More protests getting out of hand in Berkeley

[Jhhnn]

It's sad, because I am clearly politically right wing with a libertarian slant.

And yet, even I am labeled as a "lefty" by this new, frightening wave of ultra right wing fanatics who are NOT conservative, NOT pro-American, but witting or unwitting authoritarian fascists and racists.

Me. A retired Army veteran, ex business owner, free market capitalist, pro second amendment, and age of enlightenment constitutionalist.

A lefty? Seriously? What the actual fsck?

This is clearly the result of 30+ years of right-wing media cult propaganda to have people believing that fascist, racist authoritarianism is freedom.

Well, yeh, but democracy itself if fundamentally a leftist idea in the first place. I'm sure that the British nobility felt that way about it way back when. They put it in terms of bloodlines & divine right. Today our own financial elite just put it in terms of the divine right of Wealth.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

I would reply but I don't want to get dinged with another Racism warning.

grow a pair and say it.

 

[Amused]

Well, yeh, but democracy itself if fundamentally a leftist idea in the first place. I'm sure that the British nobility felt that way about it way back when. They put it in terms of bloodlines & divine right. Today our own financial elite just put it in terms of the divine right of Wealth.

Yes, I understand the entire basis of our constitution is classical liberalism. And I completely consider myself to be classically liberal.

But what these people have no clue of, is that liberal means free. That's it. Free. The very idea of individual liberty is a liberal idea. liber-liberty-liberal.

They've lost sight of this somehow.

 

[Meghan54]

grow a pair and say it.

I laughed coffee out my nose when I read that.......like it'll ever happen.

 

[woolfe9998]

Yes, I understand the entire basis of our constitution is classical liberalism. And I completely consider myself to be classically liberal.

But what these people have no clue of, is that liberal means free. That's it. Free. The very idea of individual liberty is a liberal idea. liber-liberty-liberal.

They've lost sight of this somehow.

I think liberalism is broader than that. Yes, the word liberal is derived from the word "liberty" but what liberalism means is one who favors progress and reform.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/liberal?s=t

What is "progressive" may change from one era to the next. If it has any eternal definition, it's a political philosophy that says government is meant to serve the people, not kings, aristocrats, tyrants, corporations, oligarchs or other power elites. It means that the people should be free from domination by such elites. What that means in terms of policy stances may not be the same in one era as in another.

 

[Amused]

I think liberalism is broader than that. Yes, the word liberal is derived from the word "liberty" but what liberalism means is one who favors progress and reform.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/liberal?s=t

What is "progressive" may change from one era to the next. If it has any eternal definition, it's a political philosophy that says government is meant to serve the people, not kings, aristocrats, tyrants, corporations, oligarchs or other power elites. It means that the people should be free from domination by such elites. What that means in terms of policy stances may not be the same in one era as in another.

I rather disagree with that very recent interpretation of the word.

Rather it means liberty from both government AND oligarchs. Replacing one tyrant with another still gets you a tyrant. Power does corrupt, no matter whose hands it's in.

I'm all in favor of progress. But what is progress politically? That's another debate entirely.

 

[Jhhnn]

Yes, I understand the entire basis of our constitution is classical liberalism. And I completely consider myself to be classically liberal.

But what these people have no clue of, is that liberal means free. That's it. Free. The very idea of individual liberty is a liberal idea. liber-liberty-liberal.

They've lost sight of this somehow.

The other side of it is that working people need to band together if we're to be free of the tyranny that great Wealth would impose upon us.

 

[Jhhnn]

I rather disagree with that very recent interpretation of the word.

Rather it means liberty from both government AND oligarchs. Replacing one tyrant with another still gets you a tyrant. Power does corrupt, no matter whose hands it's in.

I'm all in favor of progress. But what is progress politically? That's another debate entirely.

We each have a voice in democracy. We have no voice in corporate board rooms.

 

[Amused]

We each have a voice in democracy. We have no voice in corporate board rooms.

As long as corporate board rooms have no unequal voice in government as they do now, that's not a problem. I don't want a voice in a corporate board room. Who am I to control what they do with their private business?

 

[Jhhnn]

As long as corporate board rooms have no unequal voice in government as they do now, that's not a problem. I don't want a voice in a corporate board room. Who am I to control what they do with their private business?

You reference the unicorn principle & ignore reality. When govt doesn't impose limits on corporate behavior we get things like the flaming Cuyahoga & race/gender prejudice in hiring & pay. We get things like harmful quack patent medicines & food as described by Upton Sinclair & union negotiations like Ludlow. There is no such thing as a free market & never has been, not a market that actually worked or endured, anyway.

Business must be made to serve the interests of the people because it obviously won't on its own.

 

[Amused]

You reference the unicorn principle & ignore reality. When govt doesn't impose limits on corporate behavior we get things like the flaming Cuyahoga & race/gender prejudice in hiring & pay. We get things like harmful quack patent medicines & food as described by Upton Sinclair & union negotiations like Ludlow. There is no such thing as a free market & never has been, not a market that actually worked or endured, anyway.

Business must be made to serve the interests of the people because it obviously won't on its own.

Wait a minute, when did I say laws shouldn't apply to corporations when it comes to violating the rights of others?

Just because I am a free market capitalist does not mean I am an anarchist. Freedom cannot exist without the protections of individual rights.

 

[woolfe9998]

I rather disagree with that very recent interpretation of the word.

Rather it means liberty from both government AND oligarchs. Replacing one tyrant with another still gets you a tyrant. Power does corrupt, no matter whose hands it's in.

I'm all in favor of progress. But what is progress politically? That's another debate entirely.

Sorry I'm long winded today.

I think liberalism works off the assumption that a purpose of democratic governance is to protect the people from power elites, which these days means those people or organizations with concentrated wealth. A long time ago it meant primarily authoritarian government. It could in reality mean any of a number of oppressors - kings, tyrants, corporations, oligarchs, etc.

In the libertarian approach, the government doesn't tell the corporations not to dump toxic waste. So if they do, and people are victimized by it, their remedies are limited. The modern liberal doesn't accept this libertarian premise of Absolute Liberty, meaning that the government can't restrict behavior of those with wealth and power in order to protect those who don't have it. That is because Absolute Liberty is a fallacy which assumes that only the government can take away one's freedom, meaning that Absolute Liberty is only freedom from government. All other forms of domination and exploitation therefore must be tolerated. The concept of it is absolute, but only within the narrow framework of how libertarians define liberty. Their idea is that we are all free so long as government does not act. That is simply incorrect. Sometimes government action enhances freedom. I word argue that modern liberals have a much more expansive view of liberty than do libertarians who seems to make it their core premise.

You said it yourself. Democracy is/was a liberal and progressive idea, the point of it being to give the power to the people (i.e. liberty) because other forms of government perpetuate the domination of people by elites. Modern liberals do not believe this means that the government sits by while power elites do whatever they wish, all in the name of protecting an abstraction they call "the fee market." Which isn't really free at all except for those with power and wealth. They also do not see a restriction on corporations dumping toxic waste as the equivalent of the government getting into our bedrooms and reproductive systems because the one protects people from corporations making them sick and restricting their freedom of movement, while the other protects them from government intrusion into their private affairs. Liberalism is entirely consistent here in protecting people from both government intrusion and from the power of private wealth.

This is consistent with the eternal idea of liberalism being about protecting and empowering people. Freedom from government intrusions into their private affairs and freedom from corporate domination and exploitation are not fundamentally different nor mutually exclusive. The one may require government inaction, while the other requires the opposite but the two are totally compatible. Libertarianism is a one size fits all philosophy which is sometimes good for people and sometimes not. Liberalism intends to protect people from all forms of domination and exploitation, not just the part which may come from government. Government of course cannot function that way - in people's interests - unless it is truly democratic, which is exactly why democracy is/was a liberal and progressive idea.

That said, there are some manifestations of modern liberalism, when taken to the extreme, which can be quite authoritarian. Such as some "liberal" college students opposing free speech on campus. That simply isn't liberalism, not in the classical sense, or in the modern sense. Those are the people who have lost their way, not the ones who support reasonable regulations of Wall Street and social safety nets.

 

[Amused]

Sorry I'm long winded today.

I think liberalism works off the assumption that a purpose of democratic governance is to protect the people from power elites, which these days means those people or organizations with concentrated wealth. A long time ago it meant primarily authoritarian government. It could in reality mean any of a number of oppressors - kings, tyrants, corporations, oligarchs, etc.

In the libertarian approach, the government doesn't tell the corporations not to dump toxic waste. So if they do, and people are victimized by it, their remedies are limited. The modern liberal doesn't accept this libertarian premise of Absolute Liberty, meaning that the government can't restrict behavior of those with wealth and power in order to protect those who don't have it. That is because Absolute Liberty is a fallacy which assumes that only the government can take away one's freedom, meaning that Absolute Liberty is only freedom from government. All other forms of domination and exploitation therefore must be tolerated. The concept of it is absolute, but only within the narrow framework of how libertarians define liberty. Their idea is that we are all free so long as government does not act. That is simply incorrect. Sometimes government action enhances freedom. I word argue that modern liberals have a much more expansive view of liberty than do libertarians who seems to make it their core premise.

You said it yourself. Democracy is/was a liberal and progressive idea, the point of it being to give the power to the people (i.e. liberty) because other forms of government perpetuate the domination of people by elites. Modern liberals do not believe this means that the government sits by while power elites do whatever they wish, all in the name of protecting an abstraction they call "the fee market." Which isn't really free at all except for those with power and wealth. They also do not see a restriction on corporations dumping toxic waste as the equivalent of the government getting into our bedrooms and reproductive systems because the one protects people from corporations making them sick and restricting their freedom of movement, while the other protects them from government intrusion into their private affairs. Liberalism is entirely consistent here in protecting people from both government intrusion and from the power of private wealth.

This is consistent with the eternal idea of liberalism being about protecting and empowering people. Freedom from government intrusions into their private affairs and freedom from corporate domination and exploitation are not fundamentally different nor mutually exclusive. The one may require government inaction, while the other requires the opposite but the two are totally compatible. Libertarianism is a one size fits all philosophy which is sometimes good for people and sometimes not. Liberalism intends to protect people from all forms of domination and exploitation, not just the part which may come from government. Government of course cannot function that way - in people's interests - unless it is truly democratic, which is exactly why democracy is/was a liberal and progressive idea.

That said, there are some manifestations of modern liberalism, when taken to the extreme, which can be quite authoritarian. Such as some "liberal" college students opposing free speech on campus. That simply isn't liberalism, not in the classical sense, or in the modern sense. Those are the people who have lost their way, not the ones who support reasonable regulations of Wall Street and social safety nets.

OK, maybe I'm not being totally clear. I am almost 50 now and just expect people to get what I'm saying because my patience reached an end some time in the last century. Libertarian leaning does not mean Big L Libertarian. I am absolutely all about using law to protect the rights of individuals so that all may have an equality of rights and no one or group is more equal than another.

And yes, this includes rational, evidenced based environmental laws that protect whole groups as well as individuals.

 

[woolfe9998]

OK, maybe I'm not being totally clear. I am almost 50 now and just expect people to get what I'm saying because my patience reached an end some time in the last century. Libertarian leaning does not mean Big L Libertarian. I am absolutely all about using law to protect the rights of individuals so that all may have an equality of rights and no one or group is more equal than another.

And yes, this includes rational, evidenced based environmental laws that protect whole groups as well as individuals.

Yeah, I wasn't specifically criticizing your particular views, or your particular brand of libertarianism. I was just making it clear that modern and classical liberalism are not really as opposed as it may appear because the historical context is different but the basic attitude and orientation are the same. In the 19th century when democracy was in its infancy liberalism meant suspicion of government, which resulted in laissez faire capitalism, which eventually led to the conclusion that in order to protect people, they needed to be protected from the concentrated wealth which resulted from laissez fair capitalism to begin with. Anyway, I see classical and modern liberalism as compatible, both wanting to protect the people. A classical liberal would likely align themselves with modern liberalism if they came forward in time, while a modern liberal would probably support the classical version if they went back in time.

So far as libertarianism, I'm used to more extreme positions like saying the government shouldn't impose any regulations at all, that if people get hurt they can just sue. That sort of thing is a non-starter to me. But I recognize that people adhere to varying definitions of libertarianism.

You seem to have moderated your views since you came back to the forum, as far as I can recall from threads you were involved in many years ago. Then again, maybe I'm misremembering and you're more or less the same now as then.

 

[Amused]

Yeah, I wasn't specifically criticizing your particular views, or your particular brand of libertarianism. I was just making it clear that modern and classical liberalism are not really as opposed as it may appear because the historical context is different but the basic attitude and orientation are the same. In the 19th century when democracy was in its infancy liberalism meant suspicion of government, which resulted in laissez faire capitalism, which eventually led to the conclusion that in order to protect people, they needed to be protected from the concentrated wealth which resulted from laissez fair capitalism to begin with. Anyway, I see classical and modern liberalism as compatible, both wanting to protect the people. A classical liberal would likely align themselves with modern liberalism if they came forward in time, while a modern liberal would probably support the classical version if they went back in time.

So far as libertarianism, I'm used to more extreme positions like saying the government shouldn't impose any regulations at all, that if people get hurt they can just sue. That sort of thing is a non-starter to me. But I recognize that people adhere to varying definitions of libertarianism.

You seem to have moderated your views since you came back to the forum, as far as I can recall from threads you were involved in many years ago. Then again, maybe I'm misremembering and you're more or less the same now as then.

Yes and no. I am still anti-regulation to a point. I think there are some pointless regulations. I think laws that force union membership are a violation of liberty as are laws that deny companies equal bargaining strength with unions.

I also still believe that while I agree with public welfare in the short term along with long term education and infrastructure as well as national defense, the work product of one man should never be the right of another. I have a problem when people make claims that a house or food is a human right rather than it being a human right to work for and obtain such things.

And I'm still pro-second amendment.

But hey, we have an anti-intellectual, anti-science, post fact racist, fascist president now. Now anyone with a rational thinking mind looks like a flaming lefty!!!

 

[Jhhnn]

Yes and no. I am still anti-regulation to a point. I think there are some pointless regulations. I think laws that force union membership are a violation of liberty as are laws that deny companies equal bargaining strength with unions.

I also still believe that while I agree with public welfare in the short term along with long term education and infrastructure as well as national defense, the work product of one man should never be the right of another. I have a problem when people make claims that a house or food is a human right rather than it being a human right to work for and obtain such things.

And I'm still pro-second amendment.

But hey, we have an anti-intellectual, anti-science, post fact racist, fascist president now. Now anyone with a rational thinking mind looks like a flaming lefty!!!

Puh-leeze. Corporate America obviously has the upper hand wrt Unions. It's been that way since the Reagan era. If they didn't, Unions would not have suffered such a massive decline over the last 35 years. Wrt to mandatory membership remember you're talking about people so beguiled that they voted for Trump.

What work product do you speak of, anyway? Would you describe what Donald does as work in the same sense the rest of us non-rich understand work? Or wealthiest don't work- they own & collect economic rents, one way or another. Now they own the automation & the robots that are putting nearly all of us out of work, too. Do we have a limited right to the output from that, or not? How do people feed their kids & meet all the overhead of modern life w/o jobs?

It's important to understand that the financial elite use only a small % of their massive incomes to support their lifestyles. The rest they spend on acquisition of the means to just make even more profit & achieve more control over the lives of the rest of us. In times past circumstances dictated hat they needed us to make their profit & that they got a smaller piece of the pie in the process. That's no longer true at all. Other than their balance sheets they are completely insulated from the boom bust vicissitudes that their financial adventures impose on the rest of us, things like the great depression & now the great recession that damaged the welfare of millions of Americans & the nation as well. They can afford to play the game recklessly. The rest of us can't afford to let them do it.

Their power must be curbed & reduced simply as a matter of economic self defense. The only way to do that is with taxes & regulations. If we want to put it in terms of the protestant work ethic we can use the funds to create more useful govt jobs, not less as the right wing would have us believe. They don't have any use for the cities & towns they've dumped all across the rust belt but the people who live there obviously do.

And yet... they somehow thought that voting for Trump, the great beguiler, would somehow change things in their favor. It won't. If they thought they were taking a beating before just wait until Trump & the Repubs get done with 'em.

 

[Amused]

Puh-leeze. Corporate America obviously has the upper hand wrt Unions. It's been that way since the Reagan era. If they didn't, Unions would not have suffered such a massive decline over the last 35 years. Wrt to mandatory membership remember you're talking about people so beguiled that they voted for Trump.

What work product do you speak of, anyway? Would you describe what Donald does as work in the same sense the rest of us non-rich understand work? Or wealthiest don't work- they own & collect economic rents, one way or another. Now they own the automation & the robots that are putting nearly all of us out of work, too. Do we have a limited right to the output from that, or not? How do people feed their kids & meet all the overhead of modern life w/o jobs?

It's important to understand that the financial elite use only a small % of their massive incomes to support their lifestyles. The rest they spend on acquisition of the means to just make even more profit & achieve more control over the lives of the rest of us. In times past circumstances dictated hat they needed us to make their profit & that they got a smaller piece of the pie in the process. That's no longer true at all. Other than their balance sheets they are completely insulated from the boom bust vicissitudes that their financial adventures impose on the rest of us, things like the great depression & now the great recession that damaged the welfare of millions of Americans & the nation as well. They can afford to play the game recklessly. The rest of us can't afford to let them do it.

Their power must be curbed & reduced simply as a matter of economic self defense. The only way to do that is with taxes & regulations. If we want to put it in terms of the protestant work ethic we can use the funds to create more useful govt jobs, not less as the right wing would have us believe. They don't have any use for the cities & towns they've dumped all across the rust belt but the people who live there obviously do.

And yet... they somehow thought that voting for Trump, the great beguiler, would somehow change things in their favor. It won't. If they thought they were taking a beating before just wait until Trump & the Repubs get done with 'em.

Hey, I'm as anti-trump as you are. As if you couldn't tell.

I'm talking about people who believe a home, food, and other material things are a "right. That's all. Not the right to work for and obtain them, no i mean those who believe they are entitled to them.

As for the rest, to a degree, I agree with you. To a degree, I disagree.

 

[baydude]

April 27 will be the biggest battle of Berkeley yet!

 

[Jhhnn]

Hey, I'm as anti-trump as you are. As if you couldn't tell.

I'm talking about people who believe a home, food, and other material things are a "right. That's all. Not the right to work for and obtain them, no i mean those who believe they are entitled to them.

As for the rest, to a degree, I agree with you. To a degree, I disagree.

I think what's happening to us is that our sense of morality about work doesn't function nearly as well in a society where the Job Creators don't need nearly as many of us to work as they once did. It's an unintended consequence & byproduct of technological success. If we leave it to the profit motive to create jobs we won't have nearly as many as we want. We've been leading up to it with 30 years of a labor glut that have depressed wages even as the financial elite have reached for even greater glory & very high levels of organization at the international scale.

This isn't Jamestown anymore. They had a moral imperative for everybody to work because their very survival depended on it. That moral imperative no longer exists but we somehow see it all in terms of morality, of producers vs slackers, not that having a job is becoming a privilege that not everybody can have all the time.

It'll only get worse if we let the profit motive remain the driving force behind job creation. There's lots of useful work to be done that the Jerb Creators simply find unappealing. The only way we can create those jobs is to take more of what they currently get at the top o' the heap & use it to create those jobs.

The only scarcity in this country is simply the result of our indulgence of greed at the top.

 

[Muse]

The ruff tuff cream puff punching the woman is obviously not a thug, right?

Actually, he's alt-right and the SF Chronicle says the police are not charging him for punching woman in the face.

I live in Berkeley, 1.5 miles from where this took place. I knew it was going to happen. Out of town Trump rah rah people coming to the town where they are least likely to have fans. Berkeley voted no more than 3% for Trump. I was standing in line waiting to vote a few years back and noticed on the wall a list of Berkeley voters and their party affiliations. I was curious, so I started hunting for "Republican" and saw incredibly few, almost none.

I can understand why Berkeley people would be angry that these out of towners would come and try to foist their attitude on us. IMO it's not unlike people showing up at abortion clinics with holier-than-thou epithets on placards.

I had no desire to go downtown and either risk violence or peak at other people getting bloodied, and I was pretty sure there would be a lot of blood. I did hear helicopter(s) all afternoon, which annoyed me and I was glad to retreat into my media room and watch the golf tournament.

The cops did one very smart thing - they confiscated everything that could be used as a weapon. Then they went completely stupid... they separated the two factions by a buffer zone of about 8 feet, created with yellow tape. Then they stood back and watched for an hour. After an hour the two sides could take it no more and they charged each other. OK, I wasn't there, but the buffer zone just disappeared and a melee ensued such as I have never seen in my life even in the movies. I watched the evening news, it was pandemonium, a huge brawl with scores of participants all going at once.

The cops blew it when they set up that standoff. They should never have allowed the two groups to confront each other. IMO, people around here should have simply ignored those Trumpers. No one would have cared, they would have gotten practically no ink, much less video. It does piss me off though. They pick the place (where they don't personally live) where they are most resented to display their arrogance, just asking for a fight.

 

[Muse]

Are you serious? What the fuck have a bunch of neo-nazis got to protest about at Berkeley of all places? Are they being oppressed there?

Exactly. And that's why we Berkeley folks are pissed. They have no business protesting here. However, I for one am not going to show up at one of these events ready to mete out justice. That melee was no joke, and anyone laughing at it is a bastard.

 

[Muse]

Saw this on the news and it's seriously some of the funniest footage I've seen in years. -snip-

You think it's funny. I don't want to know anything more about you. Fuck off.

 

[Muse]

and both sides are overwhelmingly white.

The black people have had their quota of violence. The west side of that small park is bordered by Martin Luther King Jr. Way. He stood for non-violence, mind you.

 

[Muse]

Liberals only pretend to be tolerant and understanding.

Oh really? And to what may we attribute this marvelous insight? You personally know enough liberals to make this judgment? You are a phony.

 

[agent00f]

Whatever happens to "raise your voice and not your fists"?

The kids didn't get the free candy they wanted by screaming, so they started kicking the floor and objects around them. When THAT didn't work, they started threatening people. When THAT didn't work, they started hitting people. Now that THAT isn't working either, they'll only elevate their blind rage even further. It's only going to get worse as the progressive leftists keep whipping their ranks into further depravity.

White power nazi page? You're one hell of a tender snowflake if that website triggers you. But, my guess is that you're doing the progressive shtick which is when presented with evidence that goes against your narrative you berate the website, the poster, whomever and whatever.

I actually admired a post or two of yours in this thread but you've let your true colors fly now. Your marginalization is well deserved. You're just another sore loser that can't get over losing an election.

White power nazi page? You're one hell of a tender snowflake if that website triggers you. But, my guess is that you're doing the progressive shtick which is when presented with evidence that goes against your narrative you berate the website, the poster, whomever and whatever.

I actually admired a post or two of yours in this thread but you've let your true colors fly now. Your marginalization is well deserved. You're just another sore loser that can't get over losing an election.

The gang gets together to pretend their anti-brown white nationalism isn't racist.

Speaking of the company they keep, seems iotwreport.com are also pretty big fans of the National Front, a party from the guy convicted many times of holocaust denial and inciting racism.