Althouse: At the Sunrise Café...

December 22, 2020

At the Sunrise Café...

... you can talk about whatever you like.

222 comments:

«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 222 of 222

Joe Smith said...: "What is the American nation?"

An American nation is for Americans.

Everyone else is here at our pleasure.

If there's something they don't like about this country, they can fuck right off back to where they came from.

That was easy.; 12/23/20, 10:24 AM
Michael K said...: I readily accept that presidents are constrained by all kinds of structural forces. I'm not criticizing Trump for the things he had no control over.

Well that seems to be most of your comments.

Now, we are off to Newsomland, hoping to sneak in.; 12/23/20, 10:36 AM
Bruce Hayden said...: “Bruce, thank you for the effort you exerted but those are not Biblical quotes but merely someone's analysis. Slavery has been, not a 'natural' state, but a fact of human history for millennia. Jesus did not come to re-engineer society but to re-engineer man's relationship to God.”

I am not disagreeing with you. Indeed, I think that your last point is congruent to my point. It’s not that Jesus condoned slavery. Rather it was just an unpleasant part of life, in the background, like disease, starvation, the Roman occupation, etc.; 12/23/20, 10:45 AM
mockturtle said...: Bruce, thank you. I did take issue with this: Yet, Jesus, two millennia ago, mostly spoke as if it were just a fact of nature.

He didn't imply it was a 'fact of nature' but merely a fact, like many human conditions.; 12/23/20, 10:56 AM
mockturtle said...: As you point out at 10:45.; 12/23/20, 10:57 AM
Birkel said...: Yeah, why didn't atrunp speak up earlier?
Like in October?

https://mobile.twitter.com/derekahunter/status/1341581133163728896

Get bent.; 12/23/20, 11:16 AM
Birkel said...: I misunderstood nothing.
You expressed yourself poorly.
Thematic, that.; 12/23/20, 11:17 AM
Bruce Hayden said...: “ Rather it was just an unpleasant part of life, in the background, like disease, starvation, the Roman occupation, etc.”

And maybe not that it was unpleasant, but rather just one of those things that we notice about others, like their gender, race, age, etc. Background information. As you said, Jesus didn’t come here to reengineer society. And getting mired down in fighting slavery, or sexism, ageism, or the Romans would just have interfered with what he saw his job here to be. My comment was not really about Jesus and his ministry, but rather a comment about the times, as revealed by our Scriptures.

I never meant to suggest that Jesus approved of slavery. But rather that it was not, in his times, seen as the great evil, that we see it as now. The Romans, at that time, did discuss slavery, but not from a right or wrong perspective, but rather from a pragmatic one, because the danger rose in their society as the percentage of slaves increased. The discussions weren’t that slavery was evil, but rather that too many slaves were dangerous to Rome, because some slaves were inevitably willing to revolt, and Roman society always had to be prepared for that. The discussion seemed more like our talking about not building houses on the beach below the long term high water line, or too many houses in the forests. Or maybe even the problem of eating too much for Thanksgiving and Christmas. Or maybe even spending almost a trillion dollars that we don’t have on Nancy Palsi’s wet dream list.; 12/23/20, 11:18 AM
Qwinn said...: Predicton: The Swamp will make sure the "Republicans" in GA win both runoff elections.

1) It's to their advantage. They'll both play with the Swamp, and even if by some miracle they didn't, it'll still be Mitt Romney, the swampiest of swamp Republicans, running the country.

2) They think it will quiet concerns about voter fraud. They are wrong.

3) They think conservative urgency of stopping a Biden Presidency will be lessened. They are wrong.

4) They think throwing us these poisoned crumbs will stave off rebellion. They are wrong.; 12/23/20, 11:28 AM
Bruce Hayden said...: "It was use to describe what I wrote about the cultural tension between "traditionalism" and "individualism."”

Maybe that is where I went off into the weeds. I think that traditionalism and individualism can coexist quite happily, and that we have seen just that, historically in our country. The enemy of individualism is really collectivism, and it’s progeny including socialism. Traditionalism can conflict with collectivism, when traditionalism has been allied with individualism, but reinforces collectivism in societies where collectivism has been ascendant, as in many Asian societies. Essentially, I am suggesting that traditionalism reinforces a society’s long term status quo ante, whatever that may be.; 12/23/20, 11:28 AM
Joe Smith said...: “ Rather it was just an unpleasant part of life, in the background, like disease, starvation, the Roman occupation, etc.”

What did the Romans ever do for us?; 12/23/20, 11:36 AM
Readering said...: Christmas movie or Easter movie?; 12/23/20, 1:01 PM
J. Farmer said...: @Birkel:

I misunderstood nothing.
You expressed yourself poorly.
Thematic, that

That your only association with the word "collectivist" is Leninist agricultural collectivization is not me expressing myself poorly.; 12/23/20, 1:39 PM
J. Farmer said...: @Bruce Hayden:

I think that traditionalism and individualism can coexist quite happily, and that we have seen just that, historically in our country.

I don't see that dynamic in American history but rather a cycle of conflict over the same ideological differences that separated the federalists from the antifederalists. I think one component of this is the fusion of ideas from Hobbesian-Lockean liberalism, which was more individualistic in nature, and classical republicanim, which was more communal.; 12/23/20, 2:21 PM
Birkel said...: I did not mention agriculture.
I did not mention Lenin.
You are wrong but your Smugness precedes you.

Bless your heart.

My language is quite clear.
That must hurt you.; 12/23/20, 2:27 PM
J. Farmer said...: @Birkel:

My language is quite clear.
That must hurt you.

Haha. You're a very intriguing fellow, Birkel. I never quite understand why two adults with a conflict of ideas must constantly devolve to interpersonal emotionality and character judgments. Sure, it can be fun to do the dozens on occasion, but communication with you is so often like being in a soap opera. With the same script. Give it a rest for a day.

That said, perhaps we're merely talking past each other. When you wrote "Collectivism (large C) involves state coercion and threat of force.", what do you mean by "large C" collectivism? I'm honestly not sure what conception of collectivism you are referring to.; 12/23/20, 3:59 PM
Birkel said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 12/23/20, 4:18 PM
Birkel said...: State coercion is what defines Collectivism.
A bunch of Jews on a kibbutz are not Collectivists, although they are acting as a collective.
A bunch of Ukrainians ordered to work by their Soviet slavers are acting collectively but are neither Collectivist nor collectivist.

The Soviet slavers are Collectivists.

If you are acting of your own free will to enter into what you believe are mutually beneficial relationships, then you are acting individually inside a free market.

If are you are forced or coerced to act so that free will is no longer a useful concept (I do not believe choosing death or coercion is freedom.) then you are not acting as a Collectivist.

It is those who would deny free will to others who are the Collectivists.

The Soviets were not bad if they had personally lived their values and left everybody else to their own devices.
They were evil when they wielded the force of the State to deprive others of God given rights possessed by all people.; 12/23/20, 4:19 PM
J. Farmer said...: @Birkel:

They were evil when they wielded the force of the State to deprive others of God given rights possessed by all people.

I understand this notion of state power and the ideas of freedom to contract and natural liberty. I think the anarchist tradition particularly has made a very strong critique of the state and the legitimacy of state power, and I'm quite sympathetic to it. Though ultimately I reject it.

My only quibble then is semantic, since I think that's a rather idiosyncratic definition of the term. Only because that conception of Collectivism seems to apply to every country in the world, given that state power is ubiquitous across the globe and that all states restrict the freedom you describe in one form or another. I grant that this may be an overly broad reading of your position. If so, I think a counterexample of a country or society that you do not consider Collectivism and the distinction would help me better understand your position.; 12/23/20, 5:19 PM
Birkel said...: No, I doubt you would be interested, frankly.
And I am not following in the anarchistic critique.
Government is necessary to stop externalities (your right to swing your fist stops just shy of my nose), game theoretic distortions of free markets (monopolies and other market failures), and to ensure the flow of information through a society.; 12/23/20, 5:37 PM
J. Farmer said...: @Birkel:

No, I doubt you would be interested, frankly.

No prob. FWIW, I wouldn't have asked if I wasn't interested.

And I am not following in the anarchistic critique.

It's the tradition I am most familiar with. I tend to associate your position with the Hayekian/classical liberalism tradition. But maybe not as consequentialist as Hayek. I think classical liberalism' theoretical structure is well-constructed, and I don't really have much moral objection to it. I just don't see how a society can get itself there.

I've long been interested in this notion that classical liberalism must ultimately accept anarchism. I wonder if having a small state is like being a little bit pregnant. The other big challenge I see is the foreign existence of powerful centralized states as either potential trading partners or adversaries. I imagine we're going to be stuck with a powerful central state for the time being. That's at least the way I approach it in my head for now. In general, my approach to politics tends to be more dispositional than ideologica.

Thanks for the chat.; 12/23/20, 7:20 PM
Birkel said...: The problem with convincing people not to accept an overpowering centralized state is convincing them that their short-term advantage is worse for everybody (overall) than their momentary advantage. Long-term planning is a decided defect in most people's thinking. That is why a limited constitutional democratic republic is better than all other forms of government yet tried.

Unfortunately people have decided to break out government for short-term advantage.

And I cannot see a way clear of violence to resolve the internal contradictions that have been purposefully introduced to our body policies of.

But then I am an optimist.; 12/23/20, 8:20 PM