Do I even need to discuss Venezuela?

 So...the epstein files are due out in a few days, and trump is giving a speech tonight, so you know what that means, let's invade a country and start a war as a distraction!

 Trump has been trying to manufacture consent for regime change in Venezuela for a while, and it's not working. Most people see through it. Why? because this is Iraq again, only with an even flimsier justification. They're bombing fishing boats that are allegedly drug boats, but everyone with a brain knows they're fishing boats. They're even doing war crimes and doing double taps and stuff.

And yeah, we'll see tonight, but I suspect his big speech tonight is about attacking Venezuela. Why now? Again, the epstein stuff is gonna drop and he's gonna want the news on something else. It's the standard switcheroo. 

Anyway, do I need to really discuss this further? Obviously, I'm against the war, it's stupid, it's unnecessary, he's going in for the oil. It's Iraq 2.0. And I dont think it's gonna unite the country for a time like iraq did until it didn't. Because I don't think anyone wants to invade really outside of trump and his die hard base.  

So let's discuss the economy a bit

 So....I've been watching the news this morning and there's a lot of doom and gloom indicators about how bad the economy is. Jobs are down. Some of this is tariffs hurting consumption and some is AI. A lot of probably AI. AI is killing the entry level job market. AI is also driving the price of computing sky high. RAM is getting more expensive and is now 3.5x the price, SSDs are like 2x the price, and GPUs are expected to rise next year. People are suggesting we're witnessing the death of affordable computing if the AI bubble doesnt pop. AI is also affecting the price of electricity and making that go up too. I really hate this AI trend in some ways. Again, nothing against the tech but it seems highly destructive to the economy in its current form, at least with the aggression it's being pursued. Apparently consumer spending is down. Tariffs and inflation are just causing people to pull back. I saw an article today suggesting the switch isn't selling that well. Gee, I wonder why. Could it be you're charging $450 for an underpowered last gen console that's a poor value proposition vs a PS5? Honestly, I'm happy to see that silver lining. The businesses tried to push people for higher prices, and people are pushing back. Of course, most spending is driven by the top, which is why the computing industry is abandoning the little people. Some people are calling it the "whale based economy." What happens when a handful of all people have all the money? Everyone else becomes irrelevant and the economy is just a massive churn between these huge corporations selling to each other. That's what's happening now and why the AI thing is so terrible. While AI should, in theory, benefit everyone, without my policy prescriptions, all the money just goes to the top and everyone else gets shut out. Fordism is dead. The wealthy have won capitalism, and now it's like the system is eating itself, and we're all on the menu. It sucks. We really do need a new New Deal to fix this. Ugh. 

Ibn Khaldun Reaction (3/8/2009)

 Another reaction to my reaction to political philosophy from back in the day! Yay!

 This time it's Ibn Khaldun, ie, this Islamic philosopher who existed in like the middle ages. Society was such where Islamic society was booming, while Europeans were basically in their dark ages. Anyway, this guy was interesting enough to talk about too.

Personally, I agree with much Khaldun’s view of history and the world. It is very advanced for his time and adopts a rather scientific perspective (Khaldun, 5-69). In my research methods class I am taking right now, one of the main issues we grapple with is how we know what we know (Other class, 2/2/09-2/4/09). Khaldun used logic to poke holes in many of stories people told in his time (Khaldun, 36-37). After all, it would not make sense that Alexander the Great would go underwater in a box to observe sea monsters wreaking havoc on his empire (Khaldun, 36). Moreover, Khaldun approached the world from a scientific perspective; he knew the earth was round and even accurately predicted the circumference of the earth (Khaldun, 49; Geography). He said that the “the geographical degree is twenty-five parasangs, the parasang being 12,000 cubits or three miles” (Khaldun, 49). This means that one degree is seventy-five miles (Khaldun, 49). He also recognized that the earth’s circumference is divided into 360 degrees (Khaldun, 49). Seventy-five miles times 360 degrees is twenty-seven thousand miles (Khaldun, 49). The real circumference is 24,860 miles (Geography). Therefore, Khaldun was actually very close (Khaldun, 47; Geography). What makes me so intrigued with Khaldun’s scientific explanations of the world is about this is the fact that during this time, many people still believed that the earth was flat. After all, he lived in the fourteenth and early fifteenth century before Columbus made his journey to the New World (Khaldun, xxxvii-xxxix). This is a side of history that I have never heard of before this class.

I do not, however, agree with Khaldun’s views on why certain races are superior and others inferior (Khaldun, 58-64). While I believe that culture and the environment have some impact on why certain civilizations are more advanced than others, I do not think that climate effects a person’s intelligence (Khaldun, 58-64). Looking at history, I also disagree that advanced civilization cannot develop in hot or cold climates (Khaldun, 58-64). Until recently, the Soviet Union, which has one of the coldest climates in the world, was one of the two major powers in the world (Kegley, 108-115). Moreover, I think it is safe to say that climate does not have as much of an impact on one’s skin color than genetics (Khaldun, 60-61). While one can tan his or her skin by being in the sun all of the time, this does not necessarily mean that a person’s descendents will change color just because they are moved to a completely different climate (Khaldun, 60-61). However, I can understand why Khaldun believed this. After all, Europe is in the North, and there are a lot of white people in Europe. Moreover, Africa is in the south, and many black people live in Africa. In his time, Muslims in the temperate zones dominated most of the known world (Class, 2/25/09).

I agree with Khaldun that human organization is necessary (Khaldun, 45-46). Without such organization, I do not think that we could have developed such an advanced society (Other class, 3/4/09-3/6/09). In my research methods class, my professor mentioned that what made culture and social structure possible was surplus, which freed a small amount of people from rudimentary work and allowed them to bring society forward (Other class, 3/4/09-3/6/09). Without human organization, everyone would be too busy just trying to survive instead of inventing things like medicine (Other class, 3/4/09-3/6/09). Moreover, Khaldun’s claims are pretty accurate (Khaldun, 45-46). After all, the human hand is not very effective against a tiger’s teeth and claws. Moreover, one person is not very effective at fighting a group of equally armed people (Khaldun, 45-46).

I mostly agree with Khaldun’s theory on how empires become strong and then decay (Khaldun, 123-142). The description given throughout the book, particularly on pages 141-142, sounds a lot like a modern theory that is still taught in political classes today (Kegley, 94-95; Khaldun, 105-142). It is known as the “long cycle theory” (Kegley, 94). This model has been applied to many famous and infamous empires such as Spain in the 1500s, France under Napoleon Bonaparte, the Axis powers during World War II, and even the United States today (Kegley, 95). Though a war, a dynasty, or “hegemon”, as it is called in this context, establishes its dominance through a war that caused a previous empire to lose its power (Kegley, 94). The hegemon then consolidates its power (Kegley, 94). However, this empire eventually begins decaying and a new power rises to challenge the old order (Kegley, 94). This leads to another major war in which the hegemon is normally defeated and a new world order arises (Kegley, 94).

While the modern “long cycle” theory does not address issues such as group feeling and desert toughness (Khaldun, 123-142; Kegley, 94), I think that these concepts are important as well and serve to answer the question of why empires fall. The U.S.’s rise to power is a good example (Kegley, 95-124). World War II is probably one of the defining moments where the U.S. became a major world power (Kegley, 95). Our country was attacked by Japan (Frankel). This brought about a strong feeling of group feeling in a sense; people were so outraged about the attack they many people volunteered to fight against the Axis powers (Frankel). Some people even committed suicide because they could not join the military (Frankel). Tom Brokaw even referred to the people who were young adults during World War II as “the greatest generation” (Boston Globe). While “group feeling” was really nationality in this case, people were still willing to die to preserve the country, which is basically, at its core, what makes group feeling so important (Frankel; Khaldun, 123). Out of this war emerged a bipolar system with Russia and the United States as the major world powers (Kegley, 108). The U.S. still is the world’s major power today (Kegley, 118-120). On the other hand, I believe that the U.S. is now weakening as the sole “dynasty” in the world. When it comes to the wars the U.S. is currently fighting, we do not have the same kind of group solidarity we had during World War II and many people do not even think that we should be in some of the wars we are currently in (Page). Moreover, my generation is immersed in luxury, which eventually leads to decay according to Khaldun (Khaldun 137-142). Until recently, our economy was doing very well. People in the U.S. are generally used to a sedentary lifestyle with a stable job and decent paycheck, and take for granted many luxuries for granted such as television, computers, and ipods. While I disagree that the rule of law makes society weak as Khaldun believed (Khaldun, 95-96), I think that we have lost our group feeling and have become cowardly in comparison with “the greatest generation” (Khaldun, 137). I do not believe that my generation would die for a cause as our predecessors who fought in World War II would. After all, why would we want to give our stable life of luxury up to endure the rigors of warfare? I am guilty of this mindset myself.

I agree for the most part with Khaldun’s view that external circumstances such as culture influence a human being (Khaldun, 94). While I believe that genetics can play a part in a person’s character and are a driving force behind some of peoples’ predispositions, I agree with Khaldun’s proposition that “the soul in its first natural state of creation is ready to accept whatever good or evil may arrive and leave an imprint upon it” (Khaldun, 94). After all, socialization is a powerful force. In my own life, my past experiences have made a major impact on what kind of person I am today. My parents, church, and private schools taught me Christianity throughout my life and I have become a Christian. If I were raised in a Muslim family, I would have probably become a Muslim. If I were raised without being introduced to religion, I probably would not have any religious beliefs. The same applies to my political ideology. If I were born into a stone-age society, I would be different than I am in our current, sedentary society. I would hunt for my own food and probably think that the earth was flat.

When it comes to injustice, I also agree with Khaldun (Khaldun, 238-242). I believe it is unjust to take away a person’s property, especially without compensation, and to distribute it to people who are well liked by the rulers (Khaldun, 238-239). Our own society considered this injustice to be so important that there is a constitutional amendment outlawing the practice (U.S. Constitution). Moreover, I also believe forcing people to buy certain goods at high prices they cannot afford where they have to resell them at a low price is unjust (Khaldun, 241). In this sense, I agree that injustice can ruin a dynasty (Khaldun, 238-242). After all, that practice reminds me of the housing market, which is a major part of the economic crisis we are in right now (Cornett). After all, banks gave people loans they could not afford, and as a result, many people lost their homes (Cornett). Now the banks themselves are in trouble and looking to the government for support (Norris).

Overall, Ibn Khaldun covered a large amount of issues in his book, the Muqaddimah (Khaldun, 5-301). He laid out his views of history, the world, the necessity of social organization, differences between desert and sedentary cultures, the emergence and decay of empires, justice, ways of making a living, and human development (Khaldun, 5-301). I find his book to be extremely interesting. In particular, I am astonished by his very advanced view of the world (Khaldun, 45-69) and even the fact that he accurately predicted the approximate circumference of the earth (Khaldun, 49). While I disagree with his views on why certain races of people were inferior to others (Khaldun, 48-54), I agree that culture and the environment effect how a person develops (Khaldun, 94). I think Khaldun is correct that human cooperation and organization is necessary for survival (Khaldun, 45-46; Other class, 3/4/09-3/6/09). I agree with his view on how empires rose and fell and even found it to be more descriptive than a similar theory I learned in an international politics class, since that class did not cover concepts such as luxury and group feeling (Kegley, 94-95; Khaldun, 123-142). Much of what was described in his theory reminds me of what has been going on in the U.S. since World War II (Kegley, 94-95; Page; Frankel). Finally, I like Khaldun’s view of injustice (Khaldun, 238-242). In particular, I like what he said about how the rich and make people buy stuff at high prices that they cannot afford where they have to resell them at lower prices (Khaldun, 241). This reminds me of the economic crisis we are currently in (Cornett).

 So...to go through it. Yeah, as you can tell, even at this point, I liked relatively scientific approaches to the world rather than whatever the F Rousseau was doing (even if he ended up being right on the concept of property). 

Yeah, Khaldun was racist, he had this idea that brownish skin people were superior because they were advanced, while black Africans and white Europeans were dumb due to the climate being too hot or cold. I mean, it's kinda funny, any culture that dominates thinks they're the best. Nowadays there's a lot of whites who think they're the superior culture. Meanwhile, skin is just skin, a lot of it is just the spawn lottery in this game of civ. Btw, the reason Africa hasn't had strong civilizations in recent centuries is in part due to western imperialism, and in part due to the fact that the geography is just too hostile to human development. I mean, I've watched a lot of those real life lore videos on how geography makes or breaks countries, AND I've literally played civ on a world map. And yeah, best spawning spots on the planet are north America and northern Eurasia (basically where Russia is, but you need to control Europe and China to make it work). Whereas a lot of the less successful places just have rough geography that screws them over. It's not the people themselves, and I'd argue even culture has little to do with success. It's the geography. US has the best and is only rivaled by a combined Russia/China/Europe. And that's why the world is as it is today. 

On human organization. YES, it's human development and organization that makes society advance. And economic surplus can free people from labor, which could advance society further in its own ways. Which is why it baffles me we continue to work and produce more and more surplus while keeping people chained to their jobs. It's nonsensical to me. We should be freeing people from a lifetime of labor. And society would be better off for it.

On long cycle theory, I have more mixed thoughts these days. It's basically the whole "strong men create good times, good times create weak men, weak men create hard times, hard times create strong men" argument. He argues luxury is bad and living like a bedouin who lives in the desert makes you tough and resilient. I can see an argument for that, but eh....we're both luxurious and the strongest military on the planet. Even other rivals have their own problems. China is a paper tiger, their soldiers dont wanna fight to my knowledge. Russia's meatgrinder is held together by pure repression and it's demographically killing the nation long term. At the same time, we kinda are weak. And I kinda cringe at my whole "this generation would never storm normandy" take. Our generation and the one before me wouldn't even turn the heat down come winter in the 1970s, or get vaccinated today and sit on the couch for a year collecting paychecks. We are an entitled society, and to some extent, I do fear that we are seeing the rise of that "destroyer" generation with late gen Z. 

The human nature thing is a big reversal from my stance as a fundamentalist Christian. Back then, human nature was driven by sin and external factors were irrelevant. But that's what college does to you. it teaches you things and backs up its arguments. 

On property, I have evolved a lot though. I'm fine with redistribution of property. It beats the legal screwery that comes from an ironclad belief in property as a natural right, which just enslaves humanity to have to work for the wealthy forever. We also have a massive economic surplus even someone like Khaldun couldn't possibly imagine. So....again, different ideologies for different times. Khaldun's works made sense in the middle ages, but today? yeah, I think we can do better.

I was kinda dead on with the housing crisis, but that's also why I've evolved to be so progressive on property. This system doesn't work for most, it works for the wealthy. And operating from that, I'm fine with my own ideas. After all, my ideas are created for the times I live in, and intended to solve the problems of today. As I said, I kinda have a problem with people reading old books and making them their entire ideology. The books make sense for the time they're designed for, but not necessarily for the modern era. We have to figure out how we wish to live today. 

So with that said, Ibn Khaldun, interesting guy. Some stuff holds up, some doesn't, but that's to be expected from some Muslim philosopher from the middle ages.  

Reacting to 1 Texas Democrat vs 20 Undecided Voters

 So....Jubilee has had a few more debate. I aint gonna react to the doctor vs RFK supporter one. Quite frankly it's not that interesting from my perspective and not a good use of my time. I would like to address James Talerico debating undecided voters though. 

So...overall....kinda cringe. The debaters were ignorant. And James was...well...too Christian for my tastes. i get it, dude's from texas, he has to push the "good old Jesus boy" thing, but UGH...I really don't like Christianity mixed with politics given my own belief system. 

Anyway, let's get on with it. 

Claim #1: Cuts to healthcare and food assistance hurt all of us

He's right, you know. They do. And of course the people he's arguing against are going on about fraud. And it's like...ugh. Really? That rarely happens. And honestly, cutting welfare programs to punish the undeserving does more than it helps. And of course, Christian boy over doing the protestant work ethic thing, debating on their terms. Going on about teaching people to fish and hands up, not handouts, but yeah. As a secular progressive, handouts are based and we should normalize that.

Here's the thing. I wanna solve problems. I wanna solve poverty. I wanna improve peoples' lives. My policies would benefit around 70-85% of people depending on the measure you use, and I stand by that. On the question of what of people "taking advantage" of the system, I don't see it that way. I believe that UBI and other services should be a RIGHT of citizenship, not a privilege. I believe that if we wanna talk personal responsibility and people misusing cash that they're given under my proposals, the thing is, if they waste it, that's on THEM. They're only hurting themselves, and no, they shouldn't get more. That's personal responsibility in my system. I aint interested in debating welfare fraud and undeserving people who are lazy and blah blah blah. This guy is and that's why I dislike democrats like this. I get it, it appeals to moderates and undecideds with ignorant takes, but yeah. Again, not super sympathetic.

And then there's a debate about how we shouldnt have the state do this but have charity take care of it. Again, this is something that irks me about christians. I look at it like Thomas Paine did. You know, one of the founders? The dude who wrote agrarian justice. He talked about how charity doesnt solve problems and if you wanna solve poverty, you do it by organizing society like a system of pulleys to remove the weight of the problem. Instead, Christians wanna keep the problem existing so they can then impose this moral burden on people to give. It's backwards. Like, again, I wanna solve problems. These guys don't have a solid exegesis of the facts that allow us to do so. So they leave us with a fragmented and broken system instead. 

Really, this is why Christianity in politics irks me and why I'm so hostile to it. Everyone gets caught up on these BS shoulds and oughts and in reality we should be doing what Paine suggested, use society like a system of pulleys to solve problems. But people are unhappy with those solutions because of these stupid shoulds and oughts and we all gotta suffer because of them. Again, it just annoys me. 

 Claim #2: Immigrants make America stronger and richer

 This is unequivocally true. Again, this is why we need a secular worldview that values things like facts and statistics. This is an objective reality the sociological data tells us. Welfare fraud is low, most immigrants arent harming the country, they're paying taxes, blah blah blah, and people just get so caught up on the immigration thing. Anyway, I dont have the energy to argue this one like I do point 1, but I believe I've made my points clear on this blog before. 

Claim #3: Your vote matters in 2026

 Here I see things both ways. On the one hand, to James Talerico's point, let me make my argument for voting in 2026. Texas is technically a swing state. It's not a very swingy one, it is likely R to "safe" R, but honestly, it's in that zone where if enough people came out for the democrats, they could swing it. It's mostly a theoretical exercise, but let's go back to a few of my previous predictions.

2024 (presidential): 1.2% chance

2024 (senate): 13.6% chance

2020 (presidential): 38.2% chance

2020 (senate): 3.0% chance

 I mean, the chance is never great, and sometimes it's rather insignificant, but it can happen. I consider texas in play for good reason. And if voters turn out highly enough, yeah, it can flip.

On the other hand, will that make their lives better? A lot of these guys don't really feel like their vote matters because even if this guy could win, he's not gonna represent them. This guy is saying he's gonna try, but honestly? I kinda feel sympathetic to some of them. Like the atheist dude who didn't think that anyone actually represented their beliefs. yeah, I dont blame him for thinking that way. This dude gives me HRC vibes at time laying on the christianity so thick, and honestly, that's one of he reasons i disliked her and many other moderate dems too. Those guys just represent a milder version of the same worldview the right has. The right is fundamentalist christian and then these guys are just moderate christians who think the same thing just with more nuance. So I can understand feeling disenfranchised. 

To Talerico's credit, he pointed out he doesnt always like the dems either and he places his convictions above the party, but let's think about what that means. He basically talked about already having a church and a sports team. So...again, more loyalty to religion. Not really inspiring me there. Because when someone like that does defect from the party odds are they'll run right, not left. So again, not really feeling this dude much. 

And thats the thing. if you're disaffected, and feel disenfranchised by democrats, this guy doesnt give me much hope for the party. Question #1 tends to center around my own ideological vision for the country and this dude isn't that. He's just another moderate dem in my views who has those flawed views and it doesn't inspire confidence. I get it, it's texas, but still. I really wish we could throw religion into the trashbin of history and just abandon it. It just holds us back and stops me from reaching common ground with these guys on basic existential philosophical issues. Like, my values are not his values. And he might appeal to what the dems conventionally consider moderate, but that ain't me. 

Claim #4: The biggest divide in our politics is not left vs right, it's top vs bottom

Eh...I do kinda agree with this. But again, let me put some nuance here. What is the top vs bottom? Corporate interests vs the interests of everyone else. THis one woman who spoke was talking about how she's like in the 97th percentile of income and how she was willing to pay more taxes, but are all people willing to do that? Will they do that to advocate for policies that I support like UBI? A lot of those guys bristle at that idea. And they'll go on about how they earned it and everyone else should work for theirs. Even though that's clearly not working. And those guys being democrats....actually makes the dems weaker. because that's why they become this insufferable moderate hugbox. They're like "we cant do that..." because they wanna appeal to those guys. A generation ago, many were republican. Hell, as recently as 2012, many were republican. But the centrist dems keep trying to bring these guys into the party and it weakens it. 

But, at the same time, it's also values. And for me, I define left wing politics between the Christian worldview vs the secular one. I understand that's not a clear divide in reality. Pope Francis was pro UBI and left wing and Ayn Rand was an atheist. But, if we really wanna discuss the cultural issues of American politics, and the real existential, philosophical stuff undergirding these views, I really do believe Christianity seems to drive a lot of right leaning thinking in the modern era, while secularism drives the left. And we can see that statistically demonstrated just by checking out the build a voter stuff.  You go from evangelical to atheist and BOOM you shift like 75% of the spectrum from that one variable. And then other brands of Christianity are in the middle between them. Kinda fitting all things considered. The right is driven by evangelical Christianity, the left by secularism, and the "moderates" are....moderates. Kinda in the middle. Almost like religion matters. 

So idk is it left vs right? To some degree, yes. Where you stand on cultural issues does influence your ideology down the line, and a progressive christian is still gonna cede a lot of ideological ground to the right that I'm not comfortable giving up (see question 1). On the other hand, it is top vs bottom. because both republicans and democrats in America kinda both serve the wealthy interests. It's not one or the other, it's both. And if anything, one of my arguments is that religion really is the opium of the masses where it kinda placates people. It keeps them running around with this worldview full of flawed premises and all of these nonsense shoulds and oughts that people just won't think straight on the subject from my perspective and solve problems. When i left Christianity, it really did make a HUGE difference in my ideological perspective.And I feel like, if people approached these issues from a secular perspective where people could think straight, that we would see a left wing revolution that crushes modern conservatism. 

On the flip side, maybe it might make the conservatism we get worse. Look at germany, and the split between the CDU in the western parts, and the AFD in the eastern. Whereas western germany's conservatives are religious, eastern germany's conservatives are turning into fascists. Of course, eastern germany also might be nostalgic for authoritarianism given it was communist for four decades. Either way Im willing to concede that point back to the Christians on that one. Maybe their influence makes their version of conservatism significantly more ethical and less homicidal, despite it making me role my eyes from all of its arbitrary beliefs and rules for how things should be that hold us back. Idk. 

Undecided Voter Claim: No matter how much gun violence happens within the state of Texas, there will never be a gun ban or gun reform

I dont remember much about this one and it wasnt that long, but honestly, I won't say "never." Either way, yeah, I kinda agree. I don't see it happening any time in the foreseeable future. Texas is really "yeehaw" country and big on their second amendment. And honestly, I think pursuing the gun issue is a good way to lose. Even I'm pretty moderate on guns and am basically a second amendment lib. Still, you give people enough time, and enough party realignments happen in American politics, and anything can happen. 

Conclusion

Honestly, not a bad debate, but I really don't care for James Talerico as a candidate due to him being so up front with his religion. Again, it's texas, I get it, but...UGH. It just reminded me why religion and politics don't mix. And before people ask of me what James said of himself, and how doesnt my spirituality influence my politics? of course it does, in a sense. But let me explain HOW.

My deconversion was apparently planned "from above" to bring me to my current ideas, which I then express to everyone else. My views are based around secular humanism. And even coming back to spirituality, the secular basis of my politics haven't changed. Like really, I'd still believe 99% of what I currently belief if I wasn't spiritual. Why? Because I developed my belief system as a literal atheist, and I still fight for that perspective even though I have spirituality. 

So...I'm in a unique perspective to say that yes, I wish there was less religion in politics. 

Either way, my spirituality just strengthens my belief that I'm advocating for what I see as the right thing. Because if this whole thing was planned, then I'm supposed to be like this, and I'm supposed to advocate for what I do. It just adds even further conviction that "this is what I'm here to do." and makes me double down even harder on my views. If that makes sense.

But even if I was still an atheist, my beliefs would be the same and you can probably tell that since I literally sound like a new atheist here still. 

Either way, yeah, I still think the world would be better off if they leave Christianity...and for that matter, other organized religions.  Because they just mess up your worldview with all of these weird arbitrary shoulds and oughts that stop us from seeing the issues with clarity, and advocating for solutions that would actually fix things. I really think we allow problems to exist for a lot longer than they should because people see those problems as part of god's design and think fixing them goes against said design. Meanwhile if we removed that veil from peoples' thinking, it would be like, oh, yeah, the way we're doing things is irrational, let's change this. ya know? That's all I'm saying here. 

Like, why teach people to fish when we're advanced enough to create a machine to do all of the fishing for us? It's just maddening to me. Ya know what I'm saying? 

Why I'm not a conservative because I don't support social media bans

 So...there's a debate recently to be had around social media and how it affects kids. Being a grown adult who doesn't have kids and who hasn't been a kid for almost 20 years now, I don't have a strong dog in this fight, but if anything, I come out against them. The fact is, I dislike this idea that everything is a problem that has to be solved, and my stance since I was young enough to be affected by these bans is "keep your hands off my internet." I'm a child of the wild west days of the internet of the 90s and 2000s, mostly the 2000s for me, my family was a bit behind the curve in adopting computers, internet, etc. And honestly, I think most changes made since then have been negative. Because you got all these people coming in and finding "problems" with the status quo and insisting we have to make the internet safer, specifically for kids. 

Like, I'm of the generation who were the people on those unmoderated xbox live lobbies of the mid-late 2000s. And I recall back around 2015-2016 when we started moving toward "oh, we gotta make it so people can't say mean words on the internet." Me, I'm like sink or swim. I respect the trash talk, I respect the freedom, but you got these weirdos who are like "we gotta regulate this", and now you can't say anything without getting banned in some games, it's ridiculous. I forget exactly what was said but I saw someone got banned from BF6 lately for something really mild and really dumb. You truly can't say anything any more that is offensive or controversial in a lot of places. And I kinda hate it.

I also resent crap like how we need to have porn bans "to protect the kids." Use parental controls, monitor your kids' online activities.  Don't make us have to submit our fricking IDs just to jack off. Jesus christ, who thinks this is a good idea? Just braindead authoritarians.

And now with australia banning social media for those under 16, there's debate here in the US about whether we should follow suit. NO! Just...NO! Again, why does everything have to be a problem solved by some law? And yes, I am aware social media is making kids depressed, I just dont think the solution is government regulation that could lead to the end of internet anonymity and the need for people to submit their IDs to actually access websites. I get it, kids should be protected from certain things, I just believe it's the parents' job to do that, and there are plenty of tools available to them. 

 Anyway, today I got called conservative for having this stance, given liberals are typically in favor of government regulation, and conservatives are opposed to it, preaching personal responsibility.  I can see why someone might say that, but I'd like to flip the script. 

 For most of my life, every time there's a moral panic, it often came from conservatives. it was the conservatives freaking out over satanism in the 1990s, over violent video games, harry potter, and pokemon in the 2000s, over terrorism in the 2000s (remember the patriot act?), and more recently, they're going nuts over porn and crap claiming we gotta protect the kids.

Quite frankly, the whole "OMG WE GOTTA PROTECT THE KIDS" mentality is inherently conservative. It comes from that part of the lizard brain that embraces authoritarian and conservative thinking. When I came to liberalism, i did it via libertarianism. I rejected these conservative impulses and designed my philosophy around...well...actual philosophy. I understood the limit of government action and how just letting people do what they want is often better. I believe that decriminalizing drugs is better than prohibition. That regulating abortion access only harms people who legitimately need access to it. That teaching abstinance only education in hopes to stop people from having sex doesn't work and they're gonna do it anyway, leading to higher rates of STDs and unwanted pregnancy. 

Quite frankly, when I came over, i thought liberals were just libertarian on social issues, but then you got these weird paternalists within liberalism as well, who end up having this pathological "must protect the kids" mentality. Reminds me of HRC, since she was into that, supporting conditional safety nets to protect kids, but then having a history of also crusading against violent video games in the 2000s. And I dislike that mentality. I mean, my opinion is what about everyone else? With safety nets, protect everyone. With social issues, just let people figure crap out for themselves. It's simple.

And some liberals might see me more as just a libertarian. Fair. I kinda am. Even my economic positions are in part driven by a desire to be free from the economic coercion of capitalism. Economic security is necessary for liberty IMO. But that said I'm not a right libertarian, aka, a propertarian or one of those lockean property rights guys. My views are obviously more influenced by Rousseau, Mill, and of course, more modern thinkers like Phillipe Van parijs and Karl Widerquist. So I kind of am in my own eclectic political lane here.

Either way, I'm DEFINITELY not conservative. They're the opposite of me: authoritarian on social issues, but then free market on economic issues to the point of social darwinism. I'm libertarian on social issues and very progressive and left wing on social issues. Even if I sometimes agree with conservatives on things like "instead of asking the state to ban this behavior, maybe you should take more personal responsibility here?", I do it from a perspective of anti authoritarianism. I dont believe that all problems are worth solving through state action, and on stuff like social media bans with stuff like that, I just see that as the latest moral panic where authoritarian minded individuals try to ruin a good thing with heavy handed solutions that cause more harm than good. 

Some might try to insinuate that I'm okay with letting kids suffer. Okay, I'll play that game. Go ahead and say it. I dont cave to pressure from the OMG THINK OF THE CHILDREN crowd who use such rhetoric to politically pressure and emotionally manipulate me into supporting authoritarian positions. That crap doesn't work, you have no power here. Go ahead and hate me, I don't care. My principles are my principles, take them or leave them.  

No, we shouldn't be grateful for the "job creators"

 So...I was watching the news today and there was a discussion about how OMG, what would we do if not for the jobs of the job creators! We'd literally be poor without them!

I know I once felt prey to this logic in my conservative days, so I really wanna break people out of this.

The structural functionalist argument

 So, I would argue that every advanced society needs a system to determine who does what, and who gets what. Hunter gatherer tribes had a division of labor of...hunting and gathering. Feudal societies had the kings ruling, the nobles fighting, and the peasants growing food. In more modern societies, we have capitalism. We let the financial rewards of the system do things that way. Businesses create jobs out of their desire for profit, and workers work for their desire for a paycheck. It's argued things need to be done this way because we need people to work, to create the goods and services we rely on. When we talk about communism, the argument is often presented that under that system, without financial incentives, there are no real incentives to work, and I agree with that.

The function of work

However, when we ask why things have to be this way, let us not forget that the whole reason is because we need work to be done. We could just give everyone stuff for free, but the argument is that if we do, work incentives would disappear and we'd all starve to death as no one would do the work necessary for the survival and functioning of society.

As such, let's really emphasize this, the function of tying income to work is to motivate work, under the pretense that work is necessary. if work is not necessary, then this structure for society makes no sense and is cruel. 

The necessity of work

While I'll agree that some level of work is necessary for society to function, we've long since evolved beyond the needs of the entire society to work all of the time. As capitalism has allowed us to become more productive, we have been more and more able to do more with less. In theory, we should be able to support at least subsistence level living with relatively little work these days. Working hours reduced through the 19th century, but after the New Deal was struck, hours stagnated at 40, and were never reduced from there. Now, we work for higher and higher standard of living under the pretense that growth is good. Rather than working for necessity, we work for consumerism. 

A lot of this was due to fear of what would happen if we moved away from a work based system. Businesses feared losing money if we became so efficient at producing our needs that we didn't have to work any more. Businesses might close up and disappear because there was no need for those products. So we invented consumerism to keep people on a treadmill of working for higher and higher standards of living, all while imposing the same economic coercion on them we always did.

On the flip side, because the labor unions were the first dominant means of resisting the tyrannies of capitalism, narratives shifted from work being seen as evil among the working class, to work being "dignified." Because unions gain their power through organized resistance to employer demands through the labor system, and the benefits of capitalism for the lower classes are tied to jobs, they also became dependent on this job based system, fearing what would happen if human workers remained irrelevant. This caused them to develop what I consider luddite style anti progress attitudes at preserving old work.

We could have shifted toward a system less dependent on work, but this would upset stakeholders of the existing system, and cause us to have to rewrite our social contract to find ways to provide for people in an absence of work. As such, capitalism has remained coercive at forcing people into the work based system whether they like it or not, and because most people are invested enough in the existing system, and unimaginative enough at thinking beyond it, we've mostly preserved some variation of this system since, with there being intense political inertia to change the system. As such, work is no longer a necessity in the past, although many people believe it. The real reason we don't move toward less work is people fear what would happen if we do. Again, it's political inertia. 

The myth of the "job creator"

While for the first half of this past century's economic arc, we operated under the principles of Fordism and Keynesianism, the idea that it is consumption that drives the economy, and that it's useful for workers to make good money so they can buy more products and keep this consumerist loop going, in the second half, we shifted toward "supply side" economics rather than "demand side" economics, where we see the wealthy as the producers of everything. Rather than businesses merely responding to human needs and employing people to meet those needs, we started seeing the narrative that if only we give all of the wealth to the wealthy, that it would trickle down to the rest of us. This has largely been untrue. For the next 45 years since this way of thinking became dominant, the rich have grown significantly richer, while the wealth of the majority has stayed the same or declined. For this narrative of growth as a tide that raises all boats, it really doesn't. It raises the boats of the few while the rest struggle to tread water. And in the 2020s, as we enter our first real inflationary period since the beginning of this paradigm, it's quite clear the problems are largely corporate greed and the economy shifting away from appealing to actual middle class people and below, toward the wealthy top 20% of people who captured most of the economic gains since the 1980s and who now hold the vast majority of money and make up the vast majority of spending, and especially the mega wealthy who are buying up everything and distorting entire economies in fields like computing and electricity (AI data centers go brrr). 

But yeah, in all of this, we're still talking about the "job creators" as if they're the ones who make the economy work and we should be grateful for the opportunity to work for them or we'd be poor. Uh....again, we could have shifted away from jobs in any point in the past century. Our economy is 5x as productive per person as it was 100 years ago, not even per WORKER. Per CAPITA. We could functionally eliminate poverty at any time, but we don't, because we are so invested in this stupid system.

And that's the thing. None of this is necessary any more. And if anything, relying on this old system IS the problem with the economy. Because businesses dont wanna pay workers, they never did. And honestly, as a "worker", I don't really wanna work anyway. I HATE this system. I always have. And I've always been of the opinion that if we could do away with this system we should. The real question is, how, and is that viable?

A hybrid system

Obviously, we can't do away with all work. However, if we redistributed about 20% of the income, enough to keep people out of poverty, we could establish a compromise. Much of the economy would still operate under capitalist principles as we understand them. We need that stuff, after all just to keep the engine of capitalism functional. I have no desire to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. However, if we give people a UBI, we take the first step toward liberating people from this system. We could also reduce the work week over time, rather than pursuing infinite economic growth, which would allow us to spend more time enjoying life, than spending all of our time working. At this point this work and consumption cycle is artificial. It's not necessary. We operate this way because we've made ourselves slaves to our system and the moral assumptions that underlie it, rather than those systems working for our benefit. And we've so brainwashed the populace into this culture of work and jobs that we actually have them begging the wealthy to create jobs for them so they can meet their needs. This is sickening, and without its absolute necessary, it is functionally enslavement IMO. We don't call it that, it's slavery with extra steps, but yeah. 

I don't have all the answers to what a post work society would look like. However, I'm not trying to create a true post work society. Rather, I'm just trying to take the first steps toward one. Give people an unconditional basic income, reduce the work week, etc. I don't see us slaying the beast of work entirely any time soon. It ain't gonna happen in my lifetime. But by taking the first steps toward such a goal, we can at least move away from it gradually. And when we need to transition to another system, if we ever get that far, we can. Quite frankly, I remain unsure if we ever will. I think some human labor will always be necessary. it's just a matter of how much. 

To be edgy...

 If I wanted to be really edgy on this topic, I could even discuss the ideas of colonialism and prehistory of captialism and the work ethic. We had work before capitalism. And for much of history, reducing work was necessary. But we introduced this capitalist work ethic through protestantism that created this pathological obsession with gathering more wealth at all costs. In the early days of capitalism, people tried giving say, other cultures fertilizer that can grow 4x the food. However, rather than growing 4x as much food and selling it, they'd just work 1/4 as much. We had, for example, the irish, who would grow potatoes. And the British stopped them from doing so, to impose the work ethic on them, which contributed to the 1848 famine. We privatized all of the land, and forced people to get jobs in factories. For all the talk about how money "doesn't grow on trees", actually, some of our needs do grow on trees, but capitalism made picking the fruits illegal as they belonged to someone else, and we enforced that system of property with force. This is what really drove the masses to the factorys, to live at the mercy of the "job creators." And even know, these "job creators" are heralded as heroes as we ask why people would do if not for the jobs they create. They'd be in poverty and would starve without them. Except, we literally took people over, disrupted traditional precapitalist ways of life, and imposed this culture onto them. And then we act like we should be grateful to sell them the cure (jobs) for the disease (poverty) we created. 

So...yeah. F the job creators. let them shove those jobs where the sun doesn't shine. This society is sick, we should stop acting like it isn't, and we should understand that LIFE DOESN'T HAVE TO BE THIS WAY.  So yeah, that's my answer on this. 

Ya know, reading my old essays I can kinda understand why I despise centrist democrats now...

 So...in last night's group of essays, I covered my reactions to Jean Jacque Rousseau and Karl Marx when I read them for a political philosophy class back in 2009. And....when I really dissect my beliefs, despite calling myself a "moderate conservative" at the time, it's quite clear my economic views were closer toward establishment liberalism. Like, I always had this pro labor and anti elite aspect to my politics. I never trusted the wealthy to look after the best interests of the people, I always recognized they screwed people over, and I quite frankly only voted conservative because I literally didn't believe liberal ideas could work. I mean, stuff we already had, like social security, minimum wage laws, etc., I could get behind. I mean, I was a structural functionalist, we tried those ideas and they worked. But I was very anti welfare (outside of like social security), and I opposed any efforts to shift America even further left. This was because, at the center of my ideology, I understood that what made capitalism work was its incentive structure. The profit motive was what motivated people to work. When you take that away, there's no longer any motivation in the system. If you made people too economically comfortable not working, they wouldnt work. if you taxed people too much, they would stop trying to excel. So...for me, it was like "yeah, it sucks, but we kind of need society to be like this to function."

What changed for me? Well, first of all, after the Tea Party took over and I saw them scream about the budget deficit and arguing we need to cut spending in the middle of a recession, while also proposing tax cuts for the wealthy, the ruse fell apart. When my dad was laid off and told that they did it so the company could keep its record profits, I understood that trickle down was a scam. When I analyzed republican tax plans like Herman Cain's 999 plan and the fairtax, I understood the net benefit of this plan was rich people. We normal people pay MORE in taxes, wealthy people pay less. I understood that in an economy with no jobs, where the rich have no money, cutting taxes on the rich while also cutting safety nets was literally psychotic, and I realized conservative ideals are just bad at their core and abandoned that belief system. 

And then as I built up my views under a more humanistic approach, I continued to look for solutions for the economic mess we were in, only for UBI to fit the bill. And like many people, I was skeptical at first. Like, come on, we're gonna raise taxes to the tune of $3 billion to fund a guaranteed safety net for everyone? No one would work, and we'd lose all motivation. But being scientifically minded, I was willing to look for evidence, and evidence, UBI supporters had. There are countless studies showing that at least up to the poverty line, work incentives are minimal. The fact is, UBI isn't enough to give everyone a GOOD life, it's just enough for the bare minimum, and most would still be motivated to work. We'd see SOME reduction in work ethic, like, maybe 10-15% in terms of hours worked AT MOST, but all in all, it was sustainable. Quite frankly, I would need to look at studies of those who won the lottery to find a significant work reduction, and even those guys only dropped out at like a 50% rate despite having to the tune of say, 3-8x the poverty line worth of income a year. Think the "$1000 a week for life" kind of people. And then the tax rates. Sure, if we taxed at like 100%, we'd see a reduction of work ethic, but at like 50%, which is where most tax schemes with UBI would end up? Not really. With rates studied between 30% and 70%, yeah, the 70% stopped working more than 30%, but still, it was relatively sustainable in that curve. If we looked at international studies on tax rates and what's sustainable, the maximum sustainable rate is somewhere around 70%. So with that said, we can say motivation if a spectrum, and that we can move up to social democracy level taxation with a poverty line level UBI, and still have a functioning capitalist economy. 

So...why don't we do that? Why don't the left push for that? At first, I thought it was simply because the pressure from the Reagan revolution forced them to the center. And they just needed to rediscover their voice and convictions. The great recession was the greatest economic crisis since the great depression, and it was clear what we're doing wasn't working, and it was clear trickle down economics were a scam. If we wanted to retake the narrative from the right, the 2010s were the time to do it. 

So imagine when 2008's sloppy seconds came back and insisted it was her turn, and how we can't have nice things. Clinton was perfectly amenable to me in 2008. Seriously, given Bill clinton's approach to the national debt, and Hillary's opposition to the Iraq War, I liked Clinton better than McCain. Because she WAS a moderate, I knew it, and I understood despite my conservative beliefs, that I could be comfortable with a moderate liberal president. I just was told by Fox News that Obama was a literal communist and thought that that was too much. 

But then Obama governed like I expected Clinton to, and I found him far more reasonable than the republicans, who were very quickly radicalizing. And given my evolving views at the time, yeah, I became pro Obama in 2012, and in his second term, I shifted further left to where I am now. So yeah, by 2016, I wasn't interested in Clinton. If anything, I found her views to be far too moderate, closer to my own 2008 views. I mean, you got this moderate christian who was wishy washy on abortion, gay marriage, and who supported minimum wage laws and the economic status quo but was otherwise quite fiscally conservative, and it's like...this is me in 2008. And I had long since evolved since then.

I mean, it's quite clear college was a transitory time for me, and while most of the ideological shifts explicitly happened in 2011-2013 or so, with 2012 being the big focal point for me, I was moderating from like 2006 onward. Because my Biblical Christian worldview was shattered back in my freshman year in college, and while I maintained some level of my Christian and conservative views in the following years, my worldview was conflicted and I didn't really have a consistent, coherent worldview.

Quite frankly, moderate democrats have exactly that worldview. They are trying to constantly compromise with the right. They don't have solid convictions. They got these weird liberal Christian beliefs, and they basically let the right's worldview serve as an ideological anchor while walking it back a bit from the edge of extremism. But here's the thing, as an ex conservative and ex Christian, this isn't a good place to be. Because such an ideological zone is a storm of cognitive dissonance. It appeals to virtually no one. Remember, I voted for McCain. Did Obama need my moderate vote to win elections? Hillary was the more "moderate" candidate. She was the conventionally "electable" one. Did that fricking matter? No. Obama won in a landslide, and the whole electability narrative was repudiated for me. It isn't the more moderate, candidate who wins elections, it's the one who fires people up and excites them. "Hope, change, yes we can!" That's what did it. Not "well we need to be moderate, so we can win moderates, because moderation is good, for some reason." That's McCain 2008, that's Romney 2012, it's an enthusiasm killer. Because you're alienating your own side and not doing a darned thing to win over voters from the other side. But now we're in our weird McCain/Romney esque desert running people like HRC, Joe Biden, and Kamala Harris. 

Really. I guess I'm rambling now. I really just got on to say that, yeah, 2009 me was a fricking centrist lib and didn't even know it. Conservative me, was economically a very moderate liberal. I was pro minimum wage laws, pro unions, I was just super pro work ethic and anti welfare. Which is basically a moderate lib anyway. I mean, no wonder I liked Obama once he governed a bit, right? My views were always closer to that than the republicans on economic issues. I was just a brainwashed idiot voting against my own interests. But thankfully, i grew out of that at a relatively young age, and now I have logically consistent beliefs that actually stand for something. And now I look at centrist dems like...ew you're like old me, the one I called conservative, actual progressives should be so much further left. 

I mean, let's face it, these centrist libs have conservative convictions, they just recognize that they shouldn't just go so far right they lose touch with reality. And yeah. Again, my views are just cut from a different cloth now, and as such, I despise that old belief system.