Right, because "we've had enough of experts." But Sci-Pol isn't a technocracy per se. Rather, it's a political party built upon the philosophical belief that science now constitutes a highly coherent understanding of reality - we need to recognise as substantially true, and be responsible to in our decision making - to survive and prosper long term.

Though I agree with the belief, I do not see how it is applicable to politics. Not to mention, despite the principle, scientists are often wrong. Put a scientist in charge of producing more honey and he creates the Africanized Honey-bee. Put a scientist in charge of explaining homosexuality and he reasons it’s a mental illness. Put him in charge of governing, what then? Perhaps more important principles are required.

Who sits opposite and why?

An opposition might consist of anyone who opposes technocracy, which I wager would include some scientists.

And, again, the mass exodus from former communist states after the fall of communism in Europe tells the opposite story. And let's not neglect those rapist Mexicans. At best, you've hit upon an irrelevancy.

I’m not sure how that tells the opposite story. It tells the same story. People largely run from socialism, not towards it. The list of failed socialist states is vast, and the track record of socialism is reason enough to see why this occurs. The state never “withers away”, like Engles promised; it becomes bigger and more totalitarian, it turns to free market (capitalist) reform, or it collapses beneath its own mismanagement.

But as I mentioned, welfare states have trended upon the same course, getting bigger instead of withering away, to the point where the UN advocates offsetting this decline by importing a labor force from elsewhere. Japan’s familialism, on the other hand, may provide a different method.

To get immigration, you have to be a nation that is attractive to live in. If it were true that socialist states have more, that would suggest that the world's workers are betting on those states.

I think more people try to escape from socialist states than move to them. The Venezuelan refugee crisis and Cuban exodus give us reasons as to why this occurs.

Where was this sentiment years ago? A little too late, in my opinion.

As for me I have never once denounced partisanship, a fundamental feature of democracy, especially when it has finally become convenient to do so. I’d much rather participate in politics instead of avoid it. This is the world they created and I admit it’s satisfying watching them stew in it.

Welfare states will certainly suffer from declining birth rates. Declining birth rates imply a decline in the population, which also means a decline in the labor force, which means a decline in government revenue and a decline in the need for government services. This spells a decline in the welfare state itself.

But, as we’ve seen, rather than reduce the welfare state or better focus its spending on an aging population, the welfare state will seek to protect itself and move to replace its declining labor force through policies such as immigration.

A soft despotism is a despotism nonetheless.

Not at all. I see real kindness in individual acts, not in the advocacy of this or that policy.

Not really.

No, it’s awesome because the Democrats spent a lot of time dismissing their activity and feigned outrage whenever it was suggested to bring in the national guard.

Maybe you missed that way over there in Wherever, Europe.

The staging of soldiers (not the two definitions of staging here) inside the Capitol is similar window dressing as putting an armed guard or tank at a busy intersection or next to a tourist attraction. The major reason is to show people that "security has been raised".

“Optics”. A return to the public relations politics of Bush and Obama, where a politician can get away with anything so long as he utters nonsense about “unity” and “healing”. I doubt it will work this time around.

Yep. So a free society takes measures to secure the basic well-being of it's citizens.

I disagree. Kind, paternalistic people such as yourself should secure the basic well-being of your fellow citizens and have the freedom to do so. Some will even desire your help. Others will prefer to pass on that, or otherwise refuse when someone wishes to tinker with the conditions of their well-being.

We won't have free people unless we look after well-being. This isn't a moralistic insight.

I completely disagree.

At worst he held a rally told people to exercise their first amendment rights. Not quite my idea of a dictator.

and the end of his presidency proved it to be the case.

That’s right. Despite the fear mongering, the comparisons to every dictator from Mao, to Mussolini, to Hitler, he never once seized dictatorial control. When presented with the greatest opportunity, such as a global pandemic, it turns out lockdowns, the seizing of economies, police states, curfews, arbitrary punishment is the modus operandi of countless other politicians, none of whom the fear mongers warned us about. How wrong they were.

I think it’s a good argument. I’m not keen on the literature, but I’ve never heard it before.

Personally I would depart from the argument at the premise one should feel morally responsible for suffering by creating life, but it might be convincing to those who are able to reduce life to suffering.

I do not, no, and his presidency has proven that to be the case.

No. Are you?

Thanks for the clarification.

I would say liberalism allows such an approach, though, to the point of it becoming institutionalized or even generally accepted.

It is true that a certain level of well-being is required to enjoy autonomy, and there is a strong moral argument that we should care for the well-being of others. I also agree that one must secure his freedom, with force if necessary.

But these to me are moral considerations, best left to the decisions of free people. Just as people such as yourself should have the freedom to act on your moral beliefs, others should have the freedom to do otherwise, and for the same reason.

Thanks for the read.

“Every adult should be able to make as many effective decisions without fear or favour about as many aspects of her or his life as is compatible with the like freedom of every other adult.”

It's an excellent definition of liberalism. For my part I might replace "freedom" with "welfare", but the basic theme seems undeniable, given basic rational concerns of coherence and consistency.

I’m curious why you would replace “freedom” with “welfare” when the root word of “liberalism” suggests one but not the other. It seems to me that limiting one’s freedom to only that which is compatible with the like welfare of others is not liberalism, perhaps something more like “welfarism”.

The Washington Post Tried To Memory-Hole Kamala Harris' Bad Joke About Inmates Begging for Food and Water

No wonder it’s readers believe the way they do.

This is so good.

Can Someone Please Open the Door?

It was the culminating moment of a transfer of power: President Biden and the first lady, Jill Biden, walked up the driveway to their new home on Wednesday, ascended the steps to the North Portico, waved to the crowd as a military band played “Hail to the Chief,” turned to head inside — and came face-to-face with a closed door.

As the world watched and a small crowd of Biden family members came up behind them, the first couple waited.

...

For one, there was no chief usher to greet the Bidens when they arrived. Although it is unclear exactly what caused the delay with the doors — which are normally opened by Marine guards — the chief usher of the White House, who manages the residence, had been fired less than five hours earlier.

This is awesome. I wonder how the Biden media will play this now that Antifa opposes them.

Biden broke his own mask mandate on the first day. Rules for thee but not for me. Get used to it.

https://www.newsweek.com/joe-biden-mask-mandate-lincoln-memorial-1563657

We’ve been told for days to suspect violent outbursts in the capitols of all states, and that this is the reason for Joe Xiden’s inauguration, which looked more like a military instillation.

The soldiers were first subjected to ideological purity tests, some sent home for “inappropriate texts” and “ties to far-right militia groups”. Then the soldiers were virtually discarded after Pelosi’s fantasies were proven stupid.

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2021/01/22/national-guard-troops-moved-to-a-cramped-parking-garage-complain-of-ingratitude-after-being-ordered-to-bug-out-of-capitol-building-they-came-to-protect/

A sign of things to come.

That figures.

Frank’s snivelling has only increased.

It has nothing to do with Trump.

Health mandates are left to the states for a reason.

Terrible move. America’s downfall is occurring at a frightening pace.

It’s a joke, idiot. Keep your panties dry.

Damn. 4000 died of covid on Biden’s first day. That’s more than 911.

It’s a perverted idea of justice you have there. What you describe is persecution, the very reason for the 4th amendment.

What crimes?

If it's not hysterics, and is justified. But speaking just for myself, there is anger and rage - but nothing hysterical about it. Your man needs to face justice. And a good chance he does not survive the process.

Justice for what, Tim?

I'm curious as to how you will go about signalling your virtue.

Wear your MAGA hat around and find out yourself.

(Btw, did hostility towards Hillary Clinton persist after the 2016 elections among the Trump crowd?)

Well, I think the idea that Trump should be impeached and persecuted after he has already left office is a good indication of what I am speaking of. How else could you justify the years of hysterics without following it to the bitter end? I fear it will continue until the man is in the grave.

I’m not claiming your for or against this or that model, nor am I making any assumptions about your ethos. My only claim is that if there was no disagreement and polarization there would be no politics. As you intimated, that way leads necessarily to fanaticism, as we have seen in societies that strictly forbid this or that opposing ideology.

Well, I'm all for pluralism, but that "polarization clarifies things" runs directly contrary to the general sentiment of this post, which you have claimed to be in agreement with.

I agree with the notion of "open dialogue". I disagree that "open dialogue" should entail consensus and unity. That, to me, always leads to "closed dialogue".

I've just posted this thread and another about the text by Karl Marx which includes the statement, "Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.", and, so, am not really one to make such a critique, but I think that there could be an inherent contradiction to your line of reasoning there.

What is the contradiction? My point is that politics requires some sort of dialectic in order to be considered politics. This is debatable depending on your definition of politics, but It seems to me that political unity or consensus is a contradiction in terms, and is not politics at all.

Nicely said. Censoring political opponents and always seeking political consensus is a process of diminishing returns. Above all, one should be a pluralist when it comes to politics because if there was no disagreement there would be no politics at all. Polarization clarifies things.

Our Virtual President

Like his hairline, his teeth, his military career, and his campaign, Biden’s inauguration was a virtual one.