|
|
Post by robeiae on Jul 14, 2017 11:50:17 GMT -5
So, I read this article a couple of days ago and talked about some of it with my two teenagers--16 and 19--especially this part: One of the conclusions of the study is that "Gen Z" is looking like a bunch of moderate Republicans: quite liberal on social issues, but far more conservative on fiscal and security issues. I don't know if I buy that fully, much less the conclusion in the article that Gen Z is going to "vote Republican" in general, but the issue of fame and celebrity intrigued me, so I talked about it with my kids. And they pretty agreed there: celebrity status doesn't seem as impressive to them as it did to previous generations (they are perhaps influenced by their cousin's celebrity status--as achieved through Musical.ly, Instagram, and YouTube--and her increasing wealth (she's 16). Fro them, being a celebrity is a thing to do, to pursue, a career, as much as anything else. It's a path one can choose to take. I mean, they know it's not an automatic thing, but they're just not seeing it as a one-in-a-million type of thing, at all. So...I have an odd theory about consequences here: this will lead to more celebrities jumping into politics, not fewer, because "why not." A celebrity for them doesn't have any more baggage than anyone else, given the level of info on the net. My kids see the celebrity thing as nothing more than a platform, really, especially given the never-ceasing social media posts from celebs supporting cause after cause. We've had Reagan, Ahnold, Jesse Ventura, and now Trump in very significant offices, along with many celebs in lesser ones. Now Kid Rock is making noise. But what's the best career move for reality TV star or an internet celeb if they can't move forward in Hollywood? Seems to me that politics is right there. Watcha think? |
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Jul 15, 2017 11:01:11 GMT -5
Dwayne (The Rock) Johnson has also been mentioned. I don't know if that's a good thing or bad, same with the other guys. Eric McMullin I thought was a fine choice for president, but nobody knew him. Name recognition is everything. As far as that the next Gen of voters are going to be more conservative in some ways, liberal in others, it sounds like independents. Both parties are becoming parties of extremes. But people still look for the R or D.
|
|
|
|
Post by Don on Jul 17, 2017 8:58:43 GMT -5
"Quite liberal on social issues, but far more conservative on fiscal and security issues"
"More conservative in some ways, liberal in others"
Yeah, that sounds exactly like the "moderate republicans" and "independents" I know.
Actually, I think there are more accurate terms, like "classical liberal," "pro-enlightenment," "truly pro-choice" or even the much-maligned "libertarian."
Most "independents" and "moderate republicans" I know are far less socially liberal than the young people I've met. Also, take note of the rapidly-waning influence of religion, a long-time conservative cornerstone.
I find the idea that Gen Z represents a resurgence of moderate republicanism hilarious.
|
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Jul 17, 2017 9:01:45 GMT -5
I think a lot of them are like me, people who might feel an affinity for a lot of libertarian positions, but who are never going to call themselves libertarians because people like you represent libertarianism and we don't feel like everything wrong with the world needs to be turned into a rant about how it's all because sheeple believe the gummint is Santa Claus.
|
|
|
|
Post by Don on Jul 17, 2017 9:14:49 GMT -5
I think a lot of them are like me, people who might feel an affinity for a lot of libertarian positions, but who are never going to call themselves libertarians because people like you represent libertarianism and we don't feel like everything wrong with the world needs to be turned into a rant about how it's all because sheeple believe the gummint is Santa Claus. Libertarians cover a broad spectrum, from those who want a little more freedom and a little less government to those who no longer believe in the whole fairytale, the latter being the political equivalent of atheists. But the word "anarchist" has yet to be rehabilitated in the way that "atheist" is becoming respectable today. That makes it much harder for most people to entertain. Anarchism has been painted with a coat of violence never successfully applied to atheism. Libertarians are a big tent. They're the political equivalent of Unitarian Universalists, I suppose. 😆 As as an atheist, if I had to align myself religiously, I'd call myself a UU, so I guess that's how anarchists end up under the libertarian tent. |
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Jul 17, 2017 9:21:45 GMT -5
Well, I also really, truly do not understand how an anarchist "civilization" would work. Anarchist communes, anarchist tribes, sure. Anarchist industrial societies that can cure cancer, build robots, and put things in orbit? Nope.
|
|
|
|
Post by Don on Jul 17, 2017 9:26:39 GMT -5
Well, I also really, truly do not understand how an anarchist "civilization" would work. Anarchist communes, anarchist tribes, sure. Anarchist industrial societies that can cure cancer, build robots, and put things in orbit? Nope. Possibly because you're confusing "no coercion" with "no hierarchy, authority or chain of command?" That's a common issue. |
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Jul 17, 2017 9:34:53 GMT -5
Well, I also really, truly do not understand how an anarchist "civilization" would work. Anarchist communes, anarchist tribes, sure. Anarchist industrial societies that can cure cancer, build robots, and put things in orbit? Nope. Possibly because you're confusing "no coercion" with "no hierarchy, authority or chain of command?" That's a common issue. No, I understand the theory. I just do not believe hierachy, authority, or chain of command is possible without the ability to exert coercion at some point. People aren't all going to just peaceably go along or else walk away. |
|
|
|
Post by Don on Jul 17, 2017 16:49:42 GMT -5
Possibly because you're confusing "no coercion" with "no hierarchy, authority or chain of command?" That's a common issue. No, I understand the theory. I just do not believe hierachy, authority, or chain of command is possible without the ability to exert coercion at some point. People aren't all going to just peaceably go along or else walk away.Those who don't go peacefully along or walk away are breaking even the most basic of criminal codes. Even the simplest nightwatchman definition of government has provisions for dealing with malum in se; it's the size of the malum prohibitum state that most libertarians seek to reduce. My particular brand of anarchism, OTOH, argues that a basic, malum in se legal code can be successfully provided and protected by competing, voluntary institutions better than by a single, coercive territorial monopoly. Given the poor track record of the territorial monopoly approach, I don't see that as a big stretch. |
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Jul 17, 2017 16:53:47 GMT -5
My particular brand of anarchism, OTOH, argues that a basic, malum in se legal code can be successfully provided and protected by competing, voluntary institutions better than by a single, coercive territorial monopoly. Given the poor track record of the territorial monopoly approach, I don't see that as a big stretch. If you measure the "track record" very narrowly, sure. Territorial monopolies have been pretty terrible at maintaining human rights and preventing wars, compared to voluntary institutions. I'll grant you that. On the other hand, we have yet to see a voluntary institution run an industrial civilization, or do any of the other things I described. A legitimate discussion may be had as to whether the trade-off of wars and human rights abuses for an advanced industrial civilization is worth it. But as I see it, I am acknowledging that that is the choice you're proposing, whereas you studiously avoid this point every time it comes up. |
|
|
|
Post by Don on Jul 17, 2017 17:21:00 GMT -5
Voluntary institutions are already responsible for every industrial civilization, as far as I can see. Industrialization flourished in those countries that encouraged and formalized those voluntary institutions, such as the US and Western Europe, as opposed to those who imposed progress from the top down, such as Stalin's USSR and Mao's China. Advanced civilization requires human rights guarantees above all else; personally, I think they define civilization.
|
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Jul 18, 2017 7:01:54 GMT -5
Voluntary institutions are already responsible for every industrial civilization, as far as I can see. Industrialization flourished in those countries that encouraged and formalized those voluntary institutions, such as the US and Western Europe, as opposed to those who imposed progress from the top down, such as Stalin's USSR and Mao's China. Advanced civilization requires human rights guarantees above all else; personally, I think they define civilization. Your personal definition of civilization would appear to exclude basically every civilization that existed prior to the modern day. Did history start in the 20th century or something? Did the United States spring out of existence like Athena from Zeus's skull, never mind all those somewhat less than voluntary institutions that helped propel us to our current state? Voluntary institutions did not build civilizations. Voluntary institutions did not provide the infrastructure for civilizations. Voluntary institutions did not create the Apollo mission. I won't disagree with your implicit "West is best" argument, but voluntary institutions are an effect, not a cause, and the ability to live your entire life selectively engaging only with institutions and practices that meet your personal ideological standard is a very recent (and still very geographically limited) phenomenon. |
|
