My dad has a federal government job. During his hiring process they talked to just about everyone in our lives, present and deep in the past. If they would do that for his job, I’m fairly certain the vetting process for a member of the SCOTUS would be a bit more in depth. And if there was any word of this from ANYONE it has been on the radar for some time.
I think you were saying what I originally thought you might be saying. I disagree with the premise itself. You are saying collectivism is when the means of production is owned by a central authority. You now cast "small government" and "free enterprise" as the opposite. They are not the opposite, they don't have any direct relationship of any kind with "collectivism" as you defined it. Example: the FCC has decided to repeal regulations on internet providers that treated them as common carriers. This is definitely a "small government" and "free enterprise" sort of policy. And yet, what does it do to the "means of production" relative to the internet, e-commerce, etc? It puts all of the power and authority in the hands of a central authority- the service provider. "Small government" doesn't necessarily mean less authority, it just changes it from one of the state to whatever other entity with the most power comes along. "Free enterprise" sounds great, but if you can't compete you can't just move down the road to an empty plot of land and farm something else. This isn't the Age of Enlightenment anymore. There are 7+ billion people on the planet. I think you would agree that self-determination and choice are valuable things. "small government" and "free enterprise" do not always bring those things. Those are conditions conducive for industry and special interests of all kinds to impose "collectivism." History shows that just as clearly as authoritarians using big government to do it. I do agree that humans will either inevitably find a way to commune globally, or die. Whether that is through "collectivism" or through a democratic consensus, I am not sure. I do know for certain that "small government" and "free enterprise" are roads to collectivism without consensus, as much as not.
I've had federal background checks. I find it odd that the government gets mocked for not being able to do anything well, but apparently they are extremely thorough investigators that talk to everyone someone ever knew. They are good, but they aren't a clear window into someone's entire life. I respectfully disagree that they would necessarily pick up on something like this given the circumstances, and I'll just drop it.
So apparently the reason she’s refusing to testify before next Thursday is that she doesn’t want to fly to DC. Good news is that since Monday Grassley has been offering to fly to California so she wouldn’t have to come to DC. Seems like an easy fix.
I really wish Pinker would do more or be invited to do more public appearances. He's a brilliant mind that is deserving of recognition much more than someone like Jordan Peterson.
I don't agree with Peterson on some things, I think he is misunderstood (even by his supporters) frequently, and the best description I ever heard of him is "he's a stupid person's idea of a smart person." I didn't know about Pinker today, but he has verbatim stated things I have thought regarding "collective consciousness" and such for a long time, so I want to hear more. I like that he seems grounded and tries to be objective.
The Federal govt is extremely adept when it intends to be and can shore itself with endless redtape bureaucracy when it summarily intends to. When devoid of cronyism and political malfeasance, it's one of the most efficient bodies on the planet, by far. The same organization that built the entire interstate system struggles to finish 640 in 3 decades. The same organization that went to the moon struggles getting satellites into orbit now. The biggest problem is essentially the governments greatest strength, and that's differing opinions. It's effectively capable of awe inspiring accomplishments when they are politically unanimous for the same reason contentious actions can be bogged down.
Collectivism as I've said can mean many things. Christianity, at its roots, is collectivst. In this case (Dodd assertions) it doesn't matter, so long as a population is beholden to a central authority which means the govt. Whether the govt owns all means of production such as communism dictates or allows free Enterprise such as democratic socialism or a weird mix like the Chinese system where the corps operate independently but are owned by and report to a govt authority... it doesnt matter. The goal is oligarchy operating over the central authority and the central authority operating over the population as it sees fit. Control is all that matters... and that usually means severe restrictions on movement, speech, religion and armament and a reliance on the central authority for access to resources. My personal opinions are murky. I think a small and educated society can operate with little oversight but humans are at their core selfish and shortsighted. We require, for better or worse, oversight. I'm at my core a libertarian but recognize why that won't work as a national political movement. Its the same reason why Linux is not popular but Apple products are. People like all the choices made for them and don't mind severe limitations of choices so long as the end product is somewhat agreeable.
What kind of back-handed compliment is that? Dumb people think you're smart, so you've got that going for you. Peterson is objectively a very smart man.
It's not a compliment. It isn't fully an insult either. He is able to articulate a certain view and way of looking at things that make many people uncomfortable, yet also is misunderstood by his most ardent supporters and detractors. IMO. I never said he was dumb, Gahlee.
Well...you said he was what a dumb person considered to be a smart person. You don’t think he’s very smart, or at least as smart as his supporters believe him to be. It’s ok to just say that, no need to Church it up.
No. There are a lot of smart people that dumb people think are dumb. There are smart people that dumb people think are average. And there are smart people that dumb people think are smart. He's the last one. In other words, much of what he says and espouses strikes people as "common sense" or familiar to their intuition. That in no way makes it more accurate (or less accurate).
I don't think anyone would accuse me of not calling a spade a spade if I see what looks like a spade. I said what I meant to say.
