The constitution provides for a state that is nothing like what we have today. What we have today is a massive intrusion on everyday life, and is far outside the confines of the constitution.
I don't think I take an unrealistic approach, but I think you do.
Well, there's frankly so much conversation we skipped over to get to this point. We haven't even determined if we agree on property rights or anything else.
You know whats hilarious, you forget to mention that there are many extreme leftists like myself who think like these so called "conservatives".
For example, i dont rely on the government to help out, because they really dont. But in socialism the government does help out more than usual. And honestly legislators are BS, because we vote them in, then they make these desicions without asking the people first.
"And honestly legislators are BS, because we vote them in, then they make these desicions without asking the people first."
Well, if you want to hold a political office, being honest and trying to represent your population, rather then represent the people who will pay for your reelection, is pretty much shooting yourself in the foot.
Uh, yeah your saying that it's better for skeezy corporations to have their way, rather than the people? Dude part of the reason obama is such fail is because he is a corporatist paying back the banks/other scum who funded his campaign.
Legislators and representatives need to represent the peoples values/issues, if they cant, we need a derect democracy of the people then
"Uh, yeah your saying that it's better for skeezy corporations to have their way, rather than the people? ...he is a corporatist paying back the banks/other scum who funded his campaign."
I'm saying if you WANT TO GET ELECTED, that's what you have to do. I'm not saying I WANT it that way, I'm just saying it IS that way.
First of all I would say the third term to add to small government, low taxes, is fuck the poor. In 40+ years of political experience I can assure you that the majority of conservatives are selfish, and only give lip service to people living in awful conditions because it would be political suicide to express their selfishness.
The blue states are religious states. They give to charity because churches encourage them to contribute so they can use charity for propaganda, AND to evangelize in third world countries. Churches have blood drives, liberals are less likely to attend church, or donate to churches because much of those contribution are used to support a conservative social agenda.
Your statement that conservatives are more likely to knock on your door isn't supported by the numbers. Republicans historically receive more money from special interest groups than democrats. It's the coalition of big business, and the religious right that are buying your representatives. Union donations are the only special interest that keep the democrats close, and unions are average Americans rather than the wealthy who are interested in nothing more than padding their bank accounts.
Most republicans call themselves conservatives, and most conservatives call themselves republicans. In my opinion most libertarians, other than the young ideologues, have the same fuck those who can't help themselves attitude. Most young Libertarians vote democratic as they grow older in part because they realize that, and obviously in part because they realize libertarian candidates aren't viable, and they identify less with republicans on social issues.
"Most republicans call themselves conservatives, and most conservatives call themselves republicans."
Some centrists call themselves conservatives. Neocons call themselves conservatives. I said that republicans do a bad job of actually promoting what I outlined in this very video and called conservatism.
But, I think you characterize people by the government policies they support, and not what they're actually across the board. I think a lot of liberals do that.
When I was younger (I was going to say young, and naive) I considered myself a libertarian to some extent, but as I grew older I realized most people are selfish, and won't help the less fortunate unless they are forced to by the government.
All you have to do is look at American history to know that.
In addition in my opinion many conservatives, if they could, would repeal things like medicare, and social security.
"but as I grew older I realized most people are selfish, and won't help the less fortunate unless they are forced to by the government."
I already know this. The majority of people will not help the less fortunate, as it said in the video, the people who tend to give, give it all. But by no means compels me to pretend I'm some kind of defender of righteousness in taking their private property away from them for things they don't necessarily want.
"But by no means compels me to pretend I'm some kind of defender of righteousness in taking their private property away from them for things they don't necessarily want."
I think you hit the nail on the head as to the difference between liberal, and conservative. At least in the context we've been discussing. I think we absolutely have an obligation to care for those who can't help themselves even if it means it's against an individuals will, as long as the majority agree.
"I think we absolutely have an obligation to care for those who can't help themselves"
No, YOU think you have an obligation to do what you deem important even if it means denying the basic rights of other people.
And our government is not what the "majority wants." It's what the "majority of representatives want." These are fundamentally different. Iraq is a poor nation, it's an ASSAULT on the less fortunate. But hey, if that's what we want, lets do it, right?
The majority of the American public (according to polls), and our representatives wanted to go to Iraq.
I opposed it, and protested against it from day one, but ultimately the government has the right (unless I choose to move elsewhere) to take my taxes to pay for it.
"YOU think you have an obligation to do what you deem important even if it means denying the basic rights of other people."
It's not denying anyone's right. They have the right to vote against it, and if they are against it to the point that they are unwilling to support the government, and follow the rule of law they have the right to leave.
I was making a statement about how our government works. Actions may at times correlate with what people want, but is NOT caused by them.
But if the people want innocent blood, GIVE THEM BLOOD! I shall bathe myself in the blood of the innocent and thank my lucky stars I have this great ruler over me because I was born in a random geographic area who's war machine I 'get to' fund without me even choosing to do so.
How about people with irreconcilable differences with the idea of a centrally planned government?
But the point I was trying to make, was this:
You want an institution that forces people to help the less fortunate because people don't want to help the less fortunate. BUT you want the people to control this institution, and are completely okay when people direct that institution to FUCK OVER the less fortunate. You can understand why I see that stance problematic.
"You want an institution that forces people to help the less fortunate because people don't want to help the less fortunate."
The majority do want to help the less fortunate which is why social programs exist, but, and I include myself in this category, most of us aren't responsible, or involved enough to take the time to find the best charities to donate to, or to take the money out of our pockets to do it.
We'd rather have the government withhold the money from our paychecks so we don't get it in our hands because at that point we're more likely to spend it on ourselves
You see the same thing in terms of retirement. We all know we should save for our future, but many people don't have the self control to take money from their pockets, and invest it. They prefer to have taken out of their paychecks, (before they get a chance to blow it) and for the government to invest it in social security
If we all went to church every week, and trusted that church to distribute the money fairly, and they we would be likely to put 5 bucks in the collection plate every week. Those who don't have that encouragement, and opportunity are less likely (as you pointed out in your video) to do so.
Plus if you leave it in the hands of the individuals the money won't be allocated fairly. Given the negative propaganda about welfare recipients for example most wouldn't choose to give for that.
"but many people don't have the self control to take money from their pockets, and invest it."
Maybe people are never growing up and being responsible, because it's not required of them to actually grow up and save their money with a mommy-government around to take care of them. And yet, politicians are people too and are going to have the same self control problems, how can amassing power in a few number of flawed individuals really benefit us. Look at the wars we're in.
"Maybe people are never growing up and being responsible, because it's not required of them to actually grow up and save their money with a mommy-government around to take care of them."
50% of the adult American public has an IQ below 100. They have their plates full just holding down a job, paying their bills, and raising stupid kids. They couldn't survive without mommy government.
"That's interesting. I wonder how all the stupid genes made it to today"
Because we didn't live in large democratic technological societies. We lived in small hunter gather primitive societies where physical strength combined with average intelligence were sufficient for survival.
Large civilizations were controlled by monarchies, or the most intelligent, where the stupid (non land owners) didn't even have the right to vote, and were bread to do slave labor.
I suppose if our ultimate goal is to make the species more intelligent the conservative sink, or agenda would efficiently cull out the stupid. They would starve to death, and couldn't afford to breed.
I still don't understand how you can say on one hand that people are stupid, but then on the other hand that we should elect representatives from that same group of people to amass lots of our tax dollars and do things like get bribed my smart people who run corporations or to war and kill other stupid people.
It's not about what I want it's about the lesser of two evils. At the moment things seem to be moving in the right direction despite the fact that most people don't think for themselves.
I think the biggest problem with America at the moment is the extinction of the newspaper industry, and journalistic integrity.
It's almost impossible for stupid people, or even semi intelligent ones, to distinguish between the truth, and propaganda.
"It's not about what I want it's about the lesser of two evils. At the moment things seem to be moving in the right direction despite the fact that most people don't think for themselves."
Really? You mean politically or for the human race as a whole. I could see the human race thing, but politically I see more disastrous economic policies and us having troops all over the globe.
"extinction of the newspaper industry, and journalistic integrity."
I think long term we're pretty well doomed regardless. We aren't doing nearly enough to control Global warming, and more, and more scientists at least privately think it's too late.
I was referring to the minor improvements between Bush, and Obama, not some major change of direction.
When I was younger whether you were left, or right leaning the average American trusted people like Walter Cronkite to tell the truth. Fear mongers like O'Reilly, and Beck couldn't get away with their bullshit.
Here's the problem. What's the difference between "the state" and a group of people whom we pay to represent us and do work that we don't have time to do ourselves? I don't personally have time to weigh-up which research projects should be funded, or which space missions should receive funding, or to make sure that medical practitioners are properly qualified, or that drugs are safe. So it's practical to pay people to do that work for you isn't it? But that's not much different to "government"?
"I don't personally have time to weigh-up which research projects should be funded, or which space missions should receive funding"
You mean, you don't have the time to explore all the options for what you're going to force your neighbor to fund?
As far as making sure medical practitioners are qualified and drugs are safe, it's called consumer reporting. You don't need a state to do it. Look back at before the state got INTO that buisness, you think we had no qualified doctors?
If my neighbour is *willingly* part of a democracy then he will be willing to go with the democratic decision, even though it might not be what he personally prefers. So he won't be being forced. If he's *not* willingly part of the democracy, then that's a real problem. I don't think people should be *forced* to be part of a democracy. Perhaps there should be a country, or a planet, for people those who don't want to be part of a democracy.
Personally, I'm not sure which way is best .(more)
Regarding "consumer reporting", there needs to be someone who evaluates the consumer reports, interprets them, and makes sure they're not bogus. Current drug trials are a form of consumer reporting. We may have had some properly qualified doctors before, but it's often difficult to tell who is properly qualified and who is a con-man. I'm not saying that I think one way is better than another - I'm just exploring the problems I see with "non-representationalism", if I can call it that.
Consumer reporting agencies work on a basis of trust. If they do pass a bogus report along, it will be found out and their agency will lose business, and the people who were responsible become toxic in that market, and no other agency would ever hire them. Knowing that your co-worker's honesty determines the fate of your company is a huge incentive for everyone to watch eachother's actions.
But that's private reporting. Government consumer reporting agencies stay around even if they're awful.
As far as doctors now-a-days, it's insanely easy to confirm any degrees or certificates of knowledge from trusted institutions, like Medical Universities.
And it would be nice if there was a place where everyone there was 100% against the state [keep in mind, we don't live in democracies, we live in republics.] There's still a certain amount of force you apply if a state has control over a geographic area, because people born there did not agree to it, then they either have to leave their home, family and friends, which is not always easy due to expenses of moving.
In a properly functioning democracy, where there was transparency of decision making, and where the public participated a lot more than they do now, then a lot of these problems might be solved. Democratically elected representatives ("politicians") are effectively "agencies" whom we hire to do work for us, and to make some decisions on our behalf, and if they produce poor results, they are turfed-out (in a properly functioning democracy).
Conservatism in america is more... small government regulation of business and more government "protection" and violance. I think they are pretty equal in the level of evil. One works for bigger government while acting as if they want to protect us, the other works for bigger government while acting like they want to help people. Both increase the government and don't cut down the work of the other, it seems like a system or a cycle to me, its a fairly efficient way of increasing gov't size.
You mean republicans? Yeah, the neocons get in office and increase government militaristicly and then the dems get in and increase government socialisticly.
I probably wouldn't have used "socialistically" since socialism doesn't require a government, but ya, I agree 100% xD
And republicans also tend to be the ones who push corporate power while the democrats tend to use government to take away corporate power. This cycle seems like actual competition at first, but whats really happening is both are inflating during their parties rain and then stopping and SLIGHTLY decreasing during the other's (in an economic sense)
I disagree with the idea that Democrats attempt to reduce corporate power. That is their rhetoric, but their policies enhance the monopolistic privileges of the corporations they support.
I agree with you though thanks to the neo-cons most liberals have a knee-jerk gut-check response to the word conservative. If I was not a Ron Paul supporter and had it explained clearly I would have probably left you a nasty comment. I recommend using the term fiscal conservative. And ensure you stress each time that it has nothing to do with neo-conservativism and social conservatism. I had a liberal friend who was disappointed when a test I did said I was leaning to the right
Very good thoughts
Doggorunning 2 years ago
The constitution provides for a state that is nothing like what we have today. What we have today is a massive intrusion on everyday life, and is far outside the confines of the constitution.
I don't think I take an unrealistic approach, but I think you do.
MotionFur 2 years ago
Well, there's frankly so much conversation we skipped over to get to this point. We haven't even determined if we agree on property rights or anything else.
MotionFur 2 years ago
You know whats hilarious, you forget to mention that there are many extreme leftists like myself who think like these so called "conservatives".
For example, i dont rely on the government to help out, because they really dont. But in socialism the government does help out more than usual. And honestly legislators are BS, because we vote them in, then they make these desicions without asking the people first.
chorizo1337 2 years ago
"And honestly legislators are BS, because we vote them in, then they make these desicions without asking the people first."
Well, if you want to hold a political office, being honest and trying to represent your population, rather then represent the people who will pay for your reelection, is pretty much shooting yourself in the foot.
MotionFur 2 years ago
Uh, yeah your saying that it's better for skeezy corporations to have their way, rather than the people? Dude part of the reason obama is such fail is because he is a corporatist paying back the banks/other scum who funded his campaign.
Legislators and representatives need to represent the peoples values/issues, if they cant, we need a derect democracy of the people then
chorizo1337 2 years ago
"Uh, yeah your saying that it's better for skeezy corporations to have their way, rather than the people? ...he is a corporatist paying back the banks/other scum who funded his campaign."
I'm saying if you WANT TO GET ELECTED, that's what you have to do. I'm not saying I WANT it that way, I'm just saying it IS that way.
MotionFur 2 years ago
Conservative vs Liberal = False Dichotomy -> Social Polarization
Rybot9000 2 years ago
Comment removed
TheNakedAtheist 2 years ago
First of all I would say the third term to add to small government, low taxes, is fuck the poor. In 40+ years of political experience I can assure you that the majority of conservatives are selfish, and only give lip service to people living in awful conditions because it would be political suicide to express their selfishness.
(cont)
TheNakedAtheist 2 years ago
(cont)
The blue states are religious states. They give to charity because churches encourage them to contribute so they can use charity for propaganda, AND to evangelize in third world countries. Churches have blood drives, liberals are less likely to attend church, or donate to churches because much of those contribution are used to support a conservative social agenda.
TheNakedAtheist 2 years ago
Your statement that conservatives are more likely to knock on your door isn't supported by the numbers. Republicans historically receive more money from special interest groups than democrats. It's the coalition of big business, and the religious right that are buying your representatives. Union donations are the only special interest that keep the democrats close, and unions are average Americans rather than the wealthy who are interested in nothing more than padding their bank accounts.
TheNakedAtheist 2 years ago
You're equating conservative and republican.
MotionFur 2 years ago
Most republicans call themselves conservatives, and most conservatives call themselves republicans. In my opinion most libertarians, other than the young ideologues, have the same fuck those who can't help themselves attitude. Most young Libertarians vote democratic as they grow older in part because they realize that, and obviously in part because they realize libertarian candidates aren't viable, and they identify less with republicans on social issues.
TheNakedAtheist 2 years ago
"Most republicans call themselves conservatives, and most conservatives call themselves republicans."
Some centrists call themselves conservatives. Neocons call themselves conservatives. I said that republicans do a bad job of actually promoting what I outlined in this very video and called conservatism.
But, I think you characterize people by the government policies they support, and not what they're actually across the board. I think a lot of liberals do that.
MotionFur 2 years ago
When I was younger (I was going to say young, and naive) I considered myself a libertarian to some extent, but as I grew older I realized most people are selfish, and won't help the less fortunate unless they are forced to by the government.
All you have to do is look at American history to know that.
In addition in my opinion many conservatives, if they could, would repeal things like medicare, and social security.
TheNakedAtheist 2 years ago
"but as I grew older I realized most people are selfish, and won't help the less fortunate unless they are forced to by the government."
I already know this. The majority of people will not help the less fortunate, as it said in the video, the people who tend to give, give it all. But by no means compels me to pretend I'm some kind of defender of righteousness in taking their private property away from them for things they don't necessarily want.
MotionFur 2 years ago
"But by no means compels me to pretend I'm some kind of defender of righteousness in taking their private property away from them for things they don't necessarily want."
I think you hit the nail on the head as to the difference between liberal, and conservative. At least in the context we've been discussing. I think we absolutely have an obligation to care for those who can't help themselves even if it means it's against an individuals will, as long as the majority agree.
(cont)
TheNakedAtheist 2 years ago
(cont)
That's what governments about. I didn't want the Iraq war, but I was forced to pay taxes that supported it.
I'm against the death penalty, but I'm forced to pay for executions.
The majority rules even if you don't want what the majority wants.
TheNakedAtheist 2 years ago
"I think we absolutely have an obligation to care for those who can't help themselves"
No, YOU think you have an obligation to do what you deem important even if it means denying the basic rights of other people.
And our government is not what the "majority wants." It's what the "majority of representatives want." These are fundamentally different. Iraq is a poor nation, it's an ASSAULT on the less fortunate. But hey, if that's what we want, lets do it, right?
MotionFur 2 years ago
The majority of the American public (according to polls), and our representatives wanted to go to Iraq.
I opposed it, and protested against it from day one, but ultimately the government has the right (unless I choose to move elsewhere) to take my taxes to pay for it.
TheNakedAtheist 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"YOU think you have an obligation to do what you deem important even if it means denying the basic rights of other people."
It's not denying anyone's right. They have the right to vote against it, and if they are against it to the point that they are unwilling to support the government, and follow the rule of law they have the right to leave.
TheNakedAtheist 2 years ago
I was making a statement about how our government works. Actions may at times correlate with what people want, but is NOT caused by them.
But if the people want innocent blood, GIVE THEM BLOOD! I shall bathe myself in the blood of the innocent and thank my lucky stars I have this great ruler over me because I was born in a random geographic area who's war machine I 'get to' fund without me even choosing to do so.
MotionFur 2 years ago
I had family members move to Canada during the Vietnam war. I'm all for people who have irreconcilable differences with the Government leaving.
I lived in Germany for 13 years following my daughter birth to take advantage of the socialized health care system.
TheNakedAtheist 2 years ago
How about people with irreconcilable differences with the idea of a centrally planned government?
But the point I was trying to make, was this:
You want an institution that forces people to help the less fortunate because people don't want to help the less fortunate. BUT you want the people to control this institution, and are completely okay when people direct that institution to FUCK OVER the less fortunate. You can understand why I see that stance problematic.
MotionFur 2 years ago
And when I said "completely okay" I mean you think it's a legitimate thing for that institution to do. As you said: "The majority rules."
MotionFur 2 years ago
"You want an institution that forces people to help the less fortunate because people don't want to help the less fortunate."
The majority do want to help the less fortunate which is why social programs exist, but, and I include myself in this category, most of us aren't responsible, or involved enough to take the time to find the best charities to donate to, or to take the money out of our pockets to do it.
(cont)
TheNakedAtheist 2 years ago
(cont)
We'd rather have the government withhold the money from our paychecks so we don't get it in our hands because at that point we're more likely to spend it on ourselves
You see the same thing in terms of retirement. We all know we should save for our future, but many people don't have the self control to take money from their pockets, and invest it. They prefer to have taken out of their paychecks, (before they get a chance to blow it) and for the government to invest it in social security
TheNakedAtheist 2 years ago
continued....
If we all went to church every week, and trusted that church to distribute the money fairly, and they we would be likely to put 5 bucks in the collection plate every week. Those who don't have that encouragement, and opportunity are less likely (as you pointed out in your video) to do so.
Plus if you leave it in the hands of the individuals the money won't be allocated fairly. Given the negative propaganda about welfare recipients for example most wouldn't choose to give for that.
TheNakedAtheist 2 years ago
"but many people don't have the self control to take money from their pockets, and invest it."
Maybe people are never growing up and being responsible, because it's not required of them to actually grow up and save their money with a mommy-government around to take care of them. And yet, politicians are people too and are going to have the same self control problems, how can amassing power in a few number of flawed individuals really benefit us. Look at the wars we're in.
MotionFur 2 years ago
"Maybe people are never growing up and being responsible, because it's not required of them to actually grow up and save their money with a mommy-government around to take care of them."
50% of the adult American public has an IQ below 100. They have their plates full just holding down a job, paying their bills, and raising stupid kids. They couldn't survive without mommy government.
TheNakedAtheist 2 years ago
That's interesting. I wonder how all the stupid genes made it to today, all these generations who didn't have a mommy government.
MotionFur 2 years ago
"That's interesting. I wonder how all the stupid genes made it to today"
Because we didn't live in large democratic technological societies. We lived in small hunter gather primitive societies where physical strength combined with average intelligence were sufficient for survival.
Large civilizations were controlled by monarchies, or the most intelligent, where the stupid (non land owners) didn't even have the right to vote, and were bread to do slave labor.
TheNakedAtheist 2 years ago
continued....
I suppose if our ultimate goal is to make the species more intelligent the conservative sink, or agenda would efficiently cull out the stupid. They would starve to death, and couldn't afford to breed.
TheNakedAtheist 2 years ago
*sink or swim
TheNakedAtheist 2 years ago
I still don't understand how you can say on one hand that people are stupid, but then on the other hand that we should elect representatives from that same group of people to amass lots of our tax dollars and do things like get bribed my smart people who run corporations or to war and kill other stupid people.
MotionFur 2 years ago
It's not about what I want it's about the lesser of two evils. At the moment things seem to be moving in the right direction despite the fact that most people don't think for themselves.
I think the biggest problem with America at the moment is the extinction of the newspaper industry, and journalistic integrity.
It's almost impossible for stupid people, or even semi intelligent ones, to distinguish between the truth, and propaganda.
TheNakedAtheist 2 years ago
"It's not about what I want it's about the lesser of two evils. At the moment things seem to be moving in the right direction despite the fact that most people don't think for themselves."
Really? You mean politically or for the human race as a whole. I could see the human race thing, but politically I see more disastrous economic policies and us having troops all over the globe.
"extinction of the newspaper industry, and journalistic integrity."
You can put a fork in journalistic integrity.
MotionFur 2 years ago
I think long term we're pretty well doomed regardless. We aren't doing nearly enough to control Global warming, and more, and more scientists at least privately think it's too late.
I was referring to the minor improvements between Bush, and Obama, not some major change of direction.
When I was younger whether you were left, or right leaning the average American trusted people like Walter Cronkite to tell the truth. Fear mongers like O'Reilly, and Beck couldn't get away with their bullshit.
TheNakedAtheist 2 years ago
"I was referring to the minor improvements between Bush, and Obama, not some major change of direction."
Doesn't seam any better to me.
MotionFur 2 years ago
Here's the problem. What's the difference between "the state" and a group of people whom we pay to represent us and do work that we don't have time to do ourselves? I don't personally have time to weigh-up which research projects should be funded, or which space missions should receive funding, or to make sure that medical practitioners are properly qualified, or that drugs are safe. So it's practical to pay people to do that work for you isn't it? But that's not much different to "government"?
KevinSolway 2 years ago
"I don't personally have time to weigh-up which research projects should be funded, or which space missions should receive funding"
You mean, you don't have the time to explore all the options for what you're going to force your neighbor to fund?
As far as making sure medical practitioners are qualified and drugs are safe, it's called consumer reporting. You don't need a state to do it. Look back at before the state got INTO that buisness, you think we had no qualified doctors?
MotionFur 2 years ago
If my neighbour is *willingly* part of a democracy then he will be willing to go with the democratic decision, even though it might not be what he personally prefers. So he won't be being forced. If he's *not* willingly part of the democracy, then that's a real problem. I don't think people should be *forced* to be part of a democracy. Perhaps there should be a country, or a planet, for people those who don't want to be part of a democracy.
Personally, I'm not sure which way is best .(more)
KevinSolway 2 years ago
Regarding "consumer reporting", there needs to be someone who evaluates the consumer reports, interprets them, and makes sure they're not bogus. Current drug trials are a form of consumer reporting. We may have had some properly qualified doctors before, but it's often difficult to tell who is properly qualified and who is a con-man. I'm not saying that I think one way is better than another - I'm just exploring the problems I see with "non-representationalism", if I can call it that.
KevinSolway 2 years ago
Consumer reporting agencies work on a basis of trust. If they do pass a bogus report along, it will be found out and their agency will lose business, and the people who were responsible become toxic in that market, and no other agency would ever hire them. Knowing that your co-worker's honesty determines the fate of your company is a huge incentive for everyone to watch eachother's actions.
But that's private reporting. Government consumer reporting agencies stay around even if they're awful.
MotionFur 2 years ago
As far as doctors now-a-days, it's insanely easy to confirm any degrees or certificates of knowledge from trusted institutions, like Medical Universities.
MotionFur 2 years ago
And it would be nice if there was a place where everyone there was 100% against the state [keep in mind, we don't live in democracies, we live in republics.] There's still a certain amount of force you apply if a state has control over a geographic area, because people born there did not agree to it, then they either have to leave their home, family and friends, which is not always easy due to expenses of moving.
MotionFur 2 years ago
Personally, I'd like to see a society where everyone in that society give communism a try. I wouldn't go, but it would be interesting.
MotionFur 2 years ago
In a properly functioning democracy, where there was transparency of decision making, and where the public participated a lot more than they do now, then a lot of these problems might be solved. Democratically elected representatives ("politicians") are effectively "agencies" whom we hire to do work for us, and to make some decisions on our behalf, and if they produce poor results, they are turfed-out (in a properly functioning democracy).
KevinSolway 2 years ago
Conservatism in america is more... small government regulation of business and more government "protection" and violance. I think they are pretty equal in the level of evil. One works for bigger government while acting as if they want to protect us, the other works for bigger government while acting like they want to help people. Both increase the government and don't cut down the work of the other, it seems like a system or a cycle to me, its a fairly efficient way of increasing gov't size.
AnarchistOpposition 2 years ago
You mean republicans? Yeah, the neocons get in office and increase government militaristicly and then the dems get in and increase government socialisticly.
MotionFur 2 years ago
I probably wouldn't have used "socialistically" since socialism doesn't require a government, but ya, I agree 100% xD
And republicans also tend to be the ones who push corporate power while the democrats tend to use government to take away corporate power. This cycle seems like actual competition at first, but whats really happening is both are inflating during their parties rain and then stopping and SLIGHTLY decreasing during the other's (in an economic sense)
AnarchistOpposition 2 years ago
I disagree with the idea that Democrats attempt to reduce corporate power. That is their rhetoric, but their policies enhance the monopolistic privileges of the corporations they support.
blackacidlizzard 2 years ago
I agree with black.
MotionFur 2 years ago
I agree with you though thanks to the neo-cons most liberals have a knee-jerk gut-check response to the word conservative. If I was not a Ron Paul supporter and had it explained clearly I would have probably left you a nasty comment. I recommend using the term fiscal conservative. And ensure you stress each time that it has nothing to do with neo-conservativism and social conservatism. I had a liberal friend who was disappointed when a test I did said I was leaning to the right
anubis2814 2 years ago
Regan didn't "always" live up to his rhetoric?
Well, I'll give you that - he lived up to his pro-government invaseivness rhetoric...
blackacidlizzard 2 years ago
lol :P
MotionFur 2 years ago