Marxist Libertarianism

I was listing to an interview with Mick Hume of spiked which basically derided the liberal elite for their opinion that because democracy has given us Trump and Brexit, democracy has to be looked at because the plebs are giving the wrong answers when voting.

So is there contempt by the liberal elite for the plebs who voted for Brexit and Trump.

oscarBravo

mariaalice wrote: »

So is there contempt by the liberal elite for the plebs who voted for Brexit and Trump.

Talk about a loaded question. Is it possible to think that people are wrong without feeling contempt for them?

As for looking at democracy, I think it's fair to say that any process that produces terrible outcomes warrants careful examination. I know "democracy" is a sacred cow, and the suggestion that large numbers of fallible people could possibly produce a fallible decision makes me almost by definition a "liberal elite", but I guess if we need to endure the name-calling in order to even have the conversation, so be it.

Yourself isit

oscarBravo wrote: »

Talk about a loaded question. Is it possible to think that people are wrong without feeling contempt for them?

As for looking at democracy, I think it's fair to say that any process that produces terrible outcomes warrants careful examination. I know "democracy" is a sacred cow, and the suggestion that large numbers of fallible people could possibly produce a fallible decision makes me almost by definition a "liberal elite", but I guess if we need to endure the name-calling in order to even have the conversation, so be it.

You are of course making the assumption that with brexit and trump the plebs did make the incorrect decision.

Op I dont understand your thread title or its relevance.

ancapailldorcha

mariaalice wrote: »

I was listing to an interview with Mick Hume of spiked which basically derided the liberal elite for their opinion that because democracy has given us Trump and Brexit, democracy has to be looked at because the plebs are giving the wrong answers when voting.

So is there contempt by the liberal elite for the plebs who voted for Brexit and Trump.

Your question pre-supposes that the elite is made up of at least a majority of liberals. It also ignores the conservative elites who get off scott free as per usual while pumping out their own sort of propaganda.

Also, what on earth has this to do with marxist libertarianism?

Yourself isit

Yourself isit wrote: »

You are of course making the assumption that with brexit and trump the plebs did make the incorrect decision.

Op I dont understand your thread title or its relevance.

Look up spiked and it contributes.

I respect those who voted for Trump or Brexit even though I would not have voted for either. I don't hold with the view that who voted for Trump are uneducated, low information voters the same with those who voted for Brexit, the majority of those who voted for it are not as they are characterise by large section of the media.

Nody

mariaalice wrote: »

I respect those who voted for Trump or Brexit even though I would not have voted for either. I don't hold with the view that who voted for Trump are uneducated, low information voters the same with those who voted for Brexit, the majority of those who voted for it are not as they are characterise by large section of the media.

Depends on WHY they voted for Trump/Brexit; the fools people who bought the whole line of eating the cake and keeping it, 250MM to NHS, Mexico sends rapists only, "We'll make Mexico pay for the wall", etc. I have no respect for. They bought into populistic tripe without out examination and will pay the price for it even if they probably will never realize it. Others who voted for Trump because of politics such as gun policy (even if I disagree with it), Obama care (and happen to be young or rich and benefit from it) etc. I can understand and respect why even if I disagree with their opinion on the subject.

As for Democracy; I'm honestly more inclined as I get older towards weighted Democracy. Everyone gets one vote as base, if you work (and have paid tax to the state) for 10 years you get another vote, 30 years give you a third vote total. If you have paid in excess of 10 million EUR (inflation adjusted) in tax you get a another vote, second vote at 100 million EUR. Military service would earn the vote in half the time vs. working. Cap it at 3 vote maximum per person (any combination) and you reward those who work and pay for their way and give the people who pay in money a bigger say in how the money they pay in is used.

oscarBravo

Yourself isit wrote: »

You are of course making the assumption that with brexit and trump the plebs did make the incorrect decision.

Yes. That's objectively a reasonable position.

That's the most bizarre systme every, you would be excluding the disabled who can't work, those with serious mental and psychical illness, those who do unpaid care work, stay at home parents ect from being fully able to take part.

oscarBravo

oscarBravo wrote: »

Yes. That's objectively a reasonable position.

Yes but democracy is not about crying foul when you don't get the answer you want.

oscarBravo

mariaalice wrote: »

Yes but democracy is not about crying foul when you don't get the answer you want.

That's nice. I'm not sure what it has to do with what you quoted.

BabyCheeses

Who are these liberal elites saying they want to take a loot at democracy because the plebs are giving the wrong answer?

What is a liberal elite? Either the standard for being elite is very low or they are very few of them.
What is a pleb? Are Farage, Trump, DeVos, Tillerson, the Kochs, Murdoch all plebs?

Since when did this idea that you have to be happy about any result as long as it was voted on. What was the response to Obama being elected? Was it the decision was democratic so we should work with him or make him a one term president?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

oscarBravo

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Is he wrong?

Suddenly democracy has gone from being a good thing that should be spread around the world to a menace that we should be wary of.

As is almost invariably the case when something is presented as a stark dichotomy between two polar opposites, the answer is somewhere in between.

Is democracy the infallible answer to every question? I would submit that it is not.

Is democracy a concept so dangerous that it should be banned outright? I would submit that it is not.

Is democracy a reasonably effective way of producing fairly effective governance most of the time, but of bringing tyrants to power at others? I would submit that it is.

Maybe we shouldn't immediately condemn anyone for the heresy of suggesting that democracy isn't infallible, and instead listen to what they have to say.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

ancapailldorcha

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

In fairness though, Trump himself was saying that the process is rigged so you get this sort of shenanigans from all sides. The same with the Brexit referendum. We had people from the Leave crowd saying that there'd be a second referendum if it was close but given that they won by a very narrow margin, it's all fine. I don't think that it's wrong to point out that maybe such an important decision should have been made without a minimum percentage of the vote required but I say that with the benefit of hindsight.

hungry hypno toad

BabyCheeses wrote: »

Who are these liberal elites saying they want to take a loot at democracy because the plebs are giving the wrong answer?

Peter Sutherland? George Soros?

ScumLord

My problem is I can't find the right label for me. Sometimes I like conservative stuff, sometimes I like Liberal stuff, I have yet to find any ideology that is actually able to cover all of life's issues. But I feel left out not being part of some camp where we all have to think the same.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

ancapailldorcha

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

True. The tribalism is a bit part of the problem IMO. Would Hillary's supporters have been as vocal about the electoral college if she'd won it? I don't think so. Trump's supporters certainly would have been in that scenario. I do think that the systems needs an overhaul but Trump's claim, much as I hate to admit it is legitimate. He is the president and was elected fairly with the system that was in place at the time.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Fair enough though I would add that most of us are not traders.

ancapailldorcha

ScumLord wrote: »

My problem is I can't find the right label for me. Sometimes I like conservative stuff, sometimes I like Liberal stuff, I have yet to find any ideology that is actually able to cover all of life's issues. But I feel left out not being part of some camp where we all have to think the same.

Classic liberal? Soft libertarian? Social Democrat? Third Way advocate?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

marienbad

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I think this is about the only time we have had the winner whinging about it being unfair

johnp001

ScumLord wrote: »

My problem is I can't find the right label for me. Sometimes I like conservative stuff, sometimes I like Liberal stuff, I have yet to find any ideology that is actually able to cover all of life's issues. But I feel left out not being part of some camp where we all have to think the same.

This is a useful chart for distinguishing the various -isms...

Suryavarman

johnp001 wrote: »

This is a useful chart for distinguishing the various -isms...

About as useful as a snooker cue made out of rope.

A Little Pony

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I haven't suggested that democracy is "infallible." It serves a purpose in keeping the government roughly in correspondence with the preferences of the citizenry, but is still open to all kinds of well-documented manipulations and abuses. My issue is more with those people who champion democracy when it produces the "right" outcomes (such as electing Obama) but who turn against democracy when it produces the "wrong" outcomes (such as electing Trump).[/quote]
Democracy is the greatest system in the world which ultimately puts politicians to account via the ballot box. If you think a politician is doing a crap job, you have the right to get rid of them by using your vote. Anyone who is skeptical of democracy need to just go look at the totalitarian regimes in the world.

Millions of people in the world would just love to have the right to vote.

ScumLord

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Classic liberal? Soft libertarian? Social Democrat? Third Way advocate?

johnp001 wrote: »

This is a useful chart for distinguishing the various -isms...

You're just confusing me more!!

Big back kings I say, they were simple and straightforward. At least you knew where you stood with a king.. Unless he was mad, then you live in constant fear, but other than all those mad inbred kings, they were great.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

BabyCheeses

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Is there more that was said? Is it untrue that fascists have been elected in the past? I see no mention of plebs giving the wrong answer so lets do away with democracy. Even the part about liberal elites is very loose. A PhD makes you an elite?

There is no suddenly, the idea of being wary of democracy has always existed, look at Northern Ireland or the electoral college. The concept of tyranny of the majority has existed long before Trump was born.

hungry hypno toad wrote: »

Peter Sutherland? George Soros?

Haven't found anything about Sutherland talking about the plebs from a quick google and Soros has been ruling the world through the Illuminati and pizza for centuries already.

CalamariFritti

I think an argument can be made that the 'spirit' of democracy has been wholly undermined for quite some time.

It isn't clearly defined what that spirit of democracy actually is, but most people would probably agree it is the idea that democracy expresses the interest and the will of the people in the actions of their government. And the will being the will of the majority of the people without screwing the minorities.

Not sure whether that happened over time or whether that was designed into democracy from the outset, but what we observe in reality is quite the opposite. We observe interested minorities that are very astute in the political game and who have rigged democracy their way. Ultimately leading to governments acting quite often more or less openly against the will and the interest of the people.

And the way they have done that is by manipulating the people. The most glaring example being economics.

You go out onto the streets and ask people and most people will wholeheartedly express beliefs of capitalism and economical neo-liberalism being in their interest and actually being a good thing. They actually believe that its the only way things will work and that it must be that way. And everyone who dares to even question that is a rabble rabble something something.

I mean we as a working class currently actively participate in a process that is designed to devalue ourselves and make ourselves obsolete. Like this ongoing never ending process of optimisation, automisation, increasing productivity, cutting the fat, whatever we call it. Without actually anything to show for on our sides. We don't work shorter hours. We don't have more money. Its just to aid further redistribution of wealth from the bottom to the top.

And you go out onto the street and people will tell you thats the way it must be. Because its the only way that works.

So yes in that respect democracy - or whatever hollow parody if it is left - is failing I believe.

demfad

Nody wrote: »

As for Democracy; I'm honestly more inclined as I get older towards weighted Democracy. Everyone gets one vote as base, if you work (and have paid tax to the state) for 10 years you get another vote, 30 years give you a third vote total. If you have paid in excess of 10 million EUR (inflation adjusted) in tax you get a another vote, second vote at 100 million EUR. Military service would earn the vote in half the time vs. working. Cap it at 3 vote maximum per person (any combination) and you reward those who work and pay for their way and give the people who pay in money a bigger say in how the money they pay in is used.

Don't you think the rich get enough benefits ans influence in western democracies without giving them extra voting power?

There is a huge group of people in democracies with NO vote and no chance to vote: This who are not old enough to vote.

This people should be entitled to representation just as everyone else.

As they are not old enough to represent themselves their parent|s/guardian|s
should be given their vote.

That might concentrate Government minds on key areas relating to children, childcare and education.

Currently we have a situation where arguably the most important part of a citizens life: childhood development, is not proportionally (or even close) represented in democratic society.

hungry hypno toad

BabyCheeses wrote: »

Is there more that was said? Is it untrue that fascists have been elected in the past? I see no mention of plebs giving the wrong answer so lets do away with democracy. Even the part about liberal elites is very loose. A PhD makes you an elite?

There is no suddenly, the idea of being wary of democracy has always existed, look at Northern Ireland or the electoral college. The concept of tyranny of the majority has existed long before Trump was born.



Haven't found anything about Sutherland talking about the plebs from a quick google and Soros has been ruling the world through the Illuminati and pizza for centuries already.

Re Sutherland, try googling:

“somehow this result needs to be overturned”

I assume you don't have concerns about Soros funding pro-abortion lobbying here.

demfad

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

If the party were clever they would have educated it's citizens to be informed and think strategically (they still may not agree with YOUR politics be warned). Thus if they get booted out its either the correct decision by an informed electorate or a lesson for Government to take education seriously.

BabyCheeses

hungry hypno toad wrote: »

Re Sutherland, try googling:

“somehow this result needs to be overturned”

I assume you don't have concerns about Soros funding pro-abortion lobbying here.

I found a tweet lacking any mention of plebs. We had Farage talking about "unfinished business"

I don't really care about Soros. Tend to gloss over anytime he gets mentioned as it usually leads to conspiracies about the all powerful Soros being able to pay everyone to do what he wants but isn't smart enough to just bribe politicians like everyone else. Funding abortion campaigns is an odd choice to pick out, where does lolek and youth defense's money come from?

The pickings for these all powerful liberal elites is laughable. If this is all they have I don't know why anyone is worries about them, they can't even arrange a piss up in a brewery. Even when Soros pays everyone 100 million euro to attend. You can get politicians to deny basic science and maths with enough money, it's not tough.

hungry hypno toad

BabyCheeses wrote: »

I found a tweet lacking any mention of plebs. We had Farage talking about "unfinished business"

I don't really care about Soros. Tend to gloss over anytime he gets mentioned as it usually leads to conspiracies about the all powerful Soros being able to pay everyone to do what he wants but isn't smart enough to just bribe politicians like everyone else. Funding abortion campaigns is an odd choice to pick out, where does lolek and youth defense's money come from?

The pickings for these all powerful liberal elites is laughable. If this is all they have I don't know why anyone is worries about them, they can't even arrange a piss up in a brewery. Even when Soros pays everyone 100 million euro to attend.

He wants to overturn a democratic decision, he is smart enough not to use the term 'pleb' but the intent is 100% clear.

BabyCheeses

hungry hypno toad wrote: »

He wants to overturn a democratic decision, he is smart enough not to use the term 'pleb' but the intent is 100% clear.

So it is you that thinks they are plebs and assuming everyone else does too.

Still haven't had it explained how Johnson, Farage, Trump etc are all plebs.

Yourself isit

demfad wrote: »

Don't you think the rich get enough benefits ans influence in western democracies without giving them extra voting power?

There is a huge group of people in democracies with NO vote and no chance to vote: This who are not old enough to vote.

This people should be entitled to representation just as everyone else.

As they are not old enough to represent themselves their parent|s/guardian|s
should be given their vote.

That might concentrate Government minds on key areas relating to children, childcare and education.

Currently we have a situation where arguably the most important part of a citizens life: childhood development, is not proportionally (or even close) represented in democratic society.

That's absurd. It would effectively give a permanent majority to the fecund, and distribute power from the single, gay (in general) or childless. It would give some non taxpayers vastly more voting rights than some taxpayers and encourage over population

hungry hypno toad

BabyCheeses wrote: »

So it is you that thinks they are plebs and assuming everyone else does too.

Still haven't had it explained how Johnson, Farage, Trump etc are all plebs.

What are you talking about? Where did I mention Farage, Johnson or Trump? Are you claiming that Farage and Trump are marxist libertarians?

BabyCheeses

hungry hypno toad wrote: »

What are you talking about? Where did I mention Farage, Johnson or Trump? Are you claiming that Farage and Trump are marxist libertarians?

I brought them up earlier in the thread but nobody has been able to explain how they are plebs and not elites trying to control the "plebs" as you call them.

Instead all I got was the liberal elite cabal is made up of a woman with a PhD, a man who tweets, and the scary Soros bogyman.

hungry hypno toad

BabyCheeses wrote: »

I brought them up earlier in the thread but nobody has been able to explain how they are plebs and not elites trying to control the "plebs" as you call them.

Instead all I got was the liberal elite cabal is made up of a woman with a PhD, a man who tweets, and the scary Soros bogyman.

Did I bring 'plebs' into the thread? My first post in the thread quotes you using the term 'plebs'.

demfad

Yourself isit wrote: »

That's absurd. It would effectively give a permanent majority to the fecund, and distribute power from the single, gay (in general) or childless. It would give some non taxpayers vastly more voting rights than some taxpayers and encourage over population

You disagree with one person one vote?
Everyone has the same voting rights. This is not the case now where children are not represented by a vote even though development is a critical period of life. You invest more in children you get better citizens.

Speaking of absurd you also seem to be saying that people would choose to have extra children just to get their votes. Would you?

Yourself isit

demfad wrote: »

You disagree with one person one vote?
Everyone has the same voting rights. This is not the case now where children are not represented by a vote even though development is a critical period of life. You invest more in children you get better citizens.

Speaking of absurd you also seem to be saying that people would choose to have extra children just to get their votes. Would you?

I agree with one adult one vote.

You want to vote for a 1 year old? Not going to happen.

Would I have extra children to have more votes. No. But people with more children would automatically in your absurd idea have more votes.

Brian?

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

ScumLord wrote: »

My problem is I can't find the right label for me. Sometimes I like conservative stuff, sometimes I like Liberal stuff, I have yet to find any ideology that is actually able to cover all of life's issues. But I feel left out not being part of some camp where we all have to think the same.

Classic liberal? Soft libertarian? Social Democrat? Third Way advocate?

I'd say he's an anarcho-disgruntlist.

Brian?

Saw the thread title and thought "finally, my time to shine!" But it's just another "elitists caused a populist backlash" thread.

Brian?

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Oh, of course not. You'd be hard-pressed to find anyone complaining about the electoral college after coming out on the winning side. But if you lose, instead of conceding defeat, you can whinge about how the system is unfair. It's all a bit immature, really.[/quote]

I'll challenge this point a little. The electoral college is questioned every time a POTUS is elected without carrying the popular vote. When the popular vote looked marginal in 2012 the GOP mouthpieces were tearing the electoral college to shreds. The same people who were remarkably quiet in 2000 and 2016.

It just so happens that the only presidents to have won he electoral college without winning the popular vote were GOP. Since reliable record keeping began anyway.

What's my point? The GOP never actually have reason to complain about the electoral college so it's a one sided argument.

demfad

Yourself isit wrote: »

I agree with one adult one vote.

You want to vote for a 1 year old? Not going to happen.

Would I have extra children to have more votes. No. But people with more children would automatically in your absurd idea have more votes.

Just because an idea is novel doesn't make it absurd. A guardian represents the child in all other aspects of life. Why not in what the state does for the child?

Perhaps many of our horrendous issues with how we deal with children and educate them might dissapear if they are represented at the ballot box.

ScumLord

Brian? wrote: »

I'd say he's an anarcho-disgruntlist.

Anarchy is the politics of a spoilt child, it's against the nature of this social ape. Guess again.

Brian?

ScumLord wrote: »

Brian? wrote: »

I'd say he's an anarcho-disgruntlist.

Anarchy is the politics of a spoilt child, it's against the nature of this social ape. Guess again.

I was clearly joking.

But it raises a good point. What do you think is childish about arachism?

I'm asking because I think you may fundamentally misunderstand what anarchism is.

ScumLord

Brian? wrote: »

I was clearly joking.

But it raises a good point. What do you think is childish about arachism?

I'm asking because I think you may fundamentally misunderstand what anarchism is.

Maybe I do. I've always read it as every man for himself, no state, no tax, if there is a community spirit it's not formalised. I say it's childish because it seems self serving with no plan for the bigger picture.

Brian?

ScumLord wrote: »

Brian? wrote: »

I was clearly joking.

But it raises a good point. What do you think is childish about arachism?

I'm asking because I think you may fundamentally misunderstand what anarchism is.

Maybe I do. I've always read it as every man for himself, no state, no tax, if there is a community spirit it's not formalised. I say it's childish because it seems self serving with no plan for the bigger picture.

You do indeed. Essentially anarchism is striving for a non hierarchical structure based on voluntary participation. It's absolutely not about every man for himself. It's about the exact opposite.

I'll dig some reading material out for you anon.

Yourself isit

Brian? wrote: »

You do indeed. Essentially anarchism is striving for a non hierarchical structure based on voluntary participation. It's absolutely not about every man for himself. It's about the exact opposite.

I'll dig some reading material out for you anon.

An astrologer could dig out astrology books but it wouldn't prove much. Try explain how Ireland would be restructured to a Marxist libertarian state.

Brian?

Yourself isit wrote: »

Brian? wrote: »

You do indeed. Essentially anarchism is striving for a non hierarchical structure based on voluntary participation. It's absolutely not about every man for himself. It's about the exact opposite.

I'll dig some reading material out for you anon.

An astrologer could dig out astrology books but it wouldn't prove much. Try explain how Ireland would be restructured to a Marxist libertarian state.

Why the aggression?