TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

The General US Politics Thread

Go To

Nov 2023 Mod notice:


There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.

If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines before posting here.

Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.

If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules when posting here.


In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.

Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM

deathpigeon Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: One True Dodecahedron
#55176: May 27th 2013 at 1:05:16 AM

Yes. Private property is almost always defined (at least by socialists) in contrast to personal property. Personal property is stuff you personally use or places you personally live. Private property are places or stuff you don't use or live in, but still benefit from, be it through renting or through wage labor or even through slave labor. Private property is, essentially, a social relation between owner and user, a social relation that is authoritarian in nature. Personal property is non-social. It's the computer I'm on. It's the books I read. It's the apartment I live in.

Greenmantle V from Greater Wessex, Britannia Since: Feb, 2010 Relationship Status: Hiding
V
#55177: May 27th 2013 at 1:07:12 AM

[up] Although I'm sure there are some Anarchists that don't believe in personal property either. Anyway, I need to go.

Keep Rolling On
deathpigeon Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: One True Dodecahedron
#55178: May 27th 2013 at 1:07:55 AM

Oh, I'm sure.

I probably should head to bed myself...

CassidyTheDevil Since: Jan, 2013
#55179: May 27th 2013 at 1:10:17 AM

What will never happen? :T Zapatista Army of National Liberation is an independent anarchist community that's thousands strong and it's been around for decades.

TheHandle United Earth from Stockholm Since: Jan, 2012 Relationship Status: YOU'RE TEARING ME APART LISA
United Earth
#55180: May 27th 2013 at 1:14:49 AM

They're also a bunch of toll-exacting assholes.

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
Barkey Since: Feb, 2010 Relationship Status: [TOP SECRET]
#55181: May 27th 2013 at 1:27:48 AM

That's always been my problem.. I guess I could consider myself an individualist who is irreligious and for Government regulation of an otherwise free market?

TheHandle United Earth from Stockholm Since: Jan, 2012 Relationship Status: YOU'RE TEARING ME APART LISA
United Earth
#55182: May 27th 2013 at 1:37:26 AM

"I guess I could consider myself an X?"

I guess you could stop trying to apply round beliefs into square pegs?tongue I say with very affectionately; maybe instead of identifying with this or that group, this or that label, you could just be yourself with your own unique set of preferences and beliefs, without having to approximate it with pre-set packages and bundles that never quite fit. Just an honest suggestion.

edited 27th May '13 1:37:52 AM by TheHandle

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
RadicalTaoist scratching at .8, just hopin' from the #GUniverse Since: Jan, 2001
scratching at .8, just hopin'
#55183: May 27th 2013 at 2:42:17 AM

I mean, anarchists by definition oppose all forms of hierarchy and authority, so anyone who supports hierarchy or authority or seeks either out is not an anarchist. This is why someone cannot support private property and be an anarchist as private property is a form of authority of the property owner over the property user
Um, no. You can have anarchists who reject only top-down manifestations of hierarchy and authority (such as the nation-state model) and have no issue with private property per se.

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.
TheHandle United Earth from Stockholm Since: Jan, 2012 Relationship Status: YOU'RE TEARING ME APART LISA
United Earth
#55184: May 27th 2013 at 2:59:10 AM

I wonder how they deal with the matter of the property of an organization.

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
RadicalTaoist scratching at .8, just hopin' from the #GUniverse Since: Jan, 2001
scratching at .8, just hopin'
#55185: May 27th 2013 at 3:41:49 AM

That's the thing. Sure, individuals should have rights, but don't collectives? (Maybe not all collectives, some are more legitimate than others.)

edited 27th May '13 3:42:07 AM by RadicalTaoist

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.
CassidyTheDevil Since: Jan, 2013
#55186: May 27th 2013 at 3:43:55 AM

You can have anarchists who reject only top-down manifestations of hierarchy and authority (such as the nation-state model) and have no issue with private property per se.

Yes indeed, you can have anarchists who believe a person can have supreme authority over an area and everyone in it despite them not actually doing anything there, just so they can leech off the work of others. Totally not inconsistent or at odds with the historical tradition. XP Yep, your boss and landlord obviously have no power over you whatsoever. There's no corporate hierarchy no sir, just equal comrades! waii

Serious though, a quote:

The official line is that we all have rights and live in a democracy. Other unfortunates who aren't free like we are have to live in police states. These victims obey orders or-else, no matter how arbitrary. The authorities keep them under regular surveillance. State bureaucrats control even the smaller details of everyday life. The officials who push them around are answerable only to the higher-ups, public or private. Either way, dissent and disobedience are punished. Informers report regularly to the authorities.

All this is supposed to be a very bad thing.

And so it is, although it is nothing but a description of the modern workplace. The liberals and conservatives and libertarians who lament totalitarianism are phonies and hypocrites. There is more freedom in any moderately de-Stalinized dictatorship than there is in the ordinary American workplace. You find the same sort of hierarchy and discipline in an office or factory as you do in a prison or a monastery. In fact, as Foucault and others have shown, prisons and factories came in at about the same time, and their operators consciously borrowed from each other's control techniques.

A worker is a part-time slave. The boss says when to show up, when to leave, and what to do in the meantime. He tells you how much work to do and how fast. He is free to carry his control to humiliating extremes, regulating, if he feels like it, the clothes you wear or how often you go to the bathroom. With a few exceptions he can fire you for any reason, or no reason. He has you spied on by snitches and supervisors; he amasses a dossier on every employee. Talking back is called "insubordination," just as if a worker is a naughty child, and it not only gets you fired, it disqualifies you for unemployment compensation.

...To demonize state authoritarianism while ignoring identical albeit contract-consecrated subservient arrangements in the large-scale corporations which control the world economy is fetishism at its worst.

edited 27th May '13 4:07:22 AM by CassidyTheDevil

DrTentacles Cephalopod Lothario from Land of the Deep Ones Since: Jul, 2012 Relationship Status: Having tea with Cthulhu
Cephalopod Lothario
#55187: May 27th 2013 at 8:55:37 AM

We have a thread for this.

Medinoc from France (Before Recorded History)
#55188: May 27th 2013 at 9:03:04 AM

[up][up]Why are the liberals listed among the pro-corp hypocrites? They're supposed to be the ones who try to protect workers from their bosses, and be accused of "socialism" for that...

"And as long as a sack of shit is not a good thing to be, chivalry will never die."
Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#55189: May 27th 2013 at 9:20:04 AM

Over the 20th century, First World countries saw a general trend towards liberalism/social democracy in a variety of areas, the workplace (and prisons, actually) among them. The eight hour workday, paid vacation, workplace subsidized health insurance, retirement plans, unemployment insurance, overtime pay, collective bargaining, and a variety of other polices and practices were an outgrowth of this.

Unfortunately, we've seen a trend over the past 30 years of retrenching by corporate interests, slowly eroding those freedoms that we took for granted in the mid-20th century.

I don't think that anarchies can function on a large scale, any more than fully libertarian societies or fully objectivist societies or whatever. They're suitable for small scale experiments, but when you grow large enough, hierarchies and regulations are inevitable. Keeping them unintrusive is important, as long as they serve their purpose, which is to curb excesses and abuses.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
deathpigeon Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: One True Dodecahedron
#55190: May 27th 2013 at 10:57:49 AM

Um, no. You can have anarchists who reject only top-down manifestations of hierarchy and authority (such as the nation-state model) and have no issue with private property per se.

Except you can't. The only major group of people who use the term anarchist who support private property are "anarcho"-capitalists, and all other anarchists basically agree they aren't actually anarchists. Private property is incompatible with anarchism. To be an anarchist and support private property would be like to be a monarchist, but support term limits on the monarchs and elections for the monarchs. The first major anarchist work was entitled "What is property?" which featured the quote "Property is theft" when talking about private property. Anarchists were involved in the First International where all agreed that private property needed to go. In the Free Territories, anarchists did away with private property. In the anarchist areas of Spain during the Spanish Civil War, there was no private property. In the kibbutzes in Israel, there is no private property. The Industrial Workers of the World reject private property. You can say that anarchism and private property are compatible all you want, but that doesn't make it true. Private property is authority. Private property creates hierarchy. Anarchists, by definition, oppose all hierarchy and authority.

DeviantBraeburn Wandering Jew from Dysfunctional California Since: Aug, 2012
Wandering Jew
#55191: May 27th 2013 at 12:05:23 PM

Poll: 54% percent oppose ObamaCare; 43% percent support it.

Hagel marks Memorial Day with video ‘message of thanks’

Report: Donald Trump researching 2016 bid

Oh God Why?

edited 27th May '13 12:14:27 PM by DeviantBraeburn

Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016
Greenmantle V from Greater Wessex, Britannia Since: Feb, 2010 Relationship Status: Hiding
V
#55192: May 27th 2013 at 12:07:52 PM

[up][up] I thought anarchism wasn't about dogma? And there is such a thing as Elective Monarchies...

edited 27th May '13 12:41:11 PM by Greenmantle

Keep Rolling On
deathpigeon Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: One True Dodecahedron
#55193: May 27th 2013 at 12:08:00 PM

[up][up] Donald Trump for Repub nominee, 2016! Maybe that can finally kill the GOP!

[up] I'm not sure if dogma is the right word, but there are beliefs that one needs to have to be an anarchist. Not because one is going to be forced to have those beliefs, but, if those requirements didn't exist, the term would have no meaning. Like, if a fascist goes around saying that he or she is an anarchist, the fascist still isn't an anarchist, no matter how much he or she says he is. This isn't a matter of dogma but of defining terms. For example, every anarchist I know agrees that "anarcho"-capitalists aren't anarchists. They are free to have their beliefs, though we do disagree, but calling themselves anarchists is absurd and a perversion of the term. The term anarchist has meaning and, if you don't fit within that meaning, you aren't an anarchist. Within that meaning is a rejection of private property and capitalism. People are free to believe what they want and call themselves what they want, but saying you're an anarchist doesn't make it so. You're an anarchist if you fit within the meaning of anarchist.

I mean, look. If someone supports a strong centralized state, is that person an anarchist? Of course not. Even you would probably agree on that. Is that because of dogma? No, it's because of what anarchist means. Private property isn't really all that different in that regard.

edited 27th May '13 12:18:55 PM by deathpigeon

Xopher001 Since: Jul, 2012
#55194: May 27th 2013 at 12:09:30 PM

Polls aren't exactly a reliable source if information. In actuality, 54% of the people who answered the poll oppose Obama care, and 43% of those who answered it are in favor. They aren't neccesarily a representation of the entire American population.

RadicalTaoist scratching at .8, just hopin' from the #GUniverse Since: Jan, 2001
scratching at .8, just hopin'
#55195: May 27th 2013 at 12:21:21 PM

1. There is a thread for this. Several threads, in fact.

2. The following quote

Yes indeed, you can have anarchists who believe a person can have supreme authority over an area and everyone in it despite them not actually doing anything there, just so they can leech off the work of others. Totally not inconsistent or at odds with the historical tradition. XP Yep, your boss and landlord obviously have no power over you whatsoever. There's no corporate hierarchy no sir, just equal comrades!
is as closely related to the position I proposed as Social Darwinism is related to the actual Darwinian theory of evolution. If it was meant as a criticism it is a blatant strawman; if meant as parody it falls really flat.

3. Cassidy, the quote you give is very true for many workplaces and definitely something to keep in mind, but again, it isn't applicable. Does everyone here understand the difference between top-down authority and bottom-up, emergent leadership?

4. DP, I would echo Greenmantle's question about anarchist dogma. This statement is not totally accurate.

Anarchists, by definition, oppose all hierarchy and authority.
That's your definition. I opposed top-down hierarchy and authority, and I specifically reject the nation-state model as sufficient or adequate to protecting freedoms or meeting needs. I am an empirical skeptic on all social contracts (no benefit of the doubt, ever). If that isn't anarchist enough to qualify as anarchist then what the hell do you call me?
You can know the name of a bird in all the languages of the world, but when you're finished, you'll know absolutely nothing whatever about the bird... So let's look at the bird and see what it's doing — that's what counts. I learned very early the difference between knowing the name of something and knowing something.

- Richard Feynman

5. There is a thread for this. Several threads, in fact.

edited 27th May '13 12:23:31 PM by RadicalTaoist

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.
DeviantBraeburn Wandering Jew from Dysfunctional California Since: Aug, 2012
Wandering Jew
#55196: May 27th 2013 at 12:23:18 PM

Fox’s Andrea Tantaros Tells Listeners: If You See Obama Supporters, ‘Punch Them In The Face’

At least we're keeping things civil.

Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016
Silasw A procrastination in of itself from A handcart to hell (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: And they all lived happily ever after <3
A procrastination in of itself
#55197: May 27th 2013 at 12:23:22 PM

[up]X4 so anarcho-communism like the place I lived aren't a thing? Because we had private property, the thing that made us anarcho-communist was the total equality and the lack of a top down hierarchy.

edited 27th May '13 12:24:27 PM by Silasw

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
deathpigeon Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: One True Dodecahedron
#55198: May 27th 2013 at 12:31:39 PM

That's your definition. I opposed top-down hierarchy and authority, and I specifically reject the nation-state model as sufficient or adequate to protecting freedoms or meeting needs. I am an empirical skeptic on all social contracts (no benefit of the doubt, ever). If that isn't anarchist enough to qualify as anarchist then what the hell do you call me?

Let us say there is someone who believes in the Abrahamic God. This person believes that the messiah will come and save us all. This person also believes that we must pray to the Abrahamic God, that the Abrahamic God is the creator and the judge. Is this person necessarily a christian? No. If this person doesn't believe in Jesus or that Jesus came to save us and is the son of the Abrahamic God, this person is probably a jew, even though this person shared a lot of characteristics with christians. You I'd probably call a libertarian, but you aren't an anarchist.

so anarcho-communism like the place I lived aren't a thing? Because we had private property, the thing that made us anarcho-communist was the total equality and the lack of a top down hierarchy.

...Where is the place you lived?

CaptainKatsura Decoy from    Poland    Since: Jul, 2011
Decoy
#55199: May 27th 2013 at 12:40:50 PM

Monarchists supporting elections of monarchs? Read history of 16-18th century Poland, pidgeon. Elected monarchs were our gimmick. And not elections in which took part only few electors, but hundred thousands of them. Noble Democracy/Republic rather than Monarchy.

My President is Funny Valentine.
RadicalTaoist scratching at .8, just hopin' from the #GUniverse Since: Jan, 2001

Total posts: 417,856
Top