Fantastic, now we're also pretending capitalism would reward virtue. :rofl:

Is the method of pretending others say things they didn’t say a bad habit or a tried and true method of deceiving fellow travellers?

The statist-pretending-to-be-anti-statist can start a campaign for office, but he’d rather blame his ills on big government like the snowflake he is. Ignoring, as always, plutocracy. So be it.

—

Don’t like plutocracy? Become a plutocrat.

Don’t like the Fortune 500? Get into the Fortune 500.

Don’t like the government? … Well, that’s always the problem, because daddy Reagan said so. Just try to eliminate it as much as possible.

In other words: Leave the gun democracy, take the cannoli plutocracy. Like a good corporate slave.

Fantastic, now we're also pretending capitalism would reward virtue. — Benkei

No no no, it’s about freedom. You know, the freedom to work for the plutocrats who run the corporations and the government. Because you’ll definitely be one of them one day — if only you try hard enough you lazy bastard.

Here's my theory.

What is happening to the Republican party is what happened to the NRA.

Now the NRA was formed by Civil War veterans in 1971 and for a long time, for a hundred years, it seemed as an ordinary gun association, that for example favored limitations like a machine gun ban in 1934 etc. What then happened? Robert Spitzer explains in on article:

By the mid-1970s, a dissident group within the NRA believed that the organization was losing the national debate over guns by being too defensive and not political enough. The dispute erupted at the NRA’s 1977 annual convention, where the dissidents deposed the old guard.

From this point forward, the NRA became ever more political and strident in its defense of so-called “gun rights,” which it increasingly defined as nearly absolute under the Second Amendment.

One sign of how much the NRA had changed: The Second Amendment right to bear arms never came up in the 166 pages of congressional testimony regarding the 1934 gun law. Today, the organization treats those words as its mantra, constantly citing them.

And until the mid-1970s, the NRA supported waiting periods for handgun purchases. Since then, however, it has opposed them. It fought vehemently against the ultimately successful enactment of a five-business-day waiting period and background checks for handgun purchases in 1993.

What Spitzer doesn't go further into and what's crucial to understand is just why a dissident group did take the NRA over and why they thought the NRA was a losing battle, why the "old" NRA wasn't political enough.

I believe idea is simple: one doesn't believe that both sides can reach a consensus on gun rights / gun safety. From the NRA's viewpoint, the other side will go for total ban on all firearms, never will stop their salami tactic and will constantly continue this when there is a shooting incident. Hence it's logical, the new NRA presumed, to fight all the way, any concessions however sound these might seem, will be a defeat because the other side will never stop until all firearms are banned from the people. If you tell yourself this over and over, you'll start to believe it, and it will justify even the most outrageous things.

And this tactic from the NRA has been successful. Yet it has come with the cost of polarization of the gun debate. Or basically has meant the death of the debate. This view holds on to the idea that no consensus can be reached. It fails to realize that in a country where guns have such a prominent place historically and prominence that ownership is mentioned in the Constitution, banning all firearms simply will not happen. And if that doesn't happen, then there obviously would be a consensus to be found. But naturally there is absolutely no desire to look for this, once you have the model of "fight after every inch". Hence there simply cannot be a real consensus seeking gun debate.

This is now happening in politics too, which has been long in the making, but by the Trump win in 2016 and his loss in 2020 it came all very clear. You see, Trump never thought that he could get votes from the other side (clearly shown with his comment about shooting people in New York). Trump never did change and tone down his rhetoric when he got to be the Republican nominee in order to seek votes from democrat leaning voters. Likely this wasn't a shrewd thought, because Trump just cannot be anything else but Trump. If his supporters think that torture works, then he is for torture. It's just a sales pitch. He just doubles down as populists do and wants the outrage from his opponents. This causes that there is a racist undertone in Trump's thinking: that Republicans are basically white and blacks and minorities basically vote democrats and when "white America" loses it's majority position, it's all over. What happened to the NRA has now happened to the GOP.

And hence you don't seek those possible votes from the disappointed and frustrated Democrats, but you double down on your base. You remain as extreme as you can be and portray everything Democrats push as socialism, even if the party is only partially leftist and basically centrist. And when you do this, you can accuse of every older Republican of being a RINOs, Republicans in name only. And it works!

But this puts you on the road where democracy is really in peril. If a consensus cannot be found in a democracy, then that democracy doesn't work. And if you think that your destined to lose in democratic elections, then hell with the democratic part!

Tickets are worth things because people work—I’m not so sure what that means. As far as I know currency is usually valued according to what, if any, commodity backs it, or on the faith in the issuer of it, in many cases governments and their central banks. — NOS4A2

I agree with this. Currency has worth because governments establish social worlds where said currency counts -- you either pay the man for the bread, or it's theft, and the state has a thing to say about theft.

So we are at least operating at the same scope, here -- which is important, because I think that's frequently missed. Normally people begin to talk about supply/demand and firms and such -- things that happen within a market established by states.

Now, why do states back such things? What's going on between states? Which state is richer? And how did it become richer?

Things worth explaining.

And one such explanation puts the genesis of the wealth of nations with an organized work force which exchanges its labor for tickets to exchange for goods or services.

And one such explanation puts the genesis of the wealth of nations with an organized work force which exchanges its labor for tickets to exchange for goods or services. — Moliere

And on the backs of slaves, genocide, exploitation, colonialism. You know — the free market.

Yeah, I agree -- especially in our world, with our particular history, primitive accumulation explains why capital rose where it did first: capital requires a seed, and feudal/mercantile/colonial organizations provided that seed in our world.

Now, why do states back such things? What's going on between states? Which state is richer? And how did it become richer?

In short, it accrues to its power and benefit. The state has no real mechanism to earn wealth of its own so it must take it from those who are productive.

Well...

I mean.

That's the labor theory of value. Badda-bing.

It’s theft on a grand scale.

Yup. That's exactly what Marx says -- people aren't given the number of tickets that are actually equal to the amount of value they produced. So the nation -- through capital -- benefits.

The labor theory of value has largely been abandoned and widely criticized. I’m not sure it applies.

In that case, you're contradicting your point here:

The state has no real mechanism to earn wealth of its own so it must take it from those who are productive. — NOS4A2

And you're left with the question -- why is this or that state more wealthy than another?

In spite of the opinions of economists, I don't think it's an accident that the United States inherited the earth and squandered it, and then China has come on the rise because it has an industrial base.

I haven’t contradicted anything. A state might be more or less wealthy for a variety of reasons, like the nationalization of industry, higher taxes, less wasteful spending, debt, and so on.

Heh. Well, OK. But now you have many reasons -- not a reason. You're moving from science to history -- a move I'm fully in favor of. But it's not usually what economists like because their assertions no longer apply, given that they mostly only apply ceteris paribus

I’m not an economist, so perhaps it’s for the best.

Eh, I'm not either. If I opposed non-expert thinking then I'd always have to remain silent.

In general I think historical thinking is better for-us, insofar that we understand it to be something a little less potent than scientific thinking in terms of its rigor, but it cares very much about truth. Even moreso than scientific thinking, in my opinion -- it cares about the specific truth of the situation more than even the logical rules. Contradiction? Bring it on! We saw what we saw.

But it's also a sort of more humble knowledge that can't be proclaimed.

And there: it seems you and I agree that the state doesn't really do anything. We do. And that's where value comes from.

If a red state with a majority of people who are against abortion, isn't that democratic? — Judaka

Fundamental human rights should not be up for debate, full stop.

:100:

It doesn't take a grand conspiracy. It takes narrow interests pursued relentlessly. The "right to life" anti-abortion drive is another good example: They have been consistent and persistent for 50 years. (Longer, really.). Conservatives are better at monomania than progressives. Reactionaries are not fastidious when it comes to respecting their political opposites.

Wealthy elites are also consistent and persistent, which is how the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor.

If a red state with a majority of people who are against abortion, isn't that democratic?
— Judaka
Fundamental human rights should not be up for debate, full stop

Both sides think they have the moral high ground in this debate, and are protecting human rights. Unfortunately, I don’t think either side will be happy with a statewide vote, which despite maybe being a better compromise of democracy is desired.

Of course, if democracy was desired, I don’t think most people would have wanted Roe v Wade to pass in the first place, as it protected 2nd trimester abortions which less than 40% of the population thought should be legal.