PDA

View Full Version : In your own words, define "liberalism"


SNR
04-06-2008, 09:20 PM
I had a discussion with a friend of mine the other day and this topic came up. What exactly is modern-day liberalism? Note that we weren't talking about classical liberalism, as in the liberal arts.

Logical
04-06-2008, 09:36 PM
I think liberalism cannot be defined by a simple paragraph, but it allows for more diversity.

whoman69
04-06-2008, 09:40 PM
Its become just a catch phrase.

Bowser
04-06-2008, 10:07 PM
It's the definition of the thought processes of those who dare disagree with anything Fox News has an opinion on.

BucEyedPea
04-06-2008, 10:11 PM
I had a discussion with a friend of mine the other day and this topic came up. What exactly is modern-day liberalism? Note that we weren't talking about classical liberalism, as in the liberal arts.

I don't think of that as the liberal arts, not in the context of politics.
I consider our Founders and anyone close to their beliefs to be classical liberals. The term liberal today has been co-opted by social democrats. So I'd say that is what modern liberalism is.

Logical
04-06-2008, 10:27 PM
I don't think of that as the liberal arts, not in the context of politics.
I consider our Founders and anyone close to their beliefs to be classical liberals. The term liberal today has been co-opted by social democrats. So I'd say that is what modern liberalism is.ROFL

I know somewhere you classified the founding fathers as classic conservatives. I have to find it.

BucEyedPea
04-06-2008, 10:32 PM
ROFL

I know somewhere you classified the founding fathers as classic conservatives. I have to find it.

No I said classical liberals....which the FFs were. I believe I may have said, old right conservatives which are closer to right libertarians, were once the classical liberals at one time. If they claim to support originalist intent, which they do, then it's logical they were at one time. I mean they support a limited federal govt, bound by a constitution based on the specific and enumerated powers doctrine and state's rights and indirect taxes. The FF's broke away from known govts at that time and were considered radicals or extremists and that the experiment would fail and our govt not last.

Logical
04-06-2008, 10:39 PM
ROFL

I know somewhere you classified the founding fathers as classic conservatives. I have to find it.
You are in luck, you type the word so often I could not get past this year in over 500 posts.:eek:

BucEyedPea
04-06-2008, 10:40 PM
See above. If an old right conservative ( not the big govt modern conservatives) support originalist intent of FF's and believe that can be found...thenthey believe in those things which were a break from the world status quo at that time.

Logical
04-06-2008, 10:41 PM
No I said classical liberals....which the FFs were. I believe I may have said, old right conservatives which are closer to right libertarians, were once the classical liberals at one time. If they claim to support originalist intent, which they do, then it's logical they were at one time. I mean they support a limited federal govt, bound by a constitution based on the specific and enumerated powers doctrine and state's rights and indirect taxes. The FF's broke away from known govts at that time and were considered radicals or extremists and that the experiment would fail and our govt not last.I will take your word for it since I can't prove otherwise.

BucEyedPea
04-06-2008, 10:42 PM
I think you misunderstood me and are partially correct but just off on what I meant exactly. Or maybe I didn't say it clearly enough.

SBK
04-06-2008, 11:02 PM
Liberalism is one set of standards for me, one entirely different set of standards for everyone else.

wazu
04-06-2008, 11:06 PM
Liberalism is the belief that government can solve all of our problems, if only enough tax dollars are confiscated, and enough freedom taken away.

Logical
04-06-2008, 11:11 PM
Liberalism is one set of standards for me, one entirely different set of standards for everyone else.Actually that is an interesting view of it, definitely some degree of truth in it.:thumb:

Logical
04-06-2008, 11:12 PM
Liberalism is the belief that government can solve all of our problems, if only enough tax dollars are confiscated, and enough freedom taken away.
I really don't believe that is their belief, at least not every liberal.

banyon
04-06-2008, 11:25 PM
Well, looks like BEP has gotten into the Wiki entry: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism)


Liberalism refers to a broad array of related ideas and theories of government that consider individual liberty to be the most important political goal due to a mental disorder.[1] Liberalism has its roots in the Middle Ages and Age of Enlightenment.

Logical
04-06-2008, 11:50 PM
Well, looks like BEP has gotten into the Wiki entry: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism)
LOL

Actually that is classic Michael Savage.

keg in kc
04-06-2008, 11:58 PM
I've never been able to get a grasp on the political philosophy behind 'liberalism'. In a broader sense I've always seen it as the dreaded arch-enemy of conservate thought, which I similarly characterize as less a political stance and more as a resistance to change. In my dim view, conservatives are generally fine with things as they are, so long as they're personally taken care-of, whereas liberals are generally more into change, sometimes just for the sake of it. I don't see one side as more 'right' than the other. Or, rather, I should say "more 'correct'".

Nowadays I think it's more about slinging 'conservative' and 'liberal' at each other like they're base insults, rather than actual political movements. Sort of like they're opposing teams in a football game.

SBK
04-07-2008, 12:35 AM
I've never been able to get a grasp on the political philosophy behind 'liberalism'. In a broader sense I've always seen it as the dreaded arch-enemy of conservate thought, which I similarly characterize as less a political stance and more as a resistance to change. In my dim view, conservatives are generally fine with things as they are, so long as they're personally taken care-of, whereas liberals are generally more into change, sometimes just for the sake of it. I don't see one side as more 'right' than the other. Or, rather, I should say "more 'correct'".

Nowadays I think it's more about slinging 'conservative' and 'liberal' at each other like they're base insults, rather than actual political movements. Sort of like they're opposing teams in a football game.

I think conservative v liberal is more of an abilities of the individual vs abilities of the state type of argument. :hmmm:

SBK
04-07-2008, 12:35 AM
LOL

Actually that is classic Michael Savage.

Was a really good book.

keg in kc
04-07-2008, 12:50 AM
I think conservative v liberal is more of an abilities of the individual vs abilities of the state type of argument.I tend to hold the reverse view (from what's normal...) on that; I see conservativism as ultimately more in favor the establishment (aka "big gubment") and liberalism as favoring individuals. I do not believe that "conservative = nazi" or "liberal = communist". That train of thought's the fruits of political propaganda, in my mind.

In the end, what trumps them both is bureaucracy; we get big government regardless.

BucEyedPea
04-07-2008, 09:56 AM
I tend to hold the reverse view (from what's normal...) on that; I see conservativism as ultimately more in favor the establishment (aka "big gubment") and liberalism as favoring individuals. I do not believe that "conservative = nazi" or "liberal = communist". That train of thought's the fruits of political propaganda, in my mind.

In the end, what trumps them both is bureaucracy; we get big government regardless.



No it's not propaganda. Propaganda is misleadingin formation—often partially concealing the whole truth. Modern liberals are for individuals only in certain areas—mainly social. They don't advocate it as much in economic, property rights or tax areas. Conservatives are for individuals more on economic matters and favor more control over social areas. An old right conservative says those controls are the province of the states.

FTR I am talking about modern liberalism which is NOT the same as classical liberals which is what our FF are considered to be. They wanted a much smaller state and did not envision a huge central govt taking care of so many things. We've largely moved away from classical liberalism slowly over the 20th century.

Even Cliff Notes on Poly Sci points this out on modern liberalism. I have a copy somewhere here.
Some socialists will admit it too. Here's a quote by the Socialist Party candidate in every national election from 1928 to 1948.

"The American people will never willingly accept socialism, but under the name of Liberalism*, they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened."- Norman Thomas

Ever hear the term "Fabian Socialism?" It's slow creeping gradual socialism. Their logo is a wolf with a sheepskin over it.



* modern liberalism ( as we see it today)

MTG#10
04-07-2008, 04:58 PM
Liberalism- Rewarding laziness and lack of drive while making the motivated pay for it. Placing self freedom above morality. Belief that the government should control the people, rather than the people controlling themselves.

Conservative? - I was going to type some well thought out long definition since thats the way I lean more and have more experience with but this sums it up pretty well.

<object height="355" width="425">

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ELfiVTTb5Jw&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" height="355" width="425"></object>

They both have good points and bad points, and theres not much debate that too much of either does more harm than good.

penchief
04-07-2008, 05:34 PM
Live and let live as long as you do no harm.

In that vein, it is my opinion that liberals believe in individual liberty far more than conservatives. Contemporary conservatives appear to be nothing more than reactionaries interested only in preserving the status-quo and serving elitism via any and all means (i.e. force, intimidation, propaganda, government corruption, unethical business practices, etc.).

JMO.

Bootlegged
04-07-2008, 05:38 PM
teh gheys.

alanm
04-07-2008, 08:56 PM
I think liberalism cannot be defined by a simple paragraph, but it allows for more diversity.
It allows for a lot of words and paragraphs that shouldn't be used in polite discussions. :D

Bootlegged
04-08-2008, 06:21 AM
Liberalism is a phenomanon in which ones brain function is suspended and replaced by self-important feelings brought on by ones perception that they are saving the world.

Saggysack
04-08-2008, 06:30 AM
Liberalism- Rewarding laziness and lack of drive while making the motivated pay for it. Placing self freedom above morality. Belief that the government should control the people, rather than the people controlling themselves.

Conservative? - I was going to type some well thought out long definition since thats the way I lean more and have more experience with but this sums it up pretty well.


They both have good points and bad points, and theres not much debate that too much of either does more harm than good.

I'm trying to comprehend how you say liberals place self freedom above morality in one sentence then in the very next you state liberals believe the govt. should control people, rather than the people controlling themselves.

Isn't self freedom controlling yourself? You can't have it both ways. I know you would like to, but you can't.

Just be honest, you don't have a clue what a liberal is. You only know what bullshit that has been spewed to you over the years.

Since I can't sum up what a liberal is in a couple sentences, you will get my version later today or tonight when I have the proper amount of time to devote to it.

Sully
04-08-2008, 07:35 AM
Wow.
The answers in this thread are direct mirror images of the "Conservatives want your grandmother to eat dog food" argument.

Fantastic

Chief Henry
04-08-2008, 08:12 AM
They look like Barry Obama and sound like Rev. Wright or just look up Jimmy Carter in any encyclopedia.

MTG#10
04-08-2008, 09:59 AM
I'm trying to comprehend how you say liberals place self freedom above morality in one sentence then in the very next you state liberals believe the govt. should control people, rather than the people controlling themselves.



I actually smoked a joint for the first time in almost a year with my neighbor about 20 minutes before I typed that, and now that I read it I don't really know what I was thinking or trying to get across. I may not know the exact definition of a liberal, but I do know that I disagree with the majority of the views that people who call themselves liberal have. Maybe there's more to it than political and social views, maybe not.

penchief
04-08-2008, 02:53 PM
I actually smoked a joint for the first time in almost a year with my neighbor about 20 minutes before I typed that, and now that I read it I don't really know what I was thinking or trying to get across.

That's gotta be one of the coolest posts ever.

chagrin
04-08-2008, 03:00 PM
the freaks on here struggling to provide an actual answer, and ending up babbling and not saying anything, while crying for the Government to do everything for everybody - is the definition of Liberalism

penchief
04-08-2008, 03:29 PM
the freaks on here struggling to provide an actual answer, and ending up babbling and not saying anything, while crying for the Government to do everything for everybody - is the definition of Liberalism

Blah, blah, blah. Can't you be original? You all sound like Rush-Hannity clones. That's the problem with conservatives. They buy into the macho patriotic capitalistic bullshit without once using their own minds to actually think for themselves or act independently of their Fox News/WWF mentality. I swear, all of you sound like a friggin' broken record.

Quit acting like you believe in individual liberty, independence, and self-reliance because you don't exhibit an ounce of it. Liberals are far more individualistic and far more open-minded. You guys need Big Brother to tell you that somebody's ass needs kicked to make you feel superior. Over the past three decades, conservatives in this country have proven themselves to be sheep.

IMO, liberals are far more honorable than the establishment lackeys that call themselves, "conservative." Hell, I'm more conservative than 90% of the republican party.

SBK
04-09-2008, 12:47 AM
Blah, blah, blah. Can't you be original? You all sound like Rush-Hannity clones. That's the problem with conservatives. They buy into the macho patriotic capitalistic bullshit without once using their own minds to actually think for themselves or act independently of their Fox News/WWF mentality. I swear, all of you sound like a friggin' broken record.

Quit acting like you believe in individual liberty, independence, and self-reliance because you don't exhibit an ounce of it. Liberals are far more individualistic and far more open-minded. You guys need Big Brother to tell you that somebody's ass needs kicked to make you feel superior. Over the past three decades, conservatives in this country have proven themselves to be sheep.

IMO, liberals are far more honorable than the establishment lackeys that call themselves, "conservative." Hell, I'm more conservative than 90% of the republican party.

You are quickly moving into position as my favorite poster on here to read.

'Hamas' Jenkins
04-09-2008, 02:44 AM
No it's not propaganda. Propaganda is misleadingin formation—often partially concealing the whole truth. Modern liberals are for individuals only in certain areas—mainly social. They don't advocate it as much in economic, property rights or tax areas. Conservatives are for individuals more on economic matters and favor more control over social areas. An old right conservative says those controls are the province of the states.

FTR I am talking about modern liberalism which is NOT the same as classical liberals which is what our FF are considered to be. They wanted a much smaller state and did not envision a huge central govt taking care of so many things. We've largely moved away from classical liberalism slowly over the 20th century.

Even Cliff Notes on Poly Sci points this out on modern liberalism. I have a copy somewhere here.
Some socialists will admit it too. Here's a quote by the Socialist Party candidate in every national election from 1928 to 1948.

"The American people will never willingly accept socialism, but under the name of Liberalism*, they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened."- Norman Thomas

Ever hear the term "Fabian Socialism?" It's slow creeping gradual socialism. Their logo is a wolf with a sheepskin over it.



* modern liberalism ( as we see it today)


Get your terms straight Classic liberalism is liberal humanism. It's not hard to find that descriptor. Both Democrats (Greenies) and Republicans are liberal humanists. However, w/in the tent of liberal humanism there is another political dichotomy and/or a continuum by which we currently term people either liberal or conservative.

CHIEF4EVER
04-09-2008, 04:16 AM
Blah, blah, blah. Can't you be original? You all sound like Rush-Hannity clones. That's the problem with conservatives. They buy into the macho patriotic capitalistic bullshit without once using their own minds to actually think for themselves or act independently of their Fox News/WWF mentality. I swear, all of you sound like a friggin' broken record.

Quit acting like you believe in individual liberty, independence, and self-reliance because you don't exhibit an ounce of it. Liberals are far more individualistic and far more open-minded. You guys need Big Brother to tell you that somebody's ass needs kicked to make you feel superior. Over the past three decades, conservatives in this country have proven themselves to be sheep.

IMO, liberals are far more honorable than the establishment lackeys that call themselves, "conservative." Hell, I'm more conservative than 90% of the republican party.

LMAO ROFL

Comedy Gold. Well done. :clap:

Radar Chief
04-09-2008, 08:08 AM
Liberalism is everything that sucks.
Signed,
Conservative Demagogues

And visa versa.

Mr. Kotter
04-09-2008, 08:11 AM
In a meeting to attempt to reconcile the current Democratic Presidential nomination, party leaders hold a high level meeting to discuss their options.

Meet the Sleestaks from "Land of the Lost".....

BucEyedPea
04-09-2008, 04:39 PM
Get your terms straight Classic liberalism is liberal humanism. It's not hard to find that descriptor.

Just because there are additional terms can also apply does not make those terms incorrect. Besides humanism is also a very broad field. The humanism referred to and used today is not necessarily the same humanism as the early 18th century. I think it would apply more to the French Revolutionaries.

Taco John
04-09-2008, 07:08 PM
Liberals are far more individualistic and far more open-minded. You guys need Big Brother to tell you blah blah blah...


I presume that you're in favor of home schooling and allowing people to be indiviudalistic when it comes to education? Do you also subscribe to the idea that people should be allowed to be individualistic when it comes to health care, or are you in favor of universal healthcare? What about individualistic pensions? Are you in favor of allowing indiviudalistic privatized social security, or do you think we need Big Brother to steal our money for their ponzi social security scheme?

Of coruse not. The only thing that you're actually individualistic about is the idea that George can boff Larry and call it a marraige.

MTG#10
04-09-2008, 07:37 PM
I presume that you're in favor of home schooling and allowing people to be indiviudalistic when it comes to education? Do you also subscribe to the idea that people should be allowed to be individualistic when it comes to health care, or are you in favor of universal healthcare? What about individualistic pensions? Are you in favor of allowing indiviudalistic privatized social security, or do you think we need Big Brother to steal our money for their ponzi social security scheme?

Of coruse not. The only thing that you're actually individualistic about is the idea that George can boff Larry and call it a marraige.

ROFL

Adept Havelock
04-09-2008, 07:42 PM
Liberalism is everything that sucks.
Signed,
Conservative Demagogues

And visa versa.

LMAO [/thread]

SBK
04-09-2008, 10:01 PM
ROFL

Yeah, that was brutal. LMAO

penchief
04-10-2008, 05:19 PM
I presume that you're in favor of home schooling and allowing people to be indiviudalistic when it comes to education? Do you also subscribe to the idea that people should be allowed to be individualistic when it comes to health care, or are you in favor of universal healthcare? What about individualistic pensions? Are you in favor of allowing indiviudalistic privatized social security, or do you think we need Big Brother to steal our money for their ponzi social security scheme?

Of coruse not. The only thing that you're actually individualistic about is the idea that George can boff Larry and call it a marraige.

What the hell are you talking about? I believe everyone should have equal access to a quality education. If that means home schooling, so be it. But just because a person comes from a poor family doesn't mean he or she shouldn't get a decent education. Undermining the quality of the public school system is not the answer and only serves the elitist tendencies of those who advocate shifting funds from public education to the "private voucher" scheme that noone has ever been able to illustrate how vouchers would be more effective.

When it comes to health care. Same thing. Everyone should have equal access to quality health care. A person's wealth should not dictate who lives and who dies. Wall Street/Corporate health care would be like a double-****ed sandwich with the average Joe as the meat. You get ****ed coming and going because you give your money to unregulated crooks in hopes that they don't steal it and the only people that eventually can afford quality health care are those who are well off enough to not have to invest their money in Wall Street health care.

Social Security has proven it's worth. Those who have the means to invest for their own future do it anyway. Privatizing Social Security is being pushed by the same people who have used Wall Street to scam the general public. All they want is the chance to steal more money in the same way that they have done so over and over again.

As far as gay marriage goes. That's nobody's business but those who want to participate. Is it my cup of tea? No. But who the hell am I or you to dictate to others how they want to find happiness in their own lives?

The problem with some people is that they are unable to find balance between what they believe ideologically and what reality has proven to be true. People like you are more than willing to defend business crooks on Wall Street and within our goverment, as well as blatant war profiteering no matter how cynical it is. But you are also the first to bash liberal efforts to regulate misdeeds that harm a lot people because, in your mind, it "amounts to communism."

All I'm advocating is balance and common sense. I realize how difficult that is for you to understand.

Taco John
04-10-2008, 05:23 PM
All you had to say was "you're right. I'm in favor of the socialist solution where those things are concerned."

No need to waste your time on that many paragraphs to get the premise of your point across.

penchief
04-10-2008, 05:27 PM
All you had to say was "you're right. I'm in favor of the socialist solution where those things are concerned."

No need to waste your time on that many paragraphs to get the premise of your point across.

It would be nice if you wouldn't make uneducated assertions and then ignore the responses in order to continuing casting aspersions based on bias instead of logic.

Taco John
04-10-2008, 05:32 PM
I can't help it if you don't know what you're talking about.

penchief
04-10-2008, 05:35 PM
I can't help it if you don't know what you're talking about.

Another clever post by someone who considers himself an authority. I can't help it if your attempt at being derisive exposed how ignorant and bigoted you can sound at times.

Taco John
04-10-2008, 06:53 PM
Another clever post by someone who considers himself an authority. I can't help it if your attempt at being derisive exposed how ignorant and bigoted you can sound at times.

Bigoted?

Look dude. You favor socialism. You won't admit it. But everything you talk about is socialistic. It doesn't matter that you think your egalitarian ideas that steal from the rich in order to provide to the poor are noble. It's still socialism, no matter how "fair" you think it is.

I don't care how "bigoted" you think I sound. That means absolutely zero to me. It's not bigoted to believe that I should be allowed to provide for my family and expect that you should provide for yours. It's not bigoted to believe that I shouldn't have to pay for your kids education, AND pay for my kids education. It's not bigoted to not want to participate in the ponzi welfare system called social security.

If I'm bigoted, it's against socialists who ham-fistedly call themselves libertarians while demanding that I enjoy being chained to a socialist system 'that provides for all.'

banyon
04-10-2008, 07:18 PM
Bigoted?

Look dude. You favor socialism. You won't admit it. But everything you talk about is socialistic. It doesn't matter that you think your egalitarian ideas that steal from the rich in order to provide to the poor are noble. It's still socialism, no matter how "fair" you think it is.

I don't care how "bigoted" you think I sound. That means absolutely zero to me. It's not bigoted to believe that I should be allowed to provide for my family and expect that you should provide for yours. It's not bigoted to believe that I shouldn't have to pay for your kids education, AND pay for my kids education. It's not bigoted to not want to participate in the ponzi welfare system called social security.

If I'm bigoted, it's against socialists who ham-fistedly call themselves libertarians while demanding that I enjoy being chained to a socialist system 'that provides for all.'

These positions you assert are "socialist" are popularly supported by majorities or super-majorities of Americans. Calling that high of a percentage of Americans "socialist" just because they support some government programs just gets sillier every time you and BEP overreach on this stuff. No one except for a tiny, specious splinter of people believe that this is a good way to categorize people's political beliefs. It also serves to mostly stifle, rather than foster a free exchange of ideas, and IMO, then is at odds with the spirit of the idea of freedom of expression. You'd be more successful in getting people to see things your way without calling them unjustified names and burning up bridges at the first drop of a hat.

Taco John
04-10-2008, 07:26 PM
These positions you assert are "socialist" are popularly supported by majorities or super-majorities of Americans.

That doesn't make these positions any less socialistic.


Calling that high of a percentage of Americans "socialist" just because they support some government programs just gets sillier every time you and BEP overreach on this stuff.

Oh yeah... It's just me and her. We're the only ones on this forum who recognize socialism for what it is. We might be the loudest about it, but we're far from alone on this subject. This has been an old right position up until the most recent 20 years when the Republicans started to grab public cash by the fistfuls, capitulating to the corruption that these social programs have brought to our American system.


No one except for a tiny, specious splinter of people believe that this is a good way to categorize people's political beliefs.

Nobody wants to admit that they agree with socialism. It's the great deception in this society. Like you say, a high percentage of Americans are in favor of socialist programs... They just don't want to call them "socialist" programs. Instead they call them "government programs." Or they take off the "ist" and call them "social programs."

It doesn't change the fundamentals.

banyon
04-10-2008, 07:34 PM
Let's just get this nonsense over with.

Define: 1) Socialist 2) Liberal 3) Progressive

Or just go ahead and admit that you are conflating these terms in a way that no credible political scientists or observers do.

Hell, in the last month, BEP's called patteeu a "liberal" and you've called Donger a socialist. I'd search for the posts if we could still do that.

SNR
04-10-2008, 07:34 PM
These positions you assert are "socialist" are popularly supported by majorities or super-majorities of Americans. Calling that high of a percentage of Americans "socialist" just because they support some government programs just gets sillier every time you and BEP overreach on this stuff. No one except for a tiny, specious splinter of people believe that this is a good way to categorize people's political beliefs. It also serves to mostly stifle, rather than foster a free exchange of ideas, and IMO, then is at odds with the spirit of the idea of freedom of expression. You'd be more successful in getting people to see things your way without calling them unjustified names and burning up bridges at the first drop of a hat.It IS socialism. It's a form of socialism.

It's not a shit-slinging insult. Look, I just got back from Vienna a few months ago. If you had a political discussion with any given Austrian citizen and you called them a "socialist" they wouldn't retort and say, "yeah, well you're a bigot." They would agree and make further arguments on why socialism works.

I understand "socialism" used to carry negative connotations in this country, but this isn't the 1950s anymore. Things like socialized healthcare and an increasing welfare state are examples of socialism. That's how most socialist states started out, with singular programs like these. Look at Britain after the 1870s... the people who advocated the welfare state proudly proclaimed themselves socialists. There's nothing wrong with being a socialist. People like Taco and I just disagree with you is all.

banyon
04-10-2008, 07:53 PM
It IS socialism. It's a form of socialism.

It's not a shit-slinging insult. Look, I just got back from Vienna a few months ago. If you had a political discussion with any given Austrian citizen and you called them a "socialist" they wouldn't retort and say, "yeah, well you're a bigot." They would agree and make further arguments on why socialism works.

I understand "socialism" used to carry negative connotations in this country, but this isn't the 1950s anymore. Things like socialized healthcare and an increasing welfare state are examples of socialism. That's how most socialist states started out, with singular programs like these. Look at Britain after the 1870s... the people who advocated the welfare state proudly proclaimed themselves socialists. There's nothing wrong with being a socialist. People like Taco and I just disagree with you is all.

What's wrong is the inability to make distinctions. Calling everyone who supports a government program a socialist is as silly as calling everyone who opposes a government program an anarchist.

I went through the socialist party's platform a couple of weeks back in a thread and outlined my numerous disagreements with them. I didn't compare it with my attitude toward the Republican party platform (or even the libertarian), but my guess is I'd probably have more in common with the latter platforms than the former. (:cuss: search function missing). How can someone belong to an ideological viewpoint when they agree more with other ideologies? It's not "I agree to disagree" it's just inaccurate. We may as well set all of our political science and government textbooks on fire and just fling feces at the wall in those classrooms if we can't even agree on some basic (and useful) distinctions.

Taco John
04-10-2008, 09:30 PM
Let's just get this nonsense over with.

Define: 1) Socialist 2) Liberal 3) Progressive

Or just go ahead and admit that you are conflating these terms in a way that no credible political scientists or observers do.

Hell, in the last month, BEP's called patteeu a "liberal" and you've called Donger a socialist. I'd search for the posts if we could still do that.



I don't believe that I called Donger a socialist. You'd have to refresh me on that. He's definitely a government robot. That guy knee jerks to defend the state almost 100% of the time.

Taco John
04-10-2008, 09:38 PM
Let's just get this nonsense over with.

Define: 1) Socialist 2) Liberal 3) Progressive

Or just go ahead and admit that you are conflating these terms in a way that no credible political scientists or observers do.

Hell, in the last month, BEP's called patteeu a "liberal" and you've called Donger a socialist. I'd search for the posts if we could still do that.


Here's my fun definitions... They'll have to do for now, as I'm running out the door.

Socialist - Someone who advocates for socialist programs

Liberal - An American Socialist

Progressive - What liberals started to call themselves when it no longer became popular to be called a liberal.

:D

banyon
04-10-2008, 10:18 PM
I don't believe that I called Donger a socialist. You'd have to refresh me on that. He's definitely a government robot. That guy knee jerks to defend the state almost 100% of the time.

What's the difference then by your useage of the term?

banyon
04-10-2008, 10:19 PM
Here's my fun definitions... They'll have to do for now, as I'm running out the door.

Socialist - Someone who advocates for socialist programs

Liberal - An American Socialist

Progressive - What liberals started to call themselves when it no longer became popular to be called a liberal.

:D

Jokes aside, I note your total capitulation in the face of what should be basic political distinctions. It should give you pause in your haphazard utilization of the terminology.

Taco John
04-10-2008, 10:30 PM
Apparently you didn't get the part where I was running out the door. My joke definition isn't too far off with regards to pop-liberals. A progressive is another stipe of socialist in my book... The kind that wants to nationalize resources, property, and industry "for the social good of all." Essentially they want to socialize resources. Only they don't call it "socialization" or "nationalization." They call it "regulation." Which becomes "over-regulation."

The effects end up being the same: state control.

Logical
04-10-2008, 10:33 PM
Here's my fun definitions... They'll have to do for now, as I'm running out the door.

Socialist - Someone who advocates for socialist programs

Liberal - An American Socialist

Progressive - What liberals started to call themselves when it no longer became popular to be called a liberal.

:D

Though I think TJ was mainly joking, I sort of agree with the first two. Though my experince has been that conservatives who believe in left leaning social policies in areas like abortion, Church and State separation etc ten to call themselves progressives.

banyon
04-10-2008, 10:39 PM
Apparently you didn't get the part where I was running out the door. My joke definition isn't too far off with regards to pop-liberals. A progressive is another stipe of socialist in my book... The kind that wants to nationalize resources, property, and industry "for the social good of all." Only they don't call it "nationalization." They call it "regulation." Which becomes "over-regulation."

The effects end up being the same: state control.

Apparently you didn't run out the door. Get gone. :)

You can't make the distinction which is accepted by 99% of people studying or involved in politics. It exposes the hollowness of your charge, I get it totally.

Taco John
04-10-2008, 10:42 PM
Apparently you didn't run out the door. Get gone. :)

I did. A quick run to Target to gander at the patio furniture... :)



You can't make the distinction which is accepted by 99% of people studying or involved in politics. It exposes the hollowness of your charge, I get it totally.

Bah. Nothing about my definition is inaccurate. I just tear away to feel good frills.

It's amusing to see you speak for 99% of people though, especially with regards to a tactile medium like politics... Ever the liberal...

ClevelandBronco
04-10-2008, 10:46 PM
What's wrong is the inability to make distinctions. Calling everyone who supports a government program a socialist is as silly as calling everyone who opposes a government program an anarchist.

I went through the socialist party's platform a couple of weeks back in a thread and outlined my numerous disagreements with them...

You don't have to belong to the Socialist Party to be a socialist, just as you don't have to belong to the Libertarian Party to be a libertarian.

banyon
04-10-2008, 11:05 PM
I did. A quick run to Target to gander at the patio furniture... :)





Bah. Nothing about my definition is inaccurate. I just tear away to feel good frills.

It's amusing to see you speak for 99% of people though, especially with regards to a tactile medium like politics... Ever the liberal...

I could probably find hundreds of standard textbooks and sources that define the terms and make the distinctions I am stressing. Can you find anything that isn't from way outside the mainstream (i.e., the 1% I allowed for) that would define the terms as synonymously as you seem to?

I'm not speaking for 99% of the people, I'm identifying an extreme fringe (and unhelpful) view for what it is: extreme and fringe. In other words, I'm talking about this view as the 1% or less view that it is, the other 99% is just basic deductive logic.

banyon
04-10-2008, 11:06 PM
You don't have to belong to the Socialist Party to be a socialist, just as you don't have to belong to the Libertarian Party to be a libertarian.

But you do have to agree with a substantial enough portion of their views, correct?

I stated that I believed I would almost certainly agree with much more of the Democratic or probably even Republican platforms than the Socialist one, why wouldn't that distinguish me?

banyon
04-10-2008, 11:19 PM
Also: you know you have a problem when someone has to define a term by using the same term in their definition.

Socialist - Someone who advocates for socialist programs

Taco John
04-11-2008, 12:19 AM
Also: you know you have a problem when someone has to define a term by using the same term in their definition.

I didn't realize that there was any confusion over the meaning of "socialist program."

All this quibbling just shows how uncomfortable you are with the term "socialist." Why advocate for socialism if you're not comfortable with it?

Oh wait... Silly me. You don't advocate for socialism. You just feel we need to have a social safety net to protect the defenseless from the elitist power-mongers who want to exploit them for greedy gains, even if that means eliminating private property rights.

Since you apparently need it, I believe a fair definition of "socialist program" is one which forcibly takes resources from individuals (or even targets groups of individuals, ie. "the rich") and spreads those resources around for the supposed benefit of all.

ClevelandBronco
04-11-2008, 01:04 AM
But you do have to agree with a substantial enough portion of their views, correct?

Incorrect. They're further down the road than you are, but it's the same road.

I stated that I believed I would almost certainly agree with much more of the Democratic or probably even Republican platforms than the Socialist one, why wouldn't that distinguish me?

Because the Socialist Party doesn't define socialism. The characteristics of any single issue will range from purely socialistic to some degree of being socialistic or not at all socialistic.) When one supports a position that is more socialistic, guess what that makes one?

You're not saying that it's impossible to be a socialist and a Democrat at the same time, are you? Hell, I'll admit freely that it's possible to be a Republican and a socialist simultaneously.

I'm even willing to name names. ;)

Taco John
04-11-2008, 01:11 AM
Incorrect. They're further down the road than you are, but it's the same road.



Because the Socialist Party doesn't define socialism. The characteristics of any single issue will range from purely socialistic to some degree of being socialistic or not at all socialistic.) When one supports a position that is more socialistic, guess what that makes one?

You're not saying that it's impossible to be a socialist and a Democrat at the same time, are you? Hell, I'll admit freely that it's possible to be a Republican and a socialist simultaneously.

I'm even willing to name names. ;)


Uh oh... You're doing some serious damage to Banyon's 99% theory.

banyon
04-11-2008, 08:13 AM
I didn't realize that there was any confusion over the meaning of "socialist program."

All this quibbling just shows how uncomfortable you are with the term "socialist." Why advocate for socialism if you're not comfortable with it?

Oh wait... Silly me. You don't advocate for socialism. You just feel we need to have a social safety net to protect the defenseless from the elitist power-mongers who want to exploit them for greedy gains, even if that means eliminating private property rights.

Since you apparently need it, I believe a fair definition of "socialist program" is one which forcibly takes resources from individuals (or even targets groups of individuals, ie. "the rich") and spreads those resources around for the supposed benefit of all.

Bang. there it is. The Constitution and the Founders are socialists according to your definition (because they signed off on several kinds of taxes). Like I've said all along-- it's WAY overbroad (and overboard).

banyon
04-11-2008, 08:20 AM
Incorrect. They're further down the road than you are, but it's the same road.

Incorrect? So I don't have to agree with any of their views? Or just 1 view? Basically it's just someone who you disagree with and want to call a nasty name then?


Because the Socialist Party doesn't define socialism. The characteristics of any single issue will range from purely socialistic to some degree of being socialistic or not at all socialistic.) When one supports a position that is more socialistic, guess what that makes one?

If used to describe the entire spectrum of anything short of anarchy, then it uses its usefulness as a label or even as a word.

You're not saying that it's impossible to be a socialist and a Democrat at the same time, are you? Hell, I'll admit freely that it's possible to be a Republican and a socialist simultaneously.

I'm even willing to name names. ;)

I don't believe I've said that, but I applaud your effort to move the goalposts. I've merely emphasized that it's possible to advocate for some government programs and regulations without being a "socialist". I.e., there are classifications which fall in- between "socialist" and "anarchist" and none of the "definitions" offered so far accounts for that.

patteeu
04-11-2008, 09:37 AM
After reading through the thread, how's this for a definition:

Liberal - someone who is either consciously or subconsciously aspiring to be a socialist when they grow up. :D

Seriously, I don't think it's fair to brand someone who supports a very small number of socialistic practices as a socialist (e.g. the founding fathers, Ronald Reagan, Barry Goldwater, etc.), but I don't think it's justified for die-hard liberals who favor an overwhelming number of socialistic practices to complain about being called a socialist (e.g. penchief, Bernie Sanders, Obama).

ClevelandBronco
04-11-2008, 10:12 AM
Incorrect? So I don't have to agree with any of their views? Or just 1 view? Basically it's just someone who you disagree with and want to call a nasty name then?

You find that certain descriptors are inherently nasty? That may be the source of our misunderstanding.

Yes, I tend more toward anarchism than toward socialism.

Typo: Not "that", but "than."

Taco John
04-11-2008, 01:03 PM
Bang. there it is. The Constitution and the Founders are socialists according to your definition (because they signed off on several kinds of taxes).

You could probably look at it that way if you were inclined to and say that Government by its inherent nature is mildly socialistic. But what this view doesn't account for is that we have a contract with our government to guarantee certain rights and in order to provide that service, government has to charge us for it. Thus, what you are referring to in your "gotcha" manner isn't actually socialism but a free exchange. I am more than happy to pay taxes for my part of this contract.

When I make a similar exchange with AT&T for phone service, I would be greatly upset if they charged me more based on my income in order to provide phone service to someone who might be "less fortunate" than I. I would also be upset if they forced a charge on me so that I (and those "less fortunate" than I) could afford to pay for phone service in the twilight years of life. I will admit that I'd rather see AT&T adopt this type of an opt-in co-op system than the government forcing it on everyone. I have no problem with people choosing socialism. My problem is when they want to use the state to force it on everyone.

BucEyedPea
04-11-2008, 02:09 PM
After reading through the thread, how's this for a definition:

Liberal - someone who is either consciously or subconsciously aspiring to be a socialist when they grow up. :D

Seriously, I don't think it's fair to brand someone who supports a very small number of socialistic practices as a socialist (e.g. the founding fathers, Ronald Reagan, Barry Goldwater, etc.), but I don't think it's justified for die-hard liberals who favor an overwhelming number of socialistic practices to complain about being called a socialist (e.g. penchief, Bernie Sanders, Obama).

I mainly use the writings of Marx, philosophical ideas that underpin solutions such as Rousseau's Social Contract ( OR PRINCIPLES OF POLITICAL RIGHT), Plato's Republic. I do not use nationalization of industry as a main tenet. I do use overegulation and taxation as indirect tools to control the "majormeans of production"...because that's "you and I."

Velvet_Jones
04-11-2008, 02:56 PM
Liberalism is based on the belief that you can, in fact, pick a turd up by its clean end.

Baby Lee
04-11-2008, 03:02 PM
Through the lens I view things through;
Liberalism is a belief that collective action can solve problems.
Conservatism is a belief individual actions solve problems best.

The tough nut is figuring out when individual action is best and when collective action is a better course.

banyon
04-11-2008, 03:30 PM
You could probably look at it that way if you were inclined to and say that Government by its inherent nature is mildly socialistic. But what this view doesn't account for is that we have a contract with our government to guarantee certain rights and in order to provide that service, government has to charge us for it. Thus, what you are referring to in your "gotcha" manner isn't actually socialism but a free exchange. I am more than happy to pay taxes for my part of this contract.

When I make a similar exchange with AT&T for phone service, I would be greatly upset if they charged me more based on my income in order to provide phone service to someone who might be "less fortunate" than I. I would also be upset if they forced a charge on me so that I (and those "less fortunate" than I) could afford to pay for phone service in the twilight years of life. I will admit that I'd rather see AT&T adopt this type of an opt-in co-op system than the government forcing it on everyone. I have no problem with people choosing socialism. My problem is when they want to use the state to force it on everyone.


Why are their taxes contractual, but the subsequent ones are not? (i.e., what language in the contract tells you that?)

Pic
04-11-2008, 03:30 PM
http://i305.photobucket.com/albums/nn211/Picturesspeaklouder/liberalism.jpg

patteeu
04-11-2008, 06:25 PM
Why are their taxes contractual, but the subsequent ones are not? (i.e., what language in the contract tells you that?)

I think he's saying that he doesn't mind taxes that go toward programs that are supported by his view of the constitution, but that the government has no "contract" for collecting taxes for unconstitutional activities.

penchief
04-11-2008, 06:48 PM
Liberalism is based on the belief that you can, in fact, pick a turd up by its clean end.

Conservatism is based on the belief that your shit doesn't stink, therefore, you should be able to shit wherever you want.

Taco John
04-11-2008, 06:55 PM
The tough nut is figuring out when individual action is best and when collective action is a better course.

It's not a tough nut to figure out at all. People will always act in a manner consistent with what they perceive to be their own self interest. Individual action is superior because people are able to determine what is best for themselves, not what the government nannies have determined is best.

In the smoking thread, I had determined that it was in my own best interest not to patronize a restaurant where they allow smoking because of how smoke affects my wife. We don't need a law forced on the restaurant owner to accomodate us. We vote with our dollars.

The only time collective action is a better course is when it is voluntary collective action. As a libertarian, I am in favor of socialist co-ops where people can participate as they wish. I am very much against being forced into them through government mandate.

banyon
04-11-2008, 08:32 PM
I think he's saying that he doesn't mind taxes that go toward programs that are supported by his view of the constitution, but that the government has no "contract" for collecting taxes for unconstitutional activities.

I guess that makes about as much sense as anything else he's posted in this thread.

banyon
04-11-2008, 08:38 PM
The only time collective action is a better course is when it is voluntary collective action. As a libertarian, I am in favor of socialist co-ops where people can participate as they wish. I am very much against being forced into them through government mandate.

Please go defend our borders through some individual voluntary collective action. Or win the space race, or stop a SARS outbreak, or stop insider trading on the market, or build the interstate highway system, or stop child labor, or clean up 1980's California's harzardous smog levels, or liberate the Jews in WWII, or .... pretty much anything people do collectively and through government organization because it has proven FAR more effective throughout history and across the globe than any other fictional utopian free money-no tax scheme.

Taco John
04-11-2008, 11:00 PM
I guess that makes about as much sense as anything else he's posted in this thread.

Of course it makes sense.

Logical
04-11-2008, 11:02 PM
http://i305.photobucket.com/albums/nn211/Picturesspeaklouder/liberalism.jpg

That dude has a serious problem. For amusement I listen to his radio broadcast on the drive home. Dude is afraid of the Islamic people in an irrationale manner. He also suffers from a serious God complex, people who think I am arrogant should listen to that guy.:shake:

banyon
04-11-2008, 11:04 PM
Of course it makes sense.

good, substantive retort.

Taco John
04-11-2008, 11:08 PM
Please go defend our borders through some individual voluntary collective action. Or win the space race, or stop a SARS outbreak, or stop insider trading on the market, or build the interstate highway system, or stop child labor, or clean up 1980's California's harzardous smog levels, or liberate the Jews in WWII, or .... pretty much anything people do collectively and through government organization because it has proven FAR more effective throughout history and across the globe than any other fictional utopian free money-no tax scheme.



GLORY BE! PAAAAH-RAAAIIIIISE GUB-i-MENT!

Nothing could possibly get done if it weren't for government!

HALLELUJAH! I've seen the light!

Taco John
04-11-2008, 11:09 PM
good, substantive retort.

What are you talking about? You think your snark deserved a "good, substantive retort?"

You think awful highly of your snark.

Taco John
04-11-2008, 11:10 PM
For the record, you apparently can't tell the difference between something that is a legitimate government function, and something that is not. This is because you apparently think EVERYTHING is a legitimate government function...

...otherwise known as a socialist.

banyon
04-11-2008, 11:23 PM
It's clear you've been reduced to emotional, non-sequitur-styled responses. Clearly, my pointing out that your lack of distinction between someone who supports 1 government program and a totalitarian is troubling for you. Again, that should give you pause and hopefully be reason enough to perhaps rethink your newfound devotion to this absolutist school of fringe theory.

banyon
04-11-2008, 11:24 PM
For the record, you apparently can't tell the difference between something that is a legitimate government function, and something that is not. This is because you apparently think EVERYTHING is a legitimate government function...

...otherwise known as a socialist.

Great, you haven't identified any criteria to differentiate "legitimate" from "illegitimate" government functions except your volatile opinion.

banyon
04-11-2008, 11:39 PM
GLORY BE! PAAAAH-RAAAIIIIISE GUB-i-MENT!

Nothing could possibly get done if it weren't for government!

HALLELUJAH! I've seen the light!

BTW, this could be one of the worst replies in CP DC history. Way to skirt everything i raised.

Taco John
04-11-2008, 11:39 PM
It's clear you've been reduced to emotional, non-sequitur-styled responses. Clearly, my pointing out that your lack of distinction between someone who supports 1 government program and a totalitarian is troubling for you.

Oh? This is clearly a mistake on my part. You support only one government program? Silly me.

I thought you were in favor of compulsory government schooling where they take your money, even if you want to put your kid in private school -- and go to jail for tax evasion if you try to opt out.

I also thought you were in favor of the compulsory welfare program called social security where they forcibly take your money, and use it to take care of old people who have had their money taken from them prior, and are now dependant on the government to provide for them -- and they send you to jail for tax evasion if you try to opt out.

Nothing totalitarian about these programs at all.

And don't get me started on healthcare, where the leading candidates are proposing that EVERYONE should be FORCED to carry insurance -- thus justifying the government's intervention into the health care system (otherwise known as propping up their buddies to make loads of cash while bloviating about the public service that they are doing).


Again, that should give you pause and hopefully be reason enough to perhaps rethink your newfound devotion to this absolutist school of fringe theory.

If I don't participate in your social programs, I get thrown in jail. You can be part of the herd if you want. I just want to ****ing opt out and use my money to take care of myself and my family.

Yeah, throwing me in jail for not wanting to participate in the government ponzi schemes and morally bankrupt school system is not totalitarian at all.

Taco John
04-11-2008, 11:40 PM
Great, you haven't identified any criteria to differentiate "legitimate" from "illegitimate" government functions except your volatile opinion.

Sure I have... (http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html)

Taco John
04-11-2008, 11:42 PM
BTW, this could be one of the worst replies in CP DC history. Way to skirt everything i raised.

Your post was incoherent. You aren't able to discern between legitimate functions of government, and illegitimate. You just started worshiping the state for all it's glory. My post was a fun house mirror image of your post.

banyon
04-11-2008, 11:58 PM
Sure I have... (http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html)

Great a link to the Constitution. Very helpful in identifying your criteria. Perhaps you'd care to cite a specific section that sustains your view?

banyon
04-12-2008, 12:00 AM
Oh? This is clearly a mistake on my part. You support only one government program? Silly me.

I thought you were in favor of compulsory government schooling where they take your money, even if you want to put your kid in private school -- and go to jail for tax evasion if you try to opt out.

I also thought you were in favor of the compulsory welfare program called social security where they forcibly take your money, and use it to take care of old people who have had their money taken from them prior, and are now dependant on the government to provide for them -- and they send you to jail for tax evasion if you try to opt out.

Nothing totalitarian about these programs at all.

And don't get me started on healthcare, where the leading candidates are proposing that EVERYONE should be FORCED to carry insurance -- thus justifying the government's intervention into the health care system (otherwise known as propping up their buddies to make loads of cash while bloviating about the public service that they are doing).




If I don't participate in your social programs, I get thrown in jail. You can be part of the herd if you want. I just want to ****ing opt out and use my money to take care of myself and my family.

Yeah, throwing me in jail for not wanting to participate in the government ponzi schemes and morally bankrupt school system is not totalitarian at all.


Yes, health care and public education are supported by EVERY industrialiszed nation. opposing them are perhaps a few countries that would likely be on the State Department's list of state sponsors of terrorism or among the least developed countries in the world according to anyone or the U.N.

Again, I'm sorry that your view does not allow for even the most basic societal needs that have been acknowledged since the dawn of civilization.

banyon
04-12-2008, 12:01 AM
Your post was incoherent. You aren't able to discern between legitimate functions of government, and illegitimate. You just started worshiping the state for all it's glory. My post was a fun house mirror image of your post.

I cited specific examples where collective action was clearly necessary over individual voluntary action, you chose to respond flippantly. I'm sorry your reply does not meet the task of showing how your view would meet these obvious needs.

Taco John
04-12-2008, 12:05 AM
Article 1 - Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

banyon
04-12-2008, 12:08 AM
Article 1 - Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.


Great, now list the 1st sentence of the Constitution or the 9th or 10th Amendment.

banyon
04-12-2008, 12:10 AM
BTW, Article 1, Section 2, paragraph 1 allows for "collective action" over your objection. And the last clause (the "necessary and proper clause") pretty much excludes your desired limitations.

Taco John
04-12-2008, 12:16 AM
Yes, health care and public education are supported by EVERY industrialiszed nation. opposing them are perhaps a few countries that would likely be on the State Department's list of state sponsors of terrorism or among the least developed countries in the world according to anyone or the U.N.

Again, I'm sorry that your view does not allow for even the most basic societal needs that have been acknowledged since the dawn of civilization.[/QUOTE]



Yes. Only terrorists could possibly be against socialist education and totalitarian health care. :rolleyes:

I love the old "everyone else does it so it must be right" point of view. It matches your 99% of everyone agrees with you argument that I thought was pretty good too.

Nothing like being such a substantive guy. Who needs principles when "everyone else is doing it" works for 99% of everyone?

Taco John
04-12-2008, 12:17 AM
Great, now list the 1st sentence of the Constitution or the 9th or 10th Amendment.

Why? I listed the powers of Congress.

There's certainly nothing in the first sentence that disagrees with my point of view.

CHIEF4EVER
04-12-2008, 12:22 AM
Yes, health care and public education are supported by EVERY industrialiszed nation. opposing them are perhaps a few countries that would likely be on the State Department's list of state sponsors of terrorism or among the least developed countries in the world according to anyone or the U.N.

Again, I'm sorry that your view does not allow for even the most basic societal needs that have been acknowledged since the dawn of civilization.

Not to be argumentative but while health care and education are indeed important, their provision and funding by government mandate and coercive taxation are not. Your support for centralized programs of this ilk funded by and administered by the government highlights your socialist leanings.

FTR, I highly doubt you seriously believe that TJ thinks that education and health care are unimportant. That insinuation and the rest of the post is just so much hyperbolic fluff counselor. "YOUR HONOR, move to strike. Irrelevant." :p

wazu
04-12-2008, 12:30 AM
That dude has a serious problem. For amusement I listen to his radio broadcast on the drive home. Dude is afraid of the Islamic people in an irrationale manner. He also suffers from a serious God complex, people who think I am arrogant should listen to that guy.:shake:

He is deranged. To be honest, I used to enjoy listening to him on the drive home years ago. His God complex was comical to listen to, and his anger was infectious. He actually did a good job of pointing out the absurdity of liberalism for a time, but eventually delved so deep into paranoid insanity and hostility that even I couldn't stand to listen. I turned him on a few times last year just to see what it was like and he had come completely unglued. It's hard to describe, but his program offers no value or thought leadership whatsoever these days. It's pretty much just him talking about himself and how great he is, and pimping whatever crappy book he just wrote.

Logical
04-12-2008, 12:36 AM
He is deranged. To be honest, I used to enjoy listening to him on the drive home years ago. His God complex was comical to listen to, and his anger was infectious. He actually did a good job of pointing out the absurdity of liberalism for a time, but eventually delved so deep into paranoid insanity and hostility that even I couldn't stand to listen. I turned him on a few times last year just to see what it was like and he had come completely unglued. It's hard to describe, but his program offers no value or thought leadership whatsoever these days. It's pretty much just him talking about himself and how great he is, and pimping whatever crappy book he just wrote.
Yup fortunately they changed their line up so now I can listen to O'Reilly on the drive home, definitely a neo-con even to my view but we agree on many subjects and he has a sense of humor.

I then get home and watch Keith Olberman for a bizarre sort of humorous and viewpoint balance.

banyon
04-12-2008, 09:57 AM
Not to be argumentative but while health care and education are indeed important, their provision and funding by government mandate and coercive taxation are not. Your support for centralized programs of this ilk funded by and administered by the government highlights your socialist leanings.

FTR, I highly doubt you seriously believe that TJ thinks that education and health care are unimportant. That insinuation and the rest of the post is just so much hyperbolic fluff counselor. "YOUR HONOR, move to strike. Irrelevant." :p

Sure you like them, you just don't want to pay for them and don't have any better options.

The rest of my post also was totally relevant in that it responded to TJ's charge that these programs are "totalitarian". I was just arguing that the countries that actually are totalitarian don't provide these goods, while the ones that aren't do provide them, ergo, they're not totalitarian.

banyon
04-12-2008, 09:59 AM
Why? I listed the powers of Congress.

There's certainly nothing in the first sentence that disagrees with my point of view.

Because there's more to the document that addresses the Powers of Congress than that section? Not to mention that most of the programs you are bitching about are run by the States anyway, so the Federal Constitution is really irrelevant in that respect.

banyon
04-12-2008, 10:16 AM
Again, I'm sorry that your view does not allow for even the most basic societal needs that have been acknowledged since the dawn of civilization.



Yes. Only terrorists could possibly be against socialist education and totalitarian health care. :rolleyes:

I love the old "everyone else does it so it must be right" point of view. It matches your 99% of everyone agrees with you argument that I thought was pretty good too.

Nothing like being such a substantive guy. Who needs principles when "everyone else is doing it" works for 99% of everyone?[/QUOTE]

Again, I was just responding to your charge that these programs are totalitarian. It's not that 99% of everyone agrees with me, it's that less than 1% would agree that your view is a coherent way to explain political parties, groups, or labels.

To recap, you've offered no criteria other than to quote Article 1 Section 8 in a tangentially irrelevant way to differentiate "socialists" from "anyone who supports any government program". Much, if not most of the collective action that you apparently abhor is performed by city and state governments, but in addition to that, there are plenty of federal programs that nearly everyone supports that aren't explicitly authorized in that section either. Maybe the problem is that you want to use these terms archaicly, perhaps people 200 years ago would view most people as socialists today. But terms and times have changed and now we need terms that will differentiate people that have genuine and substantial political disagreements. Your version of "socialist" just doesn't allow for that, so it's at best not useful, and at worst, misleading and unhelpful.

I'm not sure why you've been inspired to go on this quest to dismantle everything that has been done since 1800, but I can tell you where your quest is going to end: nowhere. Ordinary people aren't willing to forego the protections and social safety net that has been constructed over the last 100+ years. And why should they? Were things so great in 1835 or 1870? At what point is it that you think things were really swell and that's where you want to go back to? When people died at much younger ages, ate congested food, children worked instead of going to school. And before you think it's just a technology thing, think about the countries in the modern world now where they have much looser rules and no social safety net. What are those countries like to live in.

I'd much sooner live by the axiom that you can judge a society by how it treats it least well off than the apparent alternative you've offered which is "I GOTS MINE SO EVERYONE ELSE CAN F*** OFF".

chappy
04-12-2008, 10:57 AM
Liberalism is a great thing it one of the steps we need to move toward ultimately to have a perfect Socialist then Communist Society. Then after that we can move on to Utopian

Taco John
04-12-2008, 12:15 PM
The rest of my post also was totally relevant in that it responded to TJ's charge that these programs are "totalitarian". I was just arguing that the countries that actually are totalitarian don't provide these goods, while the ones that aren't do provide them, ergo, they're not totalitarian.


It's amusing to me that you think this is a worthwhile point.

Taco John
04-12-2008, 12:24 PM
To recap, you've offered no criteria other than to quote Article 1 Section 8 in a tangentially irrelevant way to differentiate "socialists" from "anyone who supports any government program".

Uh, actually yeah, I have. I can't help it if you simply ignore the stuff that you don't like.

I'd much sooner live by the axiom that you can judge a society by how it treats it least well off than the apparent alternative you've offered which is "I GOTS MINE SO EVERYONE ELSE CAN F*** OFF".

First, I don't care what axiom you would sooner live by. How pointless. Your socialist axiom is amusing, but it's ultimately hollow when you have to use government coercion to enforce it. Second, I'm not offering an alternative axiom. I don't live my life by empty rhetoric, and if I did, I would certainly not try to use government force to coerce you to live by it.

But if I were to need to have an empty statement like this to prove the worth of my point of view, it might be something similar to "I got mine through hard work and dedication. You can get yours too."

Logical
04-12-2008, 12:37 PM
Uh, actually yeah, I have. I can't help it if you simply ignore the stuff that you don't like.



First, I don't care what axiom you would sooner live by. How pointless. Your socialist axiom is amusing, but it's ultimately hollow when you have to use government coercion to enforce it. Second, I'm not offering an alternative axiom. I don't live my life by empty rhetoric, and if I did, I would certainly not try to use government force to coerce you to live by it.

But if I were to need to have an empty statement like this to prove the worth of my point of view, it might be something similar to "I got mine through hard work and dedication. You can get yours too."

I am just curious, what are you offering? What system that is achievable do you want to see implemented?

banyon
04-12-2008, 12:59 PM
Uh, actually yeah, I have. I can't help it if you simply ignore the stuff that you don't like.

No you didn't. That was your criteria and then you linked to the Constitution as if it provided some sort of direct evidence for your conflation.[/quote]


First, I don't care what axiom you would sooner live by. How pointless. Your socialist axiom is amusing, but it's ultimately hollow when you have to use government coercion to enforce it. Second, I'm not offering an alternative axiom. I don't live my life by empty rhetoric, and if I did, I would certainly not try to use government force to coerce you to live by it.

But if I were to need to have an empty statement like this to prove the worth of my point of view, it might be something similar to "I got mine through hard work and dedication. You can get yours too."


GET TO WORK YOU LAZY POS!! THE GUBMENT CAN'T FORCE ME TO HELP YOUR SORRY A** :cuss:

http://photos8.flickr.com/10542831_e52cfff4a0.jpg

Also, way to pick and choose what to reply to in a snippy way. You can't defend your view, so you've chosen to capitulate like a petulant child.

It's no big deal, but don't think anyone should take you seriously when you toss around these labels in the future. Not only have you mirrored BEP's ultra-libertarian political leanings, but now you've adopted her penchant for using her own terminology differently than everyone else as a coping mechanism when your ideas can't stand on their own merit.

I assume you'll get past this stage and figure out that to have any traction with your ideas, they'll need to be pallatable to more than just a couple of kooky internet webrings.

CHIEF4EVER
04-12-2008, 07:44 PM
Sure you like them, you just don't want to pay for them and don't have any better options.

Wait wait wait. Yes, I like having health care and education but to assume that I don't want to pay for them and don't have an alternative is an error. I'm not sure how you extrapolated that from my post but it is incorrect. I don't mind paying for both but I want to do so without coercion. How about:

1) Lowering my taxes and letting me choose how my child is schooled (paying as I go) and not expecting me to pay for everyone elses child.

2) Same as above for health care.

I want to be able to choose which educator teaches my child and approve what the curriculum is going to be. I also want to choose my own health care and pay my own way rather than having someone elses plan shoved down my throat and being forced to pay for it. Competition doesn't hurt anything.

banyon
04-12-2008, 08:35 PM
Wait wait wait. Yes, I like having health care and education but to assume that I don't want to pay for them and don't have an alternative is an error. I'm not sure how you extrapolated that from my post but it is incorrect. I don't mind paying for both but I want to do so without coercion. How about:

1) Lowering my taxes and letting me choose how my child is schooled (paying as I go) and not expecting me to pay for everyone elses child.

2) Same as above for health care.

I want to be able to choose which educator teaches my child and approve what the curriculum is going to be. I also want to choose my own health care and pay my own way rather than having someone elses plan shoved down my throat and being forced to pay for it. Competition doesn't hurt anything.

What do you think the kids who can't afford to go to school in your new "Sucks to be your poor a**" system will do with all of their newfound spare time?

Logical
04-12-2008, 08:41 PM
What do you think the kids who can't afford to go to school in your new "Sucks to be your poor a**" system will do with all of their newfound spare time?

Why of course they will play chess at the rec center and eat ham sandwiches you silly bidge (just pulling your leg for the humor impaired).

banyon
04-12-2008, 08:48 PM
Why of course they will play chess at the rec center and eat ham sandwiches you silly bidge (just pulling your leg for the humor impaired).

Well as long as I don't have to pay 1 tax dollar toward those chess sets or sandwiches. :cuss: Can't we just give them gruel?

Logical
04-12-2008, 08:58 PM
Well as long as I don't have to pay 1 tax dollar toward those chess sets or sandwiches. :cuss: Can't we just give them gruel?I have to say I think this might make a fine Monty Python or Saturday Night Live skit.

CHIEF4EVER
04-13-2008, 12:34 AM
What do you think the kids who can't afford to go to school in your new "Sucks to be your poor a**" system will do with all of their newfound spare time?

Awesome strawman you built there whilst taking my entire post out of context and twisting it. Now we know why attorneys are so universally loved and respected. :p :moon: :evil:

I can't recall mentioning the word 'poor' at any point in my post nor did I advocate doing away with the public school system entirely. I mentioned LOWERING MY TAXES so I would have the opportunity to shop educational services and pay for them myself with the savings. To clarify, this would be a voluntary thing. I would get the opportunity to have my taxes reduced but must see to my childs' education on my own and foot the bill for it. Sort of a glorified voucher program. Not a perfect idea but a place to start.

Health care is something I prefer to pay for myself as well (like I do now). No thanks to the idea of the government demanding more of my money to administer health care. Their track record with administering social programs doesn't speak well of their efficiency to say the least.

banyon
04-13-2008, 10:13 AM
Awesome strawman you built there whilst taking my entire post out of context and twisting it. Now we know why attorneys are so universally loved and respected. :p :moon: :evil:

I can't recall mentioning the word 'poor' at any point in my post nor did I advocate doing away with the public school system entirely. I mentioned LOWERING MY TAXES so I would have the opportunity to shop educational services and pay for them myself with the savings. To clarify, this would be a voluntary thing. I would get the opportunity to have my taxes reduced but must see to my childs' education on my own and foot the bill for it. Sort of a glorified voucher program. Not a perfect idea but a place to start.


I'm not completely against some kind of means-tested voucher program. Something different has to be done, because what we are doing right now is abysmal.


I guess you're taking this back, then:

Not to be argumentative but while health care and education are indeed important, their provision and funding by government mandate and coercive taxation are not. Your support for centralized programs of this ilk funded by and administered by the government highlights your socialist leanings.

No doubt taking away that "coercive funding" would impact them, right?

But, I've got some bad news for you. Since you support public education to some extent, according to Taco, you are also a socialist.

Socialist - Someone who advocates for socialist programs

I believe a fair definition of "socialist program" is one which forcibly takes resources from individuals (or even targets groups of individuals, ie. "the rich") and spreads those resources around for the supposed benefit of all.

Welcome to the club, comrade! :toast:

CHIEF4EVER
04-13-2008, 03:43 PM
No doubt taking away that "coercive funding" would impact them, right?

I'm not so sure. Reducing the size of the government administered public school system would also require reduction in the bureaucracy itself. Fewer bureaucrats would be needed therefore the program would cost less to administer in theory. Also, cutting other wasteful government programs would result in freeing up money to fund the smaller program that remained. End result? Less taxation, better results.

But, I've got some bad news for you. Since you support public education to some extent, according to Taco, you are also a socialist.

I am pretty sure you posted this TIC.





Welcome to the club, comrade! :toast:[/quote]

banyon
04-13-2008, 04:05 PM
I'm not so sure. Reducing the size of the government administered public school system would also require reduction in the bureaucracy itself. Fewer bureaucrats would be needed therefore the program would cost less to administer in theory. Also, cutting other wasteful government programs would result in freeing up money to fund the smaller program that remained. End result? Less taxation, better results.

So you want to reduce the size of the public education system, but you still want public funding (coerced) for the remainder? That's fine with me, but it's still a step backwards from your earlier point I quoted in my last post.

CHIEF4EVER
04-13-2008, 06:51 PM
So you want to reduce the size of the public education system, but you still want public funding (coerced) for the remainder? That's fine with me, but it's still a step backwards from your earlier point I quoted in my last post.

Not really what I want but what is realistic. I would prefer not to pay taxes at all, the Federal government to just leave me the hell alone, to let me live my life in peace and sink or swim on my own. Not very realistic. Not going to happen. Since I am required to be robbed by the Federal government each and every year to pay for others, I would prefer it be kept to a minimum and what is stolen from me be utilized as efficiently as possible. Not really a step backward philosophically.

penchief
04-13-2008, 07:27 PM
I want someone to explain clearly how a voucher system is going to work for everyone. To me, it's just another scam.

How can we divert taxpayer money from a system that is intended to affect the overall good of our education system to unregulated entities intent on siphoning public funds for the purpose of self-enrichment?

It's just another scheme to disempower the general public for the sake of greedy interests. Grow some nads, people. It's time stand up to this kind of elitist thinking which has been perpetrated by the status quo and it's bought-and-paid-for complicite media.

NewChief
04-13-2008, 07:48 PM
For a little crossthread humor:
Ah! Nazicommieists. That's it.