A cultural elite that rejects middle class values and censors debate

[anitram]

Artists, writers and thinkers whose works have endured and had lasting, powerful cultural influence were almost by definition nonconformist and envelope-pushing in their own time, which tends to make one the subject of lots of nasty rumors and allegations, regardless of what the reality is. Plato's mentor Socrates was convicted for corrupting the youth by turning them against the gods of Athens; Thomas Aquinas wound up getting some of his followers--and quite possibly himself, though that's not clear--excommunicated for heresy; Shakespeare could never have won the hand of a respectable wealthy man's daughter in his day because he lived and worked in London's theater district, which 'proper' people considered a cesspool of debauchery, except of course when they felt like catching a boat across the Thames for a little entertainment themselves. Etc., etc., etc. Regardless of whether particular reverence for some great artist, writer or thinker tends to be stereotypically associated with being 'moral' 'conservative' today (since you seem to be treating the two as synonymous here), it's generally unlikely s/he was credited with being an exemplar of high ethical standards at the time.

Honestly, purpleoscar's posts in this thread make me think that his main issue with art is that he perceives artists to be leftist-leaning immoral freeloaders.

 

[indra]

Honestly, purpleoscar's posts in this thread make me think that his main issue with art is that he perceives artists to be leftist-leaning immoral freeloaders.

They aren't? Well, fuck, that's what makes 'em fun!

 

[purpleoscar]

Do you think technique-oriented classes really suffice to make someone an informed consumer of art, though?

I like the idea of techniques because there is a whole raft of techniques developed over time that it would be good for students to all work on water-colors or acrylic or oils. Different sketching techniques would have been fun to work on. We did little of that in my class so it ended up being pretty aimless. I just like the idea because if you focus and practice and repeat the same technique you’ll likely get better at it and as you work on many techniques over the years you’ll be better at art in a measurable way. Once it’s measurable it should be easier to promote art classes.

I wouldn't consider having won one partially government-funded prize for one work to make you a 'government-supported artist,' no, which I thought was what you were complaining about (in Canada).

Well it’s a little different except again the choice is still with bureaucrats on who gets the money. Of course this becomes less of a problem if the art is actually aesthetically pleasing. Most people wouldn’t complain as much if it was. Shock art can only go so far until the public becomes jaded.

Again, how many professional artists do you know? Art 'scenes' do vary a lot depending on where you are--or at least in the US they do--but I live in an area with a proportionately large concentration of artists, I know quite a few of them, and this just sounds to me like an unrecognizable caricature of the painters and musicians I know.

Well then you are around different artists than me. Most of the artists I’ve known were poets and they were uniformly left-wing. Outside of that I’ve been to the art gallery and the art gallery and art festivals and seen many strange works of art. The funniest was global warming art with end of the world scenarios in the paintings. Another funny one was an Argentinean setup with a room and speakers in the corners of the room and you sit in the middle of the room and listen to overlapping voices say "I love you" in spanish and other languages. I was sitting there thinking, "is this art"? I got a good laugh out of Scotty from Star Trek in a comic strip wall painting getting bagpipes rammed up his ass. There was a Cezanne exhibit that passed by some years ago but I missed it. S&*T! That would have been much better.

Mainstream country music is as much about entertainment as it is about music as art, so a lot of it can be derivative in the sense of endlessly recycling certain tropes and cliches expected by fans of the genre. And the same is true of mainstream rock music, of course. They involve an established image and style, they have certain characteristic aesthetic boundaries; that doesn't mean innovation and presence isn't possible for gifted artists working in whichever genre to achieve. You can certainly find overtly political artists in both genres, but to credit either in general with having significant political import is cheapening to real political discourse and participation, which is hardly their reason for being.

An example I can use would be the hippie movement and the 60s culture that had a lot of influence and art was used for political purposes. Even members of U2 were a little skeptical of some of the hard-line Marxist punk movement and felt they went too hard to the left. Rock ‘n roll is definitely out there to make fun of the middle class in many instances. Again I don’t how bohemians would be able to do otherwise with their lifestyles and point of view. Some music is politically neutral but a lot of artists like to push their agendas.

OK, now I'm completely befuddled as to what your point is or was. How is "a website...supportive of classical academic paintings...defending themselves against the modern art circle" an example of "radical claptrap"?

I’m just mentioning the irony that a conservative type website like it still has some over the top art in a political sense. Then I referenced a pro-Maoist redbook painting (very skillfully painted). That painting gives me the shivers.

Regardless of whether particular reverence for some great artist, writer or thinker tends to be stereotypically associated with being 'moral' 'conservative' today (since you seem to be treating the two as synonymous here), it's generally unlikely s/he was credited with being an exemplar of high ethical standards at the time.

Well he is a part of the Chinese government so I don’t think the painting could be made in the opposite way without some career backlash. Call the painting "every word is a lie" and he would have a different career path afterwards.

What I was talking about is how out of touch with life that you are outside your bubble. And that being out of touch makes you very susceptible to 1950's paranoid McCarthyism type of "thinking".

Tell me where do I have to live to be "in touch"; Washington D.C.? Should I join a community activist group?

 

[BVS]

Tell me where do I have to live to be "in touch"; Washington D.C.?

I would suggest travel, reading outside of hard right opinion, community service, etc... It's not where you live physically...

 

[anitram]

Well it’s a little different except again the choice is still with bureaucrats on who gets the money. Of course this becomes less of a problem if the art is actually aesthetically pleasing. Most people wouldn’t complain as much if it was.

Aesthetically pleasing to whom??

Nevermind what most people would consider "weird" modern art (like the one exhibit I saw of rocks and cheetos glued to hardwood), but I bet that you would find a lot of modern paintings or modern sculpture to not be aesthetically pleasing, and yet other people would. Is there some sort of committee who gets to decide?

 

[purpleoscar]

I would suggest travel, reading outside of hard right opinion, community service, etc... It's not where you live physically...

Hard as it might be to believe I actually have had left-wing exposure from university professors (talking about Marx) and read Marx myself and that's partly the reason I'm right wing. Then after exposing myself to the left-wing point of view I got nauseated at the self-serving agenda and I then moved to libertarianism as a gut reaction. Then I read more neo-conservative points of view (that doesn't start with Bush BTW but include most of the conservative movement of the twentieth century) and finally got some eurekas on politics and economics. Bastiat and Hazlitt on the libertarian side helped enormously and Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher helped as well. To me neo-conservatives are any conservatives that don't follow classical conservative attitudes of the 19th century. Back then I would have been a liberal because they believed in free trade and classical conservatives were mercantalists. Neo-conservatives believe in having some government where the benefit to society as a whole is demonstrable. As soon as it's shown that the money is being wasted or not yielding results then there should be an audit and a decision made on whether to pursue that government activity further in a different fashion or not at all. If there are two social programs that overlap and provide the same services then they should be consolidated into one to reduce waste. Where competition creates better results then that should be pursued. If the private sector tries to break the rules of ethics or creates another situation of entitlement at the expense of others then the government (justice system) needs to step and enforce laws. Like Bastiat said:

The origin of this desire is also found in human nature—in “that primitive, universal, and insuppressible instinct that impels [man] to satisfy his desires with the least possible pain” (Bastiat 1850). When he incurs less disutility in stealing a product from another person than he would in producing the same product or obtaining it through noncoercive exchange, an individual will steal it: “since man is naturally inclined to avoid pain – and since labor is pain in itself – it follows that men will resort to plunder whenever plunder is easier than work” (Bastiat 1850). Where plunder presents less disutility than production, the same self-interest motive that might otherwise create harmonious market societies will result in a society of universal antagonisms—where everyone tries to plunder everyone else.

The way to stop plunder is to render it more painful than work. This, for Bastiat, is the function of the law: “the proper purpose of law is to use the power of its collective force to stop this fatal tendency to plunder instead of to work. All the measures of the law should protect property and punish plunder” (Bastiat 1850). Protecting individuals’ inalienable rights to life, liberty, and property is both necessary and sufficient for a legal system that preserves the beneficent tendencies of self-interest while restraining its
harmful ones.

Aesthetically pleasing to whom??

Nevermind what most people would consider "weird" modern art (like the one exhibit I saw of rocks and cheetos glued to hardwood), but I bet that you would find a lot of modern paintings or modern sculpture to not be aesthetically pleasing, and yet other people would. Is there some sort of committee who gets to decide?

Well if government is funding art wouldn't there have to be committees involved? That's why I would prefer ideally to let the market decide and leave libraries and museums to display historically interesting art. If government funded art consistently that many in the public consume then there would be more clamour for the same kind of art. Also the market would get involved where it can to try and duplicate the success themselves. This is why you will see things like museums and libraries funded by governments because it benefits a broad group of people making unappealing to cut them. But if a large amount of art is just ugly to most people they won't see the value to it like a library or museum. Then if an individual likes rocks and cheetos glued to hardwood he can ante up his or her own money to hearts content.

 

[financeguy]

I like the idea of techniques because there is a whole raft of techniques developed over time that it would be good for students to all work on water-colors or acrylic or oils. Different sketching techniques would have been fun to work on. We did little of that in my class so it ended up being pretty aimless. I just like the idea because if you focus and practice and repeat the same technique you’ll likely get better at it and as you work on many techniques over the years you’ll be better at art in a measurable way. Once it’s measurable it should be easier to promote art classes.



Well it’s a little different except again the choice is still with bureaucrats on who gets the money. Of course this becomes less of a problem if the art is actually aesthetically pleasing. Most people wouldn’t complain as much if it was. Shock art can only go so far until the public becomes jaded.



Well then you are around different artists than me. Most of the artists I’ve known were poets and they were uniformly left-wing. Outside of that I’ve been to the art gallery and the art gallery and art festivals and seen many strange works of art. The funniest was global warming art with end of the world scenarios in the paintings. Another funny one was an Argentinean setup with a room and speakers in the corners of the room and you sit in the middle of the room and listen to overlapping voices say "I love you" in spanish and other languages. I was sitting there thinking, "is this art"? I got a good laugh out of Scotty from Star Trek in a comic strip wall painting getting bagpipes rammed up his ass. There was a Cezanne exhibit that passed by some years ago but I missed it. S&*T! That would have been much better.



An example I can use would be the hippie movement and the 60s culture that had a lot of influence and art was used for political purposes. Even members of U2 were a little skeptical of some of the hard-line Marxist punk movement and felt they went too hard to the left. Rock ‘n roll is definitely out there to make fun of the middle class in many instances. Again I don’t how bohemians would be able to do otherwise with their lifestyles and point of view. Some music is politically neutral but a lot of artists like to push their agendas.



I’m just mentioning the irony that a conservative type website like it still has some over the top art in a political sense. Then I referenced a pro-Maoist redbook painting (very skillfully painted). That painting gives me the shivers.



Well he is a part of the Chinese government so I don’t think the painting could be made in the opposite way without some career backlash. Call the painting "every word is a lie" and he would have a different career path afterwards.

Tell me where do I have to live to be "in touch"; Washington D.C.? Should I join a community activist group?

All good points.

But at a basic level, the broader environment we operate in in the earlier part of the twenty-first century is absolutely not a free market - what we have is the very definition of oligarchy. Larger and larger banks, larger and larger chemical companies, larger and larger media companies, not to mention a more aggressively intrusive state. If they are in agreement with your values as a conservative, then fine, but they're not mine.

As such, not surprisingly, we find that most of the ownership of art is in the hands of that same oligarchy. The system is currently geared towards very expensive art for the hyper rich. Whilst ultimately, like yourself, I would much prefer if art was entirely market driven and not taxpayer funded, this is unrealistic at present. (Let's not forget it was the free market that gave us such 'modern trends' as Dadaism, Surrealism and other good stuff.)

Before we go any further, genuine conservatives should address the problems of globalism and neo-liberalism. As such, I argue that genuine conservatives should build tactical alliances with the libertarians and, dare I say it, the far left, in order to defeat a common enemy. The end result should be going back to community values, which in my view is what a conservative value system should be about. Not fucking multi-corporations and globalism and bailed out banks and corporate welfare and all that crap.

Seeing as you mentioned the punk rock movement, I would mention in passing that I have a slightly different take on this. The punk rock movement were rebelling against their parents - who were all members of the socialist/social democrat clique that dominated social discourse and politics in the late 1940s through to late 1960s - particularly in Britain. The punk rock movement is reactionary, in that sense. Almost Thatcherite in its devotion to free market principles, actually. (Indeed, it is not at all the case that punk rockers were uniformly left wing even in terms of personal politics, far from it.)

 

[AliEnvy]

Before we go any further, genuine conservatives should address the problems of globalism and neo-liberalism. As such, I argue that genuine conservatives should build tactical alliances with the libertarians and, dare I say it, the far left, in order to defeat a common enemy.

What do you think might precipitate these squabbling groups to rise above differences and even acknowledge a common enemy?

 

[BVS]

Then after exposing myself to the left-wing point of view I got nauseated at the self-serving agenda and I then moved to libertarianism as a gut reaction.

I find this to be very very VERY ironic.

 

[purpleoscar]

All good points.

But at a basic level, the broader environment we operate in in the earlier part of the twenty-first century is absolutely not a free market - what we have is the very definition of oligarchy. Larger and larger banks, larger and larger chemical companies, larger and larger media companies, not to mention a more aggressively intrusive state. If they are in agreement with your values as a conservative, then fine, but they're not mine.

I agree with some of this though I would say that some of it certainly has to do with what the public asked for and a consequence of dealing with the communists in the 20th century. Many modern liberals felt a compromise would better than all out Soviet revolution. A lot of people back then (especially in University) believed that communism was the future.

As such, not surprisingly, we find that most of the ownership of art is in the hands of that same oligarchy. The system is currently geared towards very expensive art for the hyper rich. Whilst ultimately, like yourself, I would much prefer if art was entirely market driven and not taxpayer funded, this is unrealistic at present. (Let's not forget it was the free market that gave us such 'modern trends' as Dadaism, Surrealism and other good stuff.)

It's true in that it's not realistic since many people would vote for that funding. I get the sense that many families have kids who have dreams for art as a profession and this is the closest they will ever get to it so they support it wholeheartedly.

Before we go any further, genuine conservatives should address the problems of globalism and neo-liberalism. As such, I argue that genuine conservatives should build tactical alliances with the libertarians and, dare I say it, the far left, in order to defeat a common enemy. The end result should be going back to community values, which in my view is what a conservative value system should be about. Not fucking multi-corporations and globalism and bailed out banks and corporate welfare and all that crap.

I agree that libertarians and neo-conservatives (neo-liberals in europe?) should make an alliance but for the life of God I have no use for the far left. They are the people that have to be defeated every generation. Whether it's global governance via the green movement or any other scam they cannot be trusted. I met communists and debated with them. They basically believe in a system that in theory looks utopian and in practice looks like an atheistic model of the middle ages where inequality would increase and there would be a world government, (so no place to defect to).

When it comes to "community values" if you mean it in a Burkean sense and you support free trade then I agree. Corporate welfare is definately creating a situation where large government, big unions and "too big to fail" companies hijack taxpayers and shareholders to create another aristocratic class collecting unearned entitlements. Special interest groups are more organized than the general taxpayer or shareholder so some check against that would be a great innovation.

Seeing as you mentioned the punk rock movement, I would mention in passing that I have a slightly different take on this. The punk rock movement were rebelling against their parents - who were all members of the socialist/social democrat clique that dominated social discourse and politics in the late 1940s through to late 1960s - particularly in Britain. The punk rock movement is reactionary, in that sense. Almost Thatcherite in its devotion to free market principles, actually. (Indeed, it is not at all the case that punk rockers were uniformly left wing even in terms of personal politics, far from it.)

Well I'm not an expert on punk rock though I would like to see some examples of them liking Thatcher. It's seemed to me to be the most politically incorrect thing to like her and be a part of a band of any kind. I wouldn't mind hearing the lyrics. I would also like to hear some music covering that since I would find that so rare.

I find this to be very very VERY ironic.

"New right" point of view: "Hey I want to keep most of the money I earn."
"New left" point of view: "You're greedy and self-serving for saying that!"

Question for you: If I don't keep most of the money I earn am I really free?

 

[anitram]

Question for you: If I don't keep most of the money I earn am I really free?

Question for you: What's your marginal and effective tax rate in Alberta? I had no idea that you were surrendering over 50% to the government in the lowest tax jurisdiction in the nation...

 

[financeguy]

I agree with some of this though I would say that some of it certainly has to do with what the public asked for and a consequence of dealing with the communists in the 20th century. Many modern liberals felt a compromise would better than all out Soviet revolution. A lot of people back then (especially in University) believed that communism was the future.

Fair point.

I agree that libertarians and neo-conservatives (neo-liberals in europe?) should make an alliance but for the life of God I have no use for the far left. They are the people that have to be defeated every generation. Whether it's global governance via the green movement or any other scam they cannot be trusted. I met communists and debated with them. They basically believe in a system that in theory looks utopian and in practice looks like an atheistic model of the middle ages where inequality would increase and there would be a world government, (so no place to defect to).

Yes, when I say 'neoliberal' I essentially mean 'neoconservative'. However, I am not arguing for any sort of alliance between paleo-con libertarians and neocons, BTW, as I don't consider neoconservatives to be genuine conservatives, which is partially why I prefer the term neoliberal.

On the other hand, I know what you mean about dealing with the far left. I would distinguish between the violent and non-violent elements of the far left. In Europe, post war, most political violence - almost all of it - has come from the far left. Some of these people are quite dangerous, and it's correct, certainly, to be sceptical of any alliances with that particular element. That said, the anti-globalism protestors, for example, are largely non-violent, indeed, if violence occurs at these protests, it is largely the police causing it, which in my view are working for the statist oligarchy.

When it comes to "community values" if you mean it in a Burkean sense and you support free trade then I agree. Corporate welfare is definately creating a situation where large government, big unions and "too big to fail" companies hijack taxpayers and shareholders to create another aristocratic class collecting unearned entitlements. Special interest groups are more organized than the general taxpayer or shareholder so some check against that would be a great innovation.

Would agree completely. And the anti-globalism wing on the left, they are the people out on the streets protesting this, I admire them for it. When I talk of community values, I mean community values in the sense expounded by, for example, Roger Scruton, which I imagine is very much in the Burkean tradition.

Well I'm not an expert on punk rock though I would like to see some examples of them liking Thatcher. It's seemed to me to be the most politically incorrect thing to like her and be a part of a band of any kind. I wouldn't mind hearing the lyrics. I would also like to hear some music covering that since I would find that so rare.

Well, I don't know of too many examples of punk rockers admitting to liking Thatcher. But I would tend to argue that the very essence of the DIY punk rock movement is entrepeneurial and quintessentially anti-statist. In terms of punk rockers who openly espoused right wing politics, I was thinking more of the 'Oi!' punk movement, which was very much of the right - the far right, actually. ( Oi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia! )

Question for you: If I don't keep most of the money I earn am I really free?

I would probably argue 'taxation is theft' is a useful guideline. So, no, in answer to your question. Personally I very rarely give any money to charity as I already feel I am paying enough in tax. Some of my tax goes to good purposes, but other parts of it go to finance the lifestyles of scroungers, drug addicts, thugs, and other ne'er-do-wells. And as a result I feel aggrieved. It's interesting that the welfare state produces these results.

 

[Kieran McConville]

The 'welfare state' for all its faults is an enlarged version of those community values you want to get back to, Financeguy.

Government started getting a whole lot bigger not just after 1950 but after the mid 19th century, as, you guessed it, industry started getting a whole lot bigger. Even in the ol' US of A, they couldn't very well have a company bigger than the Federal Government, could they?

 

[Kieran McConville]

I object to a lot of things my taxes pay for, but that is not how the game operates. 'Taxation is theft' is the most stupid, irresponsible line of all time. Yeah, go live in fucking Somalia, would be my response.

 

[BVS]

Question for you: If I don't keep most of the money I earn am I really free?

Money isn't freedom. Sending kids off to a pointless war isn't freedom. Denying rights to people who are not like you isn't freedom.

I have to laugh when conservatives speak the shit you do...

Conservatism by definition is about self preservation, it's all about keeping THEIR status quo, so for you to tell me I have a self serving agenda is just down right fucking laughable...

 

[Diemen]

I have to laugh when conservatives speak the shit you do...

so for you to tell me I have a self serving agenda is just down right fucking laughable...

Tone it down, BVS.

 

[financeguy]

The 'welfare state' for all its faults is an enlarged version of those community values you want to get back to, Financeguy.

Well, that's where we'd disagree. I see no evidence that the welfare state enhances community values.

 

[Kieran McConville]

Well, that's where we'd disagree. I see no evidence that the welfare state enhances community values.

We're probably talking at cross purposes anyway, but I have no expectation of agreement, so it really doesn't matter.

Actually, no, I will clarify.

What do you mean when you say 'the welfare state', financeguy? Because I get the sense it's nothing but layabout immigrants on the dole, or something.

I'll tell you what I mean when I say 'the welfare state'. I mean unemployment benefits, certainly. I also mean the old age pension. I mean public hospitals and bulk billing medical services through a local GP (not every GP by any means, but at least the prospect of one nearby who offers in effect, a free consultation, if let's say you're not terribly well off and suddenly get sick). Those a few of the things I mean. I could add the caveat that I am referring to my own Antipodes, not the UK, but you know that already.

We could argue over the specifics, but on the principle, if you think all of that is somehow evil or against humane society, then by all means enlighten me.

 

[Se7en]

We're probably talking at cross purposes anyway, but I have no expectation of agreement, so it really doesn't matter.

Actually, no, I will clarify.

What do you mean when you say 'the welfare state', financeguy? Because I get the sense it's nothing but layabout immigrants on the dole, or something.

I'll tell you what I mean when I say 'the welfare state'. I mean unemployment benefits, certainly. I also mean the old age pension. I mean public hospitals and bulk billing medical services through a local GP (not every GP by any means, but at least the prospect of one nearby who offers in effect, a free consultation, if let's say you're not terribly well off and suddenly get sick). Those a few of the things I mean. I could add the caveat that I am referring to my own Antipodes, not the UK, but you know that already.

We could argue over the specifics, but on the principle, if you think all of that is somehow evil or against humane society, then by all means enlighten me.

markets freedom...competition...personal responsibility entrepreneurial spirit...small business...taxes real conservatives...far left marx...adam smith social mobility bureaucrats premarital sex...abortions immigrants savings...trickle down business cycles

does that clear things up, xed?

 

[financeguy]

We're probably talking at cross purposes anyway, but I have no expectation of agreement, so it really doesn't matter.

Actually, no, I will clarify.

What do you mean when you say 'the welfare state', financeguy? Because I get the sense it's nothing but layabout immigrants on the dole, or something.

I'll tell you what I mean when I say 'the welfare state'. I mean unemployment benefits, certainly. I also mean the old age pension. I mean public hospitals and bulk billing medical services through a local GP (not every GP by any means, but at least the prospect of one nearby who offers in effect, a free consultation, if let's say you're not terribly well off and suddenly get sick). Those a few of the things I mean. I could add the caveat that I am referring to my own Antipodes, not the UK, but you know that already.

We could argue over the specifics, but on the principle, if you think all of that is somehow evil or against humane society, then by all means enlighten me.

Ah. Well then, we are indeed, talking at cross purposes. When I talk of the welfare state, I really mean the specific variant of it that we have in Ireland and the UK, which funds the (almost exclusively native, non-immigrant) 'chav' underclass, gives them grants for having kids, funds their drug habits, and allows them to pursue a dependent lifestyle - for year after year after year - of never getting jobs, or even making an attempt to do so.

In other words, nothing to do with funding hospitals or immigration. I know plenty of Asian immigrants in Ireland, and all have jobs and none commit crimes. Crime in Ireland is almost entirely commited by natives. (For example, there are around 200,000 Chinese immigrants in Ireland. Precisely one of them has committed a murder.)

 

[financeguy]

markets freedom...competition...personal responsibility entrepreneurial spirit...small business...taxes real conservatives...far left marx...adam smith social mobility bureaucrats premarital sex...abortions immigrants savings...trickle down business cycles

does that clear things up, xed?

Pithier than REM's version for sure.

These bastards stole their power from the victims of the Us v. Them years,
Wrecking all things virtuous and true
The undermining social democratic downhill slide into abysmal
Lost lamb off the precipice into the trickle down runoff pool
They hypnotised the summer, 1979
Marched into the capital brooding duplicitous, wicked and able, media-ready,
Heartless, and labeled. Super US citizen, super achiever,
Mega ultra power doesn't relax.
Defense, defense, defense, defense. Yeah, yeah, yeah
Yeah, yeah, yeah, ignoreland. Yeah, yeah, yeah, ignoreland
Yeah, yeah, yeah

The information nation took their clues from all the sound-bite gluttons
1980, 84, 88, 92 too, too
How to be what you can be, junk, damn junk in your energy
How to walk in dignity with throw up on your shoes
They amplified the autumn, 1979
Calculate the capital, offer the public my skinny ass
TV tells a million lies. The paper's terrified to report
Anything that isn't handed on a presidential spoon,
I'm just profoundly frustrated by all this. So, fuck you, man (fuck 'em)
Yeah, yeah, yeah, ignoreland. Yeah, yeah, yeah, ignoreland
If they wasn't there we would have created them. Maybe, it's true,
But I'm resentful all the same. Someone's got to take the blame
I know that this is vitriol. No solution, spleen venting,
But I feel better having screamed. Don't you?
They desecrate the winter, 1979
Capital collateral. Brooding duplicitous, wicked and able, media-ready,
Heartless, and labeled. Super US citizen, super achiever,
Mega ultra power doesn't relax.
Defense, defense, defense, defense. Yeah, yeah, yeah
Yeah, yeah, yeah, ignoreland. Yeah, yeah, yeah, ignoreland
Yeah, yeah, yeah, ignoreland. Yeah, yeah, yeah
I did not do the revolution
Thank you

 

[Kieran McConville]

Ok, well it is a wide and complex world out there. I am hesitant to venture too far into what operates in the UK.

I suspect we do disagree pretty fundamentally even so, but I do not know enough to details to ascertain just how different the UK and Australian situations really are. And not really the time to derail what is, after all, a thread about what purpleoscar thinks about cultural deviance.

 

[purpleoscar]

Money isn't freedom. Sending kids off to a pointless war isn't freedom. Denying rights to people who are not like you isn't freedom.

I have to laugh when conservatives speak the shit you do...

Conservatism by definition is about self preservation, it's all about keeping THEIR status quo, so for you to tell me I have a self serving agenda is just down right fucking laughable...

I'll clear things up for you. All people are self-serving. It's part of human nature. Compassion is also a part of human nature. The best thing is to balance it because in history we have been able to see that when people offer short-term charity it is often for their own mental pleasure (self-righteousness). In my studies on meditation and compassion it's shown that people who show compassion get a mental drug of happiness along with it. This is not entirely bad. Now the problem lies in where people don't look at the results of that compassion. Eg. A guy gives an alcoholic homeless person money for food but the addicted person buys alcohol instead reinforcing the habit/addiction. At some point we have to understand that helping people to conquer their habits is the best we can do with our compassion and much of the work of reducing poverty has to do with the mentality and habits of the individual. If the individual is motivated to change they have a much better chance of changing their habits. In order for people to change their habits we need to convince them that they should do the proper virtuous action over and over again until it becomes a habit. Until that moment we are not sure which way the person will turn. Conservatives look at history and see that giving people the necessity to go out and work at least gives people an aim. This is why the 'war on poverty' didn't eliminate poverty. As long as social programs ignore the element of motivation and don't try to get these ideas to sink in to people so they understand their self-destructive behaviours can be changed and how to change we will have lots of failure with these programs. Now do we want to force people in a concentration camp to change their habits? Well no, forcing doesn't work as well because the person is not really making the choice and they may out of spite return to their old habits when released from the prison/concentration camp. So we are left with a strategy of having people making their own choices and paying the consequences of their choices. Some people won't make it that way and we want to at least feed them but we don't want them to actually have equal standards of living to working people otherwise working people will get envious that they have to do effort to get paid and then they will naturally want to join the benefit train. This is already pointed out in Bastiat's quote. "Why hunt when I can just take?" Conservatives feel that through an individual's own self-interest (which is in most people) they get motivated enough so that they don't want to starve and have nothing, and through their desire they work with others in a give and take situation because it's easier (hopefully) than just relying on low paying welfare. It seems to work much better than leveling the playing field and trying to create equal outcomes. If social programs were really more efficient and could get people to produce what they could now irregardless of them being paid the same money then I would be more convinced of the left-wing point of view.

Now if I give all my money (or even most) to the government I'm really working for the government so not being able to control my resources seriously limits my freedom because of my dependence on the state and reducing my responsibilities eliminates the opportunity for responsibility and the opportunity to develop those proper habits to handle responsibilities. I think that's pretty obvious. Secondly if I don't take care of my own financial responsibilities I won't be in the position to even help anyone else. I'll be a charity case myself. It's known that non-profit organizations receive less charity during a downturn in the economy.

Next, kicking out dictators is hardly anti-freedom. If the U.S. annexed Iraq and Afghanistan as part of the U.S.'s on going empire then you would have a point. It may have flaws but definately it's not pointless.

Next, when talking about gay rights I would agree though that has more to do with ignorance. Gays and lesbians can still live together and make a life in practice even if the term "marriage" is being debated still. Once people are convinced that it's really none of their business how people marry it will be hard to defend the term "marriage" when each individual marriage can decide for themselves.

If people focussed on freedom as doing what you ought to do within guidelines of not interfering in other people's freedom then I think we would be on the right track. The debate that goes on is which person is being harmed. I don't think conservatives are perfect but they are hardly wrong all the time. Conservatives don't take bureaucrats seriously as being for the people because we all know they like to get good salaries and pension benefits and feather their nests regardless of the cost to the taxpayer. That's why competition is so important. Government monopolies aren't known for efficiency. In fact all monopolies are inherently inefficient. Bastiat's use of the word "theft" is very apt because we can see today that even capitalists don't want to compete and would prefer to rely on corporate welfare or to work with other companies in "non-compete payments" to stick it to the general consumer because it is easier to do that than to compete and earn a living.

I object to a lot of things my taxes pay for, but that is not how the game operates. 'Taxation is theft' is the most stupid, irresponsible line of all time. Yeah, go live in fucking Somalia, would be my response.

You need to look at your statement of taxation not being theft and reconcile it with "I object to a lot of things my taxes pay for" so the argument is more convincing. Surely people willfully pay taxes for things they think the government does best and will benefit the most within guidelines of affordability but we have to be watchful and audit the results because most people earn their money and people shouldn't scoff at it since it includes themselves. This is why conservatives didn't like the way taxes were changed and levied on your pay cheque before you received it. It made it feel like that money was not yours but ownership of the government. Psychologically if people kept their pay and paid taxes on tax day (requiring them to save and be responsible for their money) they would be more careful with their votes and how the taxes are spent. The way it is now is "out of sight out of mind" and the government can get arrogant with our money we earned (painfully in many instances).

 

[Kieran McConville]

Well thanks for clearing that up for me, purpleoscar.

People pay taxes because that is what government is founded on. And in a modern democracy the government, loosely speaking, exists on the consent of the governed. If the governed choose to forget that and retreat into a 'poor bugger me' mindset, that's not healthy for democracy. You talk about government as though it is some sort of company you bought something from. Big mistake. Taxation is not a commercial transaction, it is a social compact.

Again, the line is stupid and irresponsible because the end result of that line of thinking is not freedom. As I said, see Somalia. See any non-functioning or semi-functioning state on earth. It might look like freedom if you squint but by god I wouldn't want to live there unless I was the biggest, meanest dog on the block.

 

[financeguy]

Taxation is not a commercial transaction, it is a social compact.

I think you meant to type contract? It is a social contract where one party weighs the odds in its favour.

 

[financeguy]

Now do we want to force people in a concentration camp to change their habits? Well no, forcing doesn't work as well because the person is not really making the choice and they may out of spite return to their old habits when released from the prison/concentration camp.

I think there are better arguments against concentration camps than that the inmates 'may out of spite return to their old habits' upon release.

 

[purpleoscar]

I think there are better arguments against concentration camps than that the inmates 'may out of spite return to their old habits' upon release.

This is out of context to what I'm talking about. Since social engineers have often used concentration camps and reeducation camps to change peoples habits (which is extreme to say the least and not tenable) then we are left with people figuring out their own problems on their own most of the time instead of believing some Godly human bureaucrat can solve it for us. Social programs have to have evidence that they work and to provide what we can't provide for ourselves when we are making the right decisions, otherwise we should decide what we want to do with our money that is not needed in the failed program.

Again, the line is stupid and irresponsible because the end result of that line of thinking is not freedom. As I said, see Somalia. See any non-functioning or semi-functioning state on earth. It might look like freedom if you squint but by god I wouldn't want to live there unless I was the biggest, meanest dog on the block.

It's is not stupid and irresponsible. What I'm talking about is that work needs effort therefore motivation to happen. If we denigrate what taxpayers do to earn their income forgetting that government bureaucrats can get arrogant with our money it becomes a situation that veers towards slavery. If unearned bonuses in the private sector is considered thievery then unearned benefits in government should be considered the same. Creating rights that are affordable is reasonable but creating rights that are unaffordable will eventually be rejected. So those who keep dreaming utopian dreams will be constantly disappointed whereas those who dig in and create habits and plans that respond to real results will experience fullfillment and happiness more often because their expectations are realistic, therefore expectations are met more often.

Somalia is just an extreme example that fits anarchy more than classical liberalism and it ignores my Bastiat quote on thievery and law. Bastiat is not anti-law. Somalia is not a place where thievery is punished and work rewarded. Somalia is not even like the 1700's or 1800's. Certainly a point of view of the 1800's needs to be updated to today but being respectful of taxpayers is smart since if you over tax them you get less tax revenue hurting the very programs you want. "Don't kill the goose that lays the golden egg" would be an appropriate maxim. It's known that when the tax rate gets around 40 - 50% that production and real growth can slow which means there will be less money than expected to redistribute on the programs you want. This is usually when government starts rationing all kinds of programs and even left-wing governments are forced to make cuts disappointing those who had delusions that government social programs would satisfy them the way they want it to. Government makes all kinds of promises they can't keep (unfunded social security liabilities) and when taxes go up precipitously and benefits get watered down people will complain and they have a right to because they sacrificed something to earn the money in the first place.

 

[Kieran McConville]

I think you meant to type contract? It is a social contract where one party weighs the odds in its favour.

Yeah contract is another fair word, certainly, I don't disagree. But no it wasn't a typo: I meant compact. Of course my vocabulary might be slipping away from me, it does that sometimes, but I had something more than just a contract in mind.

Taxation in and of itself is just a means to an end: I tend to sympathise with that quote about it being the price of civilisation. The price of civilisation; not special favours owed in return for money exchanged.

Now we can argue over the specifics and over how and where the load is spread (for example, I am not a fan of placing significant reliance on sales based taxes as they tend to be regressive, and you can forget about flat taxes), but 'taxation is theft' will always receive my undying contempt.

 

[Kieran McConville]

And purpleoscar, if you can feel free to go on about fucking concentration camps and who knows what-all at the drop of a hat, I will feel very free to mention Somalia, an extreme but not unique example of life under a weak state.

 

[anitram]

It's known that when the tax rate gets around 40 - 50% that production and real growth can slow which means there will be less money than expected to redistribute on the programs you want.

I want to know who here is paying 40-50% in their effective tax rate? Anyone? Bueller?

Hell, how many are even in the 40-50% marginal tax rate?

It's like a friend of mine who said to me "it's so frustrating when they take half my pay for taxes!" and in reality her effective tax rate is something like 28%.