US Politics the 2025 trump presidency thread

[fairnymph]

I don't think one can apply a ,momolithic left<--->right metric to Donald Trump's politics. I see many more parallels to ancient Rome where there was the elite (Patrician) class who held all political power and the people who actually did the work. Emperors merely had to negotiate with the elite but in the end, emperors held imperium (supreme executive power).

Juvenal famously described how the politics of ancient Rome were negiatiateed - 'panem et circenses' i.e. if you fulfil people's basic needs and provide sufficient diversion, most people will accept that.

I agree in the sense that I don’t think there’s any big difference between the Democrats and the Republicans. The Republicans are just delayed Democrats, and both are wings of the same bird imo - it’s just to provide the illusion of choice.

Trump’s popularity is definitely in part due to his uniqueness, shall we say. But I have a little faith that he is any better than any other powerful politician. At least he’s more entertaining, but as you say, maybe that’s part of the problem. I have never voted and I don’t believe in elections because I think there are only selections. I find it difficult to believe that you can get far in politics without becoming corrupt.

 

[tryptakid]

Model Agnosticism​

Attitude expressed by Robert Anton Wilson.

1998 interview To make explicit what has lurked implicitly in all my answers, I have much agreement for the "model agnosticism" created mostly by Niels Bohr. A similar model agnosticism appears in the General Semantics of Alfred Korzybski and the Ethno Methodology of Harold Garfinkle.

According to this viewpoint, we should never believe in our Models or maps of Universe the way most people believe in their religion or ideology.

I have often described Belief as the death of intellect. I prefer to use a model only and always where it appears to work for me, and to use other models in other areas, and to abandon any and all models if and when a better model comes along.

In one of my polemical works, The New Inquisition, I call belief in any model "idolatry" and "ModelTheism."

All Models Are Wrong

Quote from Cosmic Trigger: Cosmic Trigger deals with a process of deliberately induced brain change through which I put myself in the years 1962-1976. This process is called “initiation” or “vision quest” in many traditional societies and can loosely be considered some dangerous variety of self-psychotherapy in modern terminology. ... "I do not believe anything." This remark was made, in these very words, by John Gribbin, physics editor of New Scientist magazine, in a BBC-TV debate with Malcolm Muggeridge, and it provoked incredulity on the part of most viewers. It seems to be a hangover of the medieval Catholic era that causes most people, even the educated, to think that everybody must "believe" something or other, that if one is not a theist, one must be a dogmatic atheist, and if one does not think Capitalism is perfect, one must believe fervently in Socialism, and if one does not have blind faith in X, one must alternatively have blind faith in not-X or the reverse of X. My own opinion is that belief is the death of intelligence. As soon as one believes a doctrine of any sort, or assumes certitude, one stops thinking about that aspect of existence.

To answer your question @fairnymph :

According to Robert Anton Wilson (whose Illuminatus! trilogy I read) - model agnosticism is the only alternative viable response to zealotry. You're either a zealot or "true believer" and will never change beliefs despite evidence to the contrary, whereas model agnostics believe most things may be true and are willing to be open to a lot of very out there beliefs, but don't inherently hold onto them..

 

[fairnymph]

That's what Carnegie believed. The government that governs least governs best AND that it is of utmost important that the wealthy invest generously in the aspects of their society that are good. It's what our current libertarian philosophies have perverted. They don't invest in people they don't like - Carnegie would have suggested that we invest in people we didn't like or didn't understand as a form of benevolence. Government requires everyone to be invested in, so it cheapens the impact (which is why Carnegie didn't like it).

I did not know that. I definitely agree about minimal government and generous investing but I’m not sure that people should invest in people they don’t like. But I also don’t believe that real altruism exists.

 

[someguyontheinternet]

I did not know that. I definitely agree about minimal government and generous investing but I’m not sure that people should invest in people they don’t like. But I also don’t believe that real altruism exists.

Which people don't you like and why don't you like them?

 

[tryptakid]

I did not know that. I definitely agree about minimal government and generous investing but I’m not sure that people should invest in people they don’t like. But I also don’t believe that real altruism exists.

Model agnosticism is the belief that I can't know everything so I'll give everything a chance, but am open to being proven wrong. Zealotry is the belief that I am right and this is the only way to be.

 

[tryptakid]

I did not know that. I definitely agree about minimal government and generous investing but I’m not sure that people should invest in people they don’t like. But I also don’t believe that real altruism exists.

You should invest generously in what you want to see based on your values, and you should invest in people whose behaviors create value conflicts.

If I invest in communities that generate gang violence by giving them money - that investment is likely to be perverted and won't deal with the gang

If I invest in the community by building gardens and jobs programs, horticultural training,- I have spent that same money but in a way that fosters something that I feel is valuable, while also providing community members an alternative activity to gang life through jobs and neighborhood enrichment.

 

[fairnymph]

It's certainly true that the wealthy elite used to build hospitals, schools, libraries and provide endowment grants to ensure that even further education was available to more people.

It's not a new concept. In ancient Rome the elite would build temples, libraries, bathc amd other ameanties to the benefit of all Romans.

Now the elite are all investing in pet projects that benefit only the elite. It seems like going into space is valued far more than mundane things like ensuring people don't starve or die from treatable diseases.

While I personally don’t think going to space (or any of Elon’s projects) should be a top priority now, virtually all technological innovation does inevitably improve life for everyone. And people can only work on what they are good at and what they enjoy doing. He’s likely doing more for humanity than the vast majority of people. And I have quite mixed feelings about Elon. But, he’s at least advancing technology and producing actual goods and employing people.

 

[fairnymph]

I'm sure that charity is much more efficient and cost effective than govt aid. I'm pretty sure it's not particularly to be depended on, though.

It’s all we had before there was a government welfare, and excluding perhaps the early industrial revolution, it was more effective. Government makes everything less efficient, more costly and more corrupt.

 

[tryptakid]

While I personally don’t think going to space (or any of Elon’s projects) should be a top priority now, virtually all technological innovation does inevitably improve life for everyone. And people can only work on what they are good at and what they enjoy doing. He’s likely doing more for humanity than the vast majority of people. And I have quite mixed feelings about Elon. But, he’s at least advancing technology and producing actual goods and employing people.

There is good in his bad, and unfortunately, bad in his good.

 

[fairnymph]

To answer your question @fairnymph :

According to Robert Anton Wilson (whose Illuminatus! trilogy I read) - model agnosticism is the only alternative viable response to zealotry. You're either a zealot or "true believer" and will never change beliefs despite evidence to the contrary, whereas model agnostics believe most things may be true and are willing to be open to a lot of very out there beliefs, but don't inherently hold onto them..

Sounds kind of like how I operate, to an extent - but also potentially quite unstable, if there are no real foundations. I’ll look into it more. I take it you recommend the trilogy?

 

[tryptakid]

It’s all we had before there was a government welfare, and excluding perhaps the early industrial revolution, it was more effective. Government makes everything less efficient, more costly and more corrupt.

Public Benefit Corporations are a model that works to channel money away from charities(which are non-profit tax exempt and purpose driven) and into publicly focused endeavors that are value based and market responsive. I believe charity and government have similar flaws around the ways in which they fail. Charity is too directed, Government is too egalitarian.

 

[fairnymph]

There is good in his bad, and unfortunately, bad in his good.

No doubt. How to distinguish it all? Can we ever know these people? It can be difficult to truly even know your immediate community.

 

[fairnymph]

Public Benefit Corporations are a model that works to channel money away from charities(which are non-profit tax exempt and purpose driven) and into publicly focused endeavors that are value based and market responsive. I believe charity and government have similar flaws around the ways in which they fail. Charity is too directed, Government is too egalitarian.

I think that being overly directed is a boon. And I think government should be as minimal as possible. Ofc, no system is perfect.

 

[tryptakid]

No doubt. How to distinguish it all? Can we ever know these people? It can be difficult to truly even know your immediate community.

You ask by digging in to the "why" of a belief.
Also by undersanding the values behind why something is operating or stands for.

As is the case in situations where someones methods I agree with but whose values I don't align with. It's what leads to the dillema that you point out here:

I think that being overly directed is a boon. And I think government should be as minimal as possible. Ofc, no system is perfect.

Government values change which make interventions ineffective and ripe for exploitation

Charitable motives may be for malevolent purposes.

 

[fairnymph]

You ask by digging in to the "why" of a belief.
Also by undersanding the values behind why something is operating or stands for.

As is the case in situations where someones methods I agree with but whose values I don't align with. It's what leads to the dillema that you point out here:


Government values change which make interventions ineffective and ripe for exploitation

Charitable motives may be for malevolent purposes.

But how can we know what Elon truly believes? Do we take him on face value, based on what he says? Do we only look at his actions? Actions are often more revealing than words but intention matters too.

 

[tryptakid]

You'd have to ask him.

Or read his biography.

An interview would be more present, and a biography would be more thorough, though runs the risk of being out of date.

 

[tryptakid]

Really? Ugh. I’m glad he’s having lots of kids, but I really not a fan of how he’s going about it.

Hey did you guys see Elon Musk just had another baby with another woman … this will be his thirteenth child. I know this is a Trump thread but he seems pretty close to Trump so figured I’d post it.

Apparently it's speculated that he a ton of artificially inseminated off spring. He is likely trying to spread his genetic code to as many future people as possible.

Ever play fallout 3 and go to the Gary level? That's elon's utopia.

 

[jasperkent]

Trump isn’t really conservative. He’s basically just a 90s Democrat. It’s just the Overton window has shifted so far left.

Trump has no ideology other than pathological narcissism. He wants money, power, and attention.
That is all he cares about.

 

[someguyontheinternet]

Apparently it's speculated that he a ton of artificially inseminated off spring. He is likely trying to spread his genetic code to as many future people as possible.

Ever play fallout 3 and go to the Gary level? That's elon's utopia.

I wouldn't be surprised. In the links I posted about Elon's family one of the sources was interviews with Errol Musk, his father, who stated that he is pronatalist and in his view a humans only purpose is to procreate. Many of Elon's family members' views have heavily influenced his own ideology

 

[tryptakid]

I wouldn't be surprised. In the links I posted about Elon's family one of the sources was interviews with Errol Musk, his father, who stated that he is pronatalist and in his view a humans only purpose is to procreate. Many of Elon's family members' views have heavily influenced his own ideology

The purest form of eugenics