Comments by "Jim Luebke" (@jimluebke3869) on "Lotuseaters Dot Com"
channel.
-
106
-
105
-
86
-
52
-
36
-
33
-
32
-
31
-
29
-
19
-
18
-
15
-
15
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Guys, we figured out the balance of Welfare State and Free Market by trial and error. It's kind of what the Cold War is about. Both laissez-faire capitalism, and its antithesis communism, are at this point about equivalent to Monarchism -- a quaint historical idea. We have determined that the best way to use industrialization to produce and distribute goods, is the market-economic welfare state.
Where is the current state of the dialectic? Well, it looks to me like Fukuyama's "liberty-minded democracy" is getting challenged by "authoritarian bureaucracy" both domestically and internationally. Brexit, populism, the powers of government officials during an epidemic, a new rivalry with China -- all of these are currently being debated. The sooner we understand that this is where the dialog truly is, the sooner we can develop a strategy to make sure that Authoritarian Bureaucracy does not win.
The proper way to frame yesterday's question was, "How do we best use industrialization to produce and distribute goods?"
Today's question ought to be, "How do we harness expertise in the service of a free people?"
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The 20th century Cold War established the Market-Economic Welfare State, which was the synthesis of Capitalism and Communism. Saying you're a Marxist these days (kind of like saying you're a lasseiz-faire capitalist) is a lot like saying you're a Monarchist. You're simply a quaint relic of a bygone era, that history has passed by.
If you'd like a new dialectic to pursue, one that hasn't been determined yet but instead is actively working itself out in the national and international politics of the current day, I'd recommend Liberty-minded Democracy vs. Authoritarian Bureaucracy. In other words, instead of rehashing the more or less settled question of the Market in an economy, you could point your musings towards the role of Expertise in politics.
The answer is not "Experts must run everything". The answer is not "Expertise must always be ignored". What, exactly, will the proper balance be? What mechanics will it involve? How will individual freedom survive? From Xi Jinping's central planning vs the West, to Parents vs. Teachers, to Brussels vs. Brexit, to Trudeau vs. Truckers, this is the common thread running through our most important political questions of the day.
A free and intelligent discussion of these topics, along with careful and honest observations about what people trying and whether it works, might actually save us the kind of conflict we saw during the 20th century. One can hope, anyway.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@patrykhaber2565 Um, every major economy in the world is a combination of welfare state and free market. The last serious challenge to the Welfare State in America was Social Security reform in 2006 under George W Bush, and that went nowhere. NHS is practically worshiped as a replacement for Christianity, in England.
Please take a moment from fighting yesterday's battles, and put at least some efforts into fighting *today*'s battles. From Brussels to Beijing, bureaucrats are relentlessly attacking liberty and subsidiarity, not just in terms of economics but in terms of speech and thought itself. London and Washington are infected as well. The Cambridge Five have metastasized into five thousand, at least. It pains me to say it, but we may need another Joe McCarthy before this is done.
Out-of-control administrative structures, from government to medical NGOs to universities to social media companies to HR departments, are tearing down freedoms and reducing humans and human activities to a series of checkboxes.
The free market is only one front in this wider war. Yesterday's allies (like corporations) have turned on us. Yesterday's enemies (freedom-oriented Liberals) are being pushed out of their old groups, to join our ranks.
We're in a new phase of history now. The Long March through the Institutions was almost complete, only derailed at the last second by Brexit and Trump.
History is on the move again. Anyone who loves liberty needs to reassess the situation we're actually in, to have any hope of preserving it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Wedgwood's "Am I not a man and a brother" was a great slogan of Abolitionism. It is also drawn directly from the New Testament, specifically, Paul's epistle to Philemon, owner of the runaway slave Onesimus.
8Therefore, although in Christ I could be bold and order you to do what you ought to do, 9yet I prefer to appeal to you on the basis of love. It is as none other than Paul—an old man and now also a prisoner of Christ Jesus— 10that I appeal to you for my son Onesimus, b who became my son while I was in chains. 11Formerly he was useless to you, but now he has become useful both to you and to me.
12I am sending him—who is my very heart—back to you. 13I would have liked to keep him with me so that he could take your place in helping me while I am in chains for the gospel. 14But I did not want to do anything without your consent, so that any favor you do would not seem forced but would be voluntary. 15Perhaps the reason he was separated from you for a little while was that you might have him back forever— 16no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother. He is very dear to me but even dearer to you, both as a fellow man and as a brother in the Lord.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ejdep Er, no. I am talking about specific actions of a specific woman, and a specific point of view she shares with a subset of the women around her.
Fortunately, as I may have pointed out already, fewer than one in five women are actually like this. Not a monolith, certainly. A bit narcissistic, perhaps, for these women to believe they represent or speak for all women, but there you go.
You should probably think a little harder too, about why you run into so many men who have had these experiences that you can make these predictions. "These people that are so against drunk driving, they've had loved ones killed by drunk drivers, it's sooooo predictable."
Honestly. Listen to yourself sometime.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"If you don't come from this background you're insanely distrusted by those in power"
You're getting very close to the actual problem with today's society, and what the new Cold War (Red Scare etc) is really going to be about.
How to maximize the production and distribution of material wealth that the Industrial Revolution gave us, led to the first Cold War - Capitalism vs. Communism. After a great deal of trial and error, we settled on the market-economic welfare state. (Seriously, point to a major country in the world that doesn't implement both of these to a great degree.)
How to maximize the production and distribution of expertise that the Information Revolution gave us, will lead to a new Cold War -- Authoritarian Bureaucracy vs. Liberty-minded Democracy.
Is the production and dissemination of knowledge / expertise going to be centrally controlled (the authoritarian bureaucracy, "technocracy", credentialism), or will information technology allow it be distributed throughout the population (citizen journalists, memes, elections, liberty, revival of traditional wisdom, individual initiative and dedication)?
As far as I'm concerned it's not hard to tell who the good guys are and who the bad guys are here, but then, I'm against totalitarianism because I've seen the consequences.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1