Philosophical Research:MDem/4.4r/2300 triangle

"triangle"

completely contradictory triangle of Tory beliefs:

* capitalism is good because it grows the population and creates jobs * immigration is bad because if people come into the population we won't have enough jobs * the White birth rate!! * see also: the South Korean birth rate!! the Japanese birth rate!!

if capitalism is so great then it should be able to handle both the problems of immigration and birth without either of them causing problems for the other. capitalism should simply be generating so many jobs we aren't even thinking about immigration or the problem of anybody not being able to have babies.

if capitalism can't handle immigration and there exists nothing better than capitalism, then the White birth rate should not be something people worry about, because if we are going to live with capitalism then we must live with capitalism's limited carrying capacity and the prospect of having a stable population with a replacement birth rate.

if the White birth rate were the most important thing on earth, then we ought to consider it imperative to get rid of capitalism so that the carrying capacity of capitalism and the general problem of chunk competition will not stop people from having babies — although this is not a uniquely White problem and the same consideration applies to every population and every birth rate.

"abortion-triangle"

tory belief triangle number 1A: the abortion triangle.

* abortion is bad because abortions could have been babies * gay people are bad because The White Birth Rate! * cities are bad because they're full of insufferable experts who love to create Goverment and take away Freedom

if cities are bad, then you shouldn't be obsessed with The White Birth Rate. if people are conservatives, a population's birth rate stabilizing out to replacement is a good thing because people don't need to build more big cities or go through cycles of competing in cities for Job Slots and inevitably getting rejected and having to live way out on the outside of the city. if the birth rate is stable, there is at least some possibility of building "small and local" cities that retain the same medium-sized businesses and never turn into big cities. this becomes the most possible if people would accept Bolshevism, while it is less believable that under Liberalism it won't still lead to vicious chunk competition across bits of small cities as natural social connections between people create Filaments and push people out of social groups to other physical social groups. the creation of some other system such as Bookchinist micro-Bolshevik city-states is another hypothetical option, although in practice it requires all the industries in the city to come together and agree that the city owns the businesses regardless of who created them; for the average right-Liberal or Tory that is equally as painful as a nation-wide Bolshevism, and about as likely to be agreed to.

if gay people are bad, then you shouldn't be against abortion. if you're for abortion, then you can try to argue there is something wrong with gay people. but if you're against abortion, then you should be totally in favor of gay marriage and non-traditional households so that all the babies that result from stopping abortions all receive parents. whether babies receive parents is contingent on the supply of parents, and not every potential parent will belong to the same demographics as the people who are against abortions. some of them will be gay or lesbian or transgender. some of them will be atheists. a couple of them might even be Communists, and several more will be Anarchists. so the real question is whether you think abortion is more evil or you think an extra baby being potentially handed to a gay Latino atheist Anarchist is more evil. you don't get to choose neither. if babies are born, they'll have parents, and they'll belong to particular subpopulations. if babies aren't born, then they won't be raised by atheist Anarchists.

if abortion is bad but gay people are good, you can feasibly be against cities, but there will probably still be disease prevention experts, inclusive historians, and gender studies professors all doing these things out of their garages, because it's still not trivial to get everyone to think like you. if abortion is good but gay people are bad, you can be against cities, but probably nobody will want anything to do with your town, because it's probably a very territorial place that only wants very specific people to live in it. people won't want to buy your products a town over and they won't want you sending representatives to Congress. so being against cities doesn't achieve its intended goal of making it less difficult to interact with the rest of the world.

"spending-triangle"

tory belief triangle number 2: capital as money.

* capital is good because a hunk of money, land, or various tools and resources is the only way to create pieces of society * government programs are bad because they misuse or throw away everyone's money. partynational programs are even worse because although they're more efficient than Menshevism they don't produce enough stuff and therefore Stalin has moved from wasting money to wasting people. * "The Left" is dividing the country when it all could have been one unified patriotic nation

if government programs are bad, then it means that capital isn't totally reliable at creating things. assuming capital is similar to money though not an exact synonym, you can put capital into something and there is not a 100% chance you get results, or even make money rather than lose money. if this is true of government programs, which we all know it is, it's also quite true of business territories. people speak of stock markets as gambling for a reason. putting capital into something, or even putting wages into people, doesn't always guarantee anything will be produced.

if partynational programs are even worse than Liberal government programs, they're worse because they are not correctly producing and regenerating a population. but this softly contradicts the notion that Bolshevism is just "big government", and just "Menshevism but more". if Bolshevism is failing to produce enough industry, that implies it is producing industry in the first place, and it is producing industry in a way Menshevism is infamous for not doing, even if it is not doing this intensely enough. even if Bolshevism has not fully succeeded, it is still fundamentally doing something Menshevism could not do, theoretically making it better even though it is not quite perfect or totally useful yet. if Bolshevism is taking and re-allocating the proceeds of state businesses and successfully producing anything that can continue the same process in other directions, this is to say that Bolshevism is in effect throwing away everyone's money less than Menshevism does.

if "The Left" is dividing the country by proposing government programs or some kind of reconstruction effort, the country is being divided because Tories want to individually secede from the population, or secede as small Filaments of connected friends. if Tories are complaining that government is bad and capital is good, what they are really trying to say is that localized capital is good and widely spread capital is bad — capital can surely do any number of things if you keep it inside a small city or a small network of specific businesses with only a tiny number of links in between, but if you try to connect a whole country using capital it will surely fail to regenerate itself. this, of course, creates a clear contradiction: if Tories think progressives are not patriots for walking away from the way they would like the country to be, then why are they trying to secede from the population and chop it into tiny pieces? is this not also walking away from the greater population and refusing to be a patriot? to try to think localized capital is good and patriotism to one giant republic is good is a contradiction, as much as it is a contradiction to think patriotism to one giant republic is good and loyalty to the Soviet Union is bad. any real-world giant republic has to have structure, such as a central party-nation, or at the very least a minimum commitment by all business territories to provide for the rest of the country on needs such as health care. if there is no actual material structure creating "Our Democracy", then there is no patriotism, and there are no patriots.

:: cr.

2024-11-24T09:13:38Z

:: t.

triangle

:: t.

spending-triangle

:: t.

v4-4_2999_triangle

:: t.

v4-4_2300_triangle

;

v4.4 scraps/ completely contradictory Tory belief triangle