Some political differences - TranceAddict Forums

TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Some political differences
Pages (5): [1] 2 3 4 5 »

Posted by Shakka on Nov-05-2003 15:03:

Some political differences

Just a brief blurb, a quote that captures a lot of what I think is wrong with some current leftist thinking. Obviously, it's just the tip of the iceberg, but it's a good starting point.

quote:
..I just happened to catch some Democratic Party consultant on CNN yesterday talking about how young voters could be attracted to the Democratic Party. He felt that economic security was the key.

Yup .. there it is again. The magic "S" word ... Security. You don't hear Democrats trying to attract young voters with an appeal to liberty and freedom. No ... the appeal is to security. Security ... the word that has all but replaced freedom in the hearts and minds of so many Americans.

Oh .. I could easily make this segment hundreds of words long, even thousands. It's easy to get on a roll with this one.

"Do I want to be free to plan for my own retirement? Well, does that mean that I am going to suffer if I don't plan responsibly and well? OK, then. The answer is no. I don't want to be free to plan for my own retirement. I want the government to do it for me."

Face it .. the Democrats know exactly what they're doing here. They know that young people have been and are being taught that government-provided security is so much more important to their well-being than economic liberty.

You cannot love freedom and seek government-provided economic security from your government. You chose either one or the other.

Amen.

Posted by occrider on Nov-05-2003 15:51:

Re: Some political differences

quote:
Originally posted by Shakka
Just a brief blurb, a quote that captures a lot of what I think is wrong with some current leftist thinking. Obviously, it's just the tip of the iceberg, but it's a good starting point.

Amen.

Are you libertarian Shakka? Lately, I've been pissed off at both the republicans and the democrats. If you think about it, Bush has been more Clinton-esque with his nation-building and big government than Clinton ever was. Personally, I think the CATO institute summarized my political beliefs quite well:

quote:

How to Label Cato
Today, those who subscribe to the principles of the American Revolution--individual liberty, limited government, the free market, and the rule of law--call themselves by a variety of terms, including conservative, libertarian, classical liberal, and liberal. We see problems with all of those terms. "Conservative" smacks of an unwillingness to change, of a desire to preserve the status quo. Only in America do people seem to refer to free-market capitalism--the most progressive, dynamic, and ever-changing system the world has ever known--as conservative. Additionally, many contemporary American conservatives favor state intervention in some areas, most notably in trade and into our private lives.

"Classical liberal" is a bit closer to the mark, but the word "classical" connotes a backward-looking philosophy.

Finally, "liberal" may well be the perfect word in most of the world--the liberals in societies from China to Iran to South Africa to Argentina are supporters of human rights and free markets--but its meaning has clearly been corrupted by contemporary American liberals.

The Jeffersonian philosophy that animates Cato's work has increasingly come to be called "libertarianism" or "market liberalism." It combines an appreciation for entrepreneurship, the market process, and lower taxes with strict respect for civil liberties and skepticism about the benefits of both the welfare state and foreign military adventurism.

The market-liberal vision brings the wisdom of the American Founders to bear on the problems of today. As did the Founders, it looks to the future with optimism and excitement, eager to discover what great things women and men will do in the coming century. Market liberals appreciate the complexity of a great society, they recognize that socialism and government planning are just too clumsy for the modern world. It is--or used to be--the conventional wisdom that a more complex society needs more government, but the truth is just the opposite. The simpler the society, the less damage government planning does. Planning is cumbersome in an agricultural society, costly in an industrial economy, and impossible in the information age. Today collectivism and planning are outmoded and backward, a drag on social progress.

Market liberals have a cosmopolitan, inclusive vision for society. We reject the bashing of gays, Japan, rich people, and immigrants that contemporary liberals and conservatives seem to think addresses society's problems. We applaud the liberation of blacks and women from the statist restrictions that for so long kept them out of the economic mainstream. Our greatest challenge today is to extend the promise of political freedom and economic opportunity to those who are still denied it, in our own country and around the world.

Posted by Shakka on Nov-05-2003 16:04:

Isn't everybody a libertarian?

Interesting article. I also appreciate a lot about the Objectivist philosophy.

Posted by occrider on Nov-05-2003 16:09:

quote:
Originally posted by Shakka
Isn't everybody a libertarian?

Interesting article. I also appreciate a lot about the Objectivist philosophy.

No ... the dems want a social welfare government and the repubs want to intrude on our right to privacy ... among with a million other things that I find at fault with both parties. Actually the CATO institute is a somewhat conservative libertarian think tank which should be somewhat attractive to more repubs.

Posted by Shakka on Nov-05-2003 16:21:

I was joking--there's a saying that everyone is a libertarian because many people try to label themselves as one to avoid being labeled a Dem or Repub. "Are you a democrat or a republican?" "Neither, I'm a Libertarian." Many times saying it blindly without knowing what it really means. I would definitely say that I believe in a lot of the conservative mindset, but I don't believe in 'no change to the status quo' as I actually think that's a misconception about what Conservatives really are. Either way, I have my beliefs, I think they are well founded, and I don't find that I have to stray from my beliefs to rationalize anything, which serves to increase my convictions. Bottom line is that having a well thought out personal philosophy serves a person well in figuring out where they stand in the larger picture.

Posted by DrUg_Tit0 on Nov-05-2003 16:50:

I must say I don't see anything wrong with government providing a wellfare service.

Posted by occrider on Nov-05-2003 16:52:

quote:
Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0
I must say I don't see anything wrong with government providing a wellfare service.

Neither do I. There's a big difference between a government providing a welfare service and setting up a welfare state however.

Posted by DrUg_Tit0 on Nov-05-2003 17:27:

quote:
Originally posted by occrider
Neither do I. There's a big difference between a government providing a welfare service and setting up a welfare state however.

Well, I'm not sure about a welfare state being such a bad thing either. It functions quite nicely in Sweden, for example.

Posted by occrider on Nov-05-2003 17:32:

quote:
Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0
Well, I'm not sure about a welfare state being such a bad thing either. It functions quite nicely in Sweden, for example.

Well, I don't really want to threadjack the thread into a discussion of welfare/social welfare states, however, I disagree with most distribution of wealth systems. I'm all for welfare to help those who are not in good times. But I'm very much against having the state support individuals who lack the motivation to support themselves. I'm an individualist ... I don't expect any free lunches for myself, and I'm not expecting anyone to demand a free lunch from me.

Posted by dj adagnitio on Nov-05-2003 17:42:

quote:
Originally posted by occrider
I disagree with most distribution of wealth systems. I'm all for welfare to help those who are not in good times. But I'm very much against having the state support individuals who lack the motivation to support themselves. I'm an individualist ... I don't expect any free lunches for myself, and I'm not expecting anyone to demand a free lunch from me.

The argument against that would be that if the playing field were equal and the wealth was equally distributed their wouldn't be individuals that lack the motivation to support themselves. It's the lack of oppurtunity and unfair situation to start with that makes people lose the morivation.

Posted by occrider on Nov-05-2003 18:09:

quote:
Originally posted by dj adagnitio
The argument against that would be that if the playing field were equal and the wealth was equally distributed their wouldn't be individuals that lack the motivation to support themselves. It's the lack of oppurtunity and unfair situation to start with that makes people lose the morivation.

Do you have any siblings? If you do, are they EXACTLY like you? Same drive, motivation, passion, etc.? Those fuck-ups in high school who didn't study, didn't work, didn't care ... you think they would have the same motivation as a smart kid who knows what he/she wants and works to get it? Did those fuckups have missed opportunities somehow someway"? There are plenty of people who making something of themselves from nothing and do it through their own blood, sweat, and tears. For the mass majority of people who claim that they are in the position they are in because of the "system" they are denying themselves personal responsibility and personal accountability. The system is not designed to gauruntee your path to success and excellence. It is there to provide you with the opportunities to capitalize on so that you can make something of yourself. Does the system ever actually fuck up and not present people with the necessary opportunities they need? Yes, and that's why I'm not completely against welfare.

Life's not fair ... depending upon your luck, you can be born rich and have everything or be born poor and have nothing. You can be born beautiful or you can be born ugly. If you're born ugly are you going to resent all the beautiful people and demand that they give you some of their looks? No of course not, you make do with what you have and you use your other skills to surpass them in life.

Posted by dj adagnitio on Nov-05-2003 18:13:

I do. What is the point your trying to make?

Posted by occrider on Nov-05-2003 18:15:

quote:
Originally posted by dj adagnitio
I do. What is the point your trying to make?

err i decided to put it all in one post heh.

Posted by Shakka on Nov-05-2003 18:34:

Posted by St_Andrew on Nov-05-2003 18:46:

quote:
Originally posted by occrider
Do you have any siblings? If you do, are they EXACTLY like you? Same drive, motivation, passion, etc.? Those fuck-ups in high school who didn't study, didn't work, didn't care ... you think they would have the same motivation as a smart kid who knows what he/she wants and works to get it? Did those fuckups have missed opportunities somehow someway"? There are plenty of people who making something of themselves from nothing and do it through their own blood, sweat, and tears. For the mass majority of people who claim that they are in the position they are in because of the "system" they are denying themselves personal responsibility and personal accountability. The system is not designed to gauruntee your path to success and excellence. It is there to provide you with the opportunities to capitalize on so that you can make something of yourself. Does the system ever actually fuck up and not present people with the necessary opportunities they need? Yes, and that's why I'm not completely against welfare.

Life's not fair ... depending upon your luck, you can be born rich and have everything or be born poor and have nothing. You can be born beautiful or you can be born ugly. If you're born ugly are you going to resent all the beautiful people and demand that they give you some of their looks? No of course not, you make do with what you have and you use your other skills to surpass them in life.

no life is not fair, but i can't see why you shouldn't try to do it more fair.. the big difference with sweden and US is that in sweden everyone can go to the best schools, have good health care etc no matter how rich, how beautiful or whoever they are. it doesn't make all people fuck ups in high school, it just make life a bit easier for the people who wheren't born lucky (smart, rich etc). A welfare state do not make the poor rich, it just make their life a bit better...

Posted by Trancer-X on Nov-05-2003 18:53:

quote:
Originally posted by Shakka
Isn't everybody a libertarian?

Interesting article. I also appreciate a lot about the Objectivist philosophy.

I'm technically unaffiliated now that the Libertarian party is no longer recognized by the Maryland State Board of Elections.

Posted by Shakka on Nov-05-2003 18:57:

quote:
Originally posted by St_Andrew
no life is not fair, but i can't see why you shouldn't try to do it more fair.. the big difference with sweden and US is that in sweden everyone can go to the best schools, have good health care etc no matter how rich, how beautiful or whoever they are. it doesn't make all people fuck ups in high school, it just make life a bit easier for the people who wheren't born lucky (smart, rich etc). A welfare state do not make the poor rich, it just make their life a bit better...

So it's solely the fault/responsibility of the government/system to make sure that regardless of peoples' choices and motivations, they are entitled to all of the same ends? The way you describe it, it sounds like A Brave New World. You're walking a very dangerous line that I'm not sure you see the potential darkside of. You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but I have to respectfully disagree. You're basically saying that the ends justify the means, and that a person can eat their cake and have it to (yes, it's supposed to be reversed if you grasp the philosophical argument).

Posted by Trancer-X on Nov-05-2003 19:12:

Laissez-Faire

"In every government on earth is some trace of human weakness, some germ of corruption and degeneracy, which cunning will discover, and wickedness insensibly open, cultivate and improve."

- Thomas Jefferson Notes on Virginia, 1782

Posted by occrider on Nov-05-2003 19:19:

Posted by St_Andrew on Nov-05-2003 19:36:

quote:
Originally posted by Shakka
So it's solely the fault/responsibility of the government/system to make sure that regardless of peoples' choices and motivations, they are entitled to all of the same ends? The way you describe it, it sounds like A Brave New World. You're walking a very dangerous line that I'm not sure you see the potential darkside of. You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but I have to respectfully disagree. You're basically saying that the ends justify the means, and that a person can eat their cake and have it to (yes, it's supposed to be reversed if you grasp the philosophical argument).

please explain that potential darkside a bit more....

regardless of peoples congenital skills (whatever it is richness, smartness, consentrationness (new word? ) etc) they should have the same right to basic services in society. as i see it it is an individual right to have as good health care etc as the rich persons. All systems but welfare systems is violating your right as a human. It's not like everyone get the perfect life without doing anything, it's just about the basic stuff.

Posted by Shakka on Nov-05-2003 19:52:

quote:
Originally posted by St_Andrew
please explain that potential darkside a bit more....

regardless of peoples congenital skills (whatever it is richness, smartness, consentrationness (new word? ) etc) they should have the same right to basic services in society. as i see it it is an individual right to have as good health care etc as the rich persons. All systems but welfare systems is violating your right as a human. It's not like everyone get the perfect life without doing anything, it's just about the basic stuff.

I don't buy into the "right to healthcare" that you're talking about. I dont see anyone arguing the "right to equal car insurance". Why is it someone else's responsibility, or moral duty to ensure that some other complete stranger makes the right decisions to take care of themselves. Bad things happen to good people all the time, but why does that make it the moral obligation of society to pick up the tab and make sure that person has health insurance. Since when is my life someone else's responsibility. I think there's a huge difference between same "rights" to basic services vs. same opportunity to access basic services. Again, I just don't buy the argument that the ends justify the means. If you break altruism down to the very core it basically says that it is a person's moral duty to sacrifice themselves for the benefit of someone else, but that it's wrong to ask someone else to sacrifice themselves for your benefit. It simply doesn't make sense. It is a philosohpy that dictates my death for the life of another with it not being my decision to make.

I don't have a problem with charity or sharing, per se, however it is wrong for one person to give something to another if the cost is detrimental to the giver. I need to reference my philosophy books for better explanation, but at the core I simply can't allow myself to sell out. My goal while I am on this Earth is to do the best I possibly can and to be the best I can possibly be. The better I do for myself, the more likely the better those around me will be. Being the best I can be will make me the most productive, satisfied person I can possibly be. I alone am ultimately responsible for my own happiness and that is why I must live to be the best that I can be, for me.

This is too much of a rant than a well thought out response. I need to get some old thoughts together and organize it to give you a more thorough philosophical/political response.

Oh, and Brave New World is a book by Aldous Huxley in the early 1900's that visualizes a futuristic utopia. It's amazing how many of his 'predictions' are very visible in our societies today. It also does a good job of pointing out a lot of the dark side to the utopian society. I think it's a bit like 1984 in a way, though I really haven't given 1984 a good read. Huxley's book is very short and an easy read, and is often referenced in movies if you catch the references. If you already knew this, then ignore my commentary--I couldn't tell from your remark whether or not you were familliar with the book. Give it a read if you haven't heard of it before. It's very different and very insightful.

Posted by Arbiter on Nov-05-2003 20:21:

I've always thought Vonnegut's "Harrison Bergeron" is a good example of the perversity of extremist egalitarianism.

Posted by Shakka on Nov-05-2003 20:35:

quote:
Originally posted by Arbiter
I've always thought Vonnegut's "Harrison Bergeron" is a good example of the perversity of extremist egalitarianism.

Wasn't that the short story about the kid who they equipped with all sorts of physical handicaps so that he would be no more able than anyone else? It sounds very familliar. In any event, I never realized it was a Vonnegut story.

I'm sure there are more than a handful of novels and short stories which delve into what happens in said societies.

Posted by occrider on Nov-05-2003 20:52:

*Remembers back to that Neal Boortz commencement address I posted that got everyone up in an uproar*

Posted by Arbiter on Nov-05-2003 21:07:

quote:
Originally posted by Shakka
Wasn't that the short story about the kid who they equipped with all sorts of physical handicaps so that he would be no more able than anyone else? It sounds very familliar. In any event, I never realized it was a Vonnegut story.

I'm sure there are more than a handful of novels and short stories which delve into what happens in said societies.

Yeah, that's it.

Pages (5): [1] 2 3 4 5 »