Armchair Philosophy, May 22nd, 2020:
Topic: My confusion with governmental dissatisfaction motivating socialism.
I recently watched a debate over the success of Donald Trump as president. The debate was between a libertarian who has embraced Donald Trump and a former conservative who has left the right in the advent of Trump's presidency. I was very surprised to find that this nationalist conservatism had apparently given up on capitalism due to the failure of the government to protect him. Let me reiterate this, this "former conservative" gave up on conservatism and capitalism because the government did not protect him from being deplatformed off of private platforms and the republican party.
I will not mince words, this "former conservative" was kicked out of the republican party after a hit piece was written about him using racial slurs, and he has since fully adopted a racially based, national socialist policy. He may not call himself a nazi, but, in the most literal interpretation of what a nazi is, he now fits the definition. In his mind, his reputation was ruined and his business opportunities were limited by private platforms, so he now wishes to have the government take control of these platforms in order to protect him. That is my interpretation. But is this not a completely ironic position to take?
I have heard many different arguments for the responsibility of government. Some say that it is to enable citizens to practice their liberties, unimpeded, while others say that it is to protect people from risks that they may face. This person clearly believed that it was the responsibility of the government to protect him from the risk of having his reputation and business ruined. Yet, if that is his belief, then the government has fully failed in that role which he ascribes to it. He was not protected, so he wants to give more power to those who already failed to protect him.
In defense of his argument, he can claim that capitalism doesn't allow the government to protect him. However, I do not believe that that argument is valid. Here is why: If it becomes the duty of the government to protect first and defend rights second, then the government will be able to ignore individual rights in the name of protection. In other words, he may have never been able to speak in the first place if the government was in control. Or his speech may have been censored, so that there could be no backlash to his speech, because it would go unheard. Even assuming that the government does protect his speech in the way that he wants, he would no longer have control over his own business, so to protect his business, he would have to give up control over it. The government would have full ability to shut him down if they so chose. And, most importantly, the COVID-19 shutdown has proven that our society is not a capitalist one. So he is blaming a system that our government only partially ascribes to, until it becomes inconvenient for their chosen leadership of the day.
What these socialists do not seem to understand is that they are only protected under their socialist regime so long as it is their regime. The second a different political side gets into power, his entire livelihood is put at risk. His counterpart in the debate called him "idealistically utopian", and I believe that phrasing is accurate, due to the necessary stability for this system to work forever in his favor. Beyond this, it is already the duty of the government to protect citizens rights. Our rights make no mention of protection from the consequences of our actions. Perhaps he believes that that should be protected too, but that is simply a path to more consolidation of power, and would be self-destructive as the enactment of rights comes into conflict. It is the right of a business to choose to not do business with someone. Though, perhaps our civil rights laws changed that. So perhaps there can be a civil rights case brought up against Youtube for kicking him off, since civil rights laws prevent businesses from ignoring business with individuals who they hold biases against.
When someone already believes that the world is controlled by Israel, why would he want to give even more power to a single entity that he already believes is controlled by the people he says is controlling it? If you believe that Trump is a stooge for some "evil power", why do you want to give the government that he is the executive leader of even more power? If you want to vote in your nationalist socialist demi-god leader who is perfect for you, then what is to stop the next leader from completely abusing or dismantling the power vested into them by said previous leader? And what is to prevent your chosen leader from becoming corrupted in the same way our present leadership, to your understanding, has? Those are my questions for him.
I have to question how socialists, in general, believe that they can maintain that form of governance. Any change in leadership could dismantle their efforts. I cannot see this working in a state with free elections and any level of immigration. It also doesn't take into consideration the funding of said programs. Most social programs are paid for via younger, working-class persons who pay taxes for the elderly people who inevitably most utilizes the programs. A plurality taking care of a minority class. Any expansions would require a growing population and the US does not have that without immigration.
Truly, I cannot see any form of this governance occurring without bloodshed. Even if it were to occur, I see no path to stability. Most of all, I cannot understand how a government failing to protect you, failing to promote its civic values as outlined in our declaration of independence and constitution, could possible be motivation to give more power and centralization to that government. In the end, I cannot see this type of reaction as anything more than a spoiled adult throwing a tantrum that the popular kid didn't like him and trying to get mommy and daddy to punish the popular kids while petting him on the head. That is the only metaphor I can think of for this situation.
That all said, I would love to be given more perspectives on why people may fall into this belief system. It seems completely anti-american to me, abandoning individuality for some collectivist ideal. But questioning is why we have this network, so I look forward to reading your comments below.
Just thought I'd share this comment I was trying to comment on a Lotus Eaters video. Btw, ya'll should follow the Podcast of the Lotus Eaters if you aren't already. Great analysis and discussion
It's been a while since I've made a video, and this time with a locals exclusive. A cherry on top that I managed to fit within the size requirements. I like making shorter form content like this, considering my tendencies to ramble. Having content exclusive for my followers here is something I'll be working on doing more and more. I'll be creating more value here for my subscribers as well, with some subscriber exclusive content in the future. No timeline promises, cause I think we know how I get when I make a ton of promises (go hardcore for a week and then fall flat on my face unable to keep up with the sprint, lol).
Anyhow, let me know your thoughts and questions below. Have a great day everyone!
A direct upload! It turns out I recorded a video just short enough to meet the minimum upload offerings that locals offers to small communities like mine. That means you guys get this exclusively on locals!
I didn't sleep much last night, so I decided this was the perfect time to mull over my confused thoughts on how businesses are viewed from a legal perspective. Businesses are somewhat legal enigmas to me. Corporations are kinda treated as persons so that they can be double taxed, but have other protections, other types of businesses aren't treated the same way. They're able to consolidate power like governments, yet aren't subject to any form of limitations in regards to violating natural rights the same way the government is, despite being treated somewhat like persons they can still buy each other. It's just very odd to me from a principled, legal, and philosophical position.
Anyhow, my ramblings here are just that, ramblings. Still, I am curious what you all think of this topic. ...
The 2020 election is over, and the battle has just begun. What do I expect to come from the end of the election? Will the legal suits turn over anything for this election, or will they mean something for later down the line? I reflect on these questions and more in this discussion, and I also reflect on some final thoughts relevant to the Rise and Fall of Empire Series, that, thus far, being episodes 8 through 10 of the Construct Cast. Let me know your thoughts, and if you have any reflections of your own from this year's political cycle or other developments that you can't seem to get off your mind in the comments below.
In this episode of the Construct Cast, I discuss my analysis of Sir John Glubb's The Fate of Empires and Search for Survival, with an emphasis on my own consideration for what it would take to help an empire survive, or reboot. If immortality for an Empire is impossible, is rebirth impossible in the same way? Let me know your thoughts in the comments below.
Editor's Note: Returning to the podcast versions of the Construct Cast, I want to catch our content up to the videos we have had released over the past month. I apologize for this getting away from me for a bit. With the rise in content production, I had allowed this to get away from me. We will be returning to audio podcast uploads of the Construct Cast as per our original regular schedule, at 12PM EST on the day of the original upload, going forward.
In this second Crossover podcast, we are once again recording with Kevin @Eng_Politics. His channel is a bastion of political thought and analysis from the perspective of a conservative engineer. Interested in diving deeper into my concept of Progressive Traditionalism and combating the concept with his own beliefs of what it means to be Conservative, we decided to put our definitions and beliefs to task in this crossover episode!
Be sure to check out Kevin's locals community here:
And if you're more interested in the video version, here is a direct link:
As someone who works with daily reporting to the Fed, big companies dealing with regulation are basically a clusterfuck and the requirements basically leave the companies in a position where they can never really update their systems because they need their systems literally every day. They can make new systems, potentially, but updating the regular system is more of a liability since missing a single day can screw the company up. At the same time, it seems like the big companies, at least the one I'm in, are mostly carried forward by the inertia of their own weight. I am fully convinced there will be another massive financial crisis if other major banks are like mine, just cause there really isn't anything that can be done if something is messed up. It's like fake it til you make it, only in reverse. Once something goes wrong, the requirements for constant regular action leaves no time to go back to correct the damage. All you can do is mitigate. Like debt gaining interest, eventually ...
Does anyone have any advice for the work, life, content creator balance? I just genuinely have not had the spirit in me to be able to create the content I want to be able to create these past few months as I am just feeling totally worn out day in and out. I'd like to get back into the philosophic deep dives and contemplations you followed me for, yet that's feeling like a lifetime ago now and every day feels like a step away from where and what I'm supposed to be doing
My locals app is finally working again. Been sick lately. Started considering the differences between corruption and evil. I decided to look at it from a moral framework and came up with a new perspective on how to define the 2 from a moral standpoint. A corrupt person will defy their morals to achieve their goals, whereas an evil person will determine their morals based on whatever ends satisfy or help to achieve their goals. In this way, you can see that a corrupt person may acknowledge when they are doing something morally wrong and feel guilt over it, whereas an evil person will determine that all who oppose them are the true evil threat and could even assess their own will as being justice.
Just a little thought that's been running through my mind lately. And it's interesting because it really makes you wonder which is worse? One who will defy morals or one who will redefine them? Perhaps they both have the same end result, but do they both have the ability to find redemption? I ...
Welcome to Commutation Construct. This is a community designed around maximizing open dialogue and discussion. Get your first month on us by using the coupon code "STARTHERE" or by following this link:
Happy to have you!