Gabriel Bodeen @gabe@qoto.org

A: "The design resists attacks!"

B: "How?"

A: "It's not M4A!"

B: "OK but how does the design resist attacks?"

A: "The design resists attacks!"

B: "Seems like you're repeating a slogan..."

A: "blocked!"

@TruthSandwich
I literally did nothing but ask you for examples, and you ignored the question.

@TruthSandwich
OK. Since there's apparently (based on this conversation at least) no content backing it up, I'm going to assume the "it was designed to resist Republican attacks" line of argument is just empty slogans.

@TruthSandwich
hm? That's not an answer to the question (unless you mean to imply that ACA defended itself without human intervention due to the metaphysical property of not being a different law 😁)

@TruthSandwich
Well now we're repeating ourselves. In what sense did the design of the law resist repeal, separate from being defended by people?

@TruthSandwich
I'd say rather the GOP tried to repeal it but found that doing so was too politically costly. (The law itself was passive, it's not what resisted them.)

@TruthSandwich OK.

Regarding the point that the GOP would aim to break it so we shouldn't have it at all, the same can be said of other programs like the post office, public education, EPA, FAA, CDC, FDA, etc, and most relevantly, the same can be said about a public option. There might be other reasons against a policy, but it seems like hamstringing ourselves to pre-emptively avoid building things the other side can break.

I'd say instead as a political guiding principle: We should build things the overwhelming majority will want to protect.

@TruthSandwich
What do you mean by "suicide pact"? I googled the phrase alongside "medicare for all" and got no relevant hits.

@lupyuen
It's not really debunking the actual DK effect, just the way pop culture has turned it into meme about "dumb people".

Like a river draws all who ride it toward a common sea...

I crave a new philosophical method, one with a built-in tendency toward convergence, analogously to how science and math each slowly converge toward consensus by their own methods.

Perhaps this simple method?:

Place before you a blank sheet of paper. With your interlocutor, discuss each other's views. On the paper, write only those statements to which you both heartily agree. Aim to fill the page with valuable truths. Share the best of them.

@Paradox @niplav

Mammatus!

@vruz@mastodon.social

> Well you have a very interesting definitions of what the concepts of private ownership, social ownership, and economic inequality mean and how they relate to one another.

Er, I'm not sure how you've inferred that, as I haven't offered any definitions of those terms. Or maybe you're speaking loosely about the way I used two of those plus other similar terms? That's perfectly fine if so. If I grok what you're getting at, I'd put it like this: I've expressed left-wing views on the basis of right-wing motives.

You're right that I'm not Marxist; e.g. reading Capital is a slog for me as I find it to be intolerably hand-wavey. My youthful left background was in a communist anarchist collective, and if you're familiar with anarchist theory you'll see close links between it and the phrasing of the left-leaning points. But it's true that I no longer think anarchism is desirable.

@vruz@mastodon.social
> If there's no private ownership of capital there's no economic inequality.

Hm, perhaps you mean something different by "inequality" than I did?

To me, it's very literal: if one person has greater material wealth than another, that's material inequality. And obviously that kind of inequality is entirely compatible with social ownership of capital.

@vruz@mastodon.social
Interesting opinion. You say that even though I've endorsed workplace democracy and haven't endorsed private ownership of capital?

After a good & deep political discussion, a man privately asked me what my politics was. I admitted I wasn't really sure, and it gave me a queer mixed feeling. I was proud to have not been pegged into any specific label, and sad that so few share my intuitions, and most of all confused at not even knowing anymore how to respond to such a basic question.

I've had a few days now to reflect, and this is where I am in 2023:

1) Like classical liberals, I believe the twin duties of government are to protect the rights of individuals and to promote the public's material wellbeing.

2) Like progressives, I believe the most important rights of individuals are political & social equality, such that they can live the manner of life they choose.

3) Like socialists, I believe rights of political & social equality should extend into the workplace, and indeed into all human relationships and institutions.

4) Like capitalists, I believe material inequality is permissible and useful to promote both the public's material wellbeing and individual virtue.

5) Like communists, I believe the goods necessary for a dignified life (by the standards of the local culture) should be guaranteed to be within the capacity of all to attain, even the most unfortunate and least deserving, such that they can solve their own problems.

6) Like classical conservatives, I believe that reforms should be gradual, orderly, and reversible, and also that the government must promote virtue and discourage vice.

7) Like patriotic nationalists, I believe the virtues to be rewarded by the government are secular, individualistic, and aimed at national greatness: lawfulness, responsibility, honesty, courage, prudence, peacefulness, tolerance, and the like.

8) Like cosmopolitan internationalists, I believe the people of all countries deserve the same rights and an equal measure of dignity, and that coexistence in the same communities is possible and good.

Label it as you choose. (In the US context, 1, 2, 4, & 8 are associated with the Democratic party; 3 & 5 are to its left; and 6 & 7 aren't anywhere on the map. So my party preference is clear.)