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:
https://engineeringpolitics.locals.com/
And if you're more interested in the video version, here is a direct link:
https://engineeringpolitics.locals.com/post/235260/the-engineering-politics-podcast-30-conservatism-vs-progressive-traditionalism
So I just confirmed that, after a year off of the Keto diet, my Ulcerative Colitis (a type of IBS) is still not only in remission, but seemingly cured as if it never was there, including no more polyp growth.
This self-experiment has shown me that a prolonged period on Keto, about 2 years for me, was enough to create the long lasting effects to repair and cure my gastrointestinal system to complete recovery from what was supposed to be a lifelong, incurable illness. I still have a minor level proctitus at the exit, to put it in the least gross way I can think, but with the rest actually fully cured to where my new GI doctor asked if I was misdiagnosed originally is a major accomplishment.
For those seeking a source on how to get here like I did, I recommend following Thomas Delaur's YouTube channel for general inflammation control/healthy keto/ workout advice, only eat meat that is 100% Grass fed and pasture raised (including eggs), and drink a glass of Kefir at least once a week. Good ...
Controversial capitalist take, but I personally don't think stock ownership should give any power to the stockholders over business decisions. Buyouts and ownership should be separate from stock investment. How? There are various options to discuss. Why? Theoretically an investment firm could invest ownership stakes into every major investment firm over time and concentrate all of their investments to own controlling stakes across entire industries or even all publicly traded companies.
Actually, this isn't so theoretical if you look at BlackRock's partnerships with Vanguard and State Street. The three companies operate in virtual lockstep and theoretically wouldn't even need 51% collective ownership in the companies they invest in because any company with an array of other investors should have some theoretical minimum that they can guarantee will follow the leadership of these big 3 in most cases. I've seen estimates that they only need a collective 35% share to all but guarantee any ...
