Now that it is becoming fairly clear that the Democrats are going to triumph in the November elections this year, taking House and Senate, the question is, how effective they can be, with Trump as President. Can't Trump simply govern by veto, as Presidents have in the past, from the Oval Office? The answer to that is actually fairly simple, and the answer is "no". Why, exactly? Certainly, in the past, many highly successful Presidents have indeed dealt with unruly Congresses by governing by veto. Most notably, FDR, Grover Cleaveland, Harry Truman, and Dwight D. Eisenhower were chronic users of their veto pen. In more recent American political history, vetoes have become rare, to some extent because the mere threat of a veto discourages legislation, and to some extent because party polarization has made it more difficul to assemble the votes required for any potential veto overrides. These two are, of course, closely related. However, Donald Trump is a special case. Donald Trump is a convicted felon. Donald Trump has already been impeached twice in his first term of office. Donald Trump is also highly unpopoular, with strong disapproval rates of 50%, and strong approval rates of only 14%. So, any veto of popular legislation by Donald Trump, wil inevitably arouse howls of rage from most Americans, and arouse very little strong support, at all. Legislators from both parties, including his own, will no doubt hear about this. And, these legislators, particularly from his own party, will fear justified righteous retribution from their electors, and being cast out into the cold by them, of unelectable Hell. So, all Donald Trump has to do is veto a couple of popular pieces of legislation, and, suddenly, he may well find that the Republican firewall in the Senate preventing him from not only being impeached by the House, but actually removed by the Senate, will rather magically disappear, very quickly indeed. Certainly, it is a rather likely thing to happen, isn't it? Now, of course, many of you will say that the electorate is polarized, and Republican senators dare not antagonize Trump's loyal MAGA "base". However, with generic polling suggesting that the Democrats are currently leading the Republicans by double digits, and with Democrats outperforming their polls by double digits in most of the elections, the question is, does Trump have any significant real base left? Trump has been saying that he wants the electors to vote as if he himself were on the ballot. However, what if that's exactly what the electors have been doing lately? And, of course, once Trump is removed from office, his electoral shield of the Presidency from criminal prosecution ceases to exist. Indeed, Congress might decide to remove some conservative justices from SCOTUS, and permanently eliminate the "presidential immunity" so recently instituted by them. Presidential immunity might go the way of the Dred Scott decision, as a direct result of the Trump presidency. So, on the whole, I really don't think it is possible for Donald Trump to govern by veto. Not for very long, anyway. #politics #uspolitics #uselections #trump #donaldtrump #impeachment #usconstitution #veto #maga #dredscott #presidentialimmunity #supremecourt #ushistory #politicalscience #history #scotus #republicans #democrats

The philosopher and government administrator John Locke is rightfully praised for his analytical brilliance, but, unfortunately, I fear his morals leave something to be desired.  Unlike his illustrious predecessor Sir Isaac Newton, who always saw himself as merely an humble instrument of God in his philosophical and scientific enquiries, I do fear John Locke somewhat aspired to be God himself, on his own, and it shows.  While Isaac Newton would never have suggested that human reason is perfect, I believe Locke is suggesting that precisely in his empirical epistemological enquiries, and he likes that idea very much indeed.  Especially his own reason, which Locke certainly did put on a pedestal! Locke put himself up as a critic of Hobbes and his absolutism, but, actually, Hobbes isn't really that all much of an absolutist when push comes to shove. Hobbes is, first and foremost, a profound realist.  Hobbes recognizes the inevitable conflicts between our fellow men can have disastrous consequences, so he sees the need for some kind of government superstructure to control them, but he is extremely flexible about the forms this government superstructure can take.  Locke, on the other hand, believes that all human beings can live in "perfect equality and freedom", subject of course, to Locke's own reason! Locke actually had an opportunity to apply this principle directly in his administration and design of the constitution for the Carolinas, in which British aristocrats had the literal power of life and death over all their slaves, by law!  Which, by various philosophical and legal circumlocutions, Locke manages to rationalize as "perfect equality and freedom".  We all know just how well that all worked out, in the long run. What John Locke really helps us to understand are the true horrors of classical liberalism, in which God is replaced by the tyranny of "human reason" over all, and the "perfect liberty and freedom" of powerful men to do precisely as they choose, no matter what.   #philosophy #history #historyofphilosophy #philosophyofhistory #johnlocke #isaacnewton #locke #newton #metaphysics #politicalscience #britishhistory #empiricism #hobbes #slavery #liberalism #leviathen #empiricism #epistemology #mentalillness #sociopathology #psychoanalysis #psychology #sociology #ushistory #sophistry #religion #God

While most treatments of his life tend to downplay the fact, the great empiricist, liberal philosopher John Locke actually played a very key role in the development of the English slave trade, and the institutionalization of slavery in the British Colonies in North America, many of which would subsequently become parts of the United States, and would ultimately have a great Civil War over slavery. While advocating liberalism and tolerance in government, Locke simultaneously was personally responsible for the establishment of the absolute power of Carolina planters over their slaves, by law. Yes, you read that right. No contradiction there, eh? So, how do we explain this little conundrum, then? What are the mental gymnastics going on in John Locke's head, that allow him to simultaneously do these two totally opposite things -- condemn slavery and oppression, and then write up a constitution that is enforced, that gives absolute tyrannical power of life and death to aristocrats in the British colonies over slaves? Well, is this really so complicated? John Locke was a greedy, murderous, hypocritical total creepshow, a real sociopath! Freedom for me, oppression for you, my friends! A lot of people are like this, of course, now, and in the past. #history #philosophy #historyofphilosophy #philosophyofhistory #ushistory #slavery #psychology #economics #psychoanalysis #britishempire #britishhistory #hypocrisy #johnlocke #sociopathology

This morning I was listening to the BBC on NPR radio, and a new book on problem solving in difficult situations was presented.  They used the analogy of a battle plan, which only lasts the first five minutes of the battle. Then, people have to explore the unknown, to solve the new problems being presented.  They discussed the strategies that must be employed to deal with the unknown, how a corporation should be set up to deal with these unknown uncertainties that must be quickly regulated and controlled.  They said that the human element must be employed, using the example of a specific person knowing a specific repairman who could quickly repair an essential machine on demand.  They said that it was very important for everyone to know that they were not alone, and that the corporation would be behind them in their decisions, and would work with them, and respect them. Notably, they used the example of Apollo 13, and now NASA managed to bring home three astronauts despite the fact that an explosion had rendered the spacecraft largely untenable, and forced them to abort the primary mission of landing on the Moon.  They observed that the average age of the NASA engineers involved in solving this problem was only 26, so, immense actual life experience was not required. Now, the example of Apollo 13 is very interesting, and is often cited as an illustration of how victory can be seized from the jaws of defeat.  Ron Howards's excellent film with Tom Hanks from 1995 is a prime example of how this particular space mission has been interpreted by a great many people.  A triumph of American engineering excellence. Let me explain how I perceived Apollo 13 at the time of the event, as an eleven year old boy, very enthusiastic about science, the space program and NASA.  I was absolutely stunned by their incompetence.  I couldn't believe how anyone could possibly take any of this seriously anymore. They were building multi-billion dollar exploding tin cans that weren't good for anything, certainly not conquering or exploring outer space.  And, of course, Apollo 13 did curtail the Apollo program itself by several missions, we haven't be back to the Moon since Apollo 17, and there's no indication that we will be there again anytime soon, NASA fantasies like the Artemis program, or the ambitions of the CCP space program notwithstanding.  It's too expensive and dangerous, we spent the equivalent of hundreds of billions of dollars in today's money, for nothing whatsoever, in terms of actual human progress.  Fundamentally new technological approaches to space travel will have to be developed, approaches we simply do not understand yet, and have not attempted yet, before manned space travel becomes a viable commercial possibility. Now, all of this is, I believe, perfectly obvious.  So, given that, why do people see the Apollo 13 mission as having been a great success, and use it as an ideal model for how corporations should function to deal with practical, real world problems?   I think, if anything, Apollo 13 was an effort in damage control, and, certainly, corporations deal with a lot of damage control.  Corporations make mistakes, terrible, disastrous mistakes, but, they want the corporation itself to survive.  Corporations are like living organisms, they seek to survive and grow and expand, to replicate themselves and their control structures, over, and over again.  If an employee is unwilling to accept this, they cannot function as an employee within the structure of the corporation.  Corporations do not concern themselves with human beings as individuals, except insofar as it is necessary to do so, in order to use them effectively to expand the power and size of the corporation itself.  Corporations do not care about the desires, aspirations, goals or imagination of individuals.  Corporations do not care about humanity itself, except as humanity serves to maintain the corporation itself, and increase its power.  Apollo 13 represented an absolute failure in terms of the goal of human beings conquering outer space, but, the fact that the three astronauts did survive, may well have helped NASA to survive as a government agency, or corporation.  And, fundamentally, survival is what corporations are all about.  Indeed, NASA desperately tried to pitch the failure of Apollo 13 as a success, for this specific purpose -- their institutional survival.  This is something that all corporations can relate to.   The observations of the BBC program about these ideal strategies emphasized that inexperience was no obstacle, an average age of 26 worked fine.  Indeed, inexperienced people are much easier to control and program, so, actually, experience is by no means desirable in assisting a corporation to survive.  The "human element" is reduced to merely knowing the name of a repairman -- no insight, imagination, inspiration are required ever, at all.  This aligns well with Thomas Edison's truly bizarre claim that "genius" is 99% perspiration, 1% inspiration.  We don't want you to think, we want you to do what you're told, of course, to serve the corporation!   Actually, genius is 90% inspiration, 10% perspiration, and, I'm quite sure Thomas Edison was well aware of this, he was a very shrewd man.  However, Edison didn't really want other people to believe this, it might reduce his control over them!  Edison was a corporation man, of course. The BBC program stated that the support of other people in the corporation was essential for optimum performance.  But, true insight is always individualistic and intuitive.  What do we need the support of other people for, to promote ideas and intuition?  We don't! What this BBC program was really about, was the desire of corporations to control other people, and the desire of corporations to survive and increase their power, at all costs.  "Efficient performance" simply means serving the corporation, as an end in itself.  And, this highlights the fundamental conflict and confrontation between the individual and all corporate systems and units, throughout all of human history. #economics #business #corporations #capitalism #economictheory #philosophy #edison #thomasedison #invention #engineering #ai #apollo13 #nasa #philosophyofhistory #spacetravel #problemsolving #metaphysics #psychology #psychoanalysis #individualism #conflict #humanconflict

Other than Karl Marx and John Maynard Keynes, there are remarkably few well known economists who actually manifest any particular interest in human social morality, at all   There is an almost total disconnect between the social science of economics, and social morality, as we normally understand it.  Why is this, exactly?  The other social sciences -- sociology, history, psychology, political science -- all focus to a large extent on the differences between right and wrong in human social behaviors, although they all tend to have a profoundly ethnocentric bias in the way they do it.  Social scientists from different nations and cultures tend to see morality their own way, and have their own heroes and villains, who may not correspond particularly well with those from other cultures.   But, they are very interested in moral issues, issues of right and wrong.  Not so, the vast majority of economists, at all.  True, Adam Smith coined his ridiculous smiley face morality of the "invisible hand" to clothe capitalism in virtue, but, that metaphor has been grossly overextended so much as to amount to a reducto ad absurdam.  There is no invisible hand guaranteeing capitalist goodness, I'm afraid. Part of the problem here is Karl Marx -- the ultimate outsider -- effectively trashing all of human existence so thoroughly and not really offering much as an alternative -- only a purely speculative utopian socialist vision that he almost certainly did not even believe in, himself. So, the rest of the economics world has effectively turned tail and run from any attempt at human morality ever since Marx, with the exception of course of the Chinese communist marxist economists, who have no choice whatsoever other than to be Marxists, by law, and so are simply ignored by Western economists.   Well, maybe we should go back to good old Plato, and The Republic, then.  Plato had no fear whatsoever of Karl Marx.  Really!  So, Plato's Republic puts strict limits on the maximum wealth of all private citizens, and forces the actual guardians of the Republic to live like homeless people in a shelter, with no wealth whatsoever, and only their basic needs modestly met by the state.   And, these are the people who are supposed to be running the country, the people with the real power! Aristotle believed that the pursuit of wealth for its own sake was purely evil, and would lead to the destruction of the state, as it had in ancient Athens. In the European middle ages, Saint Thomas Aquinas and the his Catholic theologian friends made money lending for interest illegal, along with merchants charging any more for goods than was necessary to cover production costs and to ensure the tradesmen involved made a decent living wage. Traditional Islamic societies required Zakat, redistribution of wealth in the form of a wealth tax.  In the US currently, similar policies are being considered as we speak, in terms of a special tax on billionaires. So, historically, morality has indeed been integrated into economics theory quite regularly.  However, almost inevitably it seems, all morality in economics, looks socialist, or communistic.  Isn't that interesting?  So, the only way to divorce the economics of a state from socialism, and communism, is to divorce it completely from any moral basis whatsoever, and, hence, any chance whatsoever of survival.  Do tell! #ecomomics #economists #economictheory #ccp #china #capitalism #communism #philosophyofscience #history #philosophyofhistory #philosophy #academia #adamsmith #morality #moralphilosophy #politicalscience #marx #karlmarx #historyofphilosophy #ethics

The Golden Bough, of Sir James Frazier, is a  powerful work of cultural anthropology focusing on religious mysticism.  An important chapter of it is called "Temporary Kings", and deals with the issue of religious regicide, the formal, institutionalized execution of leaders, after a time, to ensure the continuing survival of the people they represent.  The idea here is that leaders, Kings,  were responsible for the good of the people, so, if they themselves showed signs of weakness or illness, they must be ritually disposed of.  Or, if the people were suffering some great calamity such as famine or plague or military disaster, the death of the leader might in some way alleviate this problem. There is a kind of logic to this. A sick leader is unlikely to be an effective leader, at much of anything, might as well get rid of them.  And, if the nation is plunged into disasters, one way or another, this probably does have something to do with the nation's leadership, so, changing Kings might not be too bad an idea, under the circumstances. I think we can see, if we look rather closely, that Adolf Hitler, perhaps intentionally, actually fulfilled the role of a "temporary king" rather precisely.  While many contemporary Germans attempt to scapegoat Hitler for all Germany's problems in the 1930's and 1940's, in fact, the nation was in a totally disastrous condition when he came to power, the Germans were well aware that Hitler was not the most mentally stable individual, they would never have trusted him with their destiny unless they felt absolutely desperate, and were willing to try anything. Hitler was a charismatic figurehead for the inevitable right wing military dictatorship in Germany that was going to try to redo what Otto von Bismarck did with the military in the nineteenth century -- make Germany once more the dominant military power in Europe.  It failed miserably, largely because the USSR was much more powerful and effectively run than Tsarist Russia had been, something which Hitler himself expressed open shock and surprise about. But, what Hitler did, was serve the role of the "King", the leader, the symbol of state power to rationalize the brutality and ruthlessness of the whole process, and, then, when it failed, his suicide, and subsequent denigration, have allowed the Germans to transfer their guilt and responsiblity to his person, and effectively disclaim responsibility as a nation for their failures.  A true, made to order, "temporary king".   I wonder if we aren't seeing a rather similar phenomenon currently with Donald Trump, in the US.  Trump has been soundly routed by the Iranians in the Middle East, leading to a catastrophic increase in oil prices, as the American military is driven out of the region by expanding Iranian power, that cannot be curtailed.  His immigration policies have also led to near civil war in the US, particularly in Minnesota, but, actually throughout the country.  Nevertheless, as American power in the world wanes faced with the increasing power of China in particular, Americans actually wanted to try something desperate like this, many of them anyway, rather like Germans in the 1930's.  So, salesman Trump has become the American symbol for these aspirations to Make America Great Again. But, instead, like Hitler, promising the Moon has just caused America to fall on its face, looking weak and incompetent militarily, and shaky economically.  So, it appears likely at this stage, that Democrats will retake House and Senate, and will use their power at the very least to control Trump and reverse his policies, and possibly, if things look bad enough to remove him and "punish" him, for his obvious failures.   So, the parallels between Trump and Hitler are not exactly death camps and the Russian Winter, but, rather, ICE detention centers and the Strait of Hormuz.  A bit of stretch, perhaps, but, good enough, really. So, the question is, what is to be done with the "Temporary King", Donald Trump, now that he has proven contrary to the nation's interest.  I suppose he could be removed from office and imprisoned.  Or, he could be turned over to the International Court of Justice.  A low stress possibility, would simply be not to give him and his family very much secret service protection after he leaves office, and let the Iranians deal with him.  I suspect that latter possibility may be exactly what happens to him.  As Richard Nixon was made to pay a price, not for Watergate, but for total national failure, so will Donald Trump, one way, or another.  Both disciples of the late great right wing activist lawyer Roy Cohn, who was disbarred from legal practice shortly before his death from AIDS, having made a few too many enemies in his illustrious career.  Karma.  Temporary Kings. #religion #anthropology #sociology #hitler #donaldtrump #adolfhitler #history #wwii #philosophyofhistory #uspolitics #uselections #nixon #impeachment #richardhixon #watergate #roycohn #nazis #bismarck #germanhistory #maga

Karl Marx was basically just an intellectual bum, who hung out in libraries a lot. Nothing more. How on earth has he managed to become the best known economist on the planet, and the most influential? Why and how is Karl Marx so special? I think, first of all, we have to understand that Karl Marx wouldn't have had the slightest prospect of ever having achieved recognition, or probably even have survived, without the support and financial patronage of his young wealthy friend, Friedrich Engels. Engels financed Karl Marx and his family, and allowed Marx to hang out in the British Library for decades as a reasonably respectable intellectual for decades, and assisted in publication and promotion of his extensive writings. What do these writings consist of, exactly? Well, they are extremely detailed, perhaps rather too detailed, in their exhaustive examination of all aspects of money, trade, work, financial exchange and services. They attempt to generalize these detailed analyses to human existence in general and all of human history, in an effort to find the true nature of existence, and how human life can be perfected. Are they successful in this endeavor? Obviously not, how could they be, that's precisely why Karl Marx said ironically "I am not a Marxist", he knew he was writing nonsensical conclusions on the basis of his extremely detailed factual analyses. But, that's OK, really. What else could he say? What is so unique about Karl Marx? Well, beyond the astonishing detail of his writings, and the broad sweep of their implications, he was also a total failure and an outsider, which makes him rather unusual for an economist. Economists are generally team players, part of the social system, supporters of the status quo, or, in any case, only slight variations on it. Karl Marx was none of these. Marx was an outsider, an intellectual rebel, who clothed his rebellion in the guise of highly detailed scholarly analyses of economic theory. Indeed, I think it could be rather easily argued that Marx was deliberately choosing a conventionally socially conformist field, economics, in which to frame his social rebellion, to give it somewhat greater impact and appeal. So, he chose that ultimate philosophical social conformist -- Georg Whilhelm Friedrich Hegel -- as the role model for his philosophical and social analyses, basically turning Hegel's concept of dialectics on its head. Hegel's intention was to discredit Immanuel Kant's materialistic empirical conception of reality by showing how ideas alone could be used to understand reality, thus reinforcing idealistic social control through institutions like the Christian Church. Marx decided to tie Hegel's dialectical method to material reality, as the only true reality, thus systematically attacking all conventional idealistic social structures like Christianity, Government and religion in general -- thus, "religion is the opiate of the masses". If we want to really understand what Karl Marx was about, and what makes him so very special, I think it would probably be best to compare him to someone he was really rather like -- Diogenes the Cynic, the guy who lived in a barrel in ancient Athens during the time of Alexander the Great, and walked around with a lamp in broad daylight "trying to find an honest man". Marx was an iconoclast, a cynic, a man who was attacking everyone and everything, clothing it all in the most erudite academic guise, really, as a kind of broad joke on the system, by attacking it from within, using its very own language and control structures. #marx #karlmarx #communism #economics #philosophy #metaphysics #history #philosophyofhistory #diogenes #hegel #historyofphilosophy #engels #capitalism #daskapital #cynicism #dialectics #dialecticalmaterialism #christianity #religion

While Democrats are frantically discussing what they're going to do on day one once they retake the House -- all kinds of wonderful bills that probably cannot get through a Republican Senate -- they are remarkably tight lipped about what they are going to do if they take both House and Senate, something that is becoming at least a 50-50 or more possibility, quite possibly by a substantial margin. I think the reason for this, is that proposing politically attractive pie in the sky is a relatively risk-free, if pointless activity, while having the full control and power of congress might actually require doing something, and actually doing things inevitably involves risk. I think the really critical issue is, if the Democrats do retake both Houses of Congress, how big a majority will they have, and how badly will the Republicans have done not only federally, but also at the state level. Because, this will determine whether we simply have stalemate and pushback by Democrats against Republicans, and pie in the sky, or, whether we actually have a fundamentally different kind of government in power in Washington DC. If the Democrats take 4 or 5 Senate seats and 26 to 35 House seats -- the most probable scenario currently according to the pollsters, although somewhat more optimistic for the Democrats than the prediction markets -- then we will have a lame duck President with no power or ability to appoint judges or government officials, or pass legislation. The united Congress probably will find the means to largely eliminate the ICE and military programs initiated by Donald Trump, to raise taxes to assist with social programs, and to rein in Trump's tariffs and military operations. Trump will be powerless, although it may take him a few months to realize it. However, Trump will remain in the Oval Office, largely under siege from criminal investigations, but, still a free man, still the President of the United States. However, if the Democrats take 6 to 8 Senate seats, or more, along with the likely flipping of Texas and even Florida, and other red states at the state level, the situation will have changed fundamentally. The Republicans will no longer have any base at all, anywhere, at the state or federal level. The entire Republican Party might be facing extinction, along with the careers of all Republican politicians. At this point, the Republicans will see they have no choice but to actually formally cede power to the Democrats, and bow to the will of the people, in hopes that a couple of years of Democrat administration will make them look pretty good again, which is perfectly possible, of course! So, in this scenario, the Republicans support the impeachment of not only Donald Trump, but also JD Vance, as well, and Republicans themselves support Hakeem Jeffries as President of the United States. "Hey, guys, we screwed up, you have a go for a couple of years!" And, then we'd have to see just how good, or bad, a job the Democrats will do. #politics #news #geopolitics #congress #uscongress #usconstitution #democrats #impeachment #trump #donaldtrump #jdvance #hakeemjeffries #elections #uspolitics #republicans

Hey bulletbill22, I saw a notification for your reply to my geopolitics essay, but my app accidentally posted a duplicate. When I deleted the extra copy, the network wiped your reply along with it. I'm curious what your thoughts were if you feel like reposting them on https://primal.net/e/

These days, the western media is constantly bemoaning the fall of the political center, the fact that traditional conservative parties in politics are largely ceasing to exist.  The media complains that politics are now "polarized" between extreme left and extreme right, and that this is a dangerous eventuality, far more dangerous than traditional centrist and conservative parties, that tended to favor consensus, and the status quo. The western  media is missing a fundamental point.  Political extremism is a symptom of a political disease, not the disease itself.  When people are content, they naturally favor centrists, conservatives, people who support the status quo.  However, when people are having difficulties, as they are at present in the Western world, they support change.  And, really, all change is radical and extreme, by definition.   There are no "conservative" changes. For centuries, the West dominated the world, invaded it, conquered it, exploited it.  This is no longer possible.  The rise of China and India as major military and economic powers makes this impossible. The US and Europe have declined in power and influence, and, this costs the people economically, and, they don't like it.   The Western people want to be dominant again.  They don't know how to do it, but, that's what they want. We can see this in the rise of Donald Trump and the MAGA movement, which basically is a desire to go back to colonialism and gunboat diplomacy.  As we can see, this isn't working at all well in the Middle East, and Iran is giving major pushback, and effectively defeating US forces and driving them out of the region.  Canada is also fighting back against US neo-Imperialism, with considerable effectiveness.   The basic difference between the left and the right is that the right favors traditional solutions and the left favors new solutions.  Neither are perfect by any means.  However, it's relatively unlikely that old solutions can be used to solve new problems.  These old solutions have a comforting familiarity, but, they don't work now, anymore, in general.  On the other hand, trying fundamentally new approaches is a leap into the unknown, quite literally.  It's not clear where it will lead.  On the other hand, if present approaches aren't working, what alternative is there?  The communists hate the old approaches because they don't work.  The capitalists hate the new approaches, because they often don't work either.  However, what alternative is there, to trying new approaches, when current approaches do not work anymore? #media #politics #geopolitics #history #philosophyofhistory #economics #extremism #capitalism #communism #philosophy #metaphysics #donaldtrump #trump #imperialism #politicalscience