Hi, guys, I’m back with my overly dramatic style of writing you’ve learned to dislike so much. I’ll try to curb it and just get to the point.
Jimmy Carter was elected POTUS. By all accounts, he wasn’t very good at the job, but the US was disgusted with Nixon and Ford carried that stigma with him when Nixon resigned. After Carter’s only term, Reagan rode into the White House and took over the reins of government. He made the economy his major concern which pleased the country, then suffering from stagflation. His economic plan was Reaganomics. The theory was that as the economy improved, some of the wealth would ‘trickle down’ to the lower incomes. It was actually supply-side, or free market economics, rather than demand-stimulus, Keynesian economics, that had held sway since FDR. George H. W. Bush followed the success of Reagan, but got involved with Hussein’s attempted take-over of Kuwait and its oil fields. The First Gulf War, which, some feel, is actually still going on.
Bill Clinton followed Bush, Sr.‘s only term. He tried to do too much, too soon and he was partnered with his wife, Hillary, which bothered people. As is usual in US politics, mud-raking started with stories about alleged fraudulent real estate ‘deals’, alleged murder, legislators’ affairs and so on. While this was going on, the world was introduced to the idea of globalization. Globalization. Globalization meant giving jobs to poor and emerging countries thereby raising their standard of living. What better way to spread Democracy than to give poor people jobs. Nixon had made China a Most Favored Trade nation which allowed the US almost free trade with that country and, in 1999, the Eurozone was created to allow Europe free trade among the Euro nations. The Soviet Union had collapsed.
Some economists warned that standards of living being raised in one area would lower the standard of living in another area until a global median was reached. But that didn’t seem to disturb the US. Instead, we seemed happy when Clinton signed NAFTA. He should have been impeached then, but business was good and Clinton had failed to get a lot of what he striven for, plus, geographically, the NAFTA countries were bigger than the Eurozone. We already had strong trade with Canada, but how about Mexico? How about all of South America?
Unfortunately, Clinton couldn’t keep the Buick out of the garage when it came to an Aide. The ‘other side’ had him there. But sex wasn’t a high crime or misdemeanor. Lots of presidents had had both wives and mistresses from Jefferson on. Clinton, though, did something else. He lied to the Grand Jury–sort of. Clinton used lawyerese in his response, but it wasn’t enough. Was it enough of a misdemeanor to play lawyer v lawyer? The ‘other side’ thought it was.
We all know what happened with that. We all know that Clinton ‘balanced the budget’ which also nettled the other side. And we had NAFTA. And we all know what happened afterwards. George W. Bush was elected and then 9/11. The US went back to war.
History is supposed to teach but, looking at our recent history, what have we learned? What has the US accomplished? Economically, we’re not better off. Socially, we’re not better off. We have a ponderous GOVERNMENT from the Federal level on down to the State level. We have far fewer ‘rights’–either civil or human–than ever before. We have a rise in religiousity in some parts of the country and a sort of Godlessness in other parts. We have government agency after government agency looking after us–and looking at us.
We’re no longer a manufacturing nation since manufacturing has been out-sourced and our jobs have gone to emerging nations. Our fear has grown because of terrorism. Prisons and the military have been partially ‘privatized’. We have no health care for everyone, yet it costs us money to have no health care. Our families have split because it takes two incomes to try to maintain the standard of living our parents accustomed us to. Our kids are being raised in day-care or with ‘nannies.’ I could go on, but you’d get even more bored.
We seem to have run out of ideas. Yet the four of us sit here at our magnificent toys and argue about liberal v conservative. S&HD! Have things gone too far? Doesn’t the state of our living go beyond Republican v Democrat?
Republicans impeached Andrew Johnson because they wanted to control reconstruction after the Civil War. Republicans impeached William Clinton. Republicans are going to sue Barrack Obama. A lack of bank regulations and oversight led to a world wide depression/recession because of greed and fraud.
Economically, a free market doesn’t work as promised, but the Republicans want it. Trade with China and off-shoring has led to mediocre products and the Chinese government is still Communist. Corporations are now people, but they pay no income tax. Tax loopholes keep the wealthy legally wealthy.
Now, my next question is: when corruption does occur, is it usually against the people or against the opposing party?
Also, we’re going to have to get back to the issue of the NSA spying on everyone at some point.
Morality?
Libertarians are those who believe in maximizing liberty, correct? Would they be contrasted with conservatives in that they would go farther than conservatives in removing government from public life? From what I understand, conservatives want to roll back the government’s involvement in public life from how much it has encroached into it, but not further back than what the original function of government back at its inception would have allowed. Is that correct?
Well, the bill was called a “law” at least two times in the video, but I’m a little confused about what a “bill” is. Is it always a motion to pass a law? And does a law always have to be phrased in “thou shalt” or “thou shalt not” terms, or can it be phrase “thou may”? It seemed to me that Melvin’s bill is meant to be considered a law that says businesses may discriminate against gays on religious grounds without risk of being sued or charged. In other words, there’s laws and the absence of laws, but then among laws, there are those that prohibit and those that allow. ← or is this just incorrect?
But just to be fair, I’ll grant this: it was put to a vote which, if you fall back on my definition of the union of Church and State (namely, that laws are passed or decisions made based on religious grounds only as opposed to popular vote), isn’t quite the uniting of Church and State I suggested. But it was voted on by congress, not the people, which puts this into a gray area for me. Is it reasonable to believe that members of congress would put their religious convictions aside in their decisions to vote on laws?
That would be tricky, but I already hinted at a first step: try to identify whether the person is serving the grassroots principles of the group you both belong to or seems to be steering it in a direction that isn’t necessarily supported by the grassroots principles. To put it more simply, if the person seems to be pushing for something that seems distasteful even to you–like racism or sexism or whatever–you don’t have to turn a blind eye just because he’s “one of us” or because he’s arguing for it on principles that your group so happens to believe in.
Obviously, this is far from perfect as a means of identifying extremism, but the point is that if you as a member of some group call yourself a moderate, that means that at least you have some means by which to identify what you’d consider not moderate (i.e. extremism); this is why I brought in Sam Harris: he thinks, and I’m inclined to agree, that if you call yourself a moderate, that implicitly means you’re against taking things too far (i.e. becoming an extremist), so why would you support the extremists in your midst on the grounds that “they’re one of us”?
No, I’m starting to get the impression that one party is good and the other bad, but I’m keeping separate this impression from what I have a right to claim to know. I’m still in a state of learning and investigating (though obviously, not holding back on expressing my highly biased opinions).
Actually, I didn’t say there would be no voting; what I said was you’d have only two candidate parties vying for election at a time, but the people would still vote on those two.
I understand that. All I’m saying is that if conservatives and liberals were to somehow resolve their differences, they’d have this political corruption issue under control (because they’d own their government once again). I don’t know what such a resolution would look like, however. It could very well turn out that one faction simply faces the fact that they were wrong and the other right, and then both would put their prior disagreements behind them (this is a highly implausible scenario, of course, but it highlights my understanding that such a resolution wouldn’t necessarily be a fusion of the two). But I do think we have to remember that, in the end, both liberals and conservatives want what’s good for everyone, unlike the Israelis and the Palestinians who want nothing but to kill each other, and so there is at least this starting point that both factions can go back to when they find they’re at each other’s throats.
The problem Liz, is that I don’t buy it. You’ll say “Can’t we all just drop this liberal vs. conservative crap and do what it takes to fix the country?” where ‘what it takes to fix the country’ just happens to be everything the liberals want to do. Time and again, the liberal notion of compromise is “Do whatever I tell you, and if a conservative objects, he’s not compromising enough.” I’m perfectly comfortable with a society in which multiple ideas compete. I’m not comfortable with what your side has done in the past to achieve ‘consensus’ or what they do with it when they have it.
I’m not sure. I consider the media to be more corrupt than the Government most of the time, and that’s a case of the corruption being against the opposing party, to the detriment of the people.
Agreed. My general take on it is that I haven’t heard any NSA scandals reveal anything that I didn’t already assume they were doing. In the interest of full disclosure, I have some connections with them and know their mentality better than most.
Yeah, that mainly comes up in Libertarian vs Conservative debates those. Libertarians and Conservatives agree that Progressive/Marxism is the big threat that's in danger of ruining the country, and Western civilization in general. Libertarians think the big problem with the left is that they are bringing about a lack of freedom, conservatives think the left is bringing about a lack of virtue. Usually conservatives see what the libertarians mean about freedom and agree to a lesser extent. Libertarians may or may not agree with conservatives depending on if they are left-liberarian or right-libertarian.
There's that, and left libertarians are also skeptical of the institutions conservatives would like to see fill the roles that the Government is removed from, like Churches and such. So, a libertarian wants to clear out the State to make room for individualism, and a conservative wants to clear out the state to make room for civil society.
The only reason to have a law that says 'thou may' is when it's an exception to some other existing law that says 'thou shalt not', so I still consider it an absence, but I suppose that's largely academic. There's no list in American jurisprudence of the things Americans are allowed to do. There's lists of things they aren't allowed to do, an a list of limitations on the state. A bill is a proposed law that hasn't finished the legal process to becoming an actual law- which culminates in Congress voting for it (State or federal).
I wouldn't believe that, and I would go so far as to say that there's no reason why they ought to. A congressman voting their conscience isn't a conflict of Church and State, whether their conscience is religiously informed or not. You have to think about what a religion is, and this goes back to a point I tried to make with liz. Imagine a bunch of Congressmen voting on this gay rights issue. One is against gay rights because he's a Catholic and the Bible clearly teaches homosexual acs are sinful. Another is for it because he's an Episcopalian and the Bible clearly teaches that we should love one another. A third is a secular humanist who believes homosexuality should be opposed as a matter of public health and mental hygeine. A fourth believes that Nature has a reason for everything, and since homosexuality is natural, it should be embraced. The fifth doesn't give much of a shit one way or the other, but if he votes in favor of gay rights, he knows his constituents will dump him in the fall.
So, which of these people should put their convictions aside, which of them are allowed to vote their conscience, and for the ones who put their convictions aside, according to what standard should they cast a vote, or should they just recuse themselves?
The separation of Church and State has nothing to do with whether or not policies are put in place because religious people want them for religious reasons. People need to stop thinking about it that way, as it makes no sense under examination. That's just an echo of leftists who don't want religious people to be able to vote or have influence. The separation of Church and State clause restricts the State from imposing a national religion or restricting people from practicing religion the way they want, period. That's it.
Yeah, there’s plenty of that, at least on the right. That’s why you have libertarians, and neoconservatives and paleoconservatives and dissident-right conservatives and all that stuff. I’m sure the left does something similar.
Well, this is a perfect example. Sam Harris is an extremist who believes that religious people teaching their values to their kids is child abuse, and that Western civilization has a duty to eradicate Islam from the face of the earth. He obviously wants moderate atheists to [i]support him[/i]. What he doesn't want is for religious people to be unified in rejecting his message. I can support a conservative extremist with whom I disagree about a great deal, if the thing that he's doing at the moment is protecting the 2nd Amendment, or pushing for the repeal of Obamacare, and so on. You have to think about it tactically; Sam Harris wants all religion gone. In the interim, he wants religious moderates and religious extremists to be at cross purposes. Now here's the clincher- he also wants his side to be the one defining who counts as an extremist and who doesn't, and by implication the freedom to shift that definition at will.
Simply put- disavow all the 'extremists' in your own camp, and never win an election again.
I think you lost me- my impression is that you wanted the parties to basically take turns being in charge.
Yeah, that is true. You do see the parties in the U.S. come together, if briefly, when there is a strong enough external threat. I think the problem is that your 'what's good for everyone' clause may not be true- you have to remember the polarization isn't merely happenstance, it's demographic. There are very vocal groups on both sides that plainly do NOT want what's best for everyone, they want what's best for the voting blocs that support them. Now, they may want what's best for [i]America[/i], but that vision may well include all the gays, or all the Christians, or all the blacks, or all the Jews being absolutely marginalized.
That’s the thing, ucci, you don’t ‘buy’ anything if it comes from what you’ve labeled ‘progressive, Marxist, Communist,’ or any of your other labels. Those people you label in that way, in turn, don’t ‘buy’ anything if it comes from a ‘wingnut, extreme conservative.’ Those labels are automatic ear plugs blocking out everything else.
But what about history don’t you buy? Don’t you believe that Republics impeached Andrew Johnson in what was a political move to push the Republican ideas about Reconstruction of the South following the Civil War. Johnson, a Democrat, was Lincoln’s VP. Lincoln was a Republican. When Lincoln was assassinated, Johnson was sworn in as President within hours. What followed was a constant battle between the POTUS and Congress. Ironically, the Republican party was pushing for black, male suffrage, which Johnson opposed, as did some Northern states. Johnson pushed through his Homestead Act, which opened up the West for further expansion. Both moves are considered ‘good,’ today.
Or maybe globalization and the resulting movement of industry to 3rd world countries was a conspiracy spearheaded by the Democratic party? Do you ‘buy’ that? Don’t you ‘buy’ the fact that NAFTA was signed into law (or was it a part of that conspiracy?) Who’s really benefited? The people of the US or the Corporations? The Mexican peasant farmer, ousted by farmcorps, hasn’t received much. That seems to be a real part of the current undocumented immigration from Mexico.
You’ve said corporations aren’t people, but the SCOTUS disagrees. The Citizen’s United decision gave “peoplehood” status to corporations, which is why political funding, in any form, by corporations is legal. Which party favors corporations?
Do you not agree with the Federal Reserve Act 0f 1913, overwhelmingly voted for by a Democratic Congress and signed into law by a Democratic President? How about the Federal Open Market Committee, formed in 1933 and revised in 1935, as a part of the Federal Reserve? Conservatives, in general, seem to want to disband the Federal Reserve, but I’ve never understood why and no one has been able to explain it to me, let alone tell me how to do what the Fed does only do it ‘better.’ Perhaps you think we should get rid of the Federal Reserve altogether and not replace it with anything? What would happen if we did? Please, you tell me. Get technical if you want; I’ll understand.
Those aren't labels I made up. Those are the names of actual ideologies that people [i]ascribe to themselves by name.[/i] Just because the left changes what it calls itself every 10 years when people catch on and the old label becomes unpopular doesn't mean I have to follow suit and start calling you something else or I'm insulting you. And yes, I don't buy anything that comes from Marxists or Communists because Marxism and Communism are catastrophically bad ideas. What's wrong with that?
And of course the difference is that nobody calls THEMSELVES a ‘wingnut, extreme conservative’. That actually is a pejorative coming from the left. ‘Marxist’ isn’t a pejorative. ‘Communist’ isn’t a pejorative. ‘Progressive’ isn’t a pejorative. These are all things that leftists in the U.S. called themselves until the names became so unpopular that they needed to come up with a new name to hide who they really are.
In other words, conservatives will be calling themselves conservatives in 10, 20, 30 years from now. Who knows what the left will be calling itself. All we can say for sure is that what you call yourself willingly today will be considered insulting if I call you that same thing tomorrow.
And both moves happened before Marxism arrived on the scene, and thus have absolutely nothing to do with how a person of conscience ought to deal with the left today. I don't understand what your point is here- because a couple of people 2 centuries ago from opposite parties worked together on some particular thing, therefore it must be a good idea now?
How do you even say 'undocumented immigration' instead of 'illegal immigration' without making yourself sick to your stomach? Don't you know that's just a bullshit term invented to obfuscate the truth, because the left looks wrong on the issue if you actually call a spade a spade? You're assuming I want to do something about illegal immigration- and you're right. The first fucking thing we need to do to fix illegal immigration is [i]call it illegal immigration[/i].
See, this is why compromise is so hard- because even while you're talking about how you want to 'get past' the left vs. right thing, you're still stuck out in leftist fantasy land where everything is defined in terms of class struggle, and you can just make up new terms for problems in order to hide the fact that they are problems. Think long and hard about why the term 'undocumented immigrants' exists and why you use it, and if you're honest with yourself, you should have a big epiphany about why I don't trust the left.
I don't know what a discussion of the Federal Reserve have to do with anything you and I have ever said to each other, in this or any other thread. It seems like you're just throwing random stuff out there. I'll repeat my point because you didn't address it: I'm in no big hurry to change anything about America. I have no motivation to 'work with you' to 'clear the gridlock' so we can 'make progress'. Those are all just things a leftist says when their radical reforms aren't getting rammed down our throats fast enough for their taste.
What is it that you think a conservative wants, that they need to work with a liberal to achieve? YOU are the ones that want to change everything, we're the ones standing in your way because your proposed changes are poorly-thought out. So what is there to work together on? Are you going to give me back the sanctity of marriage? Are you going to stop advocating for the killing of the unborn? Are you going to stop trying to further restrict the 2nd Amendment? Are you going to give me a secure border? No, no, no, and no. I already know I'm getting nothing I want from any compromise with the left...so what else is there? You want me to help you 'stop the evil corporations'?
The Senate waited until most had gone home for the season, and then quickly drew a vote from the attending members, knowing ahead of time what they were waiting for. Later, after the treasonous Wilson signed the bill, the Secretary of State simply lied and said that the states had ratified it, when most of them didn’t even know it was up for vote.
The FED was a scam and con job pulled in slower, more separated times when it was easier to lie and murder Presidents who got in their way while always blaming a “lone-wolf” patsy.
Yeah, i know, and it’s a relatively cheap life saving device, that’s why i pointed it out as an exception to the rest of your examples. i don’t think most people living in desert summers consider AC a luxury - not every single person needs it to survive, but it’s not just about brute survival, it’s about health and quality of life. Two things conservatives think the government should refrain from promoting, for a number of reasons, but mostly because, as a matter of principle, they don’t consider the health and quality of life of other people to be worth spending money on.
Maybe, but that’s not how it’s used anymore. If beer actually were saving lives, then i might argue that the govt ought subsidize it, but it’s not.
Access to the internet might not qualify as a human right (whatever that is), but that doesn’t mean the govt has no interest in subsidizing internet access for those people who can’t otherwise afford it. Especially given that internet is a far more efficient way of enabling someone to rise out of poverty than a part time job at a burger joint.
Yeah, if you want to get employed it’s helpful to have a suit - that’s a good point. So if the government is interested in helping people on welfare find jobs, then it makes sense to help them obtain things like presentable clothing and internet access.
Well, yeah. And?
Like the people who already have those things? i may give a shit about them having internet access and clothes suitable for a job interview, but if they already have those things, then there’s nothing to give a shit about, is there?
The Constitution says some things the Government can’t do, but it was never designed to be a comprehensive list of all the things the government CAN do - so yeah, if there’s a justifiable reason for the government to do something that the Constitution doesn’t expressly forbid, and it’s a good idea, then who cares if a bunch of conservatives bitch and whine and call it stupid because they don’t like change? They don’t generally deal in good ideas, and rarely know them when they come across them, anyway.
i know - it’s all the same boogeyman to the Right Wing. Which is why i don’t generally bother distinguishing between conservatives and libertarians anymore (it’s all just “Right Wing” to me now), even though they do have some differing beliefs, they ally with one another politically and scapegoat their self-proclaimed enemies in exactly the same ways.
Americans think they invented it; they think they have the best version in the world; and they think it is their right to impose their version of it on the rest of the world.
All these things are false.
Fact is that when they do bring democracy to the rest of the world, they don’t like the results, and have proven to be engaged in a War on democracy, when when the voters choice does not match their idea of a government.
The US democracy is a choice of two people; two parties; both capitalist, both right wing; both of whom subject values to appease the masses whilst promoting their own wealth and the power of an elite class.
The person chosen is supposed to represent 740 million, but in effect through control of the media represents nothing but the interests of corporate America.
Can you explain in what way the left is bringing about a lack of virtue?
I’m glad we’re going here. I was hoping a leeway would open up in the course of this thread to ask about what conservatives think a viable alternative would be for the socialist solutions that liberals would like to see the government implement. It sounds like you think something similar should come to the needy and disadvantaged but from a more local source. Is that right?
In that case, Melvin’s bill would be the opposite of uniting Church and state. Still, it’s distasteful to me and Melvin seems like a bigot.
But tell me what a “national religion” is. Would a national religion be like an enforced religion? As in: if you’re American, your religion must be Protestantism? Otherwise, it sounds kind of vacuous.
This may be true of Harris, but I think you’re missing the point. The point I was making is that if you’re a moderate, you’re implicitly saying you disagree with extremism. So in order to stand up for the principles you believe in, you not only have to fight against the opposing camp, but those in your own camp who take things to such extremes that even you claim to be intolerable. Otherwise, your moderatism doesn’t mean shit.
For example, suppose you were on the jury of a court case trying someone charged with theft. You decide he should get 5 years in prison. Then the guy next to you motions for the death penalty. Of course, you’re not that extreme. But you both agree that the guy is a criminal and should be punished. Would you therefore support this motion to sentence the guy to death merely on the basis that you both agree the guy should be punished somehow? I would think a decent morally sensible human being would push for some kind of punishment–5 years, 10 years, maybe 15–but would know where to draw the line and would in fact fight against those who would cross that line–because it just isn’t right.
This is another one of these stupid tangents, but I’ll try to explain.
Say you have 3 parties: X, Y, and Z. Suppose X wins by a landslide (so no minority government). So X serves a term, and then they step aside. What that means is that in the next election, only parties Y and Z would be up for candidacy. The people still vote on it, so it has nothing to do with turns (i.e. it’s not like we’re saying X got their turn, now it’s Y’s turn so it’s predetermined that Y will be the next government). Let’s say Y wins the vote; they too serve a term. Then they step aside. Now X comes back onto the playing field. Notice that X is now back even though Z didn’t get a turn yet. For all practical purposes, it could switch between X and Y for decades without Z ever getting a turn.
Now like I said, this was just me brainstorming, so not to be taken seriously. I can see numerous holes and problems creeping in to a system like this, not to mention the whopping majority of Americans just finding it ridiculous, so I’m not really interested in pursuing it with any seriousness. I just brought it up as a way of having more than two parties without the danger of a minority government.
Yes, but we’re talking about a minority of people here, aren’t we? It’s unfortunate for you that conservatives have the reputation for being racists, sexist, homophobic, etc., but I honest believe this is a minority among conservatives (and it isn’t lost on me that such prejudices can exist on the liberal side as well). Am I wrong?
Nope. The NSA is a personal issue for me, so take what I say about it with a grain of salt, is all.
Yeah, so for example the welfare state. Libertarians and Conservatives are both going to object to increasing expansion of it. Libertarians may object on the grounds that taking money from the rich is theft, and that it keeps the poor dependant on the state and thus not free. Conservatives are more concerned that it discourages hard work, and creates a class of people that aren't willing or able to take care of themselves. That's how they might see the same issue in terms of freedom versus virtue. Social issues like gay rights and abortion rights are major one too, where a conservative will see that as liberals making the nation (or wherever) less virtuous, where as Libertarians are less likely to care- for them, what matters is the freedom of people to reject these things if they want to, not whether they are right or wrong in fact.
Yes and no. Well, basically yes, except I'd like to underscore that I'm not proposing anything new that the world is unfamiliar with. The needy and disadvantaged should be taken care of by their families, their churches, and their communities and such; people that actually care to do it. I personally do believe that the State can provide some sort of limited safety net, I've no problem with that. I have a problem with it going so far that people see the State as who they turn to first when they need help, and not each other.
Well, then you would vote against the bill if you were in a position to, and vote to not reelect him when the time came.
Dictating what faith can build churches in the country, making some religions illegal (Banning their holy books, essential ritual items, and so on), or not allowing members of disapproved faiths to sue members of approved faiths would all be examples of establishing a national religion.
Principle vs. politics. Sure, in the context of having an argument on the internet, I'll argue with conservatives I disagree with (extremist or otherwise) as much as liberals and so on. My point is that people on the outside don't get to decide what extremism is, and that there may well be situations where the extremist in your camp is the lesser of two evils.
Sure, in that case that’s what you’d do. So here’s another example: suppose you want to protect a virgin wilderness from being cut down by loggers. You think this particular wilderness houses some very rare species and spectacular natural formations such that destroying it would deprive us all of something much more important than lumber. Some other people think that the logging industry should never cut down any trees, period, because humans are a parasite destroying Gaia and thus rabbits and trees are worth more than human society. Do you spend your time arguing with them while the wilderness gets cut down, or do you share resources to accomplish your mutual goal?
.
Less and less. Thanks to Sam Harris, there are more liberals every day that seriously think it would be a good idea to take children away from parents who's religious views are too loopy, or who would provide a litmus test that says if you believe in supernatural beings like God, you're a crazy person unfit for public office. And of course, you have the same thing on the other side- people who think the main way to fix the country is some serious roll backs on the basic civil rights of various groups.
I don't know if you're wrong or not, because those words largely exist now as propaganda by the left in the first place. Homophobia isn't a condition as the term would have you believe, it's just a word you use to insult and marginalize anybody who isn't in favor of the normalization of homosexuality. If you're actually considering homophobia a real thing and not a slur, then no, it's not a minority - or at least, not a small minority- there's tons of conservatives that don't think there should be such a thing as gay marriage, that homosexuality shouldn't be protected from criticism, specifically because homosexual acts are immoral. Conservatives who think violence against gays is somehow more justified than violence against anyone else are few and far between, though. Racism? Sure, it's a tiny minority of conservatives that want to do violence to minority races, or kick them out of the U.S., or whatever...but it's 'racist' to advocate hiring people based on merit irrespective of color if you ask a leftist. It's 'racist' to require I.D. from people registering to vote. It's racist to think the prisons have disproportionately too many black people for a reason other than the racism of judges and police. And sexist? I haven't met a conservative that thinks women shouldn't be allowed to vote or work or do what they want, or a conservative that thinks having one wage for men and another for women for the same work is a good idea. But it's 'sexist' to want pictures of sexy women in men's magazines. It's sexist to call a bitch a bitch. It's sexist to believe that many or most women would be happier in the traditional role of a woman in society than to try to do what men do. Liz blamed the Hobby Lobby decision on sexism.
Don't get me wrong, I'll pretty sure you mean racism and sexism in the actual severe sense that is in fact an extreme minority occurrence, and not all the ways a leftist casually tosses it around. But you toss around the term 'homophobia' like it's a real thing, so I have to clarify: Racism and Sexism as actual serious problems are an extreme minority among conservatives. Racism in particular is less common on the right than it is on the left. But practically every (social) conservative is racist or sexist if you accept the way the left uses the terms as valid.
So if I understand you correctly, what you mean by “virtue” or “morality” is hard work, anti-gay-rights, and anti-abortion (among other things, possibly). But isn’t this just conservative morality? I’m sure liberals would be just as eager to hold up their principles and values as “moral”. So I don’t think you can play that card.
In fact, if anything, I would think it’s liberal principles and values that have more of a claim to morality. I mean, liberalism, as I understand it, is at base a concern for the welfare of others–for the disadvantaged and less fortunate–they seem to be the ones directly reaching out to others with a desire to help. I know you’ve mentioned the fact that many liberals take these principles and values too far–distorting them and becoming prejudiced themselves against many of the conservative principles and values that would also seem moral to most people (freedom of religion, for example, or anti-discrimination in the media and education system)–and I know you’ve mentioned the fact that the way many liberals implement their principles and values can be destructive–but I have to believe that the compassion and concern for the welfare of others that the bulk of liberals exhibit is the quintessential example of morality if there ever was such a thing. They may not think their strategies through very well, but this is more a matter of rationality or being smart (thinking about the effect socialism has on the economy, for example) than it is the genuineness of their moral intentions.
Okay, this is good. Sounds very reasonable to me. I think the allure of socialism is that it seems so methodological or algorithmic–that is, it seems like something we can just put into effect by taking the right steps, and so long as we plan the procedure out properly, it should have the desired effect: draft up a bill, put it to a vote, win, put some budget towards resources, hire some man-power, create a system or organization whose function it is to provide whatever social service it was the bill’s intention to setup, and presto–poverty alleviated!
But I guess the conservative argument is that it rarely ever works out as smoothly as that, and worse, there is no feedback indicating that it doesn’t work (or there is feedback but no one cares to do anything about it). Right? ← This is something I need more clarification on, but let’s get to that later. For now, I just want to make sure I understand the argument. Does the typical conservative say that it is more likely that (or it’s more effective to allow) free market forces to bring about the help that those in need require?
If this is the case, I think the liberal concern is that we have no guarantee that this will happen. How do we know, why should we believe, that these organizations of help and relief will just spring up on their own when we leave government out of it? And also, how long do we have to wait for them to spring up?
I’m also glad you agreed to the limited safety net; I wanted to express my agreement with conservatives somewhere in this thread that natural market forces are, for the most part, the best way to allow prosperity for all to grow, but that, like nature, these market forces can sometimes be absolutely cruel. We sometimes go through major recessions and severe market crashes, and during these times, it would take a cold heart indeed to say “yeah, we’re going through some trying times right now, and many will have to suffer, possibly even die, but that’s not such a big deal as long as we pull through without involving the government.” It brings peace of mind to someone like me knowing that we live in a society with at least some limited safety net for the worse off, and that even those who are opposed to socialism can see some reasoning in that. ← But your agreement to a limited safety net hints that you think not every form of socialism is always going to be a fuck up. This is what I need a bit of clarification on. There must be something in the methodology of socialism that you think messes up the market but can sometimes be absent such that some instances of socialism actually do what they are intended to do.
This would be relevant in situations in which you’re forced to choose between the two evils, but my point is that denouncing the extremists in your own group (whom, according to the very principles you as a group member believe in, are crossing certain moral lines) is an excellent way to demonstrate to your adversary, or simply to outsiders, that you don’t condone just anything, no matter how immoral, that happens to be done in the name of your groups principles and values. To me, it is an effective way of demonstrating your moral integrity. It’s a strategy, above all, which I’d recommend to both liberals or conservatives (or any group really) who are concerned about their public image. Take it or leave it.
Yes, I understand the point you’re making–it’s similar to the other point you made about extremists in your group working towards a goal you yourself want to achieve–point taken; but if people see you working hand-in-hand with those who have questionable ethics, you’re not doing your reputation any favors. It’s up to you to decide what’s more important–achieving your goal tactically or demonstrating the genuineness of your moral integrity (keeping in mind that the latter can sometimes be a powerful tactical maneuver in itself–this is politics after all).
Okay, let’s not bring up Sam Harris . Do you at least believe that, on the whole, conservatives and liberals still feel that it’s possible to reason their differences out, or that there is some common objective they’re both trying to meet even if that objective has to be phrased in widely general terms like “what’s best for everyone”? I believe there is a fine line between diplomacy and war, and this line is hardwired in the brain. It’s my personal experience with my own brain that I can switch between these two modes when engaging with people–it’s like night and day–almost as if the human brain evolved with these two strategic approaches to dealing with people: either trust that the person wants peace and cooperation with you, in which case you can be reasonable and forthcoming with the person, or don’t trust that the person even gives a shit about peace and cooperation, that they would betray you and slit your throat given half the chance (hyperbole again), in which case your best bet is to approach the person as though you were at war with him, planning your self-defense and your attack against them. It doesn’t seem to me that Americans are, on the whole, in the latter state of mind with respect to the conservative vs. liberal conflict–I would still say that these radical minorities don’t represent the norm–but it also seems very easy to temporarily slip into these war-like defensive states when conservatives and liberals argue with each other, which I think only escalates the conflict and leads away from any prospect of resolution.
This is problematic. First of all, I use the term “homophobe” because it’s the only term in my vocabulary that’s on par with “racism”, “sexism”, etc.–it’s the same kind of prejudice only directed at gays (if “gayism” existed in the English language, I’d use that). Second, when you say that the term “homophobia”, when not used as a slur or an insult, is not just a minority position, do you mean that these “homophobes” (if I may use the term) feel uncomfortable with homosexuality (as many straight men naturally do) or do you mean there is actually a thread of hatred or disapproval or assumption of inferiority about homosexuals (as in, straights are better than gays)? And third, if there is this thread of disapproval, would you say it’s mainly religiously grounded? (<-- this part wouldn’t be entirely consistent as you say below that sexism isn’t nearly as prevalent even though there’s plenty of Biblical material to promote what would be considered by today’s standards sexist beliefs, values, or practices).
I’m on board with you here. In my discussion with feminists, I learned that they have a somewhat different definition of “sexism” than what I have: I define sexism as first and foremost an attitude–it’s the attitude that one sex is better, or more deserving, than the other–but the feminists I engaged with defined sexism as whatever disadvantages one sex relative to the other (so to take an extreme case, that child birth is more painful to women than men could be considered sexist–but thank God they were reasonable enough to recognize that as not men’s fault ).
Do you mean in the sense that the left are way more frequently reverse racists than the right are racists? Or that the left shit on whites more than any other race?
You’re not insulting me. I think you come across as more denigrating to yourself, actually. Who are the members of the Democratic Party who call themselves Marxist, Communist, or Socialist? How can they hold to any of those ideologies and call themselves Democratic? If no one calls themselves a ‘wingnut,’ because they’re conservative, why should a liberal be called a Marxist? The media have created those labels.
See what I mean by ‘denigrating’ yourself? Or am I still being to subtle for you to understand?
Yes, two people from opposite parties worked together, to arrive at a common goal for the country. Why can’t that happen today?
I call the immigrants undocumented for two or three reasons: First, because they are undocumented. Second, because they aren’t all from Mexico. Third, because ‘illegal immigrant’ is a buzz phrase that implies criminality, in a nation that holds that no one is guilty of criminality until so proven. I’m not defining a ‘class struggle’ by saying a Chinese woman who comes into the country on a student visa and stays longer than her visa allows involved in any kind of class struggle–or an East Indian man who doesn’t renew his green card for years. Any yet, they’re legally undocumented. If, in the interim, they marry or buy a home, can’t it be assumed they’re immigrants?
When anyone uses the phrase ‘illegal immigrant,’ what image does that draw in people’s minds? Do you see a Chinese doctor from state university; a well-dressed man working in a respected profession; the family next door who own a growing business, although their English is rather poor? Or do you see a migrant worker from Mexico?
I brought up the Fed, because so much of what I’ve read in conservative publications blame so much on it without knowing much about what it’s function is.
I don’t want you to do anything. You’re incapable of even talking coherently with anyone you’ve labeled Marxist/Communist/Socialist/progressive. How can you possibly arrive at any new ways of doing things if you don’t recognize that a new way may, just possibly, be needed of the old idea is no longer working.
If you believe in the sanctity of marriage and that abortion is murder, that’s your privilege. But it’s not your privilege to try to force your ideas on me or anyone else. I would fight for your privileges as much as I’d hope you’d fight for mine.
Now I feel compelled to answer some things you brought up in posts to other people. Homophobia isn’t a classified as a mental disorder, yet. But it does lead to violence just as racism does. Homophobia is the fear of homosexuality. There’s nothing in the NT that says anything about homosexuality; there’s the story of Lot in the OT, however, that some people feel is against homosexuality. I’m sure you know the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. Lot offers his two virgin daughters to the men of Sodom rather than have his guests violated. God destroys the two cities but doesn’t destroy Lot. Later on, the two girls have intercourse with their drunken father, hoping pregnancies would result. God doesn’t destroy the two girls. But Lot was pandering and the girls were incestuous. Does that make pandering and incest okay in God’s eyes? God destroys homosexuality in men, only. Is homophobia, then, somehow religious?
And there’s more to marriage than ‘sanctity.’ There are an awful lot of legalities in marriage that have nothing to do with holiness or sanctity.
I am not an advocate for abortion in a lot of circumstances. I am an advocate of allowing a woman to choose, but I feel they could have chosen not to get pregnant in the first place. But I can’t say or really even think that without sounding as if I’m judging. I don’t like being judgmental when I don’t know the circumstances. There are a lot of unhappy people as the result of ‘unwanted’ pregnancies; there are a lot of unwanted children; there were a lot of doctors who had their licenses to practice taken because they performed abortions. Not murder, however, only abortion.
You brought up this:
They can all vote their conscience–why shouldn’t they? It’s the fifth one who bothers me because he’s considering his public career rather than the issue. His career is more important than lives affected by his vote.
I think politics often gets in the way of politics.
I expect nothing of you, not even rational and complete answers.
It is important to remember the free market is not only made up of greedy individuals. The free market allows people to do with their resources what they want, allowing those to give, those that can give. The free market does not create a dog eat dog world, the world is already very much that, instead it creates a setting where such a thing helps everyone. Add in, that Conservatives are very religious (I’m somewhat of an anomaly) it’s why the stereotype exists, and most of those religions tell people that they should help the needy. This has a two fold goal of humbling people, nothing like serving the poor to humble a man, and providing for the poor.
There is no guarantees in life and the “liberal concern” that this will not happen is invalid, because there is no guarantee that the government is going to do these things either. And, as more money has been put into fighting the poor (which is the best wrong way to put it), we have not reduced the amount of poor people, near as we can tell they have increased. Now, I’d point to the numbers being used being arbitrary, and that what is important is that the standard of living is increased, not the disparity between “rich” and “poor,” but every time I do it is ignored.
The safety net, as conservatives agree to it, is an acknowledgement, that bad things happen to good people. That we can’t always rely on those around us, because those around us may not be able to help. It is also a compromise, the left gets a basic level to feel good about, and the right gets them to shut the fuck up… It has never worked though, the left never shuts up, they are like a bitchy wife, and too often it’s used to expand power instead of helping anyone…
The biggest problem I have with “proving” that socialism doesn’t work, is that it hasn’t been proven to work. If I came to your house and said, from now on you spend your money the way I want you to spend it, at the very least you would want proof that I can manage it better than you, right? But people that support socialism, almost without error, don’t prove a damned thing, instead they want proof it doesn’t work… The people that support socialism, must not just prove the basic, minimum wage increases the wages for the poorest of people, but also that the result isn’t that they lose jobs as a result. That the general public has the ability to understand all the information required behind the wage to know what job is worth what wage, or should they hand it off to a politician that the politician has the ability… They have not proven these things, for this one small thing, let alone all of the things under the “socialist” dogma. So, I’ll try, but it’s really hard to prove a negative.
Socialism is a weird thing, vs Communism which is just a stupid thing. On one hand, roads, police, military, judicial system, and government in general is basically socialism, and it works just so damn well we don’t have any problems with it. On the other hand transferring more aspects of our lives to the same oversight that these systems use would be bad for investments, entrepreneurship and invention. A book I finished a little bit ago (and that I need to read again), presents it as entropy (as the information theory use, not quite the chemistry use), that the best way to create solutions to problems is to allow the “chaos” of the world to have to deal with it. And that though we need a base level of solid, non entropy for it to flow around, the ultimate goal is to allow more chaos, so that the “randomness” of life can come up with the solutions. We have so many inventions that came about by accident, and even many created by design using the chaos. Tin cans were created when Napoleon offered a cash reward to any who could come up with an effective food storage system. And the world was changed by, in essence, throwing cash into the wind that is the free market. The ability to store food long term, cheap and effectively, is one of the best things for the “poor.” That America has moved away from that as a primary way for even the poor to get food is a sign of our wealth, much more than an arbitrary line.
Okay, but it sounds like you think it would be more effective for ordinary people to volunteer their help to the poor than it would be for paid workers on the government’s payroll to do it. Why would that be better/more effective?
But why is this? Why is it that in our attempts to establish social services through government, it ends up not having the intended effect, or the opposite of the intended effect?
I’m not looking for proof, I’m looking for an explanation. Why do conservatives think socialism doesn’t work? If it’s been proven not to work, do we understand why?
Right, which is what’s so confusing about the conservative position for me. Obviously, there are forms of socialism that work. So why are conservatives so trigger happy to reject socialism outright as a counter-productive strategy? Are there not potentially effective socialist programs that can be implemented to solve certain problems that actually do solve those problems… and if so, what is it about those socialist programs that makes them work and about other socialist programs that makes them not work?
Let’s take medical care as an example. Here in Canada, we have medical care as a basic government funded service for everyone. So far, my experience with it has not been negative. It seems to do the job it’s supposed to do (which, btw, is one reason I don’t feel the need to “prove” that socialism can work–I’ve lived the proof–but if you haven’t, I supposed you’ll need to rely on anecdotal accounts like mine*). The only drawback I’ve experienced is that there’s sometimes an extremely long waiting list to have to wait in before you can see a doctor (I’m told this is partly because of moochers who don’t really need the attention they think they do and they fill up the line pretty thick), but for the poor who wouldn’t be able to afford medical care, it’s still a lot better than nothing at all.
Now, there are certain things, certain examples you brought up, that I agree would be taking things too far–the internet, for example, or potato chips–but where health and medicine are concerned, I think this is such a basic necessity that it belongs up there with education, law enforcement, roads and infrastructure, etc… What, to a conservative, would be required of the medical industry in order to qualify it as one of these basic services that the government ought to oversee just to make society function properly?
But there are so many things socialism is meant to accomplish that don’t require newer or better solutions–we already have a solution for feeding the hungry, for example: food. The problem is that no matter what kind or how many solutions an open market comes up with, people still have to pay for them. The poor who are starving can’t afford food, they can’t afford shelter, they can’t afford simple medical procedures, procedures that we’ve already invented. We just need a system in which a few of our resources are redistributed to those who need them the most and who aren’t capable of simply working to get them.
But just to be fair, you did make me think, Eric. Life is pretty comfortable for most Canadians living in this socialist oriented country of ours, but when you brought up the problems surrounding minimum wage, it made me think: maybe it’s comfortable for me and my friends–I don’t know anyone who’s unemployed–but if you’re right that unemployment goes up significantly with minimum wage, maybe it isn’t so comfortable for everyone but I can’t feel it in my cushy high paid computer programmer position.
I certainly said it in talking about the poverty line. It’s not really the standard of living, however; it’s the cost of living at, or maintaining, a certain standard of living. And, if you’re in such a situation and your income doesn’t cover the cost of living, you suffer. But I disagree when you say the disparity between ‘rich’ and ‘poor’ doesn’t also increase.
Look at it this way. Assume an income, after income taxes, of $50K/yr. as a single man with no dependents. Your living expenses come out to around $43K/yr. for the basics. You could live better, if you chose to, but you choose to save a little bit every month, instead. You pay off your credit card every month when you can, but there are times when you can’t without taking the money out of savings. Your employer provides health insurance and you’ve chosen the least expensive coverage plan because you never need to see a doctor and haven’t in years. Five years later, you make $55K/yr., but more comes out of your paycheck for your insurance, even though your plan hasn’t changed. Your car insurance goes up. Your savings account took a hit when you had to have a root canal done and you had no dental insurance. The cost of a movie ticket has crept up, so you’ve had to cut movies down to once a month. Not only has gas gone over the top, the price of even a ‘pre-owned’ vehicle is a bit out of your reach. Your utilities, water and sewer, trash collection and rent have been inching up a bit at a time. And food! The cost of food is such that you have to cut down on snacks, just so you can afford a good steak once in awhile.
In the meantime, there’s a married man with 2 dependent children. He earns $500K/yr. as a corporate attorney. He doesn’t work for a corporation; he’s incorporated himself. This gives him tax breaks. He and his wife, who’s in real estate, just bought a new home in Cabo–a 4,000 Sq. Ft. condo on the beach. He’s happy his wife is in real estate–she was able to find them a great deal on the Cabo condo and on their winter retreat in the mountains. They both love to ski. They don’t have to worry about the kids, they have a wonderful live-in nanny from Chile, who’s parents only charged $55K to let her go when she was 13 yrs. old. He doesn’t pay any capitol gains taxes, his accountant sees to that. His accountant finds all the legal ways to save them money and to make them money, as well. Food. Ever since his doctor warned him about rich foods and heart attacks, they’ve cut down some and joined health clubs. They also limit drinking to one preprandial drink each, a bottle of wine with the meal, and some good brandy after. They give their clothes to charity and declare almost full price for their donations since the clothing is ‘gently used.’ A certain small portion of their income goes to various ‘missions’ automatically, every month. They invest and plan to send the kids to private schools when they reach school age. Last week, he’d made $350K on a case that had been going on for weeks, so things were looking good.
The stories are a product of my imagination. The names weren’t given to protect the innocent. Me.
Seriously, Erik. How does a free-market economy help when the cost of living goes up, but salaries don’t go up enough to meet the cost–the very real cost? Markets fluctuate; theoretically it should adjust itself with that fluctuation. If prices go up; demand goes down. If demand goes down; does production also go down? Isn’t it supposed to? Prices are supposed to go down when demand goes down, but they haven’t; they just keep going up. We have an over-abundance of everything and, yet, people go hungry every day. Charities can only do so much if they’re run by volunteers. If they’re run as a business, as so many of them are, the overhead needed takes away from the contributions. The same thing is true with government agencies paid out of our tax money. They’re top-heavy and need to be pared down.
But what’s more expensive? Should half the workforce manning government ‘charities’ be let go as the agencies ‘down-size’ or would that create a new unemployment problem costing money? Does it cost more for the government to subsidize health insurance compared to the amount of money it costs to care for a cancer patient who has no insurance, which also costs tax money?
The entire situation is much more complex than can be solved with simple answers.
Let’s wipe out advertizing. Then people won’t want to buy things they don’t need just because they have a credit card. Wipe out credit cards so people can’t buy the things they don’t need. Let’s go back to the days of Henry Ford when everyone could have an automobile, as long as it was black. The days of invention are pretty much gone for a lot of reasons. If you work for a company, anything you come up with–a new method, a new coding language, a new product–usually belongs to the company, especially if it’s at all related to the company’s products. Real entrepeneurs are more scarce than RotoRooter drain cleaners or seasoned crabbers off the Alaska coast. Any idea is just the start of the battle to actually be able to see the idea to fruition. That’s why there are venture capitalists.
If you don’t understand, try coming up with something new–product, method, theory, whatever–that doesn’t infringe on an existing something. Get it all worked out in your mind and on paper. Oh, and it has to be something people will buy and/or that you’ll make money from. Then get a cash source for start-up money, before you go through patenting to insure against possible law suits. Build a few prototypes and test them every which way, all the while making improvements on the design. When you believe you’ve done everything you can, you still have to sell both yourself and your ‘product’ to a producer/distributor. Hire a good ad agency, then sit back and pray people will buy it because, if they don’t, you’re up to your eye-balls in debt.
I apologize, guys. I really don’t feel there’s just one answer. Everything looks fine in our minds, or in books, but reality, as we know it, is way more than that.
Oh but he will. One thing about conservatives is they pretty much invariably believe in Absolute Moral Truth. Not surprising, since most are also fundamentalist-leaning religious types. Though in the US they often hide the ways in which their religious beliefs influence their politics ones, in order to get people (like libertarians, for instance) to take them more seriously, and so those political beliefs can often seem arbitrary on their face to apolitical or objective observers. For example, conservatives often baffle apolitical observers with their opposition to gay marriage and other equal rights issues involving gays, because those conservatives rarely talk about how they are anti-gay primarily for religious reasons (where they are not anti-gay for religious reasons they are anti-gay out of spite toward the left). The reticence is because they know that no one will support their anti-gay legislative efforts if they broadcast the actual (religious) motivations underlying them.
i also noticed the way you pointed out how conservative media exist almost primarily to attack liberalism, they are overtly anti-liberal, whereas liberal media is not so much anti-conservative so much as just pro-things-that-conservatives dislike. That’s not just a function of you-tube editing, that’s how it actually is. FOX News is reactionary media, which is what makes it so popular - people get to watch combative reporting - watching the news becomes like watching a sporting event between two arch-rival teams.
This is not what I said. I said that it is unimportant, as in irrelevant, uninteresting, etc. That the goal is to raise up the standard of living, that the “poverty line” is raised up with it. That is more important to “helping the poor.” The wealth expansion that has
How does the socialist, controlled economy help? Prices are knowledge, when you ignore those prices you ignore that knowledge. Why do you think people in Washington are going to have the ability to adjust? Russia attempted to do that for years, and failed. You have not made an argument for your own side, please back up that what you think would work. Make a actual argument of proof. I don’t want my rights taken away before you offer actual proof that you can make it work better than me. PROVE YOU CAN LIVE MY LIFE BETTER BEFORE YOU TAKE IT. Think about this, we started taking about the corruption in government, yet you want to turn over huge sums of money to them, because why?
But that doesn’t answer your question…
The free-market does not help, it allows people to make choices, and they help themselves. This empowers them to look out for themselves. Because they are the only ones that all the information in their lives to make decisions. Sticky wages are a fun aspect, and a HUGE problem for Keynesian economics (it has no idea how to adjust), in the free market though, if you no longer provide enough value at a job to another, you do not get paid it. You must adjust, getting a different job, or reducing the things your money is applied to.
Prices do go down. Even Marx acknowledged that. Repeated studies have shown it over and over, and over and over. They are not top heavy, they do not need to be pared down, they particularly don’t need to be messed with by politicians which have no reason or way to understand all of the information contained with in them. Charities must be run in the red, it is the nature of the beast.
Gold, still a very stable investment though.
False dichotomy. And I don’t care.
Yeah, regardless of what you do, socialism, which both of these are, costs.
I haven’t given out simple answers, I’ve given out complicated ones, that’ve done my best to explain as simply as possible because else everyone is bored, possibly except me…
Proof that this costs more that it brings in, lowering costs? Marx also thought they could just take out the “middle man.” Russia learned how important they where, the hard way. You are gain, taking away the rights of people to apply their resources how they wish without any justification that it means a damned thing.
As long as we are not subsidizing every little thing in their lives, who the fuck cares how people spend their own god damned money. Stop applying your personal arbitrary values to others, forcing them to do as, “you think is best.” Do you realize how arrogant that is? Do you really think people need to be enslaved to you, so you can decide what is best for them?
Again, arrogant and full of shit. You must provide proof that your values are more correct than everyone else’s before I’ll allow this pile of useless ideals run my life.
Yet I’ve got friends making loads on inventions, particularly in coding…
I think my mind just broke on the wrongness of what you just typed… So many assumptions, and misinformation.
Books are written every day, so many so that trying to get one publish is impossible. But, thanks to things like Amazon, lots of them still get put out there, through self publishing. Read a story a year ago of a woman that was able to quit her full time teaching job, and write full-time based off of self-publishing royalties alone.
The USB drive is a relatively new invention and the creator made millions, and has saved more trees through the first world than all of the arbor day movements and Charities put together.
They recently hit a wall with silicon based resistors. They just can’t reduce the space between the switches enough to put more on, thankfully, they also found a substance called graphene, which should start being in our computers very quickly… There is the restriction of cost, but there was one when silicon was first being used as well…
Venture capitalists love to invest in things like this, usually moderated by a more stable investment to reduce the chance of loss of all their money. And, as they invested in the venture, they get money back, when the venture makes money.
I think the real problem is that YOU don’t understand.
And yet you consistently only offer up one, giving power to the government, let them handle things. If you’ve offered up more, I’ve not seen it, please point to them. I however have said, stop taking power away from the millions of people, and let them come up with millions of different answers. I know I alone cannot solve the problems of the world, no one person can. Why would one small group of people be any better?
Yes, we know that socialism looks oh so simple and pretty on paper, the chaos of capitalism and the free market does not.
Because prices are transferred knowledge, individuals are better at making use of knowledge for their own lives than the government is.
Because prices are transferred knowledge, individuals are better at making use of knowledge for their own lives than the government is.
I am looking for proof, the act of socialism includes taking away freedoms, they must provide proof that they can use those freedoms more effectively than the people that earned them. Money is freedom of choice. Socialism is not pro-choice. Why do socialist think it works?
It doesn’t work because, prices are transferred knowledge, individuals are better at making use of knowledge for their own lives than the government is.
We accept a base level amount, because we have to, but less is better, because prices are transferred knowledge, individuals are better at making use of knowledge for their own lives than the government is. While we must have roads, etc, we do not need them in our medical care.
Most of them don’t work, it just works less well when we do it individually.
And if that extremely long wait results in death? Does that count as failure?
And now you must prove that it is better than nothing at all, and that the poor get nothing at all.
Again, I almost want to see all of these things really come through, just to watch the people that vote for it get fucked. It’s just to bad the collateral damage would be so severe… Roads are not run well. Law enforcement is not run well. Education is not run well. I’m sorry the sarcasm didn’t come through earlier (the last post). These are often the shittiest, slowest run, poorest run parts of our individual lives. WHY WOULD WE WANT TO TURN MORE THINGS OVER TO THEM?
It is not enough to simply have excess food, the food must also reach the hungry people. Either way, innovation brings down the costs of all of these things. GMO’s are one of the solutions we have come up with to feed the hungry… Another is fracking… How do you feel about them?
One of the things I actually to hate about Canada is their medical policies. They decided that medicines are too expensive, and put a price ceiling on them. The result is those prices where forced on Americans. We are paying the price for your policies. Yet, if we did the same, the result would be no new medicines, because then money could not be made in them. People would die. America cares far more about others, by practice, than Canada does. Canada only cares about its own people, by practice. America is not only the police of the world, we also often pay costs for the rest of the world to live and be free.
Well that and this, though this is not their fault.
You did do an amazing job of pointing out why socialist thought is short sighted though. Do you really believe all the things that can be invented are?
I took a brake from this thread, because I’m tired of explaining these things over and over. I must say to all of you, read a economics book, start with Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell. It is a 1000+ page book that goes into great detail on all of these things. It explains why socialism fails and does so much better than I ever could. He is an economics phd, with Yale and Cornell University as alma maters. He wrote the book after a grandchild showed him the book she was learning economics from, and said, “see I’m learning economics like you!” Which made him look at the book and note, “You don’t need to know this junk, unless your going to college for Economics…” It is a basic understanding, with no charts, very little number crunching and great understanding. (After that read Advanced Economics, which is along the same lines, but is about thinking.) I will do my best to stop posting in this thread until the point where someone else reads these things.
