Timothy Snyder's "On Tyranny"
“We find it natural that we pay for a plumber or a mechanic, but we want our news for free. If we did not pay for plumbing or auto repair, we would not expect to drink water or drive cars. Why then should we form our political judgment on the basis of zero investment? We get what we pay for.” (page 77)
Full review here: http://necessaryfacts.blogspot.com/20...
Full review here: http://necessaryfacts.blogspot.com/20...
Comparisons have been made between Trump and Mussolini, who was also a populist, impulsive and outspoken. However, beyond some personality traits, the comparison fails. Mussolini was a totalitarian socialist who believed the state should provide for all the people's needs, subjecting everyone to state control, while Trump seeks to lift the burden of state control and improve the opportunities for individual success.
Unlike his predecessor, who remained isolated and aloof, Trump is open to exchanges with political and private figures, seeking the broadest range of input. He is also gaining a reputation for exercising courtesy and respect to all that he meets in these private meetings. Hardly the behavior of a dictator.
Timothy Snyder says in the first pages that history does not repeat itself - but it does offer lessons. Donald Trump is not exactly a replay of Benito Mussolini or of António de Oliveira Salazar, but their careers do show the possible events during this Trump presidency.
We should be thankful that the American voters gave over 1,000 progressives the boot, or we would be well on the way to a socialist totalitarian state. Had the Democrat party maintained power, I have no doubt Obama would have been declared "President for Life."
By contrast, Trump is goading Congress to wake up and do its job, and is open to intellectual exchange of differing ideas to find common ground as much as possible. He understands how to delegate, and select competent managers, but he isn't yet sure of how similar a working Congress is to a herd of cats. Again, hardly the actions of a would be dictator.
If you pay for your news, then you are doing the right thing. Snyder recommends that, paying for a news periodical or online source.
The other side of the coin, conservatives' view that the world was vastly better at some point in recent history, is incomprehensible to me.
I think you misunderstand the difference between the progressive and conservative mindsets in a very fundamental way and it's the same mantra which has infected the world of computers: that anything "new" is good; that change is "good". Change is change and that is all: it is movement through the fourth dimension. Good is measured progress toward some desirable end, however. They are not necessarily one and the same. Each iteration of Microsoft Windows is change, but whether or not those changes encourage productivity is another matter entirely (my argument being not).
And what makes something good? Principles. Principles which haven't changed and never will change. Conservatives believe in unchanging principles - not unchanging technology or society. Progressives believe that the fundamental principles change with time and as such that laws need to change with them. The problem is that when you look throughout history, you see the results of trying to govern with changing goalposts (the progressive mentality). It never works and can't. There is no success because the goal is always shifting. It is never really there. Progressives use this fact to justify their ever-increasing power grabs and social policies and because the goal is shifting they can never really be held accountable for achieving those goals.
I posit that whatever else you might claim is "human nature" is in fact not constant, but quite variable and changing. The best case in point is volition itself. It was somehow invented or discovered. Derived from that, you probably think that "base 10" arithmetic is "natural" because we have ten fingers, but the roots of language show a different truth. Moreover, the facts seem to be that counting led to writing and writing led to self-reflection. The absolute nature of pre-literate people of the past or non-literate people today is not defined by strong scholarship. But I do have good reason to believe that they are not self-aware as we are. They had (and have) a different nature than we do.
I agree, but it will have to go on my todo list for the time being.
Are you talking about something else?
I guess it depends on what you call a principle. The laws of the universe don't change, but we learn new things. The United States was an attempt to realize something that at the time was only theory. It must have seemed like a fantasy to have an institution set up by the people to respect individual rights and avoid mob rule. Eventually it was expanded to people regardless of sex and race. I don't condemn the Founders for not including everyone on day 1. The laws of the universe were time invariant, but people improved human institutions over time.
I'm agreeing with the OP in that there's no guarantee that human institutions always march toward progress (e.g. the growth of the federal govt), and I certainly don't want to go back to a earlier times.
I'll agree that the laws of the universe (aka principles) are constant, but the argument that human institutions have improved over time is one I'm not buying. People keep making the same mistakes over and over again throughout history, reverting back to and agitating toward tyrannical government far more than toward a free people.
Exhibit #1 is the United States itself. When it was established, it voiced the epitome of limited government, individual rights, and freedom. We haven't come close to maintaining that - let alone "improving" it. All we've done is regress towards socialism and tyranny. We took a giant leap forward and two hundred years later we're nearly back to where we started!
Are there some who long for that time immediately after the founding of this nation? I'm sure there are - but it wouldn't be because we long for the days of chamber pots and horses, but because we long for the principles of a truly limited and representative government. I believe that the author confuses change with progress - just as I pointed out earlier.
For Exhibit #2 I would point to Europe. Following WW II they had every opportunity to embrace the model of the United States (even as imperfect as it was at that time). Instead, they quickly devolved to socialism.
For Exhibit #3 I would point to China immediately following WW II. They fought a civil war in order to embrace communism. I hardly call that an "improved human institution."
We have advanced our technology, but have we really improved "human institutions"? I don't believe we have or there would have been no Ayn Rand and no "Atlas Shrugged."
Are you kidding? It's unthinkable to image people who are free, albeit with income taxes and gov't not following the spirit of the Constitution, wanting to give up the most basic rights and return to slavery. Not having out-and-out slavery and not disregarding people's basic right to chose their gov't on account of their sex does not make everything in our times alright; far from it. But there are degrees. Right now the gov't might search your papers and effects without a warrant, break down your door, take your guns, ban unpopular speech-- very immoral stuff. 200 years ago you might be sold to someone who could legally work you to death if he wanted. Despite the enormous problems, things are so much better, I don't have the words to describe it.
" Following WW II they had every opportunity to embrace the model of the United States"
US got very socialistic during WWII, with marginal tax rates > 80%, the beginnings of a permanent war industry, and strict price controls on consumer and producer goods and wages. US never really recovered. It stayed socialistic. Europe has been a little worse. I send nearly third of what I earn to the gov't in quarterlies. In Europe it would be a little more, I don't, maybe half, depending on where I lived. We're better but not exactly a model.
"I don't believe we have [improved human institutions] or there would have been no Ayn Rand and no "Atlas Shrugged."
I mean improved, though, not reached utopia. It's like if you listen to someone fighting something like hunger, violent crime, damage to the environment, they tend to make it sound like we're having a crisis in that area. If I say, "no, no violent crime is way down," I'm not saying the problem is solved. I'm not telling people who fight crime to stop their efforts. I'm saying it's okay to admit some progress.
"US never really recovered. It stayed socialistic. Europe has been a little worse."
You make my point precisely. And that doesn't get into China, Russia, or the rest of the world.
"I'm not telling people who fight crime to stop their efforts. I'm saying it's okay to admit some progress."
We've wasted $20 Trillion fighting poverty and hunger since Johnson's "Great Society" initiative began and guess what? The poverty rate hasn't budged. We spend thousands of dollars per student on education yet our students are falling further and further behind the rest of the world. Racial relations are being stirred up (by politicians) to the point we're almost back in the 1960's. Our prisons are filled to capacity and bursting - largely because of fatherlessness. I'm not generally a pessimist, but as I look around I'm not seeing a great deal of progress. Are we better off than the rest of the world? Materially, perhaps, but if one measures progress solely on material gains rather than on adherence to fundamental principles, I would argue one is using the wrong yardstick.
"We should be thankful that the American voters gave over 1,000 progressives the boot, or we would be well on the way to a socialist totalitarian state. Had the Democrat party maintained power, I have no doubt Obama would have been declared 'President for Life.' "
https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...
If I were not allowed to own property or participate in gov't or esp if I were treated as an animal and tortured into working and I had the opportunity to escape via a time machine to the modern world, I would risk my life to escape here despite all the problems.
Regarding paying for content, it seemed more natural when distributing content was more expensive. You paid for the media (paper, CD, tape, book), the retailer that stored it on a shelf, the truck that moved it, and the people who created the content on it all at once. Now that the cost of the media, "shelf", and "truck" are nearly zero, it seems like the content should be free too.
You probably are well-aware that "free" to the reader, viewer, or listener just means that the medium is selling consumers to advertisers. The NYT survived while seven other New York dailies failed, because it became "America's newspaper." Even in the 1990s, I remember local bookstores in Michigan that sold the Sunday NYT on subscription, though there were always a few copies available for cash-and-carry. At that same time The WSJ was broadcast via satellite to regional printers. Editions came out via delivery truck in time for the morning work day.
Your point about the lowering of costs increasing the number of freelance reporters is accurate. But even now, you get sites such as Huffington Post, PJTV, and many others that built a following in order to make advertising pay. Cheap as it may be, there is a cost to production.
And Snyder's point is that what is being produced is truth. You don't write that off the top of your head. Opinionating is one thing, but what I get paid for takes the work he describes: travel, interviews, contacts, drafts and rewrites, and deadlines that matter.
I have a paid subscription to the NYT. I know they earn a lot from advertisers, but I do not expect their reporting to be free to me.
"Newspapers were never intended to be impartial reporters of facts. "
Isn't this what people want, what people will pay for? Clearly some people want to hear only what they wish were true, but people seeking the truth just want to know what's really happening. Maybe that's impossible because human biases always creep in, but we can damn well try.
For example, I think President Trump is a Amway-style marketing person in a job he's completely unsuited for. But if he doesn't something smart, it doesn't cost me anything. In fact, it would be an interesting story to read about someone who comes off as a clown in his public persona did something intelligent. I wouldn't aim to read reporting seeks only facts that confirm my existing view. The value of news is that it's new information.