Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
POG Politics Thread POG Politics Thread

07-25-2018 , 11:49 PM
"the elites are in control" - pure tautology!
07-26-2018 , 09:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by iamnotawerewolf
"the elites are in control" - pure tautology!
How so?
07-26-2018 , 10:05 AM
"BECAUSE THERE IS NO WAY THE MEDIA WANTED THAT IDIOT DONALD TRUMP TO WIN IT'S UNPOSSIBLE!"

lol
07-26-2018 , 11:07 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by metsandfinsfan
"BECAUSE THERE IS NO WAY THE MEDIA WANTED THAT IDIOT DONALD TRUMP TO WIN IT'S UNPOSSIBLE!"

lol
I’m confused what level of irony this is on
07-26-2018 , 11:23 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luckbox Inc
How so?
to be an elite is to be in control

to be in control is to be elite
07-26-2018 , 11:27 AM
We may be able to construct a system that propels people with certain, desired qualities into the elite, but to imagine a system with no elitism is nearly absurd.

In the state of nature, there is not a power vacuum. There is a raw form of power that is generally unpleasant.
07-26-2018 , 11:28 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by iamnotawerewolf
to be an elite is to be in control

to be in control is to be elite
I mostly don’t understand what point you are trying to make, but obviously the point of discussion is HOW much control the ruling class exerts
07-26-2018 , 11:31 AM
It's so wild how conservatives use the phrase "the media" to mean non-conservative news/entertainment outlets.

Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity do it constantly, with no hint of irony.
07-26-2018 , 11:32 AM
i thought it was a clever little quip and enjoyed it

Ianaw tautology remark
07-26-2018 , 11:36 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Birdman10687
I mostly don’t understand what point you are trying to make, but obviously the point of discussion is HOW much control the ruling class exerts
already you're falling into the tautological trap, though

the "ruling class" is defined by its level and/or extent of control


If you want to decentralize power, you can make a larger ruling class (see, eg, the bourgeois revolution over monarchy).

You can place term limits on the basis of their power (election terms for political empowerment, taxation terms for economic empowerment).

But to carve out room for a power vacuum is really merely to enable a competing power bloc. And it's historically not good to be caught between two competing power blocs.
07-26-2018 , 11:41 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by iamnotawerewolf
We may be able to construct a system that propels people with certain, desired qualities into the elite, but to imagine a system with no elitism is nearly absurd.

In the state of nature, there is not a power vacuum. There is a raw form of power that is generally unpleasant.
pure ideology
07-26-2018 , 11:43 AM
Thinking a bit more on it...

Quote:
If you want to decentralize power, you can make a larger ruling class
The thought of a proletarian revolution putatively accomplishes this. Vanguardism, of course, eradicates it.

Quote:
it's historically not good to be caught between two competing power blocs
Liberalism argues that it is actually great to have competing powers vying for your affection.
07-26-2018 , 11:44 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by iamnotawerewolf
already you're falling into the tautological trap, though

the "ruling class" is defined by its level and/or extent of control


If you want to decentralize power, you can make a larger ruling class (see, eg, the bourgeois revolution over monarchy).

You can place term limits on the basis of their power (election terms for political empowerment, taxation terms for economic empowerment).

But to carve out room for a power vacuum is really merely to enable a competing power bloc. And it's historically not good to be caught between two competing power blocs.
This is mostly just nonsense you believe for no good reason other than you were raised to believe that society cannot exist without a ruling class
07-26-2018 , 11:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by iamnotawerewolf
Liberalism argues that it is actually great to have competing powers vying for your affection.
Yes. The philosophy created by the ruling class justifies the existence of the ruling class. That is not surprising at all. Would you really expect the philosophy of the ruling class to question the legitimacy of the rulers? This is the same thing that Mets falls victim to when he believing the propaganda that giving rich people more money will somehow help poor people
07-26-2018 , 11:49 AM
Quote:
This is mostly just nonsense you believe for no good reason other than you were raised to believe that society cannot exist without a ruling class
How are rules determined? How are disputes resolved?

If an individual in a population is the smartest and the strongest, won't that person be able to secure a demographically disproportionate amount of influence/control?


Over time, is influence not cultivated, spread (vouched)?
07-26-2018 , 11:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Birdman10687
Yes. The philosophy created by the ruling class justifies the existence of the ruling class. That is not surprising at all. Would you really expect the philosophy of the ruling class to question the legitimacy of the rulers? This is the same thing that Mets falls victim to when he believing the propaganda that giving rich people more money will somehow help poor people
just because it is self-serving, does not mean it is inaccurate

you have to go beyond cui bono, my dear
07-26-2018 , 11:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by iamnotawerewolf
If an individual in a population is the smartest and the strongest, won't that person be able to secure a demographically disproportionate amount of influence/control?
How did they become the smartest/strongest?
07-26-2018 , 11:54 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by iamnotawerewolf
just because it is self-serving, does not mean it is inaccurate
I just don’t need people to quote Hobbes or Locke at me and act like it’s some brilliant idea. It’s just random beliefs. Who cares?
07-26-2018 , 12:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Birdman10687
I just don’t need people to quote Hobbes or Locke at me and act like it’s some brilliant idea. It’s just random beliefs. Who cares?
Unlike Engels, you mean.
07-26-2018 , 12:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Birdman10687
How did they become the smartest/strongest?
random mutation, afaiu, with a little environmental assistance


also, isn't the question moot? we're here; let's deal with that, right?
07-26-2018 , 12:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by iamnotawerewolf
Unlike Engels, you mean.
Yes, unlike Engels. Marx and Engels are not comparable to Locke and Hobbes
07-26-2018 , 12:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by iamnotawerewolf
also, isn't the question moot? we're here; let's deal with that, right?
If you mean deal with the structures in place that provide some people advantages over others or elevate one group of people over another then yes. Let’s deal with that.
07-26-2018 , 12:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by iamnotawerewolf
to be an elite is to be in control

to be in control is to be elite
Yes of course (to an extent). But when you have people believing in democracy calling attention to the ruling class serves a purpose.
07-26-2018 , 12:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by iamnotawerewolf
random mutation, afaiu, with a little environmental assistance


also, isn't the question moot? we're here; let's deal with that, right?
The elites aren't the strongest/smartest. They are the benefactors of a system that has been set up for them by their forebearers.
07-26-2018 , 01:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Birdman10687
If you mean deal with the structures in place that provide some people advantages over others or elevate one group of people over another then yes. Let’s deal with that.

      
m