"Stephen Fry pronounces the death of classical liberalism: ‘We are irrelevant and outdated bystanders’"

[DrZoidberg]

Unter, before I see any point to continue this discussion I need to hear your argumentation for why Saddam's rape and torture of innocents was so fine and dandy and morally acceptable. Until then I'll just think you're full of shit.

 

[untermensche]

Unter, before I see any point to continue this discussion I need to hear your argumentation for why Saddam's rape and torture of innocents was so fine and dandy and morally acceptable. Until then I'll just think you're full of shit.

What about the Saudi dictatorship?

They just tortured and murdered a journalist.

It is a sick fundamentalist brutal dictatorship that horribly oppresses women.

Why is all that fine with you?

Hopefully you can see what a stupid question that is.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Unter, before I see any point to continue this discussion I need to hear your argumentation for why Saddam's rape and torture of innocents was so fine and dandy and morally acceptable. Until then I'll just think you're full of shit.

What about the Saudi dictatorship?

They just tortured and murdered a journalist.

It is a sick fundamentalist brutal dictatorship that horribly oppresses women.

Why is all that fine with you?

Hopefully you can see what a stupid question that is.

The Saudi regime is irrelevant to this discussion. I've never defended them, or even brought them up. You did. But you have defended Saddam's regime. So please let's stick to you explaining why Saddam's rape and torture was acceptable, and why it's better than the American's.

 

[untermensche]

Unter, before I see any point to continue this discussion I need to hear your argumentation for why Saddam's rape and torture of innocents was so fine and dandy and morally acceptable. Until then I'll just think you're full of shit.

What about the Saudi dictatorship?

They just tortured and murdered a journalist.

It is a sick fundamentalist brutal dictatorship that horribly oppresses women.

Why is all that fine with you?

Hopefully you can see what a stupid question that is.

The Saudi regime is irrelevant to this discussion. I've never defended them, or even brought them up. You did. But you have defended Saddam's regime. So please let's stick to you explaining why Saddam's rape and torture was acceptable, and why it's better than the American's.

Yes. You have not defended them by not wanting to take out the regime.

Think about it.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

While I agree that Bush Sr had other motives in regard to Iraq, you did ignore this section from the Times article you posted UM (emphasis mine):

Several United Nations agencies, including F.A.O. and Unicef, have expressed concern about the damage being done to Iraqis, especially children, by United Nations economic sanctions. Two years ago, F.A.O. warned that Iraq risked widespread starvation.

The Security Council responded to these concerns earlier this year when it offered Iraq the opportunity to sell $2 billion worth of oil to purchase food and medicines under United Nations supervision, the second such offer in four years. Iraq rejected both as infringements of its sovereignty and has continued to demand an unconditional end to sanctions.

The sanctions were imposed by the Security Council after Iraq invaded Kuwait in August 1990. Led by the United States, the Council has rejected many Iraqi appeals to lift the restrictions, which have crippled the economy, until Iraq accounts for all its weapons of mass destruction and United Nations inspectors can certify that they have been destroyed in accordance with several Council resolutions.

Recent revelations about significant secret biological and chemical weapons programs have set back any chances of an early end of sanctions.

That was in 1995 when they actually still did have WMDs, btw. Regardless, on at least two occasions (over a four year period, so, well within a time frame that could have easily prevented such massive numbers), provisions for lifting the sanctions temporarily in order specifically to feed and take care of the exact people you are blaming the US for killing were made and rejected by Hussein. Iow, he was deliberately torturing his own people in order to blame the US, but really to stop the UN inspectors/the destruction of their actual bioweapons programs.

Whatever the diplomatic/political issues were between nations at that time, it wasn't the US--or the UN sanctions--that killed those people. He doesn't get to claim a moral high road of sovereignty after violating another country's sovereignty and then being offered (twice) a way to maintain sovereignty AND ensure his own people get medical attention and don't starve to death.

 

[DrZoidberg]

The Saudi regime is irrelevant to this discussion. I've never defended them, or even brought them up. You did. But you have defended Saddam's regime. So please let's stick to you explaining why Saddam's rape and torture was acceptable, and why it's better than the American's.

Yes. You have not defended them by not wanting to take out the regime.

Think about it.

What? I've said the exact opposite. I do want to take them out. I'd support any democratic nation that invaded Saudi Arabia. If the goal is to make it free and democratic.

Of everything I've said, what has given you the impression that I don't want Saudi Arabia taken out? A quote of something I've written would be great.

 

[untermensche]

The Saudi regime is irrelevant to this discussion. I've never defended them, or even brought them up. You did. But you have defended Saddam's regime. So please let's stick to you explaining why Saddam's rape and torture was acceptable, and why it's better than the American's.

Yes. You have not defended them by not wanting to take out the regime.

Think about it.

What? I've said the exact opposite. I do want to take them out. I'd support any democratic nation that invaded Saudi Arabia.

Where does your madness end?

There are many in the world that would want to take out the US government.

The US does not have a functioning democracy. It is an oligarchy with democratic trappings. A highly limited democracy only for the very rich with an alleged billionaire as president.

Do you support those who want to invade and take out the US government?

Oligarchy is not any better than dictatorship.

 

[DrZoidberg]

What? I've said the exact opposite. I do want to take them out. I'd support any democratic nation that invaded Saudi Arabia.

Where does your madness end?

Lol... so when this line of arguments failed, you quickly switch to the next irrelevancy.

I'm still waiting for your defence of Saddam's systematic rape and torture of his own people.

There are many in the world that would want to take out the US government.

The US does not have a functioning democracy. It is an oligarchy with democratic trappings. A highly limited democracy only for the very rich with an alleged billionaire as president.

I suggest reading more history. USA has all the evidence of being a well functioning liberal democracy. If it would be a dictatorship it would look completely different. Your absurd naivity of dictatorships fucking tragic. Not understanding how good things are today is a damn tragedy and is a failure of liberals everywhere in communicating it. Which was Fry's point.

Do you support those who want to invade and take out the US government?

I do not.

Oligarchy is not any better than dictatorship.

USA is neither. Your false claims of the contrary doesn't change that fact.

 

[untermensche]

Lol... so when this line of arguments failed, you quickly switch to the next irrelevancy.

I'm still waiting for your defence of Saddam's systematic rape and torture of his own people.

It is pure ignorance to equate not wanting to kill and torture and rape innocent people with support for the crimes of some other person.

Morality is being better than the worst.

It is being better than a dictator that murders and tortures and rapes the innocent.

You have no morality.

You are no better than Saddam Hussein.

You want to resort to his methods to make the world to your desires.

USA has all the evidence of being a well functioning liberal democracy.

Unfortunately for you there is this stuff called science.

Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence.

https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf

You call a system where only the rich can influence the policy of the government democracy.

You not only have no morality you are a supporter and defender of oligarchy.

Your ilk is a hindrance to decency and a decent world.

 

[DrZoidberg]

It is pure ignorance to equate not wanting to kill and torture and rape innocent people with support for the crimes of some other person.

You put yourself in this situation by bringing up rape and torture. Let's hear it? Either you defend Saddam's rape and torture... or shut up about it. At least if you want to cling to any credibility on this.

You are no better than Saddam Hussein.

That's quite the claim. I still haven't raped or murdered a single person. So how am I no better than Saddam?

You want to resort to his methods to make the world to your desires.

North and West Europe became democratic in the 19'th century because the kings feared various types of revolutions. They feared for their lives. I think it's the same reason any dictator lets go of power in favour of democracy. When it happens. Making dictators live in fear, is great. The rest of Europe became democratic after losing wars. Very similar to how Iraq became democratic. It was a bumpy ride. Much like Iraq.

Violence works. It works wonders to democratisize the world, bit by bit.

Unfortunately for you there is this stuff called science.

Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence.

https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf

You call a system where only the rich can influence the policy of the government democracy.

You have absurdly high standards of what democracy is. The rich have been able to influence politics in all times and ages and in every democratic country that has ever existed. It doesn't violate the rules of liberal democracy. American democracy is working just as designed. You may not like it. But that doesn't change what it is.

The fact that an absolute clown, not part of the political elite, can waltz in and become president is evidence of the American democratic system working. We may not like Trump. But he's evidence of an exceedingly healthy democratic system. Same deal with Obama. He came in from seemingly nowhere. A family not politically connected. USA has a long history of nobody's becoming somebody's. It's of course easier if you're connected and belong to a political dynasty. But that's not the point. It's possible.

There's plenty of democratic systems where the political elites are impenetrable by any outsider. We still call them well functioning democracies. That's how it works in Sweden. It's virtually impossible for a person not born into a connected family to become prime minister. In most democratic systems anybody from the private sector is a permanent paria as far as a political career. USA is a much more dynamic democracy.

The biggest problem with democracy is that people are mostly morons and vote for other idiots. That's an unfixable problem.

You not only have no morality you are a supporter and defender of oligarchy.

Your ilk is a hindrance to decency and a decent world.

Says the guy who's defended rape and torture. You can't see the forrest for all the trees.

 

[untermensche]

You put yourself in this situation by bringing up rape and torture. Let's hear it? Either you defend Saddam's rape and torture... or shut up about it. At least if you want to cling to any credibility on this.

I support not killing or raping or torturing anyone.

Unlike you.

That's quite the claim. I still haven't raped or murdered a single person. So how am I no better than Saddam?

You fully support the killing and the rape and the torture of innocent people.

If it is done by the US.

For some reason you have trouble with it when other people do it.

Your position is pure American exceptionalism.

It is pure hypocrisy.

"I don't like your behavior so I will emulate it."

You have absurdly high standards of what democracy is. The rich have been able to influence politics in all times and ages and in every democratic country that has ever existed.

That's not what that study found.

Either you are too ignorant to understand or you are immoral and are trying to lie.

The study found that the very wealthy had the only power to influence the government.

And ordinary people had NONE.

If you can't see that is sick oligarchy and not democracy you are unfit to comment on anything.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I support not killing or raping or torturing anyone.

Unlike you.

You fully support the killing and the rape and the torture of innocent people.

We've already established that you are for rape and murder, because you are against the invasion. So let's hear the defence. You brought up rape and torture. I didn't.

If it is done by the US.

For some reason you have trouble with it when other people do it.

Your position is pure American exceptionalism.

I'm not a US fanboy. I would have preferred the coalition being headed by some other country. But we can't all get what we want.

You have absurdly high standards of what democracy is. The rich have been able to influence politics in all times and ages and in every democratic country that has ever existed.

That's not what that study found.

Either you are too ignorant to understand or you are immoral and are trying to lie.

The study found that the very wealthy had the only power to influence the government.

And ordinary people had NONE.

If you can't see that is sick oligarchy and not democracy you are unfit to comment on anything.

Well.. that is democracy. You've redefined democracy as something other than democracy. I never claimed American democracy is perfect. But at least it works.

A popular critique of liberal democracy came from socialists who thought that a real democracy has to be perfectly egalitarian in every way and holding up USSR as a great example, failing to notice that the USSR political power was held in families who inherited that power. They'd just replaced one type of royalty with another.

And I think it's inevitable. Political power will always be concentrated in a small elite. In a liberal democracy that elite is slightly bigger than in monarchies. But that's a big difference.

The point of a democracy isn't to give everybody a chance at being president. But forcing those in power to listen to everybody. It's to design something that is stable, robust, efficient and works.

Your idea of democracy is an unworkable pipe-dream

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

That's not what that study found. Either you are too ignorant to understand or you are immoral and are trying to lie. The study found that the very wealthy had the only power to influence the government. And ordinary people had NONE.

You know everyone else can read, right? This is directly from the study you posted:

Before we proceed further, it is important to note that even if one of our predictor variables is found (when controlling for the others) to have no independent impact on policy at all, it does not follow that the actors whose preferences are reflected by that variable—average citizens, economic elites, or organized interest groups of one sort or another—always “lose” in policy decisions. Policy making is not necessarily a zero-sum game among these actors. When one set of actors wins, others may win as well, if their preferences are positively correlated with each other.

It turns out, in fact, that the preferences of average citizens are positively and fairly highly correlated, across issues, with the preferences of economic elites (refer to table 2). Rather often, average citizens and affluent citizens (our proxy for economic elites) want the same things from government. This bivariate correlation affects how we should interpret our later multivariate findings in terms of “winners” and “losers.” It also suggests a reason why serious scholars might keep adhering to both the Majoritarian Electoral Democracy and the Economic-Elite Domination theoretical traditions, even if one of them may be dead wrong in terms of causal impact. Ordinary citizens, for example, might often be observed to “win” (that is, to get their preferred policy outcomes) even if they had no independent effect whatsoever on policy making, if elites (with whom they often agree) actually prevail.

So the study is very clearly delineating between a rich individual (aka, "economic elite") and an "average citizen." Iow, comparing an individual to an individual. But then they do something a bit strange. Note what they say next in regard to interest groups:

Interest groups do have substantial independent impacts on policy, and a few groups (particularly labor unions) represent average citizens’ views reasonably well. But the interest-group system as a whole does not.

So, the problem appears to be in regard to organizing, not necessarily in regard to elite vs. non-elite on an individual level. The strange part:

Overall, net interest-group alignments are not significantly related to the preferences of average citizens. The net alignments of the most influential, business-oriented groups are negatively related to the average citizen’s wishes. So existing interest groups do not serve effectively as transmission belts for the wishes of the populace as a whole.

They're grouping individuals (i.e., "average...populace as a whole"). They then do the same thing with "economic elites":

Furthermore, the preferences of economic elites (as measured by our proxy, the preferences of “affluent” citizens) have far more independent impact upon policy change than the preferences of average citizens do. To be sure, this does not mean that ordinary citizens always lose out; they fairly often get the policies they favor, but only because those policies happen also to be preferred by the economically-elite citizens who wield the actual influence.

So, the interests of "average" individuals--even though they are not part of any organized special interest group--are aligned with the interests of "affluent" individuals and both benefit from affluent influence. Doesn't that mean that they are effectively in the same special interest group, if unofficially and/or indirectly?

I get the point. One guy sitting on his ass in Queens isn't going to be heard. But then, he's not trying to be heard. He's sitting on his ass in Queens. The rich guy, however, is trying to be heard and taking steps to get heard. And when he is heard, his concerns almost always mirror those of the guy who is sitting on his ass in Queens, evidently. So how is that necessarily different than, say, a labor union? It's not like any member of a labor union gets to be heard; only the leader of the union is the voice of the union (and they may or may not take the one guy's individual issues to a politician).

Iow, it's representational.

And, of course, there is the issue of how, exactly, can 340 million voices all be heard if they aren't willing to organize into special interest groups and make the effort to send a representative....oh. Yeah. Their votes.

So, the guy sitting on his ass in Queens has at least several avenues to get his voice heard. One, vote. Two, harass his elected officials. Three, find some rich guy who shares his opinions and encourage him to harass his elected officials. Four, form a special interest group. Etc.

What he can't do, however, is just sit on his ass in Queens and somehow expect that this affords him a voice. At the very least, he has to get off his ass and make some noise.

 

[untermensche]

You know everyone else can read, right?

Reading and understanding are two different things.

That was not my conclusion.

It was taken directly from the study.

You are not arguing with me.

But some of us can read AND think.

 

[untermensche]

It turns out, in fact, that the preferences of average citizens are positively and fairly highly correlated, across issues, with the preferences of economic elites (refer to table 2). Rather often, average citizens and affluent citizens (our proxy for economic elites) want the same things from government.

The issue is not unintended consequences.

It is who is the government listening to.

And the study shows that it is the interests of economic elites being listened to.

In a functioning democracy the needs of ordinary people should be paramount.

There should be no need for organizing because the government is an organized entity already that can study anything it wants to study.

All it takes is for the government to care.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

It turns out, in fact, that the preferences of average citizens are positively and fairly highly correlated, across issues, with the preferences of economic elites (refer to table 2). Rather often, average citizens and affluent citizens (our proxy for economic elites) want the same things from government.

The issue is not unintended consequences.

Where do you get "unintended consequences" from?

It is who is the government listening to.

And the study shows that it is the interests of economic elites being listened to.

Which the study also shows are almost uniformly correlated to the interests of "average citizens." Iow, to listen to economic elites is to listen to "average citizens."

What was that about being able to read AND think?

In a functioning democracy the needs of ordinary people should be paramount.

Again, your own study shows that they are as evidently expressed by "economic elites." Hence the correlation.

There should be no need for organizing

What? So, 326 million individual voices should all somehow have a red line to the Oval office or something? How exactly is that going to work?

because the government is an organized entity already that can study anything it wants to study.

All it takes is for the government to care.

So the government is supposed to do what? "Study" what one guy in Queens wants? Your own study repeatedly showed that the interests of the "economic elites" almost always correlated to the interests of the "average citizen." That study alone then should show "the government" that listening to the interests of "economic elites" will in fact correlate to the interests of the "average citizen."

Iow, you've just presented a study that proves a nearly one-to-one correlation in interests of the largest grouping of citizens ("average" and "elite") and who the representatives of that group are for the government to listen to ("elite"). That's no different than a special interest group (like a Union) comprised of "average" people and their "leaders" being their representatives in voicing their interests.

Congrats. You just hoisted yourself with your own petard.