Trump as tragicomedy

[WiseOne]

Well, do you really expect Trump to understand subtle nuances like the difference between an out and out fake news story, and a story that is essentially true but carefully spun and liberally sprinkled with opinion, created to support a specific agenda.

For the most part, the facts reported in written material from major news networks are true, but their stories are generally about a lot more than those facts. Sometimes you might not realize you're being manipulated, but there are plenty of examples done with all the subtlety of a jackhammer. I've come across several instances of articles from major news sources - including Fox and CNN - where the title strongly implies something that is absolutely contradicted by the facts in the article itself. Hilarious. The facts reported are true, but that doesn't matter to the people who only glanced at the title and didn't read deep enough into the article to detect the deception.

There's a Robert Heinlein novel that goes into some detail about subtle media manipulation - I think it was a novelette actually, about a religious dictatorship and a successful resistance movement. He even described it as a profession with a name attached - "psychometrician" or something like that. Scary stuff, and most prescient.

[dualstow]

There's a Robert Heinlein novel that goes into some detail about subtle media manipulation - I think it was a novelette actually, about a religious dictatorship and a successful resistance movement. He even described it as a profession with a name attached - "psychometrician" or something like that. Scary stuff, and most prescient.

It may be 'Farmer in the Sky'. Haven't read it, but I'm a huge fan of JOB: A Comedy of Justice.
Apparently, this psychometrician thing is real, though.

[Cortopassi]

There's no doubt I get manipulated, and I do it knowingly. I let myself get manipulated by Rush not that long ago, and I currently let myself get manipulated by This Week and Meet the Press.

But I do it willingly. I have seen enough, regardless of what good Trump accomplishes, that I hate his style. Substance might be good, style sucks.

[flyingpylon]

I have seen enough, regardless of what good Trump accomplishes, that I hate his style. Substance might be good, style sucks.

I’m convinced that style is all that a large portion of America wants.

[dualstow]

I want to hear Libertarian666 say something he doesn't like about Trump, and it can't be something tricky like 'he's not Trumpy enough'.

[jacksonM]

"Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived, and so dedicated, can long endure."

Thought about that quote from Lincoln in the Gettysburg address as I was reading an article about somebody who started a GoFundMe page to finance tunnels under "Trump's Border Wall".

Hopefully, with the current showdown going on between Trump and the democrats over funding for the wall we are still a long ways off from any kind of violent confrontation but who would have thought 10 or 20 years ago that the issue which could end up tearing us apart as a nation would be whether or not we are going to have open borders?

Maybe I'm being melodramatic but I'm really starting to wonder what America is going to look like in what's left of the rest of my life - about 20-30 years if I live to be 90-100 years old. I do hope the SS checks keep coming but thanks to the PP I have some gold coins stored away.

[Cortopassi]

That's a sketchy piece of fake news, having to change Christmastime to on or before Christmas, but I'll give it to you. I think you can hopefully/probably find something more substantial to make your case.

I would say their bias caused them to run the story 7 hours before Christmas was officially over, assuming it would be true. I don't think it was intentionally fake news, but the trigger was pulled too early.

[dualstow]

I want to hear Libertarian666 say something he doesn't like about Trump, and it can't be something tricky like 'he's not Trumpy enough'.

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.

[dualstow]

I want to hear Libertarian666 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.

[moda0306]

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?

[moda0306]

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]

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.

[boglerdude]

> get rid of the welfare state

Let people die?

[drumminj]

> 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?

[Kbg]

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.

[WiseOne]

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 Libertarian666 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.

[dualstow]

What happened to your uncle, WiseOne?

[WiseOne]

What happened to your uncle, WiseOne?

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.

[dualstow]

Very interesting (and sad), and pretty close to what I was thinking. Except Honduras!

[Libertarian666]

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.

Statism is a really, really stupid philosophy normally espoused by people who have been brainwashed by the "publik skool" system meant to keep the population in thrall to their masters. How many millions of people have been murdered by States? How many hundreds have been murdered by self-styled anarchists?

As for anarchism, you obviously know very little about it. Read https://www.amazon.com/Spontaneous-Orde ... B012DL2SQ2 and get back to us.

[Xan]

Can't it be said that statism is the emergent order that forms out of anarchy?

[Kbg]

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.

Sure there's an economic aspect to it, not saying there isn't. However, do you really think they would be coming here if their countries were economically sound? And why aren't t their countries economically sound? Interestingly we don't have a Canadian, German or Japanese immigration problem.

But my main point...poor economies in the countries we are talking about is a symptom not the cause.

[Libertarian666]

Can't it be said that statism is the emergent order that forms out of anarchy?

What I (and most others) mean by "Statism" is the political position that a State is either necessary or desirable, not the mere existence of States, which is an historical fact.

[WiseOne]

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.

Sure there's an economic aspect to it, not saying there isn't. However, do you really think they would be coming here if their countries were economically sound? And why aren't t their countries economically sound? Interestingly we don't have a Canadian, German or Japanese immigration problem.

But my main point...poor economies in the countries we are talking about is a symptom not the cause.

I don't think it's that Central American economies are "unsound", simply that the US's is better. Which leads many Central American citizens to want to trade up, and I can't say I blame them. Historically, this is enough to spur emigration - you don't necessarily need a national catastrophe to explain it. I just question the emerging principle that immigration to the US is a "human right." I would also like our government to tackle the question of what a sensible level of unskilled immigration should be, in order to preserve that quality of life & economic stability that is attracting immigrants here to begin with - instead of simply leaving the front door wide open.

[drumminj]

I don't think it's that Central American economies are "unsound", simply that the US's is better...<snip>...I just question the emerging principle that immigration to the US is a "human right."

I think it's certainly reflecting in this context on what is it that has made the US a better place w.r.t. economic freedom, opportunity, etc. Diluting the cultural values, mindset, etc, is likely to have an (negative) impact on the future state of things.

IMO, this is where controlled immigration is critical.