TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- The socialists are out
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

The socialists are out

One of my biggest beefs with the Democratic party laid out crystal clear. They strike me as the party of anti-individualism and that is a major reason why I personally could not cast my vote for them. Some of you probably think that "common good" is a great concept, but I abhor the notion. I am not opposed to people helping people out of the goodness of their own hearts, but when you advocate this as policy and start talking about things like "fairness doctrines" you're walking down a slippery slope in the wrong direction. Not to mention a policy like this is a lovely veil for things like increased taxes and socialized healthcare. Hell, this message may very well become their achilles heel. I guess we'll find out soon enough.

quote:

'Common Good' Unifies Dems for Election By RACHEL ZOLL The Associated Press Monday, October 16, 2006; 3:33 PM -- Ned Lamont uses it in his Connecticut Senate race. President Clinton is scheduled to speak on the idea in Washington this week. Bob Casey Jr., Pennsylvania candidate for Senate, put it in the title of his talk at The Catholic University of America _ then repeated the phrase 29 times. The term is "common good," and it's catching on as a way to describe liberal values and reach religious voters who rejected Democrats in the 2004 election. Led by the Center for American Progress, a Washington think-tank, party activists hope the phrase will do for them what "compassionate conservative" did for the Republicans. "It's a core value that we think organizes the entire political agenda for progressives," said John Halpin, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress. "With the rise of materialism, greed and corruption in American society, people want a return to a better sense of community _ sort of a shared sacrifice, a return to the ethic of service and duty." Republicans have used the phrase, too. GOP Sen. Rick Santorum, who faces Casey, a fellow Catholic, in November, wrote a book last year titled, "It Takes a Family: Conservatism and the Common Good." But liberals say that Republican policies promote a "radical individualism" _ advocating individual retirement accounts above Social Security, health savings accounts over affordable insurance, and tax cuts that Democrats say benefit only the rich. "We really feel that it speaks to the central moral challenge of our time," said Alexia Kelly, executive director of Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, an advocacy group that formed two years ago. "Our religious traditions call us to that deeper vision of caring for all, being in it together, not a go-it-alone culture," said Kelly, who has worked for the U.S. bishops and served briefly as a religious adviser to 2004 Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry. "I think it's important that it crosses faith traditions." Tom Perriello, a co-founder of the Catholic Alliance, said the approach would help end what he sees as a self-defeating practice among liberals _ treating religious Americans as a constituency that needs special handling, instead of crafting a message meaningful to all voters. But he acknowledged that the strength of the "common good" as a unifying theme also is a weakness. The term is so broad it's hard to define and can be misinterpreted as a call for "big government," Perriello said. "The question right now is who is going to define it." Advocates say they don't want to tie the phrase to a laundry list of narrow policies, but intend to convey a broad philosophy of governing with a positive appeal. It won't be easy. Under Roman Catholic teaching, promoting the "common good" would include opposing abortion _ a position both Santorum and Casey embrace _ and opposing gay marriage to protect human dignity and the family. "Common good" Democrats are generally changing how they talk about abortion, calling it a tragedy to avoid _ rather than a private issue. But most have not come out against the procedure. "I would argue that the conservative evangelical and traditional Catholic stands on same-sex marriage and abortion are stances in favor of the common good," said Richard Land, head of the public policy arm of the Southern Baptist Convention and a supporter of President Bush. "We believe that traditional marriage is the basic building block of society." The "common good" theme came up in meetings among Democrats and faith groups after the 2004 election, when the party felt blind-sided by the values vote and was frantic to solve its religion problem. Exit polls showed 78 percent of white evangelicals voted for President Bush. Bush, a Methodist, also won the Catholic vote 52 percent to 47 percent over Kerry, who is Catholic. Around the same time, The American Prospect, a liberal policy magazine, ran articles by its editor Michael Tomasky, and by Halpin and analyst Ruy Texeira, urging the Democrats to develop a clear vision of the "common good" so Americans know what Democrats stand for. Tomasky drew on political philosophers, and Presidents James Madison and Franklin D. Roosevelt, among others. But the term also conveniently tapped into a guiding concept in Catholic and some Protestant traditions. It can be found in many papal encyclicals _ a pontiff's most authoritative declaration _ most recently in Deus Caritas Est, the first encyclical from Pope Benedict XVI, who wrote "the common good is something which concerns the Church deeply." The twin sources of the idea can be seen in who's adopting it. From the political left, the Campaign for America's Future, which has worked with MoveOn.org and the AFL-CIO, released an "Agenda for the Common Good" in June. Mara Vanderslice, a religious outreach director for Kerry's presidential campaign, formed a political consulting firm last year called Common Good Strategies to "help Democrats reframe the national religious debate." The Casey campaign in Pennsylvania is a Vanderslice client.

Your own Republicans are the party of "anti-individualism".

Else why do they want everyone to get married in a certain way, lead the mainstream (as opposed to alternative) lifestyle, etc. They are the ones advocating "the common good". Don't believe me? Look at patriotism. Patriotism and "loving your country" and all that. American flags in every house. "We support our troops" in Suburbia and all that shit.

Hey, I wanna travel to Cuba to catch some tan, but your goddamn Republicans restrict my individual freedom to do so. Oh yea I forgot, I'd also like to be able to buy alcohol any day of the week. Can you convey this to your Republican friends please.

Are government provisions for social welfare necessarily "anti-individualistic" though?

quote:

Originally posted by HardTranceProd Your own Republicans are the party of "anti-individualism". Else why do they want everyone to get married in a certain way, lead the mainstream (as opposed to alternative) lifestyle, etc. They are the ones advocating "the common good". Don't believe me? Look at patriotism. Patriotism and "loving your country" and all that. American flags in every house. "We support our troops" in Suburbia and all that shit. Hey, I wanna travel to Cuba to catch some tan, but your goddamn Republicans restrict my individual freedom to do so. Oh yea I forgot, I'd also like to be able to buy alcohol any day of the week. Can you convey this to your Republican friends please.

They can both be wrong. The difference is that Democrats have stood for the notion and have advocated it for years/decades. It is oft the cornerstone of their political philosophy. Hopefully the GOP morass is only temporary, but it's certainly not the platform that they run on. The article certainly points to a few GOPers that advocate a policy I clearly disagree with.

Get married a certain way? That's rich you fucking rube. That might be one of the dumbest things I've ever read. Individual freedom and individualism are not necessarily the same thing. Hey, if you like communism so much then you should go to Cuba.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Are government provisions for social welfare necessarily "anti-individualistic" though?

That will all depend, but the concept opens a lot of doors I'd rather not see the other side of. Like I said--a slippery slope. A very slippery slope.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka That will all depend, but the concept opens a lot of doors I'd rather not see the other side of. Like I said--a slippery slope. A very slippery slope.

"Slippery slope" concerns are generally not a good reason to oppose something though. What you're essentially saying is that you only oppose greater government welfare provisions because you're worried that they might lead to even greater government welfare provisions at some point in the future. I think that you personally have to take each proposal on its merits: you may oppose blanket economic equality (as do I) but that doesn't mean that you have to oppose even the slightest policy move in that direction. It's quite clear that this initiative won't lead to those sort of extremes, so I'll ask again: why are greater government provisions for social welfare necessarily "anti-individualistic"?

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Individual freedom and individualism are not necessarily the same thing.

What is individualism without individual freedoms, though?

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade "Slippery slope" concerns are generally not a good reason to oppose something though. What you're essentially saying is that you only oppose greater government welfare provisions because you're worried that they might lead to even greater government welfare provisions at some point in the future. I think that you personally have to take each proposal on its merits: you may oppose blanket economic equality (as do I) but that doesn't mean that you have to oppose even the slightest policy move in that direction. It's quite clear that this initiative won't lead to those sort of extremes, so I'll ask again: why are greater government provisions for social welfare necessarily "anti-individualistic"?

Like I said earlier--if it's a matter of wanting to see everyone do better that's one thing, but when you make it the cornerstone of your campaign, that's another and I will never compromise my own beliefs to support such a notion. In case you didn't know, "common good" has often been used as the catch phrase for communism. Read between the lines. This is just setting up the stage for class warfare and a heavier burden on the evil rich. They will raise the tax rate on the most productive earners in our nation under the guise of "the common good". Yeah, we're all in this together as long as I win, regardless of how much you lose. I'm not saying I'm against a more balanced political system--god knows we obviously need more balance right now--but I will never be one to cast a vote in favor of someone who wants me to sacrifice my hard work in the name of the "common good". It is a sham. I'm sure all of those great politicians advoacting this policy will be lining up to make their own sacrifices for your betterment. They may even give themselves a pay-raise at your expense because they think their idea is so swell.

Would you enjoy going to a sporting event in the name of the common good? The most desireable outcome would be a 0-0 tie with all players getting equal playing time. Any athletes with exceptional skills would be handicapped so that they could not maximize their talents. That would just be peaches and cream! No winners and no losers! What a concept. Fuck that, I'd rather see a 50-0 bludgeoning because one team has worked harder and its players have worked to make themselves the best in the game. There would be losers, but it certainly isn't the fault of the stronger team for simply being better. Why should they sacrifice their hard work and talent to make a bench full of losers feel better about their lack of talent?

quote:

What is individualism without individual freedoms, though?

They may go hand-in-hand, but that does not make them one and the same.

Dude, if gays want to marry, the Republicans won't let them. It's no use insulting me... That's reality. Their individual freedoms are being curtailed.. while the Democrats would extend this freedom to them.

YOUR party is the anti-freedom party.

Just read this

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15265338/site/newsweek/

Today your Republican president criminalised gambling on the Internet. Never mind that the rest of the industrialized world allows it with few, if any, restrictions... he was caring about the public good. Right here, moron, let me direct your eyes:

quote:

When government restricts Americans' choices, ostensibly for their own good, someone is going to profit from the paternalism.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka arguments

I agree with most of what you're saying, but I don't think it's particularly relevent to what the Democrats are proposing here.

There are not many people in the western world who would support the concept of absolute material equality or the abolition of economic rights and it's pretty disingenuous of you to imply that that's what this proposal is actually gunning for. I fail to see how marginal tax increases or the provision of greater health-care coverage for those who can least afford it in anyway threatens the capacity of any man to profit from his labour and ingenuity. I will happily stand side-by-side with you in opposition to economic policies that gun for a "0-0" scoreline, but I would still argue that adequate welfare provisions are a integral instrument - in both an economic and moral sense - of government policy. This may make me a Keynsian rather than a neo-liberal, but it certainly does not make me a socialist.

quote:

They may go hand-in-hand, but that does not make them one and the same.

The general is derived from the particular: "individualism", as a doctrine, is derived from "individual freedoms", as law. The former is dependent on the cumulative of the latter: individualism can't exist without the prior existence of individual freedoms. That's what I was trying to say.

quote:

Originally posted by HardTranceProd Dude, if gays want to marry, the Republicans won't let them. It's no use insulting me... That's reality. Their individual freedoms are being curtailed.. while the Democrats would extend this freedom to them. YOUR party is the anti-freedom party.

So when their freedoms were equally curtailed under both democrat and republican presidents for the past 200 years, that was really just GOP oppression? I don't believe your man Clinton was an ardent supporter of gay marriage either. One issue does not make a broad encompassing point. Furthermore, the issue is more one of symantecs as I understand it. There is a thin line between "Marriage" and "Civil Union". One is a religious sacrement recognized by the state while the other is not based on any religious beliefs at all. You want to have your cake and eat it too.

Clearly the GOP is anti-freedom when our GOP president has been fighting a war against authoritarian dictatorships in the name of liberty for the past 6 years. Yeah, that's the ticket.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade I agree with most of what you're saying, but I don't think it's particularly relevent to what the Democrats are proposing here. There are not many people in the western world who would support the concept of absolute material equality or the abolition of economic rights and it's pretty disingenuous of you to imply that that's what this proposal is actually gunning for. I fail to see how marginal tax increases or the provision of greater health-care coverage for those who can least afford it in anyway threatens the capacity of any man to profit from his labour and ingenuity. I will happily stand side-by-side with you in opposition to economic policies that gun for a "0-0" scoreline, but I would still argue that adequate welfare provisions are a integral instrument - in both an economic and moral sense - of government policy. This may make me a Keynsian rather than a neo-liberal, but it certainly does not make me a socialist.

Fair enough. I just couldn't bring myself to vote in favor of it, though I recognize that there are many who would throw their full support behind it.

A politician can speak about the common good, but that never means they know what they are talking about. I wouldn't take the definitions from a politician too seriously, especially from the Dems nowadays because they are so flippy-floppy on everything. Nor would I take it from the Republicans, because their agenda is fixed and really just say things to promote their agenda.

The common good should be simply to extend welfare to the common good so that one day, if you are ever in need of that welfare, it will be there. That's it. There should ofcourse be incentives so that most people would never depend on this welfare unless they really needed it, but that topic would be too complex for the scope of this post. The common good should never be a social concept, because that's when individual freedoms like who people want to marry, or if I want to go to a club in the US at age 20 whether or not I drink.

I think both parties have two very faint definitions of what is the common good. It should very well exist, but in government, their should be an agreement on what it wants to promote.

quote:

Originally posted by HardTranceProd Else why do they want everyone to get married in a certain way, lead the mainstream (as opposed to alternative) lifestyle, etc. They are the ones advocating "the common good". Don't believe me? Look at patriotism. Patriotism and "loving your country" and all that. American flags in every house. "We support our troops" in Suburbia and all that shit.

actually it's reverse. Republicans don't want "everyone" to get married. it should be "exclusive" to "certain types" of people.
so you're wrong.

and the thing about patriotism is a red herring. has nothing to do with anything but one's "individual" expression of pride. what? do want to outlaw patriotism en masse? you'd be wrong again.

quote:

Hey, I wanna travel to Cuba to catch some tan, but your goddamn Republicans restrict my individual freedom to do so. Oh yea I forgot, I'd also like to be able to buy alcohol any day of the week. Can you convey this to your Republican friends please.

it was a Democrat who originally posted a ban on travel. Guess who?
Carter lifted the ban in 1977 and Reagan dropped it again in 1982.

i think its funny to see people taking things like this seriously. its merely a rhetorical device to win votes. as if its anywhere near anything like socialism but of course, thats how the republicans will paint it.

quote:

The term is so broad it's hard to define and can be misinterpreted as a call for "big government," Perriello said.

yeah, because the last 6 years have seen a curtailing of the federal government's size and reach. the republicans, champions of fiscal responsibility and small government

its interesting to see people cry about welfare in a state with some of the stingiest welfare provisions in the world, yet spending tax dollars on futile wars still sees a measure of support.

quote:

why are greater government provisions for social welfare necessarily "anti-individualistic"?

Because government accomplishes nothing in the economic arena without first confiscating wealth...stealing the property of those who earned it through voluntary exchange.

Let's keep it simple. Taxation is theft.
A 100% tax rate is SLAVERY, since you work for nothing at a 100% tax rate. A nice friendly socialistic tax rate of 30% can only be described as "partial enslavement", forcing someone to work 1/3 of the year without compensation.

How exactly is this not a restriction on individual liberty?

And BTW, we 30% is an extremely low rate for most countries. When factoring in government taxes at all levels (federal, state, and local), and remembering that you are taxed MANY times (when you earn the money, when you save it, AND when you spend it), most people easily pay 50%+ in direct taxes.

So basically, you are working more than half of every day for the "common good", and the left still doesn't think it's enough. (In fact, you are "selfish" if you want tax relief.)

If all this wasn't bad enough, most people forget about the HUGE amount of hidden taxes we all pay. Special taxes we pay on things like gasoline, cigarettes, alcohol, airline tickets, phone lines, etc. And we certainly can't neglect the so-called "corporate taxes" politicians love to brag about, which are of course passed on DIRECTLY to employees and consumers in the form of lower wages/higher prices...

I feel sick thinking about all of this. Freedom is vanishing from every country, and parties on both sides of the aisle seem to have accepted it.

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt Because government accomplishes nothing in the economic arena without first confiscating wealth...stealing the property of those who earned it through voluntary exchange. Let's keep it simple. Taxation is theft. A 100% tax rate is SLAVERY, since you work for nothing at a 100% tax rate. A nice friendly socialistic tax rate of 30% can only be described as "partial enslavement", forcing someone to work 1/3 of the year without compensation. How exactly is this not a restriction on individual liberty? And BTW, we 30% is an extremely low rate for most countries. When factoring in government taxes at all levels (federal, state, and local), and remembering that you are taxed MANY times (when you earn the money, when you save it, AND when you spend it), most people easily pay 50%+ in direct taxes. So basically, you are working more than half of every day for the "common good", and the left still doesn't think it's enough. (In fact, you are "selfish" if you want tax relief.) If all this wasn't bad enough, most people forget about the HUGE amount of hidden taxes we all pay. Special taxes we pay on things like gasoline, cigarettes, alcohol, airline tickets, phone lines, etc. And we certainly can't neglect the so-called "corporate taxes" politicians love to brag about, which are of course passed on DIRECTLY to employees and consumers in the form of lower wages/higher prices... I feel sick thinking about all of this. Freedom is vanishing from every country, and parties on both sides of the aisle seem to have accepted it.

Great post.

spare us the libertarian bullshit. anyone that thinks taxation isnt a necessary evil is kidding themselves.

It is necessary evil but people who decide not to work and take advantage of sec 8 are parasites. Gov shouldn't provide anything like that. We lease an apartment to a sec8 and the ****** has cost us over 9k dollars in damages. All the contractors have said the same that the damage done was caused by somebody. He has called the city and they are pressuring us to "fix" code violations that weren't there be4. He has done it twice. One day I went to talk with the city and the guy had the nerve to tell me that the apartment was city property and not mine. Basically, I have to get a lawyer now to kick him out because he wants to sue me to stay in the apartment for longer than what the lease says. There are only two people suppose to live in there but he has his child and two grandchildren now.

I can't do anything because the city defends him and he's a piece of shit. Sec 8 keeps parasites breathing. Any social welfare does.

I pay taxes and have little say and this guy doesn't pay for anything and he has more say than I do. is that fair? Basically, if some one is going to get taxed than he deserves more say. Except if the person is super rich.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN spare us the libertarian bullshit. anyone that thinks taxation isnt a necessary evil is kidding themselves.

I certainly didn't mean to indicate that I thought taxation should be eliminated. Certainly our government must be funded in order to provide the public goods we have entrusted them to provide. However, I thought his comments put things in perspective rather well. There is waaaaay too much unneccessary pork and both sides of the aisle are responsible for their wreckless spending. The last thing I'd like to see is more "entitlement" spending in the name of the "common good". I wonder how many politicians even know how to balance a checkbook or reconcile a bank statement.

I have paid over $20K in taxes this year and I'm desperate to get a new car, but it's rather difficult when I see nearly 30% of every paycheck thrown out the window on things I largely do not benefit from.

Nice post Capitalizt (been a while too )

Not sure if any of you are aware of this website, speaking of government spending...

http://www.porkbusters.org/

There's a blog roll on the left of other similar sites.

It's a great non-partisan look at government waste.
It's American based, but interesting non-the-less.

Fire, is that Tifa in your sig? Another FF7 fan.

W00T!

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt Fire, is that Tifa in your sig? Another FF7 fan. W00T!

Make that a double w00t! Can't wait to see the FF series on the PS3.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Make that a double w00t! Can't wait to see the FF series on the PS3.

What the hell you guys. If you want to talk about FF go to the game forum not on PDD

quote:

Originally posted by metalgearsolid What the hell you guys. If you want to talk about FF go to the game forum not on PDD

No. I refuse to swim in the kiddie pool. I started this thread and we can talk about FF if we want to!

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.