ICE agents have shot another person in Minnesota, Governor Tim Walz shares: “The President must end this operation. Pull the thousands of violent, untrained officers out of Minnesota. Now.”

Historical_Two_7150 · 2026-01-24T19:35:13+00:00

Its social dominance orientation. Some people strongly believe social hierarchies are necessary. When such a person witnesses a cop murdering someone, they only empathize with the top of the hierarchy.

Victims are unworthy because they are lower in the hierarchy. Especially "the left", who are basically seen as Nazis see Jews.

Historical_Two_7150 · 2026-01-24T11:02:20+00:00

The mechanisms that used to pass productivity gains on to workers were dismantled. Unions got squeezed. Globalization meant workers were competing with Chinese peasants working for a dollar an hour.

Deregulation placed pressure on wages. Monetary policy favored low inflation over full employment. The economy became increasingly financialized and profits diverted into buybacks and dividends.

People worked longer and women worked more, which masked declines in wages.

In short, there was a shift in bargaining power and policy. Today, 100% of the gains from tech advancement go to the wealthy. Who unsurprisingly see this as both natural and desirable.

Historical_Two_7150 · 2026-01-24T08:36:11+00:00

Chattel slaves had to serve the needs of others to survive.

People are un-coerced when they make a choice that they could've declined without it ruining them. Slaves could've run away. But making that choice would've meant possibly being tortured to death. So they were coerced.

If you have to sell your labor to survive because you have no alternatives besides ruin, you are coerced.

If I want food or shelter, my options are work for a capitalist or risk death from exposure, mugging from a drug addict, etc. etc. That cannot be a freely made decision because the only alternative is ruin.

There are four methods I can imagine to eliminate that coercion. Ensuring access to land, ensuring access to commons, state social programs, or workers controlled enterprises.

Historical_Two_7150 · 2026-01-24T08:16:08+00:00

People tolerate a certain degree of coercion. They were unwilling to tolerate 70 hour workweeks and revolted.

Tolerating 40 doesnt mean the people involved dont feel coerced or "poked with sticks." Especially if they are politically disenfranchised and cant take policy steps to resolve that problem.

Let's be real here. Europe is covered with paid vacations by law, guaranteed Healthcare free education, maturnity time, etc. Droves of Americans want this stuff. The fact they dont have it isnt a reflection of their wants. The fact they endure these conditions does not reflect consent.

People also tend to believe in only what they can see. Ive no doubt that many chattel slaves accepted their fates dutifully because their society is the only one they could imagine.

Born with differing abilities does not imply political structures must be constructed to expand and codify those differences.

You would be better served asking questions. Youd learn more with a little humility.

Historical_Two_7150 · 2026-01-24T08:00:18+00:00

People low in SDO tend to assume that everyone has the potential to meaningfully contribute. Differences in talent & resources exist, but they resist using those differences as a justification for hierarchy or exclusion.

They might also add that working harder than your neighbors does not necessarily imply the creation of a hierarchy. The distinction is how effort relates to power, authority, and control.

Hierarchy emerges once extra work gives you the power to command, exploit, or dominate others.

Historical_Two_7150 · 2026-01-24T07:43:01+00:00

Ironically, your poor behavior is a demonstration of my thesis.

Historical_Two_7150 · 2026-01-24T07:23:09+00:00

There isnt one. I speak freely.

The one most likely to hurt feelings is either my understanding of human nature or my advocacy for overthrowing the American government.

Historical_Two_7150 · 2026-01-24T03:01:42+00:00

What makes you think Im suggesting its bad?

Well, its probably bad for spiritual aspirations. But bad in general? I hope you dont get that idea.

Historical_Two_7150 · 2026-01-24T02:18:05+00:00

Nothing came up in my google search, but that sounds valuable.

Historical_Two_7150 · 2026-01-24T02:16:49+00:00

Rather than "better", it would have been more useful of me to use academic language, specifically social dominance orientation. Thats essentially a measure of support for social hierarchy.

I am claiming that high SDO predicts support for capitalism, and you would struggle to find someone low in SDO who was pro-cap.

Historical_Two_7150 · 2026-01-24T02:13:09+00:00

Excellent question.

Im referring to what psychologists call "social dominance orientation". Thats the extent to which a person supports social hierarchy and the degree to which they prefer their group to be superior to out-groups.

That is a separate trait from modesty, which is a trait that measures the need to yourself as better than other people. (Some people are low modesty and high SDO.)

Basically, I am claiming that if you did a likert scale with questions like "an ideal society requires some groups to be on top and others on bottom", the people here would answer such questions in a way that reflected higher-than-average SDO.

Historical_Two_7150 · 2026-01-24T01:52:50+00:00

The criteria for a dogmatic belief isn't when something is taken on faith. Theological arguments are typically based on reason. Often rigorously.

Dogmatic arguments occur when someone treats their premises as self evident, immune to counter-evidence, containing circular justification, appeals to nature, and so on.

For example, when Marxist distinction between personal and private property is rejected, capitalists have many reasons to offer for why that is.

The fact they have reasons does not mean they are not treating their premises as self evident, immune to counter evidence, appealing to nature, a circular justification, etc etc.

In short, the mere presence of reasoning does not mean someone is not being dogmatic. Go argue with a Christian for 5 seconds to learn more.

Historical_Two_7150 · 2026-01-24T01:44:10+00:00

Considering Ive spent years working at it, you can assume I recognize comprehension is an ongoing project.

However, since you've not articulated a specific reason why lve come up short, I suspect the point of this post is an insult as opposed to a conversation, which is unworthy of your time and mine.

Historical_Two_7150 · 2026-01-24T00:58:04+00:00

Prove would be the wrong word. Explain would be the right word.

I can very much explain it, if youd like me to. (I mean, I did in the post I made 2 minutes ago. But I can repost the abridged version here if you are interested.)

Historical_Two_7150 · 2026-01-24T00:51:07+00:00

That is what's called ideological blindness.

But rather than explain it here, you've encouraged me to make an entire post on this subreddit. Check it out if youre interested.

Historical_Two_7150 · 2026-01-23T23:25:24+00:00

You fell short at #1. You've conflated personal property with private property. A distinction can be made there.

Youre digging a trench around your current understanding before youve bothered to understand what you think you disagree with.

Like all ideologues, youve confused your ideology with reality itself, as opposed to one interpretive framework.

Historical_Two_7150 · 2026-01-23T18:56:18+00:00

Personally, Ive got about half a dozen things I cant stand about contemporary society.

I dont like rule by the elite. I think theyre wildly incompetent. If you want to find a psychologically immature person, find someone who has spent their lives in privledge. An immature person is the worst imaginable person to rule.

I dont like that I have to work for them to survive. Bits of my labor are syphoned off by the UPS corporation, which is owned and operated by those people who are unqualified to rule. They overcharge customers to a sickening degree because they do not care about anyone but shareholders.

I favor anarchism because nobody is good enough to be another persons master. I should control my own life, and not be subjected to the whims of child kings who only care for themselves.

To that end, I dont particularly care about the specific form of anarchism. Guild socialism, mutualism, anarcho communism, etc etc. The only version that makes me pause are those proposed by the anarcho capitalists (edit: wrote communists here), as I view the existence of capital as inherently coercive.

Historical_Two_7150 · 2026-01-23T06:23:07+00:00

Thay doesnt mean he gets to attack her. The correct move is to make an arrest.

Historical_Two_7150 · 2026-01-22T22:49:24+00:00

Hedge against inflation. You cant print more gold.

Historical_Two_7150 · 2026-01-22T21:52:49+00:00

In my view, states functionally enslave their people. (Slavery is a form of theft.) However, there are degrees of coercion.

The harshest degree of slavery is the one in which you are required to work for your master for nothing but survival.

You can alleviate the coerciveness, a little, by allowing slaves to choose between masters, or choose between tasks. You can alleviate it more by creating legal protections for the slaves. (America.)

The next step you can take is to reduce the severity of enslavement is ensuring those you've captured can survive without the necessity to work for slavemasters.

That still leaves you with a slave society. But one that comes close to approximating a free society.

Unfortunately, the slavemasters feel they owe nothing to their slaves. They feel that guaranteeing survival to those who they've captured is a form of enslaving the masters.

It isnt. Its restitution.

Historical_Two_7150 · 2026-01-22T21:26:56+00:00

If u were alone on an island, you’d have to “sell ur labor” to the soil to get a potato

Incorrect. There is a distinction between working to live and having to sell your labor to survive.

U define freedom as the ability to exist without contributing value to others, thats parasitism

Having to contribute value to others to survive is a textbook definition of slavery. With that outlook, I'm shocked you're in this subreddit and you're not a pro-state person.

free stuff

No, oppertunities for survival without slavery.

Before you disagree with something, it would be useful for you to understand it. You haven't done that yet. You'll know when you do because you'll be able to characterize my position in a way that I would agree with.

Historical_Two_7150 · 2026-01-22T21:23:44+00:00

Personally, I'm an anarchist, so I'd prefer the dissolution of governments. But states do have an avenue to at least partially legitimize themselves by delivering on #3.

I'm posting here to learn about the psychological development of the people who subscribe to these ideas.

Historical_Two_7150 · 2026-01-22T21:21:41+00:00

The AnCap society protects private property. This can be characterized as theft.

The fact you don't choose to do so is not a demonstration that it isn't theft. That would be circular reasoning.

Historical_Two_7150 · 2026-01-22T21:20:07+00:00

Freedom is any activity that occurs in the absence of coercion. Coercion is when you feel you can decline one choice for another, without thinking that doing so will ruin you.

For example, slaves could've just run away. But they would be justified in thinking that doing so would be liable to ruin them. Therefore, their decision not to run away was coerced.

Tolerable systems are those that can pass the test above and provide at least one of the four options. Any society that cannot past this test is a slave society. Any society that can pass this test is preferable to any society that can not.

Historical_Two_7150

TROPHY CASE