306 wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 1:19 pm
technovelist wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 1:09 pm
moda0306 wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 5:58 am


Tech,

As an anarchist, you have no adverse-to-Trump position on...

- Beyond asset forfeiture, his serious anti-civil-libertarian stance on most issues (outside of being spied on himself, of course)?

- his position on free trade?

- his anti-immigration stance?

To me, Trump seems like a died-in-the-wool statist. I'm surprised any anarchist would like him unless they're extremely partial to tax cuts. "Librul tears" can only taste so good. Right?
Please be more specific about his anti civil libertarian positions.

As for free trade, he seems to be doing a pretty good job getting other countries to lower trade barriers.

And as for immigration, it’s well known among libertarians that a welfare state and open borders are incompatible.
Some so-called "libertarian" statists make a compromise on the immigration topic because they care more about the economic freedom of their class than the freedom of certain groups to travel and work as they please.

Anarchists usually reject any authority by the state. Even if a statist is promising them more desirable outcomes by using the state. If some freedom is incompatible with some statist policy, then that doesn't mean the freedom needs to be sacrificed via state force, if you're a principled anarchist.

I'll have to get back to you on more specifics on the civil lin issues in a bit.

And it's by no means clear to me that he's causing progress on trade as all I've heard argue that is partisan conservative boobs. But maybe I'm not looking in the right places.
An anarchist is someone who believes there should be no State.

I believe there should be no State, so I am an anarchist.

However, so long as States exist, they will have immigration policies.

Some of these policies are worse for individual liberty than others, especially regarding those who live in such States, and whom those States are supposed to serve.

Of course there is room for debate on which policies are better or worse, but that is a far cry from a claim that anyone who prefers a different immigration policy from the one you prefer must be a statist.

The best solution to immigration, but one that no one is even proposing, is to get rid of the welfare state. If that were to happen, I would withdraw my objections to unlimited immigration.

In the meantime, I am against an immigration policy that has these effective characteristics in practice (regardless of the stated rules):
1. Anyone who wishes to enter the US may do so, and
2. Anyone who does so is entitled to welfare benefits paid for by the existing taxpayers of the US, and
3. Anyone who does this has the same Constitutional rights as citizens of the US and cannot be remanded to their home States without their consent.

Such a policy involves further violation of my individual rights than a policy where immigration is limited to those who can prove they will not be a burden on the taxpayer.

But in the meantime, the fact that Trump is against unlimited immigration in the presence of a welfare state is not a reason for me to oppose him.
boglerdude
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 235
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 1:40 am

Re: Trump as tragicomedy

Post by boglerdude » Mon Dec 31, 2018 12:34 am

> get rid of the welfare state

Let people die?
drumminj
Full Member
Full Member
Posts: 96
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2015 9:16 pm

Re: Trump as tragicomedy

Post by drumminj » Mon Dec 31, 2018 9:50 am

boglerdude wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 12:34 am
> get rid of the welfare state

Let people die?
Is this question meant sincerely?

People will always die. There will never be enough of "other peoples' money (or labor)" to provide food, shelter, healthcare, etc, for every human in the world. So where do you draw the line?
User avatar
Kbg
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1063
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 4:18 pm

Re: Trump as tragicomedy

Post by Kbg » Mon Dec 31, 2018 12:33 pm

technovelist wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 1:09 pm
The best solution to immigration, but one that no one is even proposing, is to get rid of the welfare state.
You do realize the welfare state is a very minor cause at best of immigration, right? Far and away the largest causes of immigration are large scale violence and catastrophic environmental failure. The former is the usual cause starting in the 20th century and both have been a consistent theme of recorded human history with the latter being a simple thing like drought, crop failure etc.

So what's the relevance now...most illegal immigrants south of the border are flowing from Central American countries whose states are no longer states that operate at any level other than violence and corruption.

P.S. Anarchism is a really, really, really stupid philosophy normally espoused by people surrounded and protected by a state who haven't taken the time to check out history or understand how humans in groups actually operate and behave normally. This is not the same as saying all states are good and an "evil" state can't wreak immense havoc on other states and the state's citizens. However, the vast majority of humanity prefers to be in a state with the physical safety they provide. Any benefits above safety are a nice bonus. The political literature of the late 1600s to the early 1800s is absolutely phenomenal on this point. Some great minds have hashed this topic over thoroughly.

There is no possible way you can make a good case for anarchism without also assuming utopianism...and most people intuitively understand the problem with that assumption.
User avatar
sophie
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2795
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 7:15 pm

Re: Trump as tragicomedy

Post by sophie » Mon Dec 31, 2018 12:41 pm

I presume boglerdude means that if all forms of welfare were abolished, some people (e.g. elderly with no savings, or truly disabled people with no family to take care of them) will starve, lose their homes/be evicted from apartments and become homeless, etc. Sorry, I can't sign on to that either. The problem is that technovelist is correct that you can't have both welfare benefits and uncontrolled, unlimited immigration. If we want to keep welfare benefits without state/local costs ballooning out of control (more than they already are), we simply have to put a lid on uncontrolled immigration. Otherwise, if you support open borders, you are essentially sacrificing the most vulnerable US citizens to that cause.

A friend and I were talking about the perverse use of "asylum-seekers" to describe the economic migrants in the caravans. I find that to be frankly offensive. These are people who came up with the $7K fee to get themselves smuggled into the US so they can improve their quality of life - hardly abject poverty, and totally unrelated to fleeing genocide or war in, for example, Rwanda or Kosovo. My maternal grandparents left Palestine in the 1930s, and a great-uncle left in rather extreme circumstances in 1948 (details omitted as some are likely to find them upsetting). If anyone had a claim to asylum they certainly did, but they did not get it. Instead, they went to the British West Indies and Honduras (respectively), got in line for a US immigration visa, and waited their turn. When they got here, they were economically self-sufficient and would have regarded being on welfare as a source of shame. Those were the days of the giants, I guess.

Just saw kbg's post...historically you may be right, but there is something different about the Central American migration that's going on now. There are Americans going down there to help recruit for the caravans, and the "coyotes" driving them are earning a very handsome profit.
User avatar
dualstow
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 7544
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:18 am
Location: next to emotional support peacock
Contact:

Re: Trump as tragicomedy

Post by dualstow » Mon Dec 31, 2018 2:00 pm

What happened to your uncle, Sophie?
Good news everyone: AOC and Maxine Waters are going to oversee Wall Street.
All should be well from here on in. O0 #stockscreamroom
🦑
User avatar
sophie
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2795
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 7:15 pm

Re: Trump as tragicomedy

Post by sophie » Mon Dec 31, 2018 3:03 pm

dualstow wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 2:00 pm
What happened to your uncle, Sophie?
Well, it's likely to disrupt the rose colored narrative that many people hold of the birth of Israel, but here goes:

My great-uncle was a math professor at the Arab University in Jerusalem in 1948, and was pretty solidly middle to upper middle class with a home in Jerusalem, savings in the bank, and at the time 3 children (think the oldest was around 6). According to him, the new Israeli state went after Arabs holding government positions first, which included professorial appointments. His bank accounts were frozen and his home was taken from him. We guess it was given to an immigrating Jewish family, as my mother & sister went to see it several years back and a Jewish family was indeed living in it. He was supposed to go to one of the resettlement camps, whatever you want to call them. Instead, he filled a big cardboard box with a few belongings he was able to salvage, and left Jerusalem with that and the clothes they were wearing when they were driven out of their home, nothing else. We know that my grandfather, who was living in the West Indies at the time and was doing very well financially, helped him get out of the country. My uncle ended up in Honduras, which is one of the few countries that would accept Palestinians at the time. He attempted to get refugee status in the US, but was told they didn't qualify. I remember him describing the place they ended up living in Honduras, with the cardboard box as their kitchen table. He went into business for himself as a store owner, same as my grandfather, and 18 years later his number came up on the US immigration wait list.

That's the story as he told it, in his unique mix of Spanish, Arabic and English, minus some pretty strong opinions and commentary. Anyway, my thought is that if my uncle didn't qualify for US asylum at that time, then the rules must have loosened up considerably if someone "fleeing poverty" can now claim it.
Post Reply