And yeah, I do think it's a bit of a problem that the United States doesn't have any real civil defense infrastructure in place although realistically geography largely insulates the United States from conventional military attack and so there's much less practical need for such options compared to countries in other regions.
I might be misunderstanding you, but The National Guard doesn't count?
It's that attitude that led to Trump, a man elected to the most powerful political office in the world not because he was qualified for the job, but because he was entertaining and willing to pander to the cynicism your comment displays.
After all, if all politicians are self-serving lying scum, then who cares if one is overtly more so than the others? That probably makes him more honest than the others, right?
I would have voted for Hillary because she is slightly less ugly.
What was that thing P.J. O'rourke said? Something about how he was going to vote for Hillary because he preferring the incompetent over the truly awful.
I can't vote in the US anyway because I was fortunate enough to not have been born there.
Edit: I can't remember now if it was O'rourke or Zizek who said that.
I am endorsing Hillary. And all her lies
and all her empty promises. I am endorsing
Hillary. The second worst thing that could
happen to this country. But she’s way behind
in second place, you know? She’s wrong about
absolutely everything – but she’s wrong within
normal parameters.
Maybe I'm wrong, but it looks like you bought the article's narrative hook, line and sinker. I saw no evidence that Peter got NZ citizenship as an "escape pod". It was purely conjecture on the author's part.
There are many reasons for getting citizenship in another country. Maybe you want to retire there? Maybe it makes business dealings easier? Maybe you can't own property without it?
I also have a problem with the notion that the only freedom that matters is economic. As I see it, the goal of Thiel and his fellow-travelers is feudalism.
In any case, the Trump program seems to have little to do with freedom, even by that stunted definition, for very many people[1]. To the extent that we're seeing much coherency, it seems the program is to restrict the movement of labor, further free the mobility of capital, attack freedom of speech and give the hard-right a free hand for their social-engineering plans to attempt to construct a 1950s that never existed.
[1] I'll probably see a small tax break, but I'm likely the only one in my family who will. Most of them are regaining the freedom to once again do without routine medical care. Any tax break I do see will be donated to Planned Parenthood.
Wrong, it is freedom to do whatever you want with your property while freely associating with others.
>In any case, the Trump program seems to have little to do with freedom, even by that stunted definition, for very many people.
I disagree, and I will explain why.
>restrict the movement of labor
Protecting national borders and addressing illegal immigration should be done anyhow. Aside from allowing easier legal immigration from Europe, I don't remember Trump has saying much about restrictions on legal immigration. We'll have to see.
>free the mobility of capital
He talked about tariffs a lot, I would disagree about this.
>attack freedom of speech
Interestingly enough, libertarians that agree with Thiel feel freer now since political correctness is no longer the dominant doctrine [1].
>the hard-right a free hand for their social-engineering plans to attempt to construct a 1950s that never existed
Not sure what "hard-right" means for you, but what I read from here is that any social engineering from the right wing is wrong while the same thing from the left is okay.
>Any tax break I do see will be donated to Planned Parenthood.
You have the freedom to support the institutions you care about, as you should. Other people shouldn't be forced to do the same.
[1] https://nudgedelastic.band/2016/10/ideological-purge-curtis-...
You're adding in free association, which I accept. I still find that a massively stunted definition, which omits many important freedoms.
> Protecting national borders and addressing illegal immigration should be done anyhow.
...Which restricts freedom of association and the movement of labor.
> He talked about tariffs a lot, I would disagree about this.
Sure, flashy protectionist silliness. We'll see what congress allows there.
> Not sure what "hard-right" means for you, but what I read from here is that any social engineering from the right wing is wrong while the same thing from the left is okay.
Interesting that you don't deny it, at least. 'Hard right' to me includes many of his appointees and vice president.
> Interestingly enough, libertarians that agree with Thiel feel freer now since political correctness is no longer the dominant doctrine
Interestingly enough, libertarians hurt feelings (billionaire or not) have little to do with freedom of speech. You're talking about freedom of consequence from one's speech; in other words, the consequences of saying things that offend others[1]. I'm talking about the threats to "loosen up libel law" (which isn't going to work very well for technical reasons, but nonetheless), the desire to beat the press into submission, etc.
In other words, I'm talking about freedom of speech, not people whining about other people talking back.
[1] I don't know when "political correctness" has ever been "the dominant doctrine"; perhaps other people feel much more threatened by whiny college kids than I do. In any case, if someone can't handle the marketplace of ideas, I tend to think they should toughen up a mite to stick to their preferred media bubble.
True. In a libertarian society everything would be private and borders wouldn't exist, they would be handled on the basis of no trespassing on private property. In that case, you can have it all.
>'Hard right' to me includes many of his appointees and vice president.
Well, I find them to be on the left from e.g. Ron and Rand Paul, so for my taste they are not particularly right wing. I am concerned with authoritarianism coming from any side of the political spectrum (in case there was any doubt about it).
>Interestingly enough, libertarians hurt feelings (billionaire or not) have little to do with freedom of speech. You're talking about freedom of consequence from one's speech; in other words, the consequences of saying things that offend others. I'm talking about the threats to "loosen up libel law" (which isn't going to work very well for technical reasons, but nonetheless), the desire to beat the press into submission, etc.
Good point. Judging from #GamerGate and censorship on GitHub (private entity, sure they can legally do it, that's beside the point) [1], I would say PC was hitting quite hard (and to an extent still is, but hopefully not for long). I personally don't subscribe to it and invite others to do the same. The interventions into freedom of association under the guise of non-discrimination and forced equality should be criticized openly. As Pat Buchanan said: "Where equality is enthroned, freedom is extinguished. The rise of the egalitarian society means the death of the free society."
We'll see what Trump does about the press. I personally wouldn't support libel laws of any kind, but I understand the argument behind them. Right now, I don't mind him bashing the press as hard as he does and I don't mind press bashing him either, the free market will decide whether people want such narrative to exist or not.
It's more like an escape pod for the rocket he's strapped the rest of us into against our will.
Who woulda thunk.