What is Hillary Clinton's Relationship to The Establishment

[Denter]

You're saying it's hard to have a serious argument when someone disagrees with you. OK. That says more about you than the argument.



You? I get that you're repeating something you heard pounded into you in the media to the point that you took it for unquestionable truth.

I think its more than who owns capital though- or even influence. Establishment also has alot to do with violence- who controls it, and dishes it out, and who is the subject of it. Violence, after all, is a more real currency than capital is.

 

[lfd0311]

She is "The Establishment"

 

[Madmick]

I think its more than who owns capital though- or even influence. Establishment also has alot to do with violence- who controls it, and dishes it out, and who is the subject of it. Violence, after all, is a more real currency than capital is.

The right to violence is the ultimate distinction of true sovereign power.

 

[Denter]

The right to violence is the ultimate distinction of true sovereign power.

Exactly. So the group seeking to remove or limit the violence of the state would be anti-establishment?

 

[Jack V Savage]

I think its more than who owns capital though- or even influence. Establishment also has alot to do with violence- who controls it, and dishes it out, and who is the subject of it. Violence, after all, is a more real currency than capital is.

What is "owning capital," though? It's the right to control state violence. Owning a large portion of the country is a much more significant power than you seem to appreciate. And anyway, even if you bizarrely defined "The Establishment" as just the gov't, how does one become "pro-establishment" or "anti-establishment"? Is it just that communists are anti-establishment and people who believe we should have a gov't are "pro-establishment"?

Exactly. So the group seeking to remove or limit the violence of the state would be anti-establishment?

So like people fighting for abortion rights?

 

[Denter]

What is "owning capital," though? It's the right to control state violence. Owning a large portion of the country is a much more significant power than you seem to appreciate. And anyway, even if you bizarrely defined "The Establishment" as just the gov't, how does one become "pro-establishment" or "anti-establishment"? Is it just that communists are anti-establishment and people who believe we should have a gov't are "pro-establishment"?



So like people fighting for abortion rights?

Yeah they'd be super pro-establishment because they are fighting for the state to allow violence against the most helpless people within the nation.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Yeah they'd be super pro-establishment because they are fighting for the state to allow violence against the most helpless people within the nation.

Wait, so now it's the state just not violently preventing something from happening that's pro-establishment?

Between this and Anung's stuff, it appears "pro-establishment" just means "whatever it is I don't like."

 

[Denter]

Wait, so now it's the state just not violently preventing something from happening that's pro-establishment?

Between this and Anung's stuff, it appears "pro-establishment" just means "whatever it is I don't like."

You're definition seems equally made up, and no one seems to agree with it.

Also, that violence would be privately stopped by states or the people if the Federal government didn't protect them and enforce the laws allowing for this kind of thing. Government sanctioned murder is pretty high on the list of being an oppressive part of the Establishment.

You know me; I have no problem saying something is pro-establishment if it is. Just seems as equally valid a definition as "stickin' it to the man".

 

[ultramanhyata]

Wait, so now it's the state just not violently preventing something from happening that's pro-establishment?

Between this and Anung's stuff, it appears "pro-establishment" just means "whatever it is I don't like."

Do you acknowledge any connection between that which is the law of the land (and thus defended by state violence) and the Establishment?

So abortion services... gay marriage... Obamacare... You don't see these constructs as part of the current American Establishment?

 

[Madmick]

Exactly. So the group seeking to remove or limit the violence of the state would be anti-establishment?

Not necessarily. They would just be anti-sovereign. Sovereignty isn't a prerequisite to an establishment; unless, of course, they were seeking to undermine these rights absolutely-- in which case they would be anarchists. Indeed, anarchy is the ultimate expression of antiestablishmentarianism.

 

[Jack V Savage]

You're definition seems equally made up, and no one seems to agree with it.

My definition is pretty simple and conventional. It's getting resistance here because Clinton is hated and people are, as I said, just arbitrarily defining "pro-establishment" as "whatever I don't like."

YAlso, that violence would be privately stopped by states or the people if the Federal government didn't protect them and enforce the laws allowing for this kind of thing. Government sanctioned murder is pretty high on the list of being an oppressive part of the Establishment.

You're wanting to replace "gov't-sanctioned murder (LOL)" with gov't-imposed force, which is OK on its own but a clear contradiction with your earlier point. And what's with the idea that the state gov't, which is a far more oppressive part of people's lives than the federal gov't, isn't the gov't?

You know me; I have no problem saying something is pro-establishment if it is. Just seems as equally valid a definition as "stickin' it to the man".

You didn't actually even clarify the most basic aspect (And anyway, even if you bizarrely defined "The Establishment" as just the gov't, how does one become "pro-establishment" or "anti-establishment"? Is it just that communists are anti-establishment and people who believe we should have a gov't are "pro-establishment"?).

 

[Denter]

My definition is pretty simple and conventional. It's getting resistance here because Clinton is hated and people are, as I said, just arbitrarily defining "pro-establishment" as "whatever I don't like."



You're wanting to replace "gov't-sanctioned murder (LOL)" with gov't-imposed force, which is OK on its own but a clear contradiction with your earlier point. And what's with the idea that the state gov't, which is a far more oppressive part of people's lives than the federal gov't, isn't the gov't?



You didn't actually even clarify the most basic aspect (And anyway, even if you bizarrely defined "The Establishment" as just the gov't, how does one become "pro-establishment" or "anti-establishment"? Is it just that communists are anti-establishment and people who believe we should have a gov't are "pro-establishment"?).

Howabout "those who continue to advocate for government to use force to protect murder of innoncents are supporting the violent establishment"?

I'm all for state and private actors stopping abortion, just as (hopefully) you would be for state governments to try to stop all murder. The federal government imposing legalized violence on its citizens is quite oppressive. Seems like that has some correllation with being part of the Establishment- you know, the guys with the guns.

 

[Denter]

Not necessarily. They would just be anti-sovereign. Sovereignty isn't a prerequisite to an establishment; unless, of course, they were seeking to undermine these rights absolutely-- in which case they would be anarchists. Indeed, anarchy is the ultimate expression of antiestablishmentarianism.

Bold: that makes sense- in which case, aren't we back to the hierarchy/equality polarity between left and right? Where "anti-establishment" would just mean "more left-wing"?

Red: Or maybe "anti-this-particular-sovereign"

 

[Jack V Savage]

Do you acknowledge any connection between that which is the law of the land (and thus defended by state violence) and the Establishment?

We've been talking about capital ownership, which is the main way that state violence influences behavior.

So abortion services... gay marriage... Obamacare... You don't see these constructs as part of the current American Establishment?

In the case of abortion and gay marriage, you're talking about the gov't not preventing something. In the case of the ACA, you're talking about the gov't helping poor people get healthcare (and paying for it with taxes on the rich) and keeping healthcare costs down. Bizarre to call those "pro-establishment" positions.

Howabout "those who continue to advocate for government to use force to protect murder of innoncents are supporting the violent establishment"?

I'm all for state and private actors stopping abortion, just as (hopefully) you would be for state governments to try to stop all murder. The federal government imposing legalized violence on its citizens is quite oppressive. Seems like that has some correllation with being part of the Establishment- you know, the guys with the guns.

These contortions are amusing. I'll give you that. You want the guys with the guns to stop people from doing something, and you're framing it as opposition to guys with guns.

 

[Denter]

We've been talking about capital ownership, which is the main way that state violence influences behavior.



In the case of abortion and gay marriage, you're talking about the gov't not preventing something. In the case of the ACA, you're talking about the gov't helping poor people get healthcare (and paying for it with taxes on the rich) and keeping healthcare costs down. Bizarre to call those "pro-establishment" positions.



These contortions are amusing. I'll give you that. You want the guys with the guns to stop people from doing something, and you're framing it as opposition to guys with guns.

yes- killing babies. Do I need to explain why that's wrong?

Its parallel to this: let's say there is a very high crime city, but the government forcibly disarms citizens and doesn't permit them to carry guns, which results in many of them becoming victims. Who is anti-establishment? The one who advocates for use of private force (people carrying) or the one who supports "government stopping people from doing something (a voluntary gun purchase)"?

If the Feds did not use their monopoly on violence to keep abortion going, states would stop it, and if states also stood out of the way, private actors would stop it. So the state is using violence to continue the systematic murder of children. But that's...."anti-establishment", right?

Red: That's a contortion. They are forcing the states (and people) to issue licenses.

Green: I'm starting to suspect bad faith. The health insurance is compulsory and enforced by a tax penalty if you don't comply. So there is government compulsion as well as opening the market to poor people, not just "help".

TL;DR : Your word games are getting pretty weird. What does it matter who is pro establishment? You either like their policies or don't.

Wouldn't everyone like their views to gain power and become the "establishment"? I sure would.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Wouldn't everyone like their views to gain power and become the "establishment"? I sure would.

That's tricky if one's views include taking away state power (for example through the elimination of many victimless crimes). By doing so "the man's" control over you diminishes without perpetuating an aspect of the "establishment".

 

[Jack V Savage]

yes- killing babies. Do I need to explain why that's wrong?

OK, buddy. We're not going to agree on that.

Its parallel to this: let's say there is a very high crime city, but the government forcibly disarms citizens and doesn't permit them to carry guns, which results in many of them becoming victims. Who is anti-establishment?

The Establishment are the rich capital owners of the city. Trick question. But, yeah, the forcible disarming seems pretty establishmenty.

Green: I'm starting to suspect bad faith. The health insurance is compulsory and enforced by a tax penalty if you don't comply. So there is government compulsion as well as opening the market to poor people, not just "help".

Of course. Everyone suspects bad faith in the WR when someone is persisting in disagreeing with them. What people object to with the ACA is that it taxes the rich and pays for a benefit for the poor. Let's be honest. It's an anti-establishment policy, and it has been fought viciously by The Establishment.

TL;DR : Your word games are getting pretty weird. What does it matter who is pro establishment? You either like their policies or don't.

I'm not playing any word games. I'm starting to suspect assholery. And as far as what it matters, I like to get things right. The rise of politically corrupted speech is something that bothers me.

Wouldn't everyone like their views to gain power and become the "establishment"? I sure would.

That's not how something becomes The Establishment. If anarchists get their way, for example, they don't become The Establishment. If people who want access to healthcare to be universal (with the unfortunate exception of unauthorized immigrants) get their way, that doesn't suddenly become The Establishment. Let's stop abusing language for propaganda purposes.

 

[Denter]

OK, buddy. We're not going to agree on that.



The Establishment are the rich capital owners of the city. Trick question. But, yeah, the forcible disarming seems pretty establishmenty.



Of course. Everyone suspects bad faith in the WR when someone is persisting in disagreeing with them. What people object to with the ACA is that it taxes the rich and pays for a benefit for the poor. Let's be honest. It's an anti-establishment policy, and it has been fought viciously by The Establishment.



I'm not playing any word games. I'm starting to suspect assholery. And as far as what it matters, I like to get things right. The rise of politically corrupted speech is something that bothers me.



That's not how something becomes The Establishment. If anarchists get their way, for example, they don't become The Establishment. If people who want access to healthcare to be universal (with the unfortunate exception of unauthorized immigrants) get their way, that doesn't suddenly become The Establishment. Let's stop abusing language for propaganda purposes.

The thing is, I don't even like rebels or rebel imagery. I'd much rather be part of the Establishment.

At the end of the day, it is just a word game though. I do think its a bit telling that you consider the owners of capital to be the establishment though- they are a part of it, but they are not close to being all of it.

 

[Jack V Savage]

The thing is, I don't even like rebels or rebel imagery. I'd much rather be part of the Establishment.

I don't get how you think that being against abortion rights makes someone anti-establishment.

At the end of the day, it is just a word game though. I do think its a bit telling that you consider the owners of capital to be the establishment though- they are a part of it, but they are not close to being all of it.

It's not a word game, and, sure it's telling. Tells you that I think The Establishment are the people who own the country and are trying to hold their position. I have never denied that.

 

[Zankou]

The word 'Establishment' isn't really as useful in the United States as it is in the nation where it was coined -- England. It works well in nations with an extremely narrow track of power (a couple specific schools, closely tied to the gov't, closely tied to industry) where you are either 'inside' or unable to ever get into power. France, Japan, and Korea, for example, have this kind of setup.

The purpose of the word is to reflect a tightly-interlocked set of social circles that wield disproportionate power ... ecclesiastical, academic, financial, social, political ... wound up together. This exists in more socialist nations, but the closest the U.S. came is the "WASP elite," which largely collapsed and died in the 1960s. Capitalism and immigration largely obliterated any ability to form a true Establishment long ago in the United States. This is, interestingly, one of the reasons why it's almost impossible to even be anti-Establishment. Capitalism is so dominant that things like elite academic institutions get crushed beneath its wheel just as easily as immigrant labor ... they are mere minor details.