[FRIAM] aftermath

[Steve Smith]

> Naaaa. I think you have a severely biased understanding of libertarianism. To be fair, it's not your fault. A core principle of libertarianism is to argue *for* a state when a state is *necessary*. This is why they're not anarchists. Any reasonable libertarian will willingly argue, and accept if argued well enough, the need for state run programs, including pro-social ones like education and health care.
>
> The trick is you have to separate the actual libertarians from the ones who *call* themselves "libertarians". And then you have to argue patiently, with data, over and over again, until they finally see the need for the state in that context. It's exhausting and I don't blame you if you usually give up before reaching that point.
> thompnickson2 at gmail.com wrote:
>> Well, except the last part.  In the L. O., don't we have to fling all the saved  money out of the top of the Washington Moneyment and watch all the people kill each other groveling for it? 

Nick -

You have well characterized a common (and well earned) caricature of
(L)ibertarianism with the feature that watching the "sheeple" tear one
another part in their ignorant greed and fear is a key feature of their
brand.   The Trumpist badge-of-honor to "own the Libs" is an even uglier
variation.  Hillary's gaffe that exposed the "despicablizing" of anyone
who would support Trump (or who would not support her?) is yet another
variation.  

Glen -

I acknowledge your distinction between Libertarian(tm)s and the more
pure-to-conception version (though I don't know any of the latter except
from "just-so" anecdotes told mostly by the former who don't realize how
transparent they are).  I'm also reminded of the They Might Be Giants 
verse in a song: "I know politics bore you, you and your racist
friend"...   it takes on more significance every time I try to speak in
depth with a crypto-racist (or crypto-classist, or crypto- anythingist)
who uses one thing to obscure another thing that prevents/excusing them
from engaging in a meaningful/thoughtful conversation/thoughts.   Maybe,
as you say, it just takes more patience and data, even with them?

All -

I've become a fan of Jim Scott's view of things as described in his "The
Art of not being Governed" which I would say distinguishes itself from
Anarchism in the sense of simply doing what it takes to not (need to) be
(G)overned (thus "Art" vs "Trick" in the title).    SteveG and I have
talked of late around the dual-use of the term; "govern" and it's cousin
"regulate" in the domains of systems (complex, Complex, and nominally
neither) vs in politics and statecraft.  The former being a "system" for
seeking the right/opportunity/power to do the latter, and the latter
being (on a good day) the role of designing/maintaining governance
systems which allow/guide/constrain human systems (socioeconomic) to
operate efficiently and humanely (according to some set of values of
what is humane and what features are to be measured and optimized?).

Many -

This "August Body" is one of the few places where I find enough richness
and nuance FOR these discussions to unfold.   I don't want to be (too
much) like Nick wishing "we" were different (I'm alluding to his
occasional Jonesing on being able to distill these threads into proper
scientific papers), but I often feel that we bring up (potentially) rich
topics and then put them to away before we've really put them through
their full paces.   I am guilty, of course, of both sins of (c)ommission
in my own tangenting (never really feels that to me when I do it, but
recognize how it must when it is pointed out... "dookey-in-the-fan"
style) and witholding (half my missives don't even get saved in a
"drafts" folder) and perhaps my lack of focus leading to a well (enough)
crafted argument to make it past my own Censor Homonculus and obviously
relevant in it's tangential content/style to make it past everyone
else's TLDR censors.   (TTDR, more to the point?)

Few -

I can't think of a thing I can say here, believing that only a few would
care... but maybe those reading this got past the TL/TT DR censors are
the canonical "Few"... and some of you may just be reading out of morbid
fascination with "where is THIS tangent going?".    Perhaps the thing I
am struggling with is that we seem to be coming out of the other end of
a "Long Dark Teatime of the Soul" (nod to Douglas Adams) with Trump
about to be frog-marched out of the Whitehouse and as we lick (or
staunch or splint or debrade or detox) our wounds and try to stand up
and wobble forward with conviction, away from the
take-a-dump-with-trump-in-the-dumpster fire that was the last 4+ ( start
counting with Trump's primary win) years, toward *what*?    Does a
Biden-Harris/Democrat term give us the opening to take stock and make
some hay while the sun is shining?  Or are our politicians (and selves)
stuck in an obstructionist contrarianism that only allows us to do
(lame) preventative and remedial things while we hold our breath waiting
for the "other shoe to fall"?  I recently heard a commentator (late
night comedian) make the very apt point that Trump started a grievance
campaign against himself when he *won* (electoral college) in 2016, so
whatever he does "next" will be nothing more than a continuation of
that.   I felt that the Republican controlled congress (esp. Senate) has
been unable to do anything *but* obstruction in many terms now.  Maybe,
in the sense of regulatory feedback, that is the most they *can* do
right now?   Ride the brakes, drag the feet, unfurl the kite tail a
little longer?   Those *can* be powerfully stabilizing forces on the
edge of chaos.

Ramble,

- Steve