| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
micky 
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 02 2005
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 46838
|
 Posted: December 20 2007 at 07:46 |
 Novalis wrote:
Can a society survive without basic family structure, regulated borders and some sort of underlying universal moral foundation?
|
great post... and only touching upon this quickly because I'm about to get going with my day.. ^ it has to...for those things. CAN NOT be legislated. The right though... TRIES to do that. That is a difference again between left and right. Letties do understand the things change.. morals.. society.. the world around us. On the right.. they want us to go back the goddamn 1950's. Where the hispanics were.... Dezi Arnez... and blacks were ....in their place. Don't believe me... look again at Trent Lott's comments...that he lost his job over. He did not come out and directly say it. He didn't have to... that doesn't mean that everyone is... but it means that the POLICIES.. the people in power.. DO think that way. The policies SHOW it.
|
|
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip
|
 |
Novalis
Forum Senior Member
Joined: April 15 2007
Location: New Zealand
Status: Offline
Points: 338
|
Posted: December 20 2007 at 07:36 |
I was thinking the other day about left vs. right.
Isn't the primary difference between the left and the right their view on inherent human nature?
I mean, the right seems to think that humans are inherently "bad", that is to say laws are needed to restrict human nature from acting out on it's "baser" instincts.
Whereas the left seems to think that if left to our own devices, it'll all work out (with a whole lot of social tampering first of course).
Now this is not entirely correct, because it is not necessarily a question of right vs. wrong (i.e. morality), but of what works and what doesn't. Can a society survive without basic family structure, regulated borders and some sort of underlying universal moral foundation?
History would suggest no, although it remains to be seen whether modern Western culture will survive.
Perhaps conservatives are just pessimists, but then again maybe they are realists.
Irving Kristol describes change in political leaning as being a "liberal mugged by reality".
"The path to hell is paved with good intentions".
Edited by Novalis - December 22 2007 at 01:59
|
|
micky
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 02 2005
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 46838
|
Posted: December 20 2007 at 07:28 |
|
and one note... since I won't be around to answer the replies which will come from our right wingers here.. on this particular point...
it isn't as if the left does not fear .. or should not fear those out there that have.. and would again strike this country. Protecting this country as any politician.. and any PERSON would want to do ..is not a partisan issue. What the right has done is make it one.. and use disagreement with the way THEY want to make us safe. and make it an issue of patriotism and use that as a wedge issue and thus make it a policy of fear. In fact this administration has made it the ONLY issue. It is fear that strikes people.. gets their attention... that is why the right has done so well in recent years in elections. Brilliant strategy.. but still.. to call a spade a spade. It is using the politics of fear and divivsion. The right has no vision for American.. what it can be..but only peddles fear of what it might become. That is why it is bankrupt. Thus.. as I explained above... they are racist in nature. For to fear.. you have to fear something.. it isn't some obscure or nebulous idea or vision they want us to fear.. but particular groups of people. Gays.. and foreigners specifically.
|
|
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip
|
|
micky
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 02 2005
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 46838
|
Posted: December 20 2007 at 07:03 |
|
|
|
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip
|
|
jimmy_row
Forum Senior Member
Joined: July 11 2007
Location: Hibernation
Status: Offline
Points: 2601
|
Posted: December 20 2007 at 01:19 |
IVNORD wrote:
jimmy_row wrote:
I'm no expert, but I get the feeling that we don't really have free trade...but even if it was put in place now, the third world is so far behind that it wouldn't be able to catch up, so free trade would only protect the status quo.
|
I don’t really understand what you mean by status quo. |
I think that the system we use (some think that it's "fair trade"   ) has the objective of keeping things the way they are and preserving the hegemony. If we keep government intervention to a minimum, our beloved MNCs can thrive to the detriment of the developing world and cheap labor.
|
|
Signature Writers Guild on strike
|
|
IVNORD
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 13 2006
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1191
|
Posted: December 19 2007 at 23:17 |
stonebeard wrote:
Since we're on libertarianism now, I'd like to add that I consider myself one. I value:
a) Personal liberty
b) Reduced centralized government
c) Self-reliance
Of course there's another economic factor, but I'm not really up to date on economics, and I don't know whether a totally free market is a good thing. I do believe that businesses have shown to be ruthless and once they get in power, they try to monopolize things and make it harder for independent small businesses go get a foothold, so I do think some government regulation is in order with the economy, so maybe that's not entirely in keeping with libertarianism. I am definitely more libertarian than Democrat or Republican, though.
|
_popupControl();
Going into a greater detail, some of those principals border anarchy in their potential execution.
I disagree with libertarianism the most on their view of the economy. Self-adjusting interest rates and the gold standard to name a few.
|
|
IVNORD
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 13 2006
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1191
|
Posted: December 19 2007 at 23:00 |
jimmy_row wrote:
I'm no expert, but I get the feeling that we don't really have free trade...but even if it was put in place now, the third world is so far behind that it wouldn't be able to catch up, so free trade would only protect the status quo.
|
_popupControl();
I'm no expert either. Real free trade doesn’t exist. Again, libertarians are proponents of free trade in its purest form, but it’s impossible because of the economic disparities between the industrialized countries and the third world. One of the tenets is free movement of labor, and this is something that will not occur for quite a long time due to obvious reasons (would have eliminated illegal immigration though). The term is loosely used to refer to the version of free trade we practice, which is really a mix of free trade and protectionism, as opposed to staunch protectionism some people call for. I don’t really understand what you mean by status quo.
|
|
stonebeard
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28057
|
Posted: December 19 2007 at 18:42 |
|
Since we're on libertarianism now, I'd like to add that I consider myself one. I value:
a) Personal liberty
b) Reduced centralized government
c) Self-reliance
Of course there's another economic factor, but I'm not really up to date on economics, and I don't know whether a totally free market is a good thing. I do believe that businesses have shown to be ruthless and once they get in power, they try to monopolize things and make it harder for independent small businesses go get a foothold, so I do think some government regulation is in order with the economy, so maybe that's not entirely in keeping with libertarianism. I am definitely more libertarian than Democrat or Republican, though.
|
|
|
|
jimmy_row
Forum Senior Member
Joined: July 11 2007
Location: Hibernation
Status: Offline
Points: 2601
|
Posted: December 19 2007 at 17:51 |
IVNORD wrote:
_popupControl(); THat's what libertarians claim - it used to be the same thing. But that was before my time. And I don't remember Reagan to be much of a libertarian. That's what I was saying...the '70s and '80s were the beginning of a new movement of conservative politics (by the time Reagan was in, the Republican party was basically what it is now)...the two camps no longer had much to do with each other (I know I'm simplifying it though...it was before my time as well).
_popupControl(); What constitutes opportunistic trade practices? If you mean free trade, I can't agree with you. Gay marriage, like abortion before it, shouldn't even be a political issue . But they are...this is how those in power keep the issues under control. Part of the agenda is: no abortion, no gay-marriage, no marijuana, etc...it's all ingrained in the neo-conservative philosophy that began with Reagan.
Paul and Kucinich are an absolute must. Maybe they will make people think.
With Guiliani, I'd like to hear his concrete plans with regard to the war. He is liberal enough to carry New York (even against Hillary) so he may be GOP best bet.
I'm no expert, but I get the feeling that we don't really have free trade...but even if it was put in place now, the third world is so far behind that it wouldn't be able to catch up, so free trade would only protect the status quo.
As for Guiliani, I have a hard time filtering his plans re. the war because he sometimes tries to look "tougher" to appeal to the Republican narrative...but he says we're going to stay over there and "win", so he appears the same as Romney, McCain, and Thompson.
|
|
|
Signature Writers Guild on strike
|
|
IVNORD
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 13 2006
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1191
|
Posted: December 19 2007 at 17:26 |
jimmy_row wrote:
funny that they're incompatable now, because they seemed to be the same thing for a long time (even up until a certain...Gipper was in the whitehouse  ). |
_popupControl();
THat's what libertarians claim - it used to be the same thing. But that was before my time. And I don't remember Reagan to be much of a libertarian.
jimmy_row wrote:
Big business interests and pushy religious ideas ruined the conservative philosophy IMO, so I would never vote for a conservative because, despite some of their good economic ideas, they're always weighed down by opportunistic trade practices and an absolute lack of any social understanding. A true libertarian would never stomp all over personal freedoms like gay-marriage and third-world economic growth - amongst other things....so I agree that they are mutually exclusive. I like to see folks like Ron Paul get support because he challenges the cookie-cutter, two-party system. In addition, he is a Republican who doesn't rely on religion...Guiliani could be good too, because his ideas aren't so dogmatic (and even McCain to a degree). Who knows, maybe we're finally starting to move away from the pre-programmed ideas of conservative politics. |
_popupControl();
What constitutes opportunistic trade practices? If you mean free trade, I can't agree with you. Gay marriage, like abortion before it, shouldn't even be a political issue .
Paul and Kucinich are an absolute must. Maybe they will make people think.
With Guiliani, I'd like to hear his concrete plans with regard to the war. He is liberal enough to carry New York (even against Hillary) so he may be GOP best bet.
|
|
jimmy_row
Forum Senior Member
Joined: July 11 2007
Location: Hibernation
Status: Offline
Points: 2601
|
Posted: December 19 2007 at 14:51 |
| IVNORD
It would be nice to have a cross between a libertarian and a conservative which could (hopefully) equate to a true centrist candidate, but I’m afraid that those are two absolutely incompatible approaches for modern politics. Anything anti-business will be crushed by the big money. The two-party system ensures the status quo. [/QUOTE wrote:
funny that they're incompatable now, because they seemed to be the same thing for a long time (even up until a certain...Gipper was in the whitehouse ). Big business interests and pushy religious ideas ruined the conservative philosophy IMO, so I would never vote for a conservative because, despite some of their good economic ideas, they're always weig |
funny that they're incompatable now, because they seemed to be the same thing for a long time (even up until a certain...Gipper was in the whitehouse ). Big business interests and pushy religious ideas ruined the conservative philosophy IMO, so I would never vote for a conservative because, despite some of their good economic ideas, they're always weighed down by opportunistic trade practices and an absolute lack of any social understanding. A true libertarian would never stomp all over personal freedoms like gay-marriage and third-world economic growth - amongst other things....so I agree that they are mutually exclusive. I like to see folks like Ron Paul get support because he challenges the cookie-cutter, two-party system. In addition, he is a Republican who doesn't rely on religion...Guiliani could be good too, because his ideas aren't so dogmatic (and even McCain to a degree). Who knows, maybe we're finally starting to move away from the pre-programmed ideas of conservative politics.
Edited by jimmy_row - December 19 2007 at 14:52
|
|
Signature Writers Guild on strike
|
|
Slartibartfast
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam
Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630
|
Posted: December 19 2007 at 13:02 |
Whatever you do don't let those _popups get out of Control() ;) 
|
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened... 
|
|
IVNORD
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 13 2006
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1191
|
Posted: December 19 2007 at 12:20 |
1800iareyay wrote:
And that's why I say he's crazy in the mad idealist way. While many of his proposals sound wonderful, there is no way in hell he could implement more than a fraction of them. His points are lucid and sane, but the belief that he could somehow completely alter the infrastructure of the country is why he's the Don Quixote of the Republican Party.
|
_popupControl();
Quixotic ways cannot be sane and lucid by definition. Some of his ides sound appealing but his plans to implement them are unreal. I would love to live in the world with a small government (no IRS!) and a stable currency but his proposals to achieve that are inadequate. His weakest point is his lack of understanding of the economy.
jimmy_row wrote:
If you ask me, the other candidates could use some of Ron Paul's craziness (especially the Cons). If he doesn't have a "sense of reality" (although IMO many of his ideas could work), then the others are perfectly content to leave things as they are...and most people are fine with that because of the artificial sense of security manufactured by the media. |
_popupControl();
It would be nice to have a cross between a libertarian and a conservative which could (hopefully) equate to a true centrist candidate, but I’m afraid that those are two absolutely incompatible approaches for modern politics. Anything anti-business will be crushed by the big money. The two-party system ensures the status quo.
|
|
jimmy_row
Forum Senior Member
Joined: July 11 2007
Location: Hibernation
Status: Offline
Points: 2601
|
Posted: December 19 2007 at 11:27 |
If you ask me, the other candidates could use some of Ron Paul's craziness (especially the Cons). If he doesn't have a "sense of reality" (although IMO many of his ideas could work), then the others are perfectly content to leave things as they are...and most people are fine with that because of the artificial sense of security manufactured by the media.
|
|
Signature Writers Guild on strike
|
|
1800iareyay
Prog Reviewer
Joined: November 18 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2492
|
Posted: December 19 2007 at 10:47 |
IVNORD wrote:
1800iareyay wrote:
I missed the Des Moines debates but I just read the transcripts. Take my comments about Paul being crazy, remove the charisma and excellent public-speaking, and you get Keyes. Paul is hands down the best speaker the Republicans have, and the more I hear him speak, the more I find myself ignoring his more extreme points in favor of the stunning sanity he displays in the middle of f**king lunacy. I always feel bad for the proctors of these things. |
_popupControl();
Ron Paul has no sense of reality. He lives in a dream. His appeal to the general population is based on the general population displaying even less sense of reality. |
And that's why I say he's crazy in the mad idealist way. While many of his proposals sound wonderful, there is no way in hell he could implement more than a fraction of them. His points are lucid and sane, but the belief that he could somehow completely alter the infrastructure of the country is why he's the Don Quixote of the Republican Party.
|
|
IVNORD
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 13 2006
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1191
|
Posted: December 19 2007 at 08:07 |
1800iareyay wrote:
I missed the Des Moines debates but I just read the transcripts. Take my comments about Paul being crazy, remove the charisma and excellent public-speaking, and you get Keyes. Paul is hands down the best speaker the Republicans have, and the more I hear him speak, the more I find myself ignoring his more extreme points in favor of the stunning sanity he displays in the middle of f**king lunacy. I always feel bad for the proctors of these things. |
_popupControl();
Ron Paul has no sense of reality. He lives in a dream. His appeal to the general population is based on the general population displaying even less sense of reality.
|
|
Slartibartfast
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam
Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630
|
Posted: December 19 2007 at 07:58 |
C-SPAN boring? I love the sublime freak parade that is the viewer call in segments. 
|
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
|
|
jimmy_row
Forum Senior Member
Joined: July 11 2007
Location: Hibernation
Status: Offline
Points: 2601
|
Posted: December 18 2007 at 22:45 |
|
|
|
Signature Writers Guild on strike
|
|
Padraic
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: February 16 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Status: Offline
Points: 31169
|
Posted: December 18 2007 at 22:41 |
|
|
|
1800iareyay
Prog Reviewer
Joined: November 18 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2492
|
Posted: December 18 2007 at 22:38 |
|
I missed the Des Moines debates but I just read the transcripts. Take
my comments about Paul being crazy, remove the charisma and excellent
public-speaking, and you get Keyes. Paul is hands down the best speaker
the Republicans have, and the more I hear him speak, the more I find
myself ignoring his more extreme points in favor of the stunning sanity
he displays in the middle of f**king lunacy. I always feel bad for the
proctors of these things.
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Political discussion thread
