Picking Up in the Middle of the Argument...
 

This is off something I was arguing about in the Nationstates Forum a few minutes ago (the paleoconservatives thread), but its not letting me post, so I figured I'd post it here and see what you think....

Excellent.

It's not what I think, it's what I feel. Betrayal. You've been seeing another forum?:sniff:

edit: Oh, and to answer seriously, liberals think you should be able to do anything you want unless it has to do with gun ownership.

I have often seen the argument for enforced charity, or income redistribution, or socialism, that begins with the premise that "people suck".

Call it "anti-social socialism" -- it's common from what I have seen, and I don't understand it at all.

People suck, therefore it is right and proper for an elite government (that somehow does not suck, even though it is made of the same sucky people) to manage half their financial life. However, same government cannot legislate against saying "fuck" on the radio, because that's fascism.

Seems to me, people put to much stock in "conservative" and "liberal" as descriptions of where anyone stands on anything. Hell, you'd have trouble getting any three people to agree on what those terms imply. :lol:

Or the environment, or business, etc. etc. etc.

Libertarians are the only ones who try to fully embody the principle that everyone should be able to do anything they want. And they have their own unique set of flaws. You gotta get past the idea that any broadly-defined "side" can always be right, Ibram. Conservatives and Liberals don't truly exist, only a wide range of individuals who rail against them as the enemy.

Uh no I thought it was more like:
Liberals think you should be able to do whatever you want.
Conservatives think you should be able to do whatever you want - As long as it doesn't infringe on other peoples rights.

Is that what they say, or is that what they think?

Then what's the deal with the hatin' on the gays?

That quote has it backwards. The farther left a government moves, the more completely it controls the lives of its citizens (subjects? slaves?). Every government must legislate what people can and can't do, to some degree. (Whether an individual agrees with particular laws or the given reasons for them is another matter.) Even a libertarian government has to have some agreed rules on national and personal security. A conservative government adds additional rules regarding issues of mutual benefit, such as utility and transportation infrastructure, etc. It is the left-wing government that wants total control, wanting to tell people not only what they can and can't do, but what they can and can't think (thought crime exists in countries like Canada and Sweden).

Every socialist government despises people and thinks they have to be 'managed': 'you suck, so we, the Omniscient and All-Beneficent State, will manage your money/health/education/ideas/opinions/... for you'.

Isn't it strange that every truly socialist/communist government has disintegrated? Must be something to that free-market stuff after all. ;)

And also the farther right.

Communism only really 'works' effectively if it's worldwide. That is one of the things which make it highly unlikely to succeed, given the likelihood of getting all the world's countries to accomodate it. It's also one of the reasons that I don't think a truly 'communist' state has actually existed. There was a period of 'pre communism' in Russia during the early stages of the revolution, a rift already forming/formed between two entirely different approaches and visions. That was quickly followed by a distortion of the original goals and ideals. China, similarly operated along distorted lines as indeed have most(possibly all) systems claiming to be 'communist' or 'socialist'.

The fact is that communism and socialism exist in their pure form only in the realm of theory. Attempts to implement them have either been softened or distorted to the point that they no longer bear close relation to theory from which they were derived.

Oh, I don't know ... fascism can be seen as a variant of socialism. You have the same main criteria - centralized power, socioeconomic control, oppression through terror and censorship. I'm talking about moving to the right meaning progressively less and less government control of individuals. Fascism doesn't fall on the right in that scenario. Anarchy would. But then anarchy isn't a form of government at all, so it wouldn't be accurate to put it on the 'right' ...
:rolleyes:

And public expressions of Christianity (all other religious ok, Christianity bad), don't forget that one.

There really was more to socialism than those criteria and there were other distinctly unsocialist aspects of fascism.

That they shared some traits does not make them the same. Left and right often share characteristics; usually when the systems they inspire/institute are a response to similar economic or social problems and needs.

Right - we've all heard that before - Soviet Communism wasn't 'real' communism, etc. etc. They just didn't do it 'right' - even Lenin admitted he'd made mistakes. He regretted not having killed far more people. Now that's communism for you!

It's pretty much intellectually dishonest to claim that communism 'works', but that every country in which it has been implemented, and failed, just hasn't done it correctly. Those who ran it figured they were doing it 'correctly'. If every political system can be claimed to not be what it claims to be and holds itself to be, just because others are embarrassed about its failure, it becomes nonsensical to try to discuss political systems. It's like saying there are no democracies in the world because they are all imperfect. Well, yes, they are imperfect - but they are still examples of the best we can do, so far, with democratic systems. The same goes for communism.

If that's what the right was talking about along with you, that would be great.

My point is not that communism 'works' but has yet to be correctly implemented; rather my point is that it is an idea that can exist in theory only. It's a theoretical construct that does not work when implemented in the real world. That doesn't mean I don't think it has anything to offer as a theory. None of our systems derive from a single source. You no more live in a pure state of capitalism than can I live in a pure state of communism.

I know socialism and fascism are not the same. The characteristics they share in terms of overwhelming central government control and oppression of individuals are what I was looking at in terms of the right-to-left spectrum.

The 'systems' they both 'inspire' are typically mass murder and enslavement. I can't imagine what economic or social problem/need would require such a response. Both communism and fascism are all about individual lust for power. The social problems thing is just the excuse they use to seize it.

We can agree on that, anyway. ;)

I disagree. That's what communism inevitably descended into, in Russia but the very early stages (ie. the revolution) I don't believe were driven by lust for individual power. Hitler did have a lust for individual power right from the start.

You state mass murder and enslavement as characterising features of both these systems in order to show that they are similar. But other non fascist and non socialist states have also engaged in those practices. That doesn't mean those states are of a similar political nature. Mass murder and enslavement are not the defining characteristics of either, but they are symptomatic of both.

As an additional thought on the matter, I find it interesting that Russia, has arguably tended towards strongman government and a lack of civic freedoms regardless of which governmental system is in place. Absolute Tzarist power, revolution which led to leaders like Stalin and now in the days of democracy we have Putin.

I have no idea - ask a Republican.

True enough. I was just throwing out the first example that came to mind. There are certainly more. Smoking is one as well.

Not true at all. It's government sanctioned or funded expressions of Christianity or really any religion that liberals like me oppose.

In ISRAEL it is "correctly implemented".

If the government we have now is an example of conservatism, please give me anything but. Christianity has become the State religion, although everyone pretends otherwise; prejudice toward certain groups is encouraged - like gays, people who live at or near the poverty line, hispanics (they're all illegal immigrants); etc. The government keeps people in line through fear tactics - what's the terrorism rating for today? Yellow? Red? Homeland security has taken our individual rights to privacy away, Congress is busily crunching up the Bill of Rights to the point where soon those words will mean about as much as some slick comedy routine; thousands of people are being held in prisons without access to either an attorney or a fair and speedy trial; torture is now acceptable; and Halliburten continues to gloat as its CEO's and stockholders rake in the benefits of corporate welfare on a magnificent scale.

I had to go up to the wealthy ski resort of Telluride today regarding a legal matter I posted about in another thread. My Zuni friend came along with me for the ride. He wandered around town while I was at the courthouse filling out endless legal forms. When we met up again, he spat on the sidewalk and said, "Let's get out of here. This is the most unfriendly town I've ever been to." Well, Telluride has a high percentage of Mexican workers who clean the rich folks condo's or do the janitorial work, etc. People mistook my Zuni friend for one of "those people" who are not supposed to be strolling the main street of Telluride with all its chic shops and elegant, over-priced restaurants.

My Zuni friend looked around at the wealthy white yuppies giving him a wide path on the sidewalk, and said "Stupid wetbacks! I wish they'd all go back home."

Conservatism. Pfffffft!

The rich people in Telluride probably self identify as liberals. Two of the better known (sometime) residents of are Oliver Stone and Tom Cruise. The real distinction is socio-economic class in your example rather than political affiliation.

They probably just assumed that your friend didn't speak English and said what they thought rather than what they would like people to hear them say.

That's a good point.

Well, I too, have to agree that socio-economics came into it, as well. He was wearing a bright red t-shirt from the Zuni pueblo which was imprinted with the words "The Zuni Pueblo - Runner for the Zuni Prevention of diabetes fund 2005." On the back was a circle showing the animal totem and name of each of the Zuni clans (my friend is a member of the badger clan and he was pretty proud that the badgers won the race that year). But the T-shirt was covered up by his coat. I suggested that he take the coat off and just walk down the street with his T-shirt and see if he'd get a different reaction. He said he probably would. but that he'd had enough social experiments for one day.

And yet the self-styled capitalists in the GOP remain up Israels *cough*. :eek:

oh, c'mon, it should be easy to get people to agree on what a term is for a political ideology. let's see - do we have any libertarians in the cellar?

Nobody here but us Commies. ;)

UG claims to be a libertarian

Trust me, he ain't one. Radar is our truest die-hard libertarian, Undertoad used to be one and has moved on, and I, Griff, and at least a few others are generally libertarian in principle, but not wholeheartedly devoted to the party.

the libertarian party, like all other parties is fucked to the core, because in order to get people to ally themselves into a cohesive unit big enough to wield real power the individual libertarians have to make compromises on what they believe a libertarian to be... so they can create a party of libertarians.

i'm a conservatarian. you can join my party today if you want. send me money and i promise that i'll be the best...

If I send you money, will you buy me a congressman? Oh, wait! Never mind. ;)

I'm an Indeconseverable

Compromising is a prerequisite for many party politics. In a political pool where only two parties completely dominate everything and where gerrymandering manipulated politics to the advantage of extremists of those two parties, then no third party has a hope in hell.

Remember why Ross Perot so scared every communist from Democrat and Republican parties. Perot got as much as 20% of the vote. Those who work for a party rather than for America cannot afford such power in a third party. They would have to negotiate with that third party that got votes only because Amerians rejected self serving Democrats and Republicans. Fear and loathing would occur on a campaign trail where America is more important that the party. Unfortunately for any third party, the game is rigged. Gerrymangering is simply one tool.

Well, hell, Fobble, now how does that not describe me? This is exactly the approach I take. My other admixture is quite blatantly neocon, which is not of itself exclusive of libertarianism. Before you blow any stacks, read the major neocon essays and see what I mean.

Where I differ from Radar is that I don't think libertarianism should be a hothouse flower, only able to live in the benign environs of the United States. It should instead be able to take on, overwhelm, and render extinct any totalitarian philosophy on the face of the earth.

UNLESS, the voters want change badly enough to actually get involved in the process of selecting candidates and watching their performance in office. :cool:

I've heard that the winner-take-all Electoral College system is what makes a two-party, rather than multiple-party, system. This does not in itself explain how this causes the Legislative Branch to be almost exclusively two party, as the Electoral College chooses the President only. We can look for different mechanisms in Congress.

Capitalism goes with democracy, Griff, as it prospers best there. All one nigh-seamless whole. A good capitalist is a democrat and a good democrat supports democracies over anything else or he's not much of a democrat. The same should apply, I should think, to libertarians.

My point was that Israel is a socialist state and the GOP isn't exactly capitalist either, being concerned mostly with protecting industries and distributing tax dollars. Given enough democracy Capitalism will cease to exist.


The neo-com agenda is far too enamored of state exercised force to include libertarians.

And there you have something the Federalist founding fathers were wise enough to be very concerned about.

Though even if brought to ruin through democracy's besetting sin, the possibility that the electorate votes itself the treasury, capitalism can still rebound even from getting the currency scrambled in this manner, as capitalism, and we must face it, is what humans will naturally do with each other, absent state meddling. On the other side of the coin, more than one mechanism for enforcing ethical behavior in economic transaction seems more than merely a good idea, but a positive necessity. Ringer's Paradox likely applies here.

Not of the too narrow in scope variety of big-L Libertarian, no -- by which I mean the fanatical purists, who run no risk of ever acceding to public office nor of ever actually putting libertarianism into practice -- the self-defeaters! This is a bad habit of third parties. What I see the neocon agenda (I'm using the term for convenience, not minute accuracy of characterization) doing is moving global politics in a more libertarian direction, democracies being generally understood to be more libertarian than the autocracies they should supplant. I'm begging for the moment the question of how successful they've been at this as of yet; it seems suitable to adopt a protracted-conflict habit of mind.

I get the argument. What I don't understand is the willingness to embrace the high risk of catostrophic failure leading to Islamic totalitarianism in a enterprise with such a low chance for success. We could have had an incremental movement to liberalism by minding our own business and leading by example, instead we chose to use the tools of totalitarians.

There may be something to be said for the strategy of the salami game. But don't salami-slice strategies tend to suddenly change over into campaigns of sweeping change, generally decided by campaigns of a military nature?

And frankly, removing totalitarianisms and redressing the trouble they invariably cause, is, as I have said before, our business whether some of us want it or not. Recall that totalitarians resist better examples a outrance. Thus, we should expect, and train, to remove them whether they voluntarily surrender their privilege of oppression or not. Killing off totalitarians to make democracy just can't be wrong, Griff. Accept this morality, for killing totalitarians prevents totalitarian evil. Bad must die, good must prevail, and good better have the bullets and bayonets for the job, or good is totally fucked. This is not a condition I'd permit, but it is one you explicitly do, and I think that's colossally stupid of you.

Well there we have it. The enrichment of Halliburton and the mortgaging of the US government to enrich the elite few ... that is libertarian. Didn't Stalin also do same for the benefit of the people? Weren't his supporters also Urbane?

OHHHHHHH! BUUURN!

You just don't get it, do you?
Yes, it can be wrong. For one colossal reason, that's not how you "make democracy", you idiot. You can't push on a rope. "Killing totalitarians" just makes room for the next totalitarian. Better you should learn to pull on a rope and let the people (demos) decide (-cracy). I leave as an exercise for the student to name "choosing a style of government for others", (hint: it's not democracy).
A good end cannot sanctify evil means; nor must we ever do evil, that good
may come of it. -William Penn, Quaker, founder of Pennsylvania (1644-1718)

Stupid hypocrite.

Obviously, as a Libertarian, I do not agree with intervening with other governments.
Also, as someone who believes that the ends does not justify the means... if we act like them, we are them.

Aren't we as humans responsible for each other? Is it right for us to knowingly sit by and let innocent people be tortured and killed? At what point do we have some sort of moral responsibility to help?

V, I like you for things you do when you're not giving me a hard time. That said, just what is the "it" you think I should get? Generally it sounds like leaving bad governance alone that it may the more conveniently make extra trouble for the rest of us.

Crummy foreign policy -- helps antidemocrats win wars with us, and that is purely stupid, as well as wasting lives. Also stupid, no?

It's unduly difficult to make democracy if the totalitarians are organized, motivated, and armed. Why can't you get it that I understand this to be a two-step process? It's remove the threat, then construct the democracy. It helps everything if the threat removal has been sufficient. So, we should at least disorganize and demotivate the anti-democrats, as disarming alone isn't a thorough enough solution.

When, V, are you ever going to get that it isn't, and by definition cannot be, evil to remove oppressive, totalitarian governance? Augustine of Hippo figured it out before the friggin' DARK AGES!! What is your major malfunction, son?? Just how do you explain not understanding this??? Can you explain it?

I don't think you can manage it to someone of better moral understanding than you're showing. All unknowing, you shall reveal only your terrible error.

I've seen un-democracies. It's left an impression: even the ones that aren't materially too bad have to go -- by the cross or the sword.

Sure, call me a fanatic if you'd like -- it'd be with some justice. It's just better to be my kind of fanatic than your kind, see?

That sentence can be dismissed as conspiracy theory, to which tw is prey and I... well, call me immune.

Pooh pooh.

Since the only un-democracy you've admitted experience with is the US Navy, can I assume you intend to dismantle that institution as well?

But they have guns!

Self government is better than good government. Every time.

Hmm, really? What if the elf governing ones judgement is biased? Is it therefore still good?

Please don't bring the elves into it - it's complicated enough as it is.

yesman, it doesn't matter how bad a government is, if its the choice of the nation concerned. If we the 'enlightened' ones attempt to impose our systems, no matter how good, well meaning or fair, that system will be seen as imposed and will be resented. Self government is better than good government.

Dana, If by Self government you mean a simple democracy, then I wholeheartedly agree. If not please expound.