I think it is less important that the 'slaves' be left behind than that the 'masters' be. The reason Hollywood was established - on the opposite coast from NY Broadway - is that NY entertainment industry was gridlocked by an ol'boy's club. Now we have E Europe and New Zealand growing as movie producers need to move out of the new ol'boy's club of Hwood.

This is human nature, not Hollywood; it applies to science and industry and politics as well; escaping it and letting the people who do not chose to leave stay with the culture they have made is an ethical decision.

Jan

As I understand it, a populist is one who operates on the assumption "vox populi, vox dei"), and who
goes for unlimited majority rule (while sometimes excluding certain groups, such as those of a certain ethnicity--e.g., Huey Long or George C. Wallace).
His pitch is something like "Those highfalutin
b**s think they're better than you, but I'm for you, and I'll also get rid of all those undesirables
(illegal furriners,blacks,citified snots, etc.")
I'm not a populist. (I'm also not a politician or
candidate for political office). I am an individualist. Politically, I believe in individual rights--first, last, always, and only. I don't like elitist politicians (of whom I think Franklin D. Roosevelt was an example). But I also don't want to go for candidates who go for appealing to ethnic or class hatred, and using that to get votes. I have basic principles, and I go by them, and I want to vote for candidates who go by them (if any such can be found, ha-ha).

I voted for Trump as the Russian-roulette alternative between Russian roulette and certain death. Would do it again in the same situation.

When I'm asked if I'm a DIM or GOP, I say, "I'm an anarcho-capitalist." Usually ends the conversation.

They will be taught, of course, but some refuse to learn. They have free will. If they choose to be ignorant it is their choice. If it is sensible to stay and fight, then people will do so, but many will prefer artificial safety instead of risky freedom. They are the enemy. When the enemy becomes the majority, it's time to decide if it makes more sense to go to war or to start another free frontier. War is very expensive to the loser.

Except that all that does is leave behind slaves every few generations. And who is going to be there to champion the move if the concepts of freedom aren't taught it in the first place?

And what about the sheer economic expense of moving to a new frontier? Wouldn't that effort be better spent in education in the first place? To me, it isn't a matter of place, but education.

Agreed. The freedom seeking minority needs space (no pun intended) to live free and prosper without central government looters meddling and brainwashing future generations. There will always be fear and shortages on planet earth as long as the majority accepts their slavery and acquiesces to theft of their production at the point of a gun. We must move out of range and keep moving, always expanding the frontier or we will have no freedom.

Bad ideas are a product of people. Borders are merely a temporary respite. Ultimately, it takes moral fortitude to uphold freedom and - sadly - many people are too lazy to invest the rational thought necessary to develop that fortitude, and many more are too lazy to teach it to others. And that's beside those who actively seek for power and suborn rational thought and morality in the first place. And that doesn't even include the instruction of the following generations.

We have to get off this planet and create a frontier that's just too costly to meddle with (like North America was in 1776.)

I think one term that might apply there is "rugged individualist" vs elitist. We used to be mostly the former and sadly now we're thoroughly entrenched in the latter.

I wonder what its called when the society is split between people who want to live their lives unimpeded, and others that want to control everything people do. I call it the USA presently. NO WONDER there is gridlock !! The producers vs the takers.

No, I’m a Meritocratist that favors an Oligarchy governed by a Constitutionalist. 😜🤮🤓

Well said.

"Sorry to rant bit it just more leftist rhetoric."

No apology needed and that is precisely why I posted the article (and why I subscribe to the daily Bloomberg article burst). I like to see what the arguments are so I can tear them apart for the fallacy. It's good practice ;)

This is more putting people into groups. The needs to define people by groups so they can promote their favorites and denigrate their detractors. By their definition, I fit into many groups but it is mostly the ones they denigrate, I am male, I am white, I am a veteran, I believe in the US Constitution, I am a conservative, I am a small r republican (not the political party but the ideal), I am an independent, I think for myself and not the greater good, I don't believe in big government, I don't want us to become a banana republic and many more. Sorry to rant bit it just more leftist rhetoric.

Populists are usually believers in "pure" democracy, screaming "one person, one vote" at the top of their lungs, calling piously for the end of the electoral college. A republic is too complex for simple minds to understand, until they find themselves subject to the tyranny of the majority.

;^)

Thus my very first warning about the source. ;)

That's funny...

My dad likes Jeff Foxworth the you might be a redneck jokes
"You might be a redneck if you have three first names........ kinda like old ugly Carl" LOL

Dislike admitting it but, I might be also.

Here is one for Larry the Cable guy.
If your finally relieved that your taxes will go down...you might be a "Trumpulist".

Kaltwasser is partially correct on the def. of a populist. The part he gets wrong is elite...these creatures are Not elite, they are Delite or Delete as in deposit in the "Trash Bin".

I don't know of any "Pluralism" that actually works "Without" common "Principles". Most pluralism's I have witnessed are 180 degrees apart and Nothing in common.

You are spot on in your rebuttal commentary.

"The unstated takeaway of the session is that it’s not much fun being part of the forgotten masses, but it can be quite enjoyable to be the person who speaks for them."
And so all these statists get together and pretend they have a $%^&ing clue about economics and free markets.
What do you expect from Bloomberg?

I have never really felt comfortable labeling myself and I don't think Trump is perfect but he is the only president in my lifetime that has spoken for and acted in my interest. Maybe I am a Trumpulist.