Your New Year's Gift

I'll skip the irony of righteous indignation from left about this, many of whom wished for failure of Bush administration policies, and skip right to the fallacy...can you even detect how you're begging the question in your diatribe? I've added some emphasis to help you see it.

Uh no. It's been stated here many times the difference between the conservatives and the left is that we don't wish things to fail for the whole. No matter who proposes the solution. The fact that Mr. Bush's policies were a miserable failure in themselves is another matter entirely. Anyone would be incredibly selfish and stupid to wish failure for the whole if something might work because in dire straights it would hurt them as well.

One of those differences you don't see between the left and the right and one of the reasons I tend to support the Democrats over the Republicans. As someone in an editorial ( I quoted here many motnhs ago ) said the GOP has stopped serving their function in balancing out the Demorats when they get out of hand and turned into the Greedy Old Party. It's one of those things I talk about when I say they need to return to their roots and help the american people for a change and not just themselves. But alas for them these days winning is everything.

I know you won't agree ( of course ) but this perception of them is widespread and why they're not doing so good in the polls. I mean given their recent victory they should be doing great shouldn't they?

That something has been stated (even many times) doesn't make it so.



Agreed. The failure of Bush policies are quite separate from those who wished for this failure. Just as Obama's failures are failures regardless of what anyone wishes.



Yes, we get that editorials the say things you agree with, you...well...agree with.



We get that it is only Republicans and conservatives the are greedy. Liberal Democrats have none of this.



Actually I'm not a fan of the GOP at all. I do believe they are greedy (for power and money) and corrupt. I happen to believe the same about the Democrats. They all desire power and wealth and to use that power and wealth ultimately for their own benefit.

Like I've ( already ) said it's a lesser of evils. The lesser being the Democrats by a wide margin. The Democrats tend to spend too much money on programs and some are corrupt as well. I tend to think those things happen when you put people in power as that's human nature unfortunately. People taking advantage of the freedoms we have. But the Republicans go way beyond this. They only want one side. Theirs. They can't stand another point of view. All must be good church people and only live their life a certain way. It's all about control. Control in how you think and act. Now there's a bit of this on the Democrats side as well in their legislated political correctness. I've always thought you can't legislate behavior. That has to happen through education and self awareness. That begins at home where people are brought up.

However this stuff is nothing like forcing kids to pray in school. Controlling how or who you have sex with. Ignoring environmental concerns in the name of profit etc. I wouldn't want to live in a Republican world where the hope is returning to the 1950s. They just don't get the fact that world led to the 1960s and rejection of that brand of artificiality. That kind of thinking leads to things like censorship and book burning ( you never see Democrats advocating stuff like that ).

That's the difference MJ. I know you've already made up your mind and won't agree. But that's how I see it. And I'm not alone by a long shot.

Yes...in your opinion.


Now you're starting to get it. There's hope for you after all!



We get your opinion about the relative evil of one group vs. another.



Your blindness to how much of this exists with Democrats and modern "liberals" and "progressives" is stunning.



I love the irony!



We know that you like to seek comfort in the approval of the masses.

I got this a long time ago and it's why I find libertarian thinking a nice idea but it'll never work at this stage of human development.


Nope. Just electoral victory that keeps us away from the Republican idea of the good life.

Let me see if I have this right.

You agree that, because of human nature, people become corrupted when they are given power, so you reject a political philosophy which expressly rejects this power and seeks to limit how much power is given to people (in fact a political philosophy more closely aligned with the founding tenets of this once great nation than the political philosophy offered by either of the modern dominant political parties) and embrace a political philosophy that gives people more power.

Odd.

you guys are funny

Not biased, but "fail" needs to be defined. Do I want the economy to fail? Of course not. Do I want Obamacare to fail? That depends. I don't want it to be implemented, so if that constitutes "failing," great. Do I want people to not be healthy and not get care? Of course not.

I think it's actually an odd way to pose the question. As I started explaining above, it's hard to answer and harder to figure out what the responses mean. I think it's easy to interpret that question to mean "do you want Obama to implement his agenda?" To that, I would answer "yes...I hope he fails." But, I doubt that anyone would root against positive results. If the question is "Do you want the economy to fail so Obama doesn't get reelected?"--the I think you'd get a much different result. Unless you're arguing that Republicans are that much more polarized than Democrats, which is pretty silly.

Their philosophy depends on " the kindness of strangers " as Blanch DuBois would say.

Humans can only be trusted so far to do the right thing. It's part of human nature. That's why it wouldn't work. You seemed to agree with this yourself. That's why you have to have some limits or control ( laws, religion, or moral code that's enforced to some degree ). Otherwise it's the Wild West as someone recently discribed what was going on with lending companies before the bottom dropped out of things.

Coming from you? That's rich!

Oh Jesus!

Actually, it doesn't. So you clearly don't have a correct understanding of it.



Indeed. So giving people more power over other people is a good idea.

I hate the republicans all my life. They are nothing other than whimps and phonies who do not give a shit about the poor or middle class at all.My wish for the new year is I hope Bohener,Graham,McConnell,Palin, and Gingrich die in a plane crash.That is how much I hate them in my heart.

Ok so it's assuming people do the right thing given all of those freedoms.

Maybe you're saying " What the hell " if they abuse those freedoms ( and yes here's where it gets complex ). In a lot of cases ( not all ) that happening would be a problem for me.

I mearly hope that they are revealed ( in some way ) to all for what they are. That would have much more of an impact.

Well it's true that a free society requires a certain base level of good moral conduct. But any system of social organization requires this.

Are you saying that you assume that people will not do the right things given freedom?

Not everyone but enough to make this problematical. That happens a lot now with some laws in place for government intervention. However I suggest we take this up at another time and place.

This is straying from the topic of the thread which isn't the Libertarians.

OK. So given that some people ("enough to make this problematical") will not do the right things given freedom, what do you suppose might happen when people are given legal authority of coercion and power over other people?

True enough. The topic appears to be about people who have demonstrated (to BR anyway) their wickedness...people who are organized to try and gain power over other people...to gain control of the reigns of power...government.

Well that would be one way to view it. BR's not the only one ( by a long shot ) who views them this way.

How do you view it?



No doubt.

Already answered that earlier.

Must have missed it. Since you won't show me the courtesy of just telling me...and you'll undoubtedly spend more energy not telling me...I'll go back and look and see if I can find anything resembling an answer to my question.

However...I will try (against my better judgement):

- Do you not think they have demonstrated their wickedness?
- Do you not think they are organized to try to gain the reigns of power?

I'm trying to understand your "That's one way to look at it." (which is a colloquial statement usually meant to imply that the person saying it views things differently) in response to my "The topic appears to be about people who have demonstrated (to BR anyway) their wickedness...people who are organized to try and gain power over other people...to gain control of the reigns of power...government."

Some people won't - right now a lot of them are in positions in power all over the world.

In fact, that's how they got got us here....by NOT doing the right thing when they had the freedom.

I understand that. My contention is that the existence of the power they hold is a bigger problem. Bad people will seek the power if it exists. It seems to me the wisest approach is to limit the amount of legitimate power any person or group can hold. But we seem to have a lot of people arguing the opposite way. We must limit freedom (by increasing the power of a fewer, smaller supposedly "elite" group of people) in order to limit evil. Things never seem to work out well that way.

I don't think it would work simply because of the dynamic of the power-seekers: as they are based on greed then limiting their possible power will only increase their desire for it.

And if they have some power then they will be able to get more. Limiting would not work - it's complete removal of their power or nothing.

I come at this problem from a different way though. I think one solution could be opting-out of their power through forming independent communities or Temporary Autonomous Zones.

I think this idea will gain more traction as we progress into the decade...I know several people in the process of forming such groupings and I myself intend to also but just need a bit more cash.

Some people have already done it.

I would not join them specifically but that is the point.one must start one's own.

OK. Fair enough. I'm with you there. So anarchism then?



I like it. I'll have to read the book. Sounds very interesting.



I agree.

No...I don't agree with Anarchism.... I want the right to own property for example. Anarchism in trying to impose such restrictions on people is in essence the same sort of system we have now.

We need something new - something where any group or individual could choose - if they so desired - to live by rules of their own formulation without interference from anyone else or any forced submission to any ideology.


It's a bit old now but is very informative. I like the way it outlines possibilities which do not reference existing political perspectives whether they are left, right or anarchist - though all these have been interested.

Which shows it could work as a 'true' democratic network.


It needs to be done with money this time though...the old Hippie and anarchist ideals of squats and 'free' living did not work.

At least enough cash will need to be generated to buy the autonomous property- I am thinking of 'corporations' that could come into existence not to make profit for the shareholders but to funnel profit into the Autonomous Zone.

Happy New Year to everyone. So long to ya, 2010!

Which of course followed after this lest we forget :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKYe1KiwywE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adc3MSS5Ydc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmEP93NVTaw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztj2qfui114

And : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ThHrqlGdSk

I love Jib Jab.

Revealed for phonies like I said. In 2011 there will be misfortunes in the USA due to the greediness and not caring regarding the GOP you will see.

They've all been revealed as hypocrites and liars so many times it's clear that that's simply not enough.

Because 2009 and 2010 were so great?

You make that sound like the Democrats aren't in the same, exact situation.

I think he means both parties actually. At least that was how I read his post.

Ah, I didn't get that. I apologize if I misread that post, Tonton.