Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
I can understand rich wingnuts who actually own companies wanting to get the Government out of the way of their profit maximisation.  The bit I don't understand is the poor wingnuts who don't own anything and are barely surviving spouting the same ideology even though they are being screwed by the rich wingnuts...

Frank's Home Page and Diary Index
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Wed Jun 2nd, 2010 at 11:49:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I do. I've had a diary planned about this for over a year now, but haven't had time to write it.

It's based on an ideology of omnipotence and self-determination. Corporations are private individuals, they're private individuals, therefore they don't like government interference.

Of course it's quite mad, but there is an internal logic to it.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Wed Jun 2nd, 2010 at 11:51:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Wingnuts almost uniformly have an atavistic reverence for violence.

Not in the sense that they are themselves brutal thugs (though that too sometimes), but in the sense that they view violence as the only measure of power. Unless there is a man with a gun or a whip behind you, it is assumed that he cannot exercise power over you. And if no power is being exercised over you, your behaviour is assumed to be fully voluntary and completely your own to decide.

In other words, they skipped over all major advances in the social sciences for the last hundred years or so.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Wed Jun 2nd, 2010 at 01:41:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I can understand why wingnuts reared in authoritarian (and violent) household see authority and a capability/propensity for violence as almost the same thing.  I can also understand their contempt for a political system which is complex, compromised based and seeks consensus rather than subjugation.  For them force is the solution: so now what's the problem?  

And the problem is usually the libruls who are too wussy to apply force at every opportunity to get their way. Obama's predilection for bipartisanship, consensus and compromise will elicit nothing but contempt from them.  It shows them he's weak and not a man of power.  It's almost a sexual thing - dominance and submission - which can also be found in fanatical religious organisations.

This carrying a gun is a psychological statement and requirement to demonstrates their power and dominance over others.  It demonstrates a contempt for the arts of persuasion and negotiation - something they are usually terrible at.  To me it all smacks of extreme emotional immaturity that I associate with repressive societies and sexual norms, male dominance, and reverence for AUTHORITY.

Maybe I should read The mass psychology of fascism...

Frank's Home Page and Diary Index

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Wed Jun 2nd, 2010 at 02:00:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]
My point isn't so much about wingnuts being willing to apply violence to get power. My point is that most wingnuts I've met have a blind spot the size of a carrier task force when it comes to all the ways you can exercise power without the application of violence.

This leads them to the naive assumption that there is no power in private relationships, since the government holds the monopoly on the exercise of organised violence. Since there can be no power in private relationships, there can be no asymmetries of power, and thus there can be no oppression. Therefore, smaller government means less oppression, meaning more freedom.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Wed Jun 2nd, 2010 at 02:38:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series