The Palin movement isn’t retreating, it’s reloading

Don

All Living is Local
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 28, 2008
Messages
24,567
Reaction score
4,007
Location
Agorism FTW!
Nobody trusts the state. Governments created to restrain the state probably need more support than they are getting.
The actions of the state are embodied in the actions of the civil government. I'm personally not aware of a single government that is actively seeking to restrain its own power. Enlighten me, please. :)

Now, if you're speaking of documents created to restrain the state, such as the Constitution of the United States, Lysander Spooner's viewpoint seems depressingly accurate, particularly given the interpretation of 'general welfare' and 'interstate commerce' that have arisen since his time. Those were intentional acts by the political class to get around the restraints in Article 1, Section 8.
But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it.
 
Last edited:

William Haskins

poet
Kind Benefactor
Absolute Sage
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
29,099
Reaction score
8,848
Age
58
Website
www.poisonpen.net
Aren't all the Sarah Palin threads supposed to be started by die-hard liberals so conservatives who have the hots for her but pretend they don't can point their finger and say "This is the Left's obsessing over Sarah again. Why can't they leave this poor woman alone?"

Don, please stay in your lane.

I'm anti-war, pro-choice, anti-PATRIOT ACT, pro-gay marriage, anti-corporations and pro-drug legalization.

Compared to Sarah Palin (and most folks on this board) I AM a die-hard liberal.


poor nighttimer. just can't catch a break.
 

rugcat

Lost in the Fog
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 27, 2005
Messages
16,339
Reaction score
4,110
Location
East O' The Sun & West O' The Moon
Website
www.jlevitt.com
your political orientation is whatever he says it is, mister.
If it walks like a duck . . .

It's like people who proudly proclaim their independent status, neither liberal nor conservative, and yet vote for conservative (or liberal) candidates 99% of the time.
 

Don

All Living is Local
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 28, 2008
Messages
24,567
Reaction score
4,007
Location
Agorism FTW!
I'll play, BoP.

Conservative/Progressive score: 10
You are a social progressive. You generally consider yourself a humanist first. You probably think that religion and patriotism go too far in society. You probably consider yourself to be a citizen of Earth first rather than a citizen of your country.
(Not exactly, but not bad. I'm proud of what America can be, and I'd like to see our freedom as a beacon lighting the way for the rest of the world. As soon as we can claim we're free again.)

Capitalist Purist/Social Capitalist score: 2
You're a Capitalist Purist. You believe that the market should be completely free, and that the invisible hand of the market will make sure that the people get what they want and will do it in the most efficient way possible. You believe in small government, less taxes, and more privatization.
(Worthy of note: There's no distinction made between the free market and crony capitalism in this quiz. Absent that distinction, this portion of the analysis is pretty much meaningless.)

Libertarian/Authoritarian score: 0
You are libertarian. You think that the government is making way too many unnecessary laws that are taking away our innate rights. You believe that the government's job is primarily to protect people from harming other people, but after that they should mind their own business, and if we give the government too much power in controlling our lives, it can lead to fascism.
(They nailed that one.)

Pacifist/Militarist score: 2
You're a Pacifist. You are angered that the United States thinks it should dominate the world through its military force. You think that the only time war is necessary is when we are in direct danger of being attacked. You also believe the US spends way too much of its money on defense, as we can practically cut it in half and still easily defend ourselves, and use that money to fix all our economic problems.

(I'm a 'pacifist' apparently because I answered the question "Should the United States only start a war if there is an imminent threat of being attacked ourselves?" in the affirmative. I'd consider that non-interventionist, not pacifist. IMO of course. Call me a coward if if makes you feel better.)

Here's their idea of a "moderate" on that scale: (bolding mine)
If your score was from 4 to 8, you're a Moderate. You think that in very rare occasions, the United States should invade a country in order to make the world better by spreading democracy or ending a tyrants rule. You also think that defense is very important, and we shouldn't lower the defense budget. You think that, while the Iraq War probably was a mistake, that we can make the world a better place by sticking with it and spreading democracy in the middle east.
If that's what it takes to be called a moderate, I'll wear their Pacifist label proudly.

Overall, you would most likely fit into the category of Hardcore Libertarian.

Yep. Since they don't include agorist or anarcho-capitalist, libertarian's as close as they come to an accurate answer.

There are some huge holes in that quiz, and in their analysis. Interesting, anyway.
 

Maxx

Got the hang of it, here
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
3,227
Reaction score
202
Location
Durham NC
The actions of the state are embodied in the actions of the civil government. I'm personally not aware of a single government that is actively seeking to restrain its own power. Enlighten me, please. :)

All government institutions after the Peace of God and the Truce of God in the early 11th century had the aim of restraining the raw power of the "ban" (the right to execute, the prime delineator of a state). Many Church institutions were aimed at restraining state violence. Common Law in England and the rights of Parliament in England were aimed at restraining the State. The Magna Carta was aimed at restraining the state. Civil governments have the restraint of the state as one of their priniciple functions.
 

robeiae

Touch and go
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 18, 2005
Messages
46,262
Reaction score
9,912
Location
on the Seven Bridges Road
Website
thepondsofhappenstance.com
I'll play, BoP.

Conservative/Progressive score: 10
You are a social progressive. You generally consider yourself a humanist first. You probably think that religion and patriotism go too far in society. You probably consider yourself to be a citizen of Earth first rather than a citizen of your country.
(Not exactly, but not bad. I'm proud of what America can be, and I'd like to see our freedom as a beacon lighting the way for the rest of the world. As soon as we can claim we're free again.)

Capitalist Purist/Social Capitalist score: 2
You're a Capitalist Purist. You believe that the market should be completely free, and that the invisible hand of the market will make sure that the people get what they want and will do it in the most efficient way possible. You believe in small government, less taxes, and more privatization.
(Worthy of note: There's no distinction made between the free market and crony capitalism in this quiz. Absent that distinction, this portion of the analysis is pretty much meaningless.)

Libertarian/Authoritarian score: 0
You are libertarian. You think that the government is making way too many unnecessary laws that are taking away our innate rights. You believe that the government's job is primarily to protect people from harming other people, but after that they should mind their own business, and if we give the government too much power in controlling our lives, it can lead to fascism.
(They nailed that one.)

Pacifist/Militarist score: 2
You're a Pacifist. You are angered that the United States thinks it should dominate the world through its military force. You think that the only time war is necessary is when we are in direct danger of being attacked. You also believe the US spends way too much of its money on defense, as we can practically cut it in half and still easily defend ourselves, and use that money to fix all our economic problems.
Ha! I got a '1' on the Capitalist score...(6, 9, 12 on the others)
 

robeiae

Touch and go
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 18, 2005
Messages
46,262
Reaction score
9,912
Location
on the Seven Bridges Road
Website
thepondsofhappenstance.com
Or with people who craft complex arguments proving there is no such thing as a duck, even as it flies by, crapping on their head.
I don't think that letting people self-identify is a complex argument. And certainly, laying out specifics isn't a complex argument. Disagree?
 

rugcat

Lost in the Fog
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 27, 2005
Messages
16,339
Reaction score
4,110
Location
East O' The Sun & West O' The Moon
Website
www.jlevitt.com
Conservative/Progressive score: 12
You are a social progressive. You generally consider yourself a humanist first. You probably think that religion and patriotism go too far in society. You probably consider yourself to be a citizen of Earth first rather than a citizen of your country.

Capitalist Purist/Social Capitalist score: 12
You're a Social Capitalist, you think that, left to its own, Capitalism leaves a lot of people behind. You think that Health Care should be free to all, that the minimum wage should be raised, and that the government should provide jobs to all that are capable of having them. You likely hated the Bush tax cuts, and believe that the middle class has gotten poorer, and the rich have gotten richer over the past several years. The far extreme of social capitalism is socialism.

Libertarian/Authoritarian score: 3
You are libertarian. You think that the government is making way too many unnecessary laws that are taking away our innate rights. You believe that the government's job is primarily to protect people from harming other people, but after that they should mind their own business, and if we give the government too much power in controlling our lives, it can lead to fascism.

Pacifist/Militarist score: 4
You're a Moderate. You think that in very rare occasions, the United States should invade a country in order to make the world better by spreading democracy or ending a tyrants rule. You also think that defense is very important, and we shouldn't lower the defense budget. You think that, while the Iraq War probably was a mistake, that we can make the world a better place by sticking with it and spreading democracy in the middle east.

Overall, you would most likely fit into the category of Hardcore Democrat
Damn it! I've been outed.

Although that part about spreading democracy in the ME is a crock. Perhaps I clicked the wrong button.
 

rugcat

Lost in the Fog
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 27, 2005
Messages
16,339
Reaction score
4,110
Location
East O' The Sun & West O' The Moon
Website
www.jlevitt.com
I don't think that letting people self-identify is a complex argument. And certainly, laying out specifics isn't a complex argument. Disagree?
No, it's not complex. But often it's erroneous.

I'm sure the members of the Westboro Baptist Church self identify as moral, godly people concerned with the welfare of humanity.
 

raburrell

Treguna Makoidees Trecorum SadisDee
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 24, 2009
Messages
6,902
Reaction score
3,781
Age
50
Location
MA
Website
www.rebeccaburrell.com
^ People have an absolute right to identify as they choose, I would say, but does that likewise mean others have to accept at face value? To be clear, I'm not thinking of anyone in particular in this thread, but I do think this is partly how today's Republican party has drifted as far right as it has (as an example). Or how the Democratic Party has gone chasing after it. Most of us like to think of ourselves as sitting in the center of an issue, not on the extremes. (Note the careful 'most' please - there are exceptions). An objective view from the outside might look different, were it available, but said perspective would also have a lens applied.

(I'm sure there's a shorter version to all that babbling, but it's Monday.)
eta: what rugcat said.
 

kayleamay

I'm on the phone.
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Messages
15,143
Reaction score
4,250
Location
Vantucky, WA
I'm a social progressive, a social capitalist, a libertarian AND a pacifist.

I have to go catalog my political attributes now. Apparently, I have to go change my political affiliation to Dem too. Are Dem and Rep the only options for that quiz?

Wait, what's this thread about?
 

Maxx

Got the hang of it, here
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
3,227
Reaction score
202
Location
Durham NC
I don't think that letting people self-identify is a complex argument. And certainly, laying out specifics isn't a complex argument. Disagree?

I disagree. Why is it axiomatic that people are perfectly enlightened as to their political baggage? Why this one magical area of perfect self-understanding when self-understanding in other areas is generally accepted to be far from easy?
 

robeiae

Touch and go
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 18, 2005
Messages
46,262
Reaction score
9,912
Location
on the Seven Bridges Road
Website
thepondsofhappenstance.com
No, it's not complex. But often it's erroneous.

I'm sure the members of the Westboro Baptist Church self identify as moral, godly people concerned with the welfare of humanity.

^ People have an absolute right to identify as they choose, I would say, but does that likewise mean others have to accept at face value? To be clear, I'm not thinking of anyone in particular in this thread, but I do think this is partly how today's Republican party has drifted as far right as it has (as an example). Or how the Democratic Party has gone chasing after it. Most of us like to think of ourselves as sitting in the center of an issue, not on the extremes. (Note the careful 'most' please - there are exceptions). An objective view from the outside might look different, were it available, but said perspective would also have a lens applied.
Well, I think there are obvious cases where one might say it was erroneous. WBC might be a good example, though I don't know any of them at all.

Of course, identifying with a politcal party is a bit more problematic, since platforms change and various political leaders sometimes hold various positions on various issues.

The conservative/liberal dichotomy should be easier, one would think. But oftentimes, opposition to particular office-holders is wrongly held to be opposition to specfics positions/ideals. We see it with regard to the current admin all of the time, now.

Regardless, there's also the problem of objectivity: who says who is objective?
 

William Haskins

poet
Kind Benefactor
Absolute Sage
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
29,099
Reaction score
8,848
Age
58
Website
www.poisonpen.net
I disagree. Why is it axiomatic that people are perfectly enlightened as to their political baggage? Why this one magical area of perfect self-understanding when self-understanding in other areas is generally accepted to be far from easy?


your point assumes that the self-identification is simply a declaration.

i think when one specifically lists out their views on a variety of issues, then the identification of political orientation is self-evident.
 

Maxx

Got the hang of it, here
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
3,227
Reaction score
202
Location
Durham NC
^ People have an absolute right to identify as they choose, I would say, but does that likewise mean others have to accept at face value?

What exactly does anyone accept about anyone at "face value"? What does face value even mean when somebody presents some kind of assessment? Aren't most assessments taken as provisional until there is some kind of confirmation? Isn't that especially true of self-assessments?
 

robeiae

Touch and go
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 18, 2005
Messages
46,262
Reaction score
9,912
Location
on the Seven Bridges Road
Website
thepondsofhappenstance.com
I disagree. Why is it axiomatic that people are perfectly enlightened as to their political baggage? Why this one magical area of perfect self-understanding when self-understanding in other areas is generally accepted to be far from easy?
So it is a complex argument in tour opinion? Whether they do a fair/good job is not the issue.
 

Maxx

Got the hang of it, here
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
3,227
Reaction score
202
Location
Durham NC
your point assumes that the self-identification is simply a declaration.

i think when one specifically lists out their views on a variety of issues, then the identification of political orientation is self-evident.

Which suggests it has little to do the actual mental processes of the one making the declaration. After all, if the "orientation" is self-evident, the the person making the
declaration can simply fudge the details as needed to get the required self-evidence.
 

raburrell

Treguna Makoidees Trecorum SadisDee
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 24, 2009
Messages
6,902
Reaction score
3,781
Age
50
Location
MA
Website
www.rebeccaburrell.com
What exactly does anyone accept about anyone at "face value"? What does face value even mean when somebody presents some kind of assessment? Aren't most assessments taken as provisional until there is some kind of confirmation? Isn't that especially true of self-assessments?

Not quite sure what you're asking me, Maxx - I think you and I are in agreement on the point regardless.