Quote from: RPGPundit;234009So, Jackalope, you are essentially accepting Gleichman's definition of "Conservatism" as being the universally acceptable definition?

Universally is a silly claim, there are always nutcases willing to accept odd ball ideas and call them by the wrong name. Look to the Forge.


I'm claiming this is the common and accepted definition, much the same as your claim that D&D is the aknowledged and accepted example of an RPG.

Quote from: StormBringer;234012More to the point, if that is what Conservatives are to emulate, it's total moon-logic.  It's a bill of sale to keep the rich in power for people who will never have a tenth of what the people that proposed that list had at the time.

Is this a rant against the Free Market, it was so general and untargeted (and unreasoned, i.e. nothing indicating why one would have that opinion) that I can't tell what's behind it.

Btw: Are you an Anarchist like Jackalope? There's basically little reason to explain concepts of government to an Anarchist. It's like trying to tell a psychopath that killing people is a bad idea, a complete waste of time.

Well, I am not a conservative nor an anarchist nor yet a libertarian or an espouser of other ideology, because I don't claim that my views if universally applied would usher in utopia. In general the accepted mode of political discourse is a bullshit shell game, whose meaning is to be found only as an interplay of power-relationships between those engaging in the discussion.

But such as it is, my libertarianism rests on a firm foundation: property rights. Talk about a just society all you want, but when your hand is in my wallet and your gun at the back of my head via taxation, I don't give a fuck about society. Theft is theft. The typical total tax burden of a western nation is about 40-60% of an individual's income. Talk about a free society when a man can distribute the product of his labour - his very essence - as he wills. Otherwise fuck off.

By that standard, the country where I now reside is twice as free as the one where I come from. Quite an advance, but not as good as Liechtenstein where the Duke holds that any more than 6% income tax is an imposition.

Quote from: The_Shadow;234051Well, I am not a conservative nor an anarchist nor yet a libertarian or an espouser of other ideology, because I don't claim that my views if universally applied would usher in utopia.

Conservatives don't claim utopia, far from it. They claim everything is seriously screwed up and thus governments must be designed with that in mind.

Quote from: gleichman;234055Conservatives don't claim utopia, far from it. They claim everything is seriously screwed up and thus governments must be designed with that in mind.

Of course you are right. And in a lot of ways I am closest to the classical conservative position (as opposed to holding the complex of positions associated with that label in the popular media, which varies from country to country). But where I opt out is that I have consciously moved to the view that -isms are not useful, and that it is best to focus my attentions elsewhere. Which is another topic, and a lesson that I am ignoring in posting to this thread.

Quote from: gleichman;234044Is this a rant against the Free Market, it was so general and untargeted (and unreasoned, i.e. nothing indicating why one would have that opinion) that I can't tell what's behind it.

Btw: Are you an Anarchist like Jackalope? There's basically little reason to explain concepts of government to an Anarchist. It's like trying to tell a psychopath that killing people is a bad idea, a complete waste of time.

Ah, so I am along the same lines as a psychopath now.

Tell you what, point out some players in this Free Market you imagine, and we can discuss that.  Assuming any are left that haven't outsourced a good piece of business overseas.

BTW:  While I am not an anarchist, someone who holds a different political view isn't precluded from understanding the 'concepts of government'.  In fact, I would say that most 'fringe views' have a far better understanding than someone who superficially promotes an ideology to cover for an underlying agenda.

Quote from: StormBringer;234071Ah, so I am along the same lines as a psychopath now.

No, Anarchist are similar in that there's no reason to try and reason with them. You're only along the same lines if you're an Anarchist- which you deny.

Quote from: StormBringer;234071Tell you what, point out some players in this Free Market you imagine, and we can discuss that.

In a free market, everyone is a player.

Quote from: StormBringer;234071BTW:  While I am not an anarchist, someone who holds a different political view isn't precluded from understanding the 'concepts of government'.  In fact, I would say that most 'fringe views' have a far better understanding than someone who superficially promotes an ideology to cover for an underlying agenda.

So I'm a rich owner of a business am I? I must check my bank account.

What possible reason would I have for holding my middle-class ass (or my formly below proverty line ass for that matter) down that I'd want to cover for it by holding the Conservative viewpoint?

Quote from: gleichman;234073In a free market, everyone is a player.

Including the government as a corporate welfare source?

QuoteSo I'm a rich owner of a business am I? I must check my bank account.

What possible reason would I have for holding my middle-class ass (or my formly below proverty line ass for that matter) down that I'd want to cover for it by holding the Conservative viewpoint?

The perennial question.

Quote from: StormBringer;234075Including the government as a corporate welfare source?

No, I said "in a free market".

Quote from: StormBringer;234075The perennial question.

Does that mean you don't know, but are more than willing to assign evil if unknown intent to me?

Quote from: StormBringer;234071I would say that most 'fringe views' have a far better understanding than someone who superficially promotes an ideology to cover for an underlying agenda.

Agree. Those who hold the "serious" (read: currently empowered) positions are only attaching themselves to major sources of power, and the ideas they claim to espouse are simply a cover. "Fringe" views are those that are attached to lesser sources of power, and sometimes may at least lay claim to intellectual honesty, if this should provide any consolation.

Ideas don't matter - that is, the content of them. The locus and expression is all. And language is the most powerful tool our species has discovered to decide who whom.

Quote from: The_Shadow;234078Agree. Those who hold the "serious" (read: currently empowered) positions are only attaching themselves to major sources of power, and the ideas they claim to espouse are simply a cover.

And I, who held to Conversative views long before they were a source of power is judged evil even so?

And of course it goes without saying given your statement that only the weak are not evil. That Good can never take hold, and must always be a victim.

Interesting Shadow.

Quote from: gleichman;234079And I, who held to Conversative views long before they were a source of power is judged evil even so?

And of course it goes without saying given your statement that only the weak are not evil. That Good can never take hold, and must always be a victim.

Interesting Shadow.

Well, I didn't use the words good and evil, and my conception of them might be different to yours. I simply believe that the espousal of political views - hot air, literally - is necessarily cover for our real drives. There's nothing evil about that. But I'm at risk of threadcrapping here, as I basically said I don't believe in the premises of the discussion.

Quote from: The_Shadow;234082... is necessarily cover for our real drives. There's nothing evil about that.

I certainly feel that lying about matters of this importance to cover other motivates is evil.

So I'd like to know what it is that you are accusing me of covering? And why I of all people would feel a need to cover it? It's not like I'm into making friends here.

Quote from: gleichman;234084I certainly feel that lying about matters of this importance to cover other motivates is evil.

So I'd like to know what it is that you are accusing me of covering? And why I of all people would feel a need to cover it? It's not like I'm into making friends here.

I'm not accusing you of anything worse than what I am also doing. I'm just saying that as humans we feel the same surge of power by expressing views well and successfully - or even at all - that we do by playing a musical instrument. And doing either may serve to establish our identity as members of a group, our position in the hierarchy within the group, gain us money or a mate. What we are doing on this message board is pretty small potatoes, but the same principles apply.

Quote from: The_Shadow;234087I'm not accusing you of anything worse than what I am also doing.

So you're saying that we are all in effect liars, and as a result incapable of communicating about anything, even "small potatoes".

And that the only reason I hold Conservative view is identical to the reasons someone would hold Maxist views- "surge of power".

Very dark view of mankind there. One that like anarchy, seems to end any chance of conversation doesn't it?