Connecticut Legislature concludes it's most liberal session.

[Landslide Lyndon]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/08/nyregion/democratic-rule-remakes-connecticuts-legislative-face.html?_r=1&hp

In a year when conservative politics have dominated even traditionally Democratic states like New Jersey and New York, Connecticut is closing out its most activist, liberal legislative session in memory.

Lawmakers over the last several weeks have enacted the largest tax increase in Connecticut history and approved the nation’s first law to mandate paid sick leave for some workers. They voted to extend protections for transgender people, to charge in-state college tuition rates to illegal immigrants, to extend an early-release program for prisoners and to decriminalize possession of small amounts of marijuana.

As legislators wrap up the first session in 20 years with a Democratic governor, who is working with two chambers in the Legislature under Democratic control, it is clear that either they did not receive or they decided to tear up the antitax, budget-slashing, confront-the-unions script that has characterized state legislative sessions elsewhere.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Interesting. I know Napolean will most certainly disagree.

[Torie]

Another case pops up suggesting just how polarized this nation is, on rather important and fundamental public policy issues, stuff that if we get wrong, are going to degrade the quality of a lot of folks' lives down the road. It's just not in the same category and sex and drug issues alas. Pity.

There will be a synthesis here. This rather extreme thesis, antithesis, with no synthesis, is an unstable condition, which given the stakes, cannot long endure.

[Liberté]

There will be a synthesis here. This rather extreme thesis, antithesis, with no synthesis, is an unstable condition, which given the stakes, cannot long endure.

You're starting to sound like me.

[Napoleon]

Interesting. I know Napolean will most certainly disagree.

Calling it liberal is deceptive. The tax increases targeted the working class more than the wealthy and they fell short on many promises. Better than Foley isn't good enough for Malloy.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Meh I'll take it over what we got. Basically consists of:

1-Republicans pass really horrible and stupid things.
2-Dayton vetoes it.
3-Republicans whine OR Republicans pass it as a constitutional amendment to be put on the ballot for 2012.

This is exactly going to be what will continue for the next year and a half.

[Napoleon]

Meh I'll take it over what we got. Basically consists of:

1-Republicans pass really horrible and stupid things.
2-Dayton vetoes it.
3-Republicans whine OR Republicans pass it as a constitutional amendment to be put on the ballot for 2012.

This is exactly going to be what will continue for the next year and a half.

That was the situation under Rowland and Rell with parties switched.

[Liberté]

Interesting. I know Napolean will most certainly disagree.

Calling it liberal is deceptive. The tax increases targeted the working class more than the wealthy and they fell short on many promises. Better than Foley isn't good enough for Malloy.

Speaking in the general, most taxes are ultimately regressive, as, even if the rich pay 'more' in taxes, they're also far more able to afford them. This is a dead-end which liberalism as we now know it cannot get out of.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Another case pops up suggesting just how polarized this nation is, on rather important and fundamental public policy issues, stuff that if we get wrong, are going to degrade the quality of a lot of folks' lives down the road. It's just not in the same category and sex and drug issues alas. Pity.

There will be a synthesis here. This rather extreme thesis, antithesis, with no synthesis, is an unstable condition, which given the stakes, cannot long endure.

I must emphatically reject your Hegelian premise.

As was once noted, the states are the laboratories for the nation.

Experiments tried on the state level give us an idea of what actually works.

Lets see what happens to the high tax states over the next decade.

[Liberté]

I must emphatically reject your Hegelian premise.

I do not believe that you have ever actually read Hegel, or that you have any actual understanding of Hegelian philosophy. To give you one example: Hegel never actually used the words "thesis", "antithesis" or "synthesis".

[CARLHAYDEN]

I must emphatically reject your Hegelian premise.

I do not believe that you have ever actually read Hegel, or that you have any actual understanding of Hegelian philosophy. To give you one example: Hegel never actually used the words "thesis", "antithesis" or "synthesis".

The terminology Hegel himself used varied.  Sometimes he called his forumula “Abstract-Negative-Concrete” and sometimes “Immediate-Mediated-Concrete.”

Henrich Mortiz Chalybaus gave us the current terminology used for the Hegelian dialectic, to which Torie subscribes (and the terms used by most commentators on ‘the dialetic’).

[Liberté]

I must emphatically reject your Hegelian premise.

I do not believe that you have ever actually read Hegel, or that you have any actual understanding of Hegelian philosophy. To give you one example: Hegel never actually used the words "thesis", "antithesis" or "synthesis".

The terminology Hegel himself used varied.  Sometimes he called his forumula “Abstract-Negative-Concrete” and sometimes “Immediate-Mediated-Concrete.”

Henrich Mortiz Chalybaus gave us the current terminology used for the Hegelian dialectic, to which Torie subscribes (and the terms used by most commentators on ‘the dialetic’).

I'm happy that you know how to access Wikipedia, but there is a tangible difference between the two formulations. Hegel's dialectic was much more specific than those offered by Chalybaus and the rest of the first-generation Hegelians in that the process ought not to be interpreted as a combination of things, but rather as an internal movement. That's why Hegel writes the following in Phenomenology of Spirit:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

To put all this in words you might understand: every time I hammer on the contradictions within the conservative movement, I am dialectically showing the "difference in itself" within the artificial unity of the conservative movement. As to the topic at hand, Torie's suggestion only used the phraseology of 'dialectic' - it is not, in itself, a dialectical or 'Hegelian' notion.

[CARLHAYDEN]

I must emphatically reject your Hegelian premise.

I do not believe that you have ever actually read Hegel, or that you have any actual understanding of Hegelian philosophy. To give you one example: Hegel never actually used the words "thesis", "antithesis" or "synthesis".

The terminology Hegel himself used varied.  Sometimes he called his forumula “Abstract-Negative-Concrete” and sometimes “Immediate-Mediated-Concrete.”

Henrich Mortiz Chalybaus gave us the current terminology used for the Hegelian dialectic, to which Torie subscribes (and the terms used by most commentators on ‘the dialetic’).

I'm happy that you know how to access Wikipedia, but there is a tangible difference between the two formulations. Hegel's dialectic was much more specific than those offered by Chalybaus and the rest of the first-generation Hegelians in that the process ought not to be interpreted as a combination of things, but rather as an internal movement. That's why Hegel writes the following in Phenomenology of Spirit:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

To put all this in words you might understand: every time I hammer on the contradictions within the conservative movement, I am dialectically showing the "difference in itself" within the artificial unity of the conservative movement. As to the topic at hand, Torie's suggestion only used the phraseology of 'dialectic' - it is not, in itself, a dialectical or 'Hegelian' notion.

To put this in terms you might understand, using convoluted and contradictory terminology in an effort to pretend some intelligence, is simply, stupid!

The terminology I used is generally accepted throughout the real world.

So, yes, Torie is using the dialectic formula commonly attributed to Hegel.

[Liberté]

I must emphatically reject your Hegelian premise.

I do not believe that you have ever actually read Hegel, or that you have any actual understanding of Hegelian philosophy. To give you one example: Hegel never actually used the words "thesis", "antithesis" or "synthesis".

The terminology Hegel himself used varied.  Sometimes he called his forumula “Abstract-Negative-Concrete” and sometimes “Immediate-Mediated-Concrete.”

Henrich Mortiz Chalybaus gave us the current terminology used for the Hegelian dialectic, to which Torie subscribes (and the terms used by most commentators on ‘the dialetic’).

I'm happy that you know how to access Wikipedia, but there is a tangible difference between the two formulations. Hegel's dialectic was much more specific than those offered by Chalybaus and the rest of the first-generation Hegelians in that the process ought not to be interpreted as a combination of things, but rather as an internal movement. That's why Hegel writes the following in Phenomenology of Spirit:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

To put all this in words you might understand: every time I hammer on the contradictions within the conservative movement, I am dialectically showing the "difference in itself" within the artificial unity of the conservative movement. As to the topic at hand, Torie's suggestion only used the phraseology of 'dialectic' - it is not, in itself, a dialectical or 'Hegelian' notion.

To put this in terms you might understand, using convoluted and contradictory terminology in an effort to pretend some intelligence, is simply, stupid!

Yes, I'm "pretend" some intelligence when I quote out of a book and then explain, in the simplest terms, what the book actually says.

DAG GUM I HATE DEM BOOK LEARNINS!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The "real world" you refer to doesn't even know who Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel was, much less care about what he said, and even less about whether your bastardized interpretation of the dialectic is accurate to his meaning.

[opebo]

Another case pops up suggesting just how polarized this nation is, on rather important and fundamental public policy issues, stuff that if we get wrong, are going to degrade the quality of a lot of folks' lives down the road.

There will be a synthesis here. This rather extreme thesis, antithesis, with no synthesis, is an unstable condition, which given the stakes, cannot long endure.

Depends on what you mean be 'long'.  The whole idea of attempting anything other than the most brutal social Darwinism is a mere flash in the pan as they say.

But it is very cleverly ironical of you to mention degrading the 'quality of a lot of folks' lives', given where you stand on the issue.

[Liberté]

Another case pops up suggesting just how polarized this nation is, on rather important and fundamental public policy issues, stuff that if we get wrong, are going to degrade the quality of a lot of folks' lives down the road.

There will be a synthesis here. This rather extreme thesis, antithesis, with no synthesis, is an unstable condition, which given the stakes, cannot long endure.

Depends on what you mean be 'long'.  The whole idea of attempting anything other than the most brutal social Darwinism is a mere flash in the pan as they say.

But it is very cleverly ironical of you to mention degrading the 'quality of a lot of folks' lives', given where you stand on the issue.

In many respects, I think that Torie is right from a legitimately dialectical point-of-view. The implementation of austerity measures in the United States is something from which there is no return. The train of the 20th century welfare State is leaving the station and we shall not see it for generations, if ever. But there are opportunities in this for leftists if they go back and read some of their foundational documents and realize that the welfare State was an aberration, created out of the need to stymy more grassroots approaches to issues of social justice. That is dialectical: the furtherance of left-winged goals out of a conservative political reality.

[CARLHAYDEN]

I've got take you post piece by piece.  Its so hysterically funny.


Second, Torie is never right (just ask him).  He's always 'left.'  That's what makes him a "moderate."

Third, please feel free to emote about the differences you feel there are between legitimate and illegitimate dialectical points of view.  

Fourth, I wonder if you will tell us, oh great know it all, if the austerity measures in Europe are something from which there is no return.  Or, is the United States 'exceptional'?

Fifth, please pardon me if I stafe your train of thoughtlessness, but, I suggest you stay at your station back in the 20th century, while the rest of us fly on in the 21st century.

Sixth, perhaps you will include Torie in your circle, as he is certainly for the furtherance of left-winged goals, and, like you, totally opposed to conservative political reality.

Finally, keep up your humorous catchphrases.  They're so funny.

[Liberté]

First, I must note there is absolutely no evidence that you do "think."

I'm sure that you intended this to be humorous, but I'm not sure anyone else is going to find it as such.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

When asked whether or not Eisenhower was a 'conservative', Buckley responded with the curt statement "Eisenhower is a golfer." So is Torie in a metaphorical sense: what does not pick his pocket is alright with him. And I would expect him to have no other opinion.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Real Hegelian dialectics, and not the balderdash passed off as such by scores of post-Hegelian thinkers, is an examination of the ontological nature of categorical unities. To go back to my old example: most liberals think of movement conservatism as a monolithic block that votes in uni-mind. This is not the case. Border hawks like yourself are almost invariably of a lower socio-economic class than someone like Torie and as such are more apt to be hurt than to be helped by an influx of immigrants. You're both "conservative", but that's a tautology: American 'conservatism' is one of those "plurality of categories" Hegel spoke of, superficially identical and internally inconsistent.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think they'll lead to a period of high profits and consequentially high 'prosperity' in the short-medium term, or at least after the initial shock to the economy -- thirty or forty years. By the time I'm into middle-age, I expect the sheen to have worn off and the political pendulum to swing back towards the left. What I also expect is that the material conditions of the world will have changed: that there will be no way to return to the Statism of the 20th century. I expect that 'liberalism' is historically dead and all left-winged social movements which are effective will hitherto be created in opposition to formerly-liberal governments.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Funny, as I'm not the one pretending that national borders are inviolate or that 'national' economies exist at all. Labor-protectionism which invokes the State to stomp out market competition is so 20th century.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I live in a trailer. Torie wouldn't want to be in my circle.

[CARLHAYDEN]

You're really funny!

The misquote you mistakenly attributed to Buckley was in fact made by Russel Kirk, who, when asked whether President Eisenhower was (as John Birchers had suggested) a Communist, conservative icon Russell Kirk replied: "Eisenhower's not a Communist. He's a golfer."

Are non-hegelian dialectics not "real"?  Are they balderdash?  I thought you said "I think that Torie is right from a legitimately dialectical point-of-view"?  So, was that a "Hegelian" dialectic point of view?  Or not a "real" dialectic?  Oh, and was it "balderdash"?

Oh, and its nice to see a lefty endorsing American exceptionalism.  However, you really don't understand that in Europe, the term 'liberal' is not a synonym for socialist (as in the United States)  Liberal parties are typically in coalition with conservative parties (U.K, Germany, etc.) against the collectivist parties.

Next, are you suggesting that you are for "market competition"?

[Liberté]

The misquote you mistakenly attributed to Buckley was in fact made by Russel Kirk, who, when asked whether President Eisenhower was (as John Birchers had suggested) a Communist, conservative icon Russell Kirk replied: "Eisenhower's not a Communist. He's a golfer."

Whatever. The point was made.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

They're 'real' in the sense that they're also logical systems that call themselves 'dialectics'. There were 'dialectics' before Hegel; Aristotle called his system of logic διαλεκτική, 'dialectic'. The system in reference in this thread, however, was Hegelian dialectics.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not endorsing American exceptionalism. I think the same process - the breaking of left-winged movements off from liberalism followed by an ideological refocus from the State to the local community - will follow the trend of other historical and economic developments.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I understand it well enough; I've even used the term 'classical liberal' in my discussions with you before. I was using the term 'liberal' in the American sense (which is also not synonymous with 'socialism'). In Germany, for example, the Greens - who have always been more localist than most 'left-winged' establishment Parties - are slowly gaining ground at the expense of the SPD: what this would mean is a shift from the SPD's traditional faith in centralized government to local and small-scale collectivism. I endorse this, though I'd go further with it than I think the Greens are willing to go.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm for worker ownership. If that can take place in the framework of a competitive market - and it has successfully - then great. If not, then we'll cross that bridge when we come to it.

[Torie]

Man, from a simple little foundational  statement by me stating the obvious about two very different visions of our future, both as a prediction and as a desire, we have managed to construct an architectural maze of abstract categories and distinctions from which I doubt there is any escape.

Less is more. 

And CARL, just why is it that you never give me "credit" when I pound out something on my key board that is right wing?  It is sort of like a teacher who never gives a student credit for a right answer.  Is that fair? 

[opebo]

Depends on what you mean be 'long'.  The whole idea of attempting anything other than the most brutal social Darwinism is a mere flash in the pan as they say.

But it is very cleverly ironical of you to mention degrading the 'quality of a lot of folks' lives', given where you stand on the issue.

The implementation of austerity measures in the United States is something from which there is no return. The train of the 20th century welfare State is leaving the station and we shall not see it for generations, if ever. But there are opportunities in this for leftists if they go back and read some of their foundational documents and realize that the welfare State was an aberration, created out of the need to stymy more grassroots approaches to issues of social justice. That is dialectical: the furtherance of left-winged goals out of a conservative political reality.

Pure nonsense there, libbey.  The welfare state was created not to 'stymy' your silly 'grassroots approaches to issues of social justice', it was created to establish a quiescent and malleable work force and avoid violent revolution (or at least strikes/property destruction), and to facilitate consumption (lack of demand being a much more real threat than revolution).  Your 'grass roots' is pure fantasy, and a complete waste of time - it completely side-steps the actual issue, which is power.

Before you hope for any kind of reaction to the destruction of the welfare state, please do keep in mind that it hardly existed to any useful degree in the US anyway.  And in any case, I do not hope for progress.  I'll leave that to you.

Man, from a simple little foundational  statement by me stating the obvious about two very different visions of our future,

But the future you yearn for blatantly, and specifically, and as its main policy point, will 'degrade the quality of a lot of folks' lives'.  Why did you feel it necessary to couch your plan in this language?  A kind of vicious taunt.

[bullmoose88]

As much as I tend to, and would rather, agree with Torie...I find myself in agreement with ALLCAPSNAME on letting the states act as laboratories...and seeing how things turn out.  I don't think everything will be as positive as the Ds would hope, but I dont also think its a gloom and doom type deal either...wait and see is the best approach.

[Insula Dei]

Liberté, if you must make this about the correct terminology, at least use an sich, fur sich and 'an und fur sich'.

[Torie]

As much as I tend to, and would rather, agree with Torie...I find myself in agreement with ALLCAPSNAME on letting the states act as laboratories...and seeing how things turn out.  I don't think everything will be as positive as the Ds would hope, but I dont also think its a gloom and doom type deal either...wait and see is the best approach.

I am all for states being laboratories (thesis and antithesis), but at some point the experiments need to end (synthesis), which then again will overtime degrade, and we repeat the cycle. In this instance, the experiment regarding public employee compensation and some of our ludicrous labor laws, needs to come to an end, We "know" the answer now.