Red Mosquito

BurtReynolds wrote:

McParadigm wrote:What are our examples of high functioning democracies without corruption or any kind of institutional/policy problems? Democracies that have the right set of programs, freedom, oversight, and economics? For reference sake.

I don't think there are any, and they get worse over time.

Not sure if problem or just western civilization

Rinse and repeat:

https://www.thehour.com/news/article/Ca ... 061369.php

Bi_3 wrote:Rinse and repeat:

https://www.thehour.com/news/article/Ca ... 061369.php

thumbing my way back from here.....

BurtReynolds wrote:

McParadigm wrote:What are our examples of high functioning democracies without corruption or any kind of institutional/policy problems? Democracies that have the right set of programs, freedom, oversight, and economics? For reference sake.

I don't think there are any, and they get worse over time. I think governments inevitably become larger, more unwieldy and corrupt, regardless of whether they are democracies or not. All you can really do is try to slow the process down or accelerate it to collapse. I don't really have much faith in libertarian attempts to reverse the process anymore.

What's the average lifespan of a republic anyway? 200 years? We're in overtime.

I'm not really offering a solution here beyond either trying to delay the inevitable or getting it over with so we can start over (I'm undecided).

I mean, isn't a form of nihilism sort of what you’re offering in this theory? Burn it down to start over?

Rob wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

McParadigm wrote:What are our examples of high functioning democracies without corruption or any kind of institutional/policy problems? Democracies that have the right set of programs, freedom, oversight, and economics? For reference sake.

I don't think there are any, and they get worse over time. I think governments inevitably become larger, more unwieldy and corrupt, regardless of whether they are democracies or not. All you can really do is try to slow the process down or accelerate it to collapse. I don't really have much faith in libertarian attempts to reverse the process anymore.

What's the average lifespan of a republic anyway? 200 years? We're in overtime.

I'm not really offering a solution here beyond either trying to delay the inevitable or getting it over with so we can start over (I'm undecided).

I mean, isn't a form of nihilism sort of what you’re offering in this theory? Burn it down to start over?

Burn it down question mark profit

Rob wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

McParadigm wrote:What are our examples of high functioning democracies without corruption or any kind of institutional/policy problems? Democracies that have the right set of programs, freedom, oversight, and economics? For reference sake.

I don't think there are any, and they get worse over time. I think governments inevitably become larger, more unwieldy and corrupt, regardless of whether they are democracies or not. All you can really do is try to slow the process down or accelerate it to collapse. I don't really have much faith in libertarian attempts to reverse the process anymore.

What's the average lifespan of a republic anyway? 200 years? We're in overtime.

I'm not really offering a solution here beyond either trying to delay the inevitable or getting it over with so we can start over (I'm undecided).

I mean, isn't a form of nihilism sort of what you’re offering in this theory? Burn it down to start over?

I mean the Election 2016 thread was pretty unambiguous. this is Burt's political status in a nutshell:

Spoiler: show

It’s basically the end result of any privileged group within a society being convinced that even the thing that privileges them isn’t good enough, can never be good enough, and is in fact somehow holding them back. Nothing is good enough, in the end, but they are also naively fearless about stripping it all away.

“Better Nate than lever.”

Simple Torture wrote:“Better Nate than lever.”

I love you

Rob wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

McParadigm wrote:What are our examples of high functioning democracies without corruption or any kind of institutional/policy problems? Democracies that have the right set of programs, freedom, oversight, and economics? For reference sake.

I don't think there are any, and they get worse over time. I think governments inevitably become larger, more unwieldy and corrupt, regardless of whether they are democracies or not. All you can really do is try to slow the process down or accelerate it to collapse. I don't really have much faith in libertarian attempts to reverse the process anymore.

What's the average lifespan of a republic anyway? 200 years? We're in overtime.

I'm not really offering a solution here beyond either trying to delay the inevitable or getting it over with so we can start over (I'm undecided).

I mean, isn't a form of nihilism sort of what you’re offering in this theory?

I am politically nihilistic after all, or at least fatalistic. But that doesn't mean that I think nothing else matters or that we shouldn't act in a certain way. I just think our actions should be based on as clear an understanding of reality as we can manage, even if that reality is hard to swallow.

Not that I really practice what I preach. I still agitate for more freedom, more decentralization, more anarchy, even though its hard to see any trends that says we can go that way (Brexit maybe? Nah). That doesn't seem to be where history is taking us.

Rob wrote:Burn it down to start over?

Maybe? It probably burns down anyway. Doing it on our own terms might the best course. But let's not get ahead of ourselves. That could take centuries.

If I was to offer a solution, it would be to keep throwing roadblocks like Trump or Bernie in the way until the establishment foundation cracks enough for real reform. I just don't have much faith that it will work.

In any case, I think a radical skepticism and pessimism towards our institutions is a great thing and its well deserved. The democrats are as bad as the republicans, and I don't walk that back at all.

McParadigm wrote:It’s basically the end result of any privileged group within a society being convinced that even the thing that privileges them isn’t good enough, can never be good enough, and is in fact somehow holding them back. Nothing is good enough, in the end, but they are also naively fearless about stripping it all away.

This suggests that you are in favor of maintaining the system that privileges me.

BurtReynolds wrote:

McParadigm wrote:It’s basically the end result of any privileged group within a society being convinced that even the thing that privileges them isn’t good enough, can never be good enough, and is in fact somehow holding them back. Nothing is good enough, in the end, but they are also naively fearless about stripping it all away.

This suggests that you are in favor of maintaining the system that privileges me.

This surprise suggests that you operate under the assumption that maintaining a functioning system is somehow less important to me than bumming out a troll

McParadigm wrote:It’s basically the end result of any privileged group within a society being convinced that even the thing that privileges them isn’t good enough, can never be good enough, and is in fact somehow holding them back. Nothing is good enough, in the end, but they are also naively fearless about stripping it all away.

This seems like progressives in a nutshell, so maybe Burt has been lying himself this whole time?

I really hope Bloomy gets on stage at the next debate (even though there is not much of anything to gain from it). If he’s not legit, if he gets Klobbered or loses his cool when everyone rants about stop and frisk for an hour rather than their platforms, he needs to go now. I hope he pulls it out though.


Also it would be fucking hilarious if they gave him a literal soapbox to stand on. Cover it with felt or something to hide it. Please Nevadans, make that happen.

Tomorrow night's debate is probably going to be an hour of Bloomberg's past/buying the nomination, followed by an hour of talking about the Bernie Bros. And Klobuchar reminding us once again that she is the only 5'4" candidate. But at least Jon Ralston gets to ask a couple questions.

Bi_3 wrote:

McParadigm wrote:It’s basically the end result of any privileged group within a society being convinced that even the thing that privileges them isn’t good enough, can never be good enough, and is in fact somehow holding them back. Nothing is good enough, in the end, but they are also naively fearless about stripping it all away.

This seems like progressives in a nutshell, so maybe Burt has been lying himself this whole time?

Yeah bro, we're just whining about things not being good enough, not worrying about people dying in the street because they cant afford insulin. You really got us.

Thought some of you might get a kick out of this

BurtReynolds wrote:I can't imagine Bloomberg being for smaller government anyway. He certainly hasn't shied away from vastly expanding police power for one thing.

He's not the small government saviour your looking for. He might be the worst candidate for that.

bune wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:I can't imagine Bloomberg being for smaller government anyway. He certainly hasn't shied away from vastly expanding police power for one thing.

He's not the small government saviour your looking for. He might be the worst candidate for that.

This is exactly the kind of ignorance Trump is counting on. Why do think he is so protective of Bernie?