Conservatives for Central Planning

[Occam's Banana]

Nope. I see and raise your sorry; with President [even Ron Paul!] comes a Senate and a Congress. Thanks, but no thanks. I've already analysis paralysis'd myself a long time ago and came to the conclusion that I'd be better off without. Like that cat

It doesn't matter.

Under any social-political arrangement that ever has or ever will exist - be it anarchic/agoric, monarchic, oligarchic, democratic, republican, socialist/communist, etc., etc. - there will always be some people who possess and wield more power than others.

This is true, utterly regardless of whatever visual squiggles or aural vibrations are used to denote those people (such as "kings" or "princes" or "congresses" or "presidents" or "CEOs of private security firms" or "my neighbors with better guns and more ammo than me" or whatever).

Any person (including you) who says that he does not want the most powerful people in a society (regardless of what they are called) to completely (or at least mostly) agree with him - and that he does not want those powerful people to adopt and enact policies he completely (or at least mostly) likes and approves - is either a liar, a nutbag, or a lying nutbag.

Ron Paul for President! ... or King! ... or Whatever! ...

 

[Occam's Banana]

Under any social-political arrangement that ever has or ever will exist - be it anarchic/agoric, monarchic, oligarchic, democratic, republican, socialist/communist, etc., etc. - there will always be some people who possess and wield more power than others.

And further regarding all those systems (not just "muh democracy"):

"Most people, what they want, is for their view of the good, their view of substantive goods, to be implemented in society. That's what they favor most of all - not the procedural norm of how it's brought about." -- Tom Woods
​

Post in thread 'No One Wants Democracy'

Jun 2, 2025

CLIP from The Tom Woods Show: Episode 2649:

No One Cares About Democracy
{TomWoodsTV | 02 June 2025}

Most people just want their idea of "the good" to be implemented in society, even if by force, and don't really care whether or not the majority of society agrees with their vision or not. Appeals to "democracy" are only a cudgel with which to bludgeon the opposition whenever they attempt to do something the Left doesn't like. Watch TWS 2649 w/ Dan McCarthy.


​

• Occam's Banana

Think I'm gonna make this my sig ...

Ron Paul for President! ... or King! ... or Whatever! ...

 

[PAF]

It doesn't matter.

Under any social-political arrangement that ever has or ever will exist - be it anarchic/agoric, monarchic, oligarchic, democratic, republican, socialist/communist, etc., etc. - there will always be some people who possess and wield more power than others.

This is true, utterly regardless of whatever visual squiggles or aural vibrations are used to denote those people (such as "kings" or "princes" or "congresses" or "presidents" or "CEOs of private security firms" or "my neighbors with better guns and more ammo than me" or whatever).

I never said or implied otherwise. It seems you are on yet another analysis paralysis tangent. I've already come to terms with Risk/Reward in the world that I live in, and each and every day I do what I can to benefit myself - including having fun.

Any person (including you) who says that he does not want the most powerful people in a society (regardless of what they are called) to completely (or at least mostly) agree with him - and that he does not want those powerful people to adopt and enact policies he completely (or at least mostly) likes and approves - is either a liar, a nutbag, or a lying nutbag.

Ok, I elect... ME. If that doesn't float your boat, you can consider me a liar, a nutbag, or a lying nutbag... I don't much care, simply because there is no Risk/Reward in it for me

 

[Occam's Banana]

It occurs to me that I may have omitted a fourth category: the macho-flashing poser.

 

[acptulsa]

It occurs to me that I may have omitted a fourth category: the macho-flashing poser.

So if I'm resigned to some sort of power structure, but don't want one and don't really see the necessity, I'm all of that too?

 

[TheTexan]

So if I'm resigned to some sort of power structure, but don't want one and don't really see the necessity, I'm all of that too?

There will always be a power structure. It'd be kinda silly to not prefer that the power is wielded in a way that conforms with your preferences.

 

[Occam's Banana]

So if I'm resigned to some sort of power structure, but don't want one and don't really see the necessity, I'm all of that too?

There will always be a power structure of some kind (this-archic, that-archic, or other-archic), whether you want one or not.

And if you say you don't want those who possess and wield the most power in society to completely (or at least mostly) agree with you and adopt your preferred policies (whatever they may be), then yes - you are indeed some or all of that, too.

 

[PAF]

Sounds to me like someone's promoting the lesser of evil mentality [too much Dave Smith perhaps?]. I'd sooner see the whole Corporate America System of Government collapse. And that ain't going to happen by voting lesser of evil. Even if Ron Paul were to win, the "system design" will still be in tact.

Sure, a few bones here and there, which would seem ok for a while and a "step toward liberty". But in exchange for the nefarious things and 3 steps back? No fucking thanks.

Nah, I'm good. Even if some try to influence others into believing that I'm some kind of "poser".

Meowwwwww!

 

[Anti Globalist]

I was under the impression that conservatives were always for central planning, even before Trump came along.

 

[Occam's Banana]

Sounds to me like someone doesn't want to address the substance of anything that has actually been said (because that would be "analysis paralysis" or something), in favor of pulling rhetorical switcheroos with conclusory assertions so they could play "more libertarian than thou" games.

 

[PAF]

That's the thing about individualism. You can go this-a-way, I can go that-a-way. If I want to believe that I am "more libertarian than thou", show me on the doll where it hurts.

"Address the substance"... what is it exactly that you are trying to get across or prove [aside from me being a "poser"]?

 

[Occam's Banana]

If I want to believe that I am "more libertarian than thou", show me on the doll where it hurts.

It doesn't hurt at all.

On the contrary, I think it's hilarious.

I always have, and I doubt it will ever stop being funny.

​

"Address the substance"... what is it exactly that you are trying to get across or prove [aside from me being a "poser"]?

I have already clearly stated (more than once) what I have been trying to get across.

Those who say they do not want the people who wield the most power in any society to completely (or at least mostly) agree with them - and that they do not want those powerful people to adopt and enact policies they completely (or at least mostly) like and approve - are unserious people who are lying, crazy, and/or posing/posturing.

 

[PAF]

I have already clearly stated (more than once) what I have been trying to get across.

Those who say they do not want the people who wield the most power in any society to completely (or at least mostly) agree with them - and that they do not want those powerful people to adopt and enact policies they completely (or at least mostly) like and approve - are unserious people who are lying, crazy, and/or posing/posturing.

Sounds to me like someone doesn't want to address the substance of anything that has actually been said

1. You didn't like my answer?

2. You don't take me seriously?

3. You are trying to coerce me into changing my view?

4. Other?

Or we can forget about it and move on to other things because I stand by what I said.

 

[acptulsa]

[from the image:]

"Some of us say No Kings and really mean it. A lot of y'all just want a different King."

Guilty as charged!

I do indeed want a different king

Those who say they do not want the people who wield the most power in any society to completely (or at least mostly) agree with them - and that they do not want those powerful people to adopt and enact policies they completely (or at least mostly) like and approve - are unserious people who are lying, crazy, and/or posing/posturing.

I want world peace, but on a slightly more realistic level I'd be very happy if my government would stop arming both sides so I could stop paying for all the wars.

So now explain to me how wanting world peace makes me unserious people who are lying, crazy, and/or posing/posturing. And then explain how wanting the USA to stop financing everybody's wars, an only slightly less fantastic pipe dream, makes me any less an unserious people who are lying, crazy, and/or posing/posturing.

Semantic games. The kind of people who seek power have every intention of using it, and most people want them to use it -- against those who irritate them, yes, but want them to use it in any case, which is why we can't have nice things. So your dream isn't realistic either.

Yo, @PAF cat. Here we were chilling and the dawg suddenly wants to tell us this level of impossible dream makes for a serious, sane libertarian, and that level of impossible dream makes for an unserious, crazy libertarian. I don't see any reason to care. Do you?

i trust the gov cuz i’m totally normal and love history

Awesome memes, gifs and funny pics for you!

www.memedroid.com

 

[acptulsa]

 

[CaptUSA]

Sounds to me like someone doesn't want to address the substance of anything that has actually been said (because that would be "analysis paralysis" or something), in favor of pulling rhetorical switcheroos with conclusory assertions so they could play "more libertarian than thou" games.

It's Utopia vs. reality. Really hard to bridge that divide.

 

[acptulsa]

It's Utopia vs. reality.

No, it's Utopia vs. "wouldn't that be great?" daydreams which are somewhat less utopian, but scarcely more likely. And an attempt to define how utopian you have to be to cross the line from perfectly rational to lying, crazy, and/or posing/posturing.

Which really isn't that hard a gap to bridge at all.

Occam wants a king who thinks like he does. Cue the Pawn Stars meme, and, "Best I can do is an orange blowhard who kind of sounds right during election season." Thinking election season is reality is not healthy, as evidenced by the fact that Trump is showing no signs of letting Israel hang from its own petard even though the "alternative" is WWIII.

So do tell us more about reality.

 

[acptulsa]

.

 

[acptulsa]

"Managed expectations" got us into this mess, and cannot get us out.

 

[CCTelander]

.

So, we have those who are still addicted to politics telling those who have managed to break that addiction what hopeless utopian dreamers they are, while simultaneously chasing their own hopeless utopian dreams?

Yawn.

Until they acknowledge their addiction, they’ll never be free of it, and until they’re free of it their vision will always be limited by the paradigm they’ve locked themselves into. No sense in arguing with them. Just roll your eyes and move on to someone else. Eventually, we win.