in which brute says things about libertarianism

[Riggerjack]

@ campitor

Yes, to all of that.

My point is that group identity at nation level is new, and prevalent. Which makes it harder to see how this played out in the past, when loyalties we're more local.

This plays out when asking if Rome was sacked by foreign powers, or if Rome forgot their primary purpose was to support an army. Which is true? It depends on our ability to understand the mindset of the contemporary actors.

This also plays out when anticipating the future. How people will act as a group has everything to do with how individual group members identify the group. Trying to work this out at the national level has been too much for me. This doesn't seem to phase most historians, though.

[7Wannabe5]

No need to answer, but I thought I should try to work out how to ask that without miscommunication. I am not sure I got it right.
Top

Good question. My answer would be that it remains one of my desires to enter into ecstatic sexual union. Since I am core feminine in my sexuality, I would have to maximize my ability to respect my partner in order to enter into ecstatic sexual union. Maximization of ability to respect requires equivalent core strength. Best analogy I can offer is the dance requirement of very strong and flexible core muscles in order to allow yourself to be dropped and caught in very deep dip. Absent such musculature, fail due to fear or fall is more likely.

IOW, I would like to take the risk of all-in free-fall no-cushion or parachute, but not until I am reasonably certain that I am ready. And in the meanwhile, I still feel compelled to keep myself entertained in benign a manner as possible. Does that answer your question? Feel free to call me on any blaring errors you think I may be making in my practice or analysis.

[Campitor]

@ campitor
My point is that group identity at nation level is new, and prevalent. Which makes it harder to see how this played out in the past, when loyalties we're more local....How people will act as a group has everything to do with how individual group members identify the group.

Very true. I think, in regards to national identity, it depends on how much they feel they are part of a "super-tribe". Each super-tribe is composed of many sub-groups which in turn compete and debate one another ceaselessly until another non-super-tribe entity attacks them. The sub-groups unite to protect the super-tribe until the threat is mitigated or lessened. The USA definitely behaves like a super-tribe - for now.

[7Wannabe5]

To the extent that I believe or behave like I am the member of a tribe, it consists of anybody on the planet who lives above K + I on some joint Kindness Intelligence functioning graph. Some days, I can't even include me in my tribe (sigh.)

[Mister Imperceptible]

This also plays out when anticipating the future. How people will act as a group has everything to do with how individual group members identify the group. Trying to work this out at the national level has been too much for me. This doesn't seem to phase most historians, though.

Should be interesting to see how competing armchair philosophies work out if/when we run out of fresh water and phosphorus for agriculture and are forced to eat one another.

[Riggerjack]

@7w5

I don't see any errors, just wondering about search parameters. I understand you are looking for a unicorn, the strong, attractive man who is also kind, intelligent, and available. EMH is applicable here.

Seeing how rare that unicorn is, it is reasonable to decide which characteristics to allow compromises in.

However, you have complained about the results of your search before.

When what I want is hard to get, I try looking where others are not. I advise others to try the same.

If a buddy kept complaining that his hawt GFs were all not what he was looking for, after awhile, I might suggest he change his search criteria. Look to where he can add value, and look for a GF who would be better for him, for knowing him.

Kinda like telling someone shopping for a house at the edge of his ability to pay, to find the kind of improvement he wants to do, and is capable of, then look for the house that needs that skill to be perfect.

We are all shopping at the edge of our ability to pay, when searching for a partner.

Have you considered what other forms of fixer upper you would be suited to? Because by our age, we are all fixers, and in need of some fixing.

So have you considered what kinds of men would be better for your purposes, for having known you? And where such men could be found?

Maybe you have, and your current path is that result. I don't know, so I thought I should ask.

[Riggerjack]

Should be interesting to see how competing armchair philosophies work out if/when we run out of fresh water and phosphorus for agriculture and are forced to eat one another.

Not really. If we get to that point, my solution clearly already failed.

[7Wannabe5]

@Riggerjack:

Well, the kind of guy that really goes for me is usually either smart-for-a-jock or smart-for-a-street-tough, because I am cute/sexy-for-a-nerd. The problem is that smart-for-a-jock is kind of dull for me, and smart-for-a-street-tough is kind of scary for me. When I do the choosing, I usually end up with smart-for-an-artist/musician, and I will not go there again. Maybe I should give the yacht guy another chance. He is sort of in between smart-for-jock/smart-for-street-tough and 10 years older than me, so I am really his cup of cake. He is a very successful sailor, handy, affluent, fit, intelligent, and exhibited high level of sexual functionality for a man his age. His negatives which were terrible cologne, terrible cook, and questionable taste in music, might be fixable or tolerated. I really should have said something about the cologne right away. Sometimes I am too nice/wimpy.

[IlliniDave]

@ campitor
My point is that group identity at nation level is new, and prevalent. Which makes it harder to see how this played out in the past, when loyalties we're more local....How people will act as a group has everything to do with how individual group members identify the group.

Very true. I think, in regards to national identity, it depends on how much they feel they are part of a "super-tribe". Each super-tribe is composed of many sub-groups which in turn compete and debate one another ceaselessly until another non-super-tribe entity attacks them. The sub-groups unite to protect the super-tribe until the threat is mitigated or lessened. The USA definitely behaves like a super-tribe - for now.

The ironic thing I see is that socialism (little "s") requires some sort of social kinship among the participants to make them willing to throw their lots in with each other. So if a person were to want socialistic trappings across a place the size of the US, then having a national identity would work towards that. But there seems to be correlation between people that want the socialistic society and at the same time passionately oppose anything resembling a national identity (and often go so far as to label those who do as Nazis, racists, etc.). Identity politics leave room only for Socialism (capital "S") which has been somewhat less than successful when applied on a large scale.

[BRUTE]

Unfortunately, I am somewhat worried that I may no longer be adequately "privileged for enjoyment" due to having put on 20+ lbs. since the last time I saw Y.G.

7Wannabe5's esterified triglycerides bring all the boys to the yacht.

[BRUTE]

there seems to be correlation between people that want the socialistic society and at the same time passionately oppose anything resembling a national identity (and often go so far as to label those who do as Nazis, racists, etc.)

admittedly, national + socialism is literally what nazi means.

[BRUTE]

This, I think, ties into my primary drive, to be right.

this must be a libertarian thing, or something that eventually leads to libertarianism.

brute has the same issue.

brute simply MUST be right.

brute cannot choose to believe in things he is not very certain to be true.

understanding causes immeasurable pleasure to brute, more than most other things.

[IlliniDave]

there seems to be correlation between people that want the socialistic society and at the same time passionately oppose anything resembling a national identity (and often go so far as to label those who do as Nazis, racists, etc.)

admittedly, national + socialism is literally what nazi means.

That's true, but iDave knows no one who favors national identity/patriotism who wants much to do with socialism or anything to do with Socialism. The common accusation is national identity -> Nazi.

And if you add socialism to "United States of America" you're quite analogous to the nomenclature "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics" too. Sometimes you have to peek behind the curtain to see what's really going on.

[7Wannabe5]

7Wannabe5's esterified triglycerides bring all the boys to the yacht.

Unlikely. Very unsuccessful bathing suit shopping trip yesterday. Of course, the lingering scars of the terrible rash I got all over my legs while camping are not helping much either. Grubby, overstuffed, messy, aging Cabbage Doll, would about sum it up.

Anyways, moot because I have already cycled from "Yay, ecstatic sexual union!!!" to "trapped, trapped, trapped, buried alive, nooooooooo..." Riggerjack suggesting that I might compromise was well meant conventional wisdom, but not helpful for somebody who is quite leery of commitment to begin with, because already married/divorced 1.5 times. If I am going to give up the option to do what I want, wherever I want, whenever I want, with whomever I want, that guy is going to have to be super-fantastic in every way. Also, I really shouldn't complain about any of my current/recent partners. Of course, my BF was mostly joking with his "I take care of all my bitches" comment, and he was financially supporting me. I have really become quite terribly spoiled in my old age.

My fear of commitment is so intense that I even think "What's the point of becoming financially independent, if I have to be yoked to a man anyways."

[Mister Imperceptible]

There is a limit to everything. There is a limit to love.

http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/LAWRENCE/dhlch06.htm

[7Wannabe5]

@Mister Imperceptible:

Thanks. Bookmarked.

Is there a limit to curiosity? Maybe in old age one should focus more on living for curiosity rather than love. I must admit that there is something about a brand new lover that excites me like a brand new book. I like the instant intimacy to rustle through a man's shelves and refrigerator that my sexuality can afford me. I like it when the young boy in the old man shows off his skills for me. I like the pause, the brief inhale, before the tiger pounces, and devours me.

The security and comfort of somebody to take care of me in my old age...eh, not so interested. I am either very strong or quite underdeveloped in my juvenile feminine energy quadrant. Sometimes comes out if/when a man f*ck&flees on me, but not so much even then anymore. I just brush my hair, fix my braid, make myself a cup of cocoa, and get on with my very own life.

[Mister Imperceptible]

@7WB5

I have no answers. I am alone. When I know more, there is only pain in the knowing. Where I see people happy, it is because they have not dared to know, and got lucky. And yet I want to know more.

Lawrence: “The root of all evil is that we all want this spiritual gratification, this flow, this apparent heightening of life, this knowledge, this valley of many-coloured grass, even grass and light prismatically decomposed, giving ecstasy. We want all this without resistance. We want it continually. And this is the root of all evil in us.”

[Riggerjack]

@7w5,

I didn't mean that your long term interests are represented by some other guy or kind of guy. I meant that my long term interests are often completely different from my short term interests. You have to work out what those are for yourself.

And everyone compromises all the time, or nobody would ever get laid. See, cologne.

[jacob]

admittedly, national + socialism is literally what nazi means.

However, although that might fit on a meme, it is not figuratively what it means or meant.

It's crucial to understand the terminology within its historical context.

The socialism in the nazi context has to do with the class struggle. As socialism is understood in the US (presently and then) and how it was understood in Europe in the early 20th century, the classes of concern were economic classes and the idea behind socialism was to fight those who were richer, etc. so big business, the bourgeoisie (what we'd call the elite today), and bankers. That is, "take from the rich capitalists and give to the poor workers".

The nazis (national socialist german workers party(+) or NSDAP) recruited heavily out of DAP (essentially a populist platform) in order to draw people away from the communist side (which was a real competing worldview back then). The nazis changed the focus from an economic class struggle to a nationalist class (=racial) struggle in which the "master race" were in a fight against other races. That is, "take from other races and give to the master race" --- hence the whole lebensraum and endloesung thing.

(+) A name that's practically a smorgasbord of words an average voter in the 1930s would like.

This national socialism is not nationalism and socialism. Rather, nazism is the idea of the class struggle but along racial/national lines.

Also note that in practical terms, the nazis had no problem with big business and elites. Hitler hated Stalin and the feeling was mutual. This is also why Roosevelt wasn't too worried about a unified Eurasia under so-called socialist control. He knew they hated each other. Recall that in 1940 Germany and Russia had signed a non-aggression pact and they controlled the entire continent from the Pacific to the Atlantic.

Post-WWII, ideologies changed and most are now better described as neo-something. Adding neo- in front of something usually adding a few twists to the classical (or paleo-) version of it.

Many Americans, maybe particularly the older generations, think of socialism in the 1950s cold-war style. In modern parlance, that would be called communism. Thus it's highly confusing when the US-left talk about being socialist or democratic socialists, or Nordic style socialism... Those groups are literally talking about two different things without realizing it.

So there are three additional kinds of socialism to understand.

Marxist-socialism = what older Americans think of when they hear the word socialism. This means a top-down hierarchical system in which the state owns the productive facilities and a party ("The Communist Party") decides how they're used.

Democratic-socialism = there are some on the US-left who advocate this. Not many countries have a working model of this although several South American ones pretend to. Again, the state would own all productive facilities (if not, they'd nationalize and take them over) but the people would decide how they're used by a democratic process. This is also called Corbynism.

Social democracy = in which productive means stay in private hands and the capitalist economy remains a foundation. The democracy part comes in when laws are made to regulate the economy to achieve the ends of socialism (the class struggle thing) via peaceful(*) (i.e. voting) means. To rephrase, the idea is to achieve socialism by democratic means such as making laws that regulate the capitalist enterprises. The government does not control the productive means directly, but it does control a percentage of the profits by taking it as taxes.

Most developed countries are social democracies to various degrees. A national health care system like e.g. Medicare is an example. Also the highway system, the police, or the military. Social democracies have mixed economies and you can more or less tell what the degree by how much of GDP is spent by the government. For example, the US government spends about 1/3 of GDP. The Danish government spends about 1/2 of GDP.

(*) This is in contrast to the Leninist belief in a revolutionary change by breaking the existing system in order to build a new one.

So for example, a Leninist-marxist-socialist believes that the end goal is one-party rule over nationalized production achieved by revolutionary means. And to bring it back, those are the ones the nazies wanted to fight when they strategically recruited out of the DAP by reframing the message.

Note that nazism is always placed on the right-side of the political spectrum (because the class struggle was not economic but nationalist).

Of other ideologies that include nationalism, we have

Neo-nationalism = against globalization, for [trade] protectionism, and opposition to immigration (nativism)

(contrast with paleo-nationalism which is more like patriotism and doesn't have a problem with international trade nor immigration)

national populism = neo-nationalism combined with populism, i.e. populism along nationalist lines. Populism is simply anti-elite and thus anti-establishment. IOW, national populists are against the current international system (aka the "liberal(*) world order") with its free trade and potential movement of immigrants and workers.

(*) If you're American, this word does not technically mean what you think it means.

There are of course Leninist approaches to this as well as democratic (as used in "social democracy"), so ...

Leninist national populism = achieving the ends of national populism by unilaterally tearing up the old system.
democratic national populism = achieving the ends of national populism by voting to change the old system.

Note that no populists like to self-declare as populists... as far as I know, there are no parties with "populist" in the party name. Instead look for party-words like "People's" or "Workers" or "[Your Country's]".

Since democracy is once again fading in the world, it should also be contrasted with authoritarianism or autocracies. (Maybe in the future, we can replace it with AI from our friendly robot overlords.) Authoritarianism exists in degrees (like social democracies) and so think of it as low-intensity democracy... Another term for this is illiberal (as invented by Orban in Hungary) ... where the term liberal is actually used correctly.

The nazis were authoritarian(*). China is an example of an authoritarian marxist socialist state but one that allows a controlled form of capitalism, so beginning to lean social democratic. Populists are, however, not necessarily authoritarian. Fascism is also authoritarian ... and has a fairly technical description as well. After WWII, the word fascist became and insult and much like populist, there are no parties with the word fascist in their party name.

(*) Which means they could/would be neither democratic socialists nor social democrats.

fascism = nationalism and authoritarianism ... which you can piece together from above. It's basically one nation under one leader ("ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuehrer") who alone can fix it. This includes a mixed economy (see social democracy) which is under control of that leader in service of the leader.

neo-fascism = combines neo-nationalism populism and (illiberal) authoritarianism ... (This comes in two varieties ... the Leninist approach and the democratic one, i.e. move fast and break stuff or build on what you have).

Anyhoo ... my point is that terminology is more complex than what fits on a meme. Also that you will rarely if ever see contemporary politicians or practical people do raw copy to re-enact some old ideology. Instead people either find inspiration in old ideologies or within themselves to pursue a new/neo-ideology that rhymes with an old ideology but doesn't repeat it exactly.

[7Wannabe5]

I didn't mean that your long term interests are represented by some other guy or kind of guy. I meant that my long term interests are often completely different from my short term interests. You have to work out what those are for yourself.

Oh, sorry, gotcha now. My long-term interests would be best met by doing whatever I can to ensure that I will still be able to attract lover(s) when I am 83. There are not many role models available for this goal, so I am kind of splitting the difference between Christie Brinkley and Jane Juska, who wrote "A Round-Heeled Woman: My Late Life Adventures in Sex and Romance" a memoir of her search for great sex at the age of 69 through a personal ad placed in the New York Review of Books that read "Before I turn 67—next March—I would like to have a lot of sex with a man I like. If you want to talk first, Trollope works for me."

So, my short term interests in eating too much pudding, are in direct conflict with my long-term interest in looking anything like 1% as good as Christie Brinkley when I am 63. Jane Juska went off on her adventures without great self-esteem about her appearance, and she had fun, but she ended up having to think too much about whether or not she was covered with a sheet during sex. My standard is that there is no point in dating if I am not up to walking across a well-lit room naked in front of a relative stranger.

And everyone compromises all the time, or nobody would ever get laid. See, cologne.

I actually rarely compromise very much in that way. Some seriously sexy man-candy in my line-up. I have never had sex with a man who I didn't think was at least cute and in good shape. I tried once out of compassion and it was a fairly horrible experience. I was aroused and nauseous at the same time, and I basically ran away before things progressed very far.