Wednesday, September 9, 2009

We Are All Conservative at Heart

The preceding title was a small comment I had in my analysis of the Obama school speech yesterday. Something about it rang true from a conversation I had with a fellow (socialist) blogger who was arguing with someone over parental responsibility. The aforementioned blogger was going on about personal responsibility, and not offended when I pointed out the conservative nature of the comments (probably because of as serious crush or some shit).

So based on that convo, the post on the speech, and the subsequent savaging I heard of the speech (or more accurately, the disingenuousness of the messenger), I decided to expand on the idea.

We are all conservative (but not conservatives) at heart (even you liberals).

By this, I mean that we subscribe to a general sense of right and wrong in our own lives, an understanding that we are largely responsible for how our lives turn out, and a basic standard of morality for ourselves and our family (especially our children).

This is despite policies on the right which try to manage other's personal behaviors and the load of policies on the left that seek to empower government and enslave the individual.

Don't believe me? Then just ask yourselves these questions (without policy qualifications):

Would you encourage your teenage child to not have sex (especially if it looks like they will)? Or, if they are, would you help them be responsible with their choice?

Would you expect your child to work their ass off to succeed in this country?

Do you believe that you should control how your money is spent?

D you believe that our country (not counting the government) has the potential to be a force for good around the world (assuming the right people are running it)?

Now be honest. Did you answer at least three of those four questions with a yes?

If so, you really are conservative at heart. But don't take it as an insult. It's really how we are wired as individuals. It's our natural animal instinct, reigned in by intellect.

This is why the Obama speech really can't be panned for its content except by the most jaded and militant among us (even Rush didn't find anything really wrong with the contents of the speech, fyi). And that is why you see increasing resistance to any overreach by government (admittedly, it's the Dems who are doing the overreaching right now).

Because, very simply, we resent the idea (real or perceived) that our government has any control over our lives. It's why any form of socialism, Marxism, communism, etc, ultimately fails or consumes itself. And its why, ultimately, we have a chance at getting things right. Eventually.

53 comments:

Beth said...

By the same token let me say that I think in some ways we are all also liberal at heart, in that we all want to help the little guy that truly needs our help. It's just we don't all agree how best to help them!

Does someone besides me have a crush on you Patrick??

TAO said...

Why do you assume, Patrick, that what you list as values are Conservative values?

Values are values; what is conservative and what is liberal is the manner in which one believes those values can be implemented, achieved, and or lived by.

What is welfare? Its the belief that one is helping the little guy, someone who is without...

Nothing more Christian as that is there? Yet only social conservatives are christian and they don't believe that welfare is to be supported.

Rush didn't have anything to say about Obama's speech? Not really a surprise is it and it has nothing to do with him agreeing with the speech...

Shaw Kenawe said...

Here are some definitions for liberal:

Liberal: Adjective

1. having social and political views that favour progress and reform

2. generous in temperament or behaviour

3. tolerant of other people

4. not rigid; free: a more liberal interpretation

5. (of an education) designed to develop general cultural interests and intellectual ability

6. Liberal of or relating to a Liberal Party

And...


a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.

b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.

c. Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.

d. Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.

4. Of, relating to, or based on the traditional arts and sciences of a college or university curriculum.

Merriam-Webster:

Liberal: of or favoring, or based upon the principles of liberalism b capitalized : of or constituting a political party advocating or associated with the principles of political liberalism; especially : of or constituting a political party in the United Kingdom associated with ideals of individual especially economic freedom, greater individual participation in government, and constitutional, political, and administrative reforms designed to secure these objectives

Don't we all embrace "Liberal" values, too? Unless being free from bigotry is only a Liberal value? Wanting progress and reform-- is that only a "Liberal" value? Being generous? Being open to and tolerant of ideas? Only "Liberal?"

These are "Liberal" definitions and values.

Do you not support them as well, Patrick?

Name: Soapboxgod said...

"Because, very simply, we resent the idea (real or perceived) that our government has any control over our lives. It's why any form of socialism, Marxism, communism, etc, ultimately fails or consumes itself."

Bull fucking shit. Some of us in fact do. However a great many people don't give a flying rat's ass. The people will tolerate a slow primrose path course to the erosion of liberty and freedom. Don't believe me? Where the hell were the "conservatives" when smoking bans started popping up all over the place against private businesses?? The vast majority of them had no damn problem with the trampling of private property then because they too didn't like that icky smoke.

Where the hell were the conservatives when Bush and Hank Paulsen put their "stimulus" package together?? Go back and look at the voting record for it. It's a god damn shame how many self proclaimed "conservatives" voted for that piece of work. And not only did supposed "conservatives" get on board and vote for it, I heard just as many (again self proclaimed) "conservatives" make a futile attempt towards the justification of why we needed to pass it.

Both those politicians and those voters have no moral compass at all. They watch polls and vote accordingly.

There were a small portion of us that opposed both the smoking bans on private business, the Bush/Paulsen bailout, and a whole flurry of other issues that the "conservatives" abandoned long ago. We did so on principle and were basically demonized for it by party loyalists. Funny how the tide is turning now.

There can be no compromise on basic principles. And yet...the "conservatives" compromised virtually every position they've ever held in one way shape or form. And it is for this reason that they are severly lacking in a little thing we call credibility.

Name: Soapboxgod said...

I forgot to mention, we'll have a great opportunity to once again assess the "conservatism" of the country's voters as well as the Republicans in Washington as this "new" healthcare debate begins to heat up.

Let us watch how the Democrats attempt to succeed in their classic bate and switch by peeling off Republicans who previously opposed the healthcare bill because of the public option. But now, with Democrats seemingly willing to drop that portion of the bill, we'll see just how many of these "conservatives" will drop the ball and thus become all to willing in their support of a bill which is still a disasterous piece of legislation and one which serves the same basic purpose by expanding medicare, increasing mandates and regulations.

Defeating the Government's public option is only half the battle. Let's see who's up for the other half.

Shaw Kenawe said...

Soapbox said: "Where the hell were the "conservatives" when smoking bans started popping up all over the place against private businesses??"

They were probably happy with getting rid of the smoke-choked restaurants and public places, that's where they were.

As we became educated and understood that smoking and second-hand smoke were hazardous to one's health, THE PEOPLE decided they would make choices and patronize those places where they were not forced to inhale other people's bad habits.

Since more and more American's have given up smoking, a large percentage of them were giving their business to those smoke-free private establishments.

It's a simple idea. A lot of private establishments were ahead of the game and banned smoking before any state government came in and supported the ban. And who exactly are the local governments who banned the smoking? The duly elected representatives of the people.

I'm glad young children and adults are not forced to inhale toxins in restaurants and other public and private places. People who smoke are welcome to enjoy their ciggies in their own homes, cars and backyards.

dmarks said...

Shaw has a good point here. The problem with form of tobacco abuse has nothing to do with smokers "personal rights", since these laws have come about due to smokers routinely forcing others to smoke as well.

Name: Soapboxgod said...

Shaw doesn't have a good point because Shaw's whole damn premise is false. If a free-market solution truly was working with respect to smoking bans, then why the hell would a government mandate be necessary??

What's more, you both miss the point entirely. The issue is not and was no ever about smoker's rights vs. non-smoker'r rights.

It was about the right of a private business owner (and Shaw just because a business SERVES the public doesn't make it public by definition.)

The issue is about an individual owning their private property and thus their right to dictate its use and disposal. As well it is about said business owner's right of Freedom of Association. They have a right to freely associate with patrons of their choosing within their private establishment.

And Shaw seriously.... Who the hell is FORCED to enter a bar or restaurant or even work there for Christ's sake? Not a single solitary person is forced to do so. And so your entire premise is false.

But lastly, on the issue of the "deletarious" effects of second hand smoke or environmental tobbaco smoke, I will direct you to a 1975 study (and before you scoff at a 1975 study let me remind you that A) many more people smoked in 1975 than do today; and B) because of that there was a much greater concentration of second hand/ environmental tobbaco smoke than today) by the New England Journal which found:

"...exposure to an hour's worth of prevailing levels of ETS was equivalent to smoking 0.004 cigarettes. Put differently, one would have to breathe smoke filled air for 4,000 hours in order to inhale as much tobacco smoke as a smoker inhales in a single cigarette."

Name: Soapboxgod said...

The real Coup de Gras is that all teh while these asshat politicians from both sides of the aisle are out there banning smoking on Private Business, they are permitted to smoke within the confines of their own office inside the Nation's Capital (which, for the uneducated such as Shaw, is actually by definition a public building.)

Shaw Kenawe said...

You know, Soapboxgod, you don't have to stoop to name-calling to make your point. If your arguments were worth anything, you wouldn't have to attack someone and call her uneducated.


What the hell's the matter with you?

Name: Soapboxgod said...

If the shoe fits wear it. You obviously have exhibited that do not understand the difference between Private and Public with regards to ownership. Thus, you clearly are uneducated with respect to this particular issue. Deal with it.

Name: Soapboxgod said...

And for the record Shaw, the value of my arguments are as priceless as the factual evidence which supports them.

dmarks said...

You are correct. Socialism is obsessed with the material, and maximizes greed. The idea of "I don't have to do anything. I'll swipe from those who do". Pretty soon the productive people are dead or refusing to produce.

"It's why any form of socialism, Marxism, communism, etc, ultimately fails or consumes itself"

In the case of the Chinese Cultural Revolution, which included cannibalism, socialism was literaly consuming itself.

Ever wonder how much better off the world would have been if Karl Marx did not look at the world about him, misinterpret so much of what he saw, and make recommendations and predictions based on inaccurate information, false premises, and faulty faith-based logic?

Name: Soapboxgod said...

faith-based logic

There's an oxymoron for the ages.

Toad734 said...

1. Yes, I would encourage them not to but they are human and humans are biologically set up to start having sex as teenagers. Our society no longer encourages or needs it but it is natural. That being said I wouldn't take condoms out of their reach and think that because they don't have them, they won't have sex because you can ask Sarah Palin what happens when you do that. Not to mention I wouldn't want them to get HPV, HIV or Herpes.

2. Yes I would expect my child to work in order to succeed but I realize the people you see as successful (rich people) probably didn't work to earn what they have. Bush is a perfect example of this. Wealth begets wealth plain and simple. If you are born rich you will probably die rich. However, even if you are born poor, there is a chance you can work to become rich or at least prosperous. But the rich people will always have more advantages in than the poor and they will be more likely to succeed especially if they are WASPS. So I would teach my children not to measure up to those expectations and let them know it's easier for some than for others.

3. Who doesn't believe they should control how their money is being spent. That being said, none of us could make as much money as we do if not for the things the government provides us such as interstate highway systems which allows goods and perishables to be distributed to an even wider market place. That in order for people to have money to buy my products they will probably have to have a job and therefore will need to be educated and therefore I benefit from the government spending money to educate our children. That being said, if they didn't educate our children the poorest of the poor children would be running the streets robbing the rich like it is in Mexico, Brazil and India and the rich, instead of paying taxes, would have to pay much more for security. So, if you don't want to pay a higher tax rate, feel free to take your wealth to Mexico or South Africa or Brazil and see how long you last. Sometime the government does know how to spend your money better than you do because most Americans would just go buy a big truck with spinning rims and a bunch of cheese burgers.

4. Sure it has the potential but rarely does our intervention end up benefiting who we say it will. And what do you mean by "our country", not the government? Do you think the South Heights Baptist Church is really going to charter a plane and go to Afghanistan and build a school on their own? And even if they did, who is to say the Afghans want Christians building Baptists schools? What would you do if the Saudis went to New Orleans and starting building schools??? You guys would flip your shit, load up your gun racks and drive your trucks to New Orleans with pitch forks and nooses. And if you want the country to do that, guess what, it costs money so now you can put this question up there with #3 because you can't have one without the other.

Toad734 said...

Now, here are some of my questions:

1 Do you really think America always has the "peoples" best intentions at heart when it invades other countries like Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Korea, Panama, etc. and overthrow democratically elected leaders and replace them with puppet regimes which murders and exploits its population but gives America what it wants?

2. Do you think that we should let the fire department and police department only service the calls who can place the highest bids for the service? Isn't making a profit what America is all about and therefore shouldn't everything be a private, for profit enterprise including schools, interstate highways, post office, border security, military, air traffic control operators, etc.?

3. Do you think a Multinational corporation will always monitor itself and play by the rules (i.e. not sell bad loans, count debt as profit, cook their books, never dump oil into the ocean, not contaminate the water with PCBs, etc.) assuming there is no government intervention but gays and women should be monitored with the strictest government oversight and we should make constitutional amendments to make sure they don't do anything we don't want them to do?

4. Do you think a white person who was born into a rich family, whose ancestry built their fortune with slavery, has the same opportunities in life and the same chance at success as every black kid born in the projects to a family whose ancestry consists of slaves?

5. Do you think the government should be able to spy and wire tap people whom they think have purchased too many handguns and then have the right to torture them if they are found to have those guns just because the government may see them as a threat?

6. Do you think the government should hand out billions in welfare payments to groups who don't deserve it or don't need it even if they are working?



If you answered NO to these questions you are not only a liberal but should also be voting for Denis Kucinich.

TAO said...

"You are correct. Socialism is obsessed with the material, and maximizes greed. The idea of "I don't have to do anything. I'll swipe from those who do". Pretty soon the productive people are dead or refusing to produce."

Oh, and capitalism is NOT obsessed with the material and does not maximize greed?

Jesus, dmarks, get back on your meds!

Name: Soapboxgod said...

What is greedy about a person busting their ass 60+ hours a week in an attempt to increase their own capital and then wanting to retain more of that capital?

That's Greed to want to better yourself by your own accord?? Fuck I must have missed that misconstrued definition in public school.

TAO said...

GREED IS GOOD! GREED IS GREAT!

LET US ALL BOW AND PRAY AT THE ALTAR OF GREED!

You have lost your mind Soapy...

One day you go on and on about rational and then today you go off irrationally about GREED!

Here is the American Heritage definition of GREED: "An excessive desire to acquire or possess more than what one needs or deserves, especially with respect to material wealth"

NOTE THE WORD "EXCESSIVE" or the word "DESIRE"

Greed has nothing to do with the concept of self improvement, nor does it have anything to do with monetary reward and or working hard to get ahead...

Bill Gates was not GREEDY nor was he motivated by GREED...Bernie Madoff was GREEDY and was motivated by GREED..

Now, you have been spinning your ideology in your head so much that it is making you crazy...

Calm down, and chill...

Name: Soapboxgod said...

"Bill Gates was not GREEDY nor was he motivated by GREED...Bernie Madoff was GREEDY and was motivated by GREED.."

Precisely my point TAO. Bill Gates earned his keep. He came up with a product that people needed and wanted. A product that people were not forced to purchase (yeah yeah I've heard it said that he grouped packages together so that you couldn't get one without buying the other but the fact is buyers still had the ultimate choice to buy or not to buy).

Bernie Madoff earned nothing. He didn't create or produce jack shit. He was a damn parasite; a fungus that sucked the blood out of those that did produce. Mind you however that his ponzie scheme is little different than the flurry of them that the government's got cooking.


And TOAD...you might want to browse on over to the IRS website and take a little look at the filing data. Your deeply held belief that the majority of the wealthy in this country are those that were gifted their lavish lifestyles doesn't hold up.

Name: Soapboxgod said...

Most of the people that truly are wealthy of their own accord are not driven by wealth or money. They are driven by production. They understand that money and the resulting wealth are merely byproducts of said production. Because they understand this fundamental concept, they remain wealthy for many years to come. Ever wonder why people that happen to fall backwards into money as TOAD suggests don't typically amount to shit in life??? It's because they fail to make the corollary between wealth and production. When they understand the productive value of money they understand its full value and the importance of putting production behind it be it in investments or otherwise.

Name: Soapboxgod said...

And in fact they can't be driven by money because they don't know that their venture will even be profitable to begin with. And so they have to be driven by production and by creating a good or service that people will voluntarily purchase on an open market.

dmarks said...

Tao said: "Oh, and capitalism is NOT obsessed with the material and does not maximize greed?"

Not near as much as socialism.

TAO said...

Delusional Dmarks is what we need to call you...

Taking land of Indians and putting them in reservations after starving them to death IS NOT GREEDY, but in your mind taxes are...

You cannot claim that socialism in this country would be MORE greedy than Capitalism because socialism in this country has no history...but capitalism does...

Why not just say that MAN is greedy by nature and that some men will steal and desire that which they have not earned REGARDLESS of what economic and or political system they live under....

Patrick M said...

Beth: Good point. I'll expand on that below.

And as long as any woman is either married, hours away, or local and insane, a crush is bound to happen. I'm just waiting for the chick fight over me. :)

Tao: I was pulling some of the common positive values associated with conservatism. It's not the whole story.

Rush had plenty to say about the speech. He just agreed with the content of the speech (and that's it).

Shaw: You could probably make for a similar case that we are all liberal at heart (which Beth kind of did). But as I'm trying to look at what we all agree on, and I'm pulling from some traditional conservative things, I don't get the whole defensiveness thing.

And you skipped the question. :)

Soapster: The people will tolerate a slow primrose path course to the erosion of liberty and freedom.

If we think about it and understand what we are losing, then we reject it. You are right that many people delude themselves into others losing their rights, and ignore their own rights though.

If anything, it's the fact that we have that conservative streak at heart that will ultimately save us from the pseudoconservatives.

And I'm with you on the Nazi smoking ban thing.

Toad: Glad you've come out of the closet to make my point, even though you can't separate the personal from a screaming political tirade.

Now to answer your questions:
1. Not always, but generally, it's what's best for the US. And it's both sides and a case-by-case thing.
2. no. There is a place for certain government functions. Mostly at the local level.
3. If you've read any of my posts on the damned subject, you know the answer is no.
4. Yes and no. The white kid has a leg up. But the black kid can rise just as high.
5. No, but cite the pseudo-case so I can shoot it apart.
6. Again, been there, covered that, no.

Actually, I'm closer to Ron Paul craziness than the Martian's madness. I think Beth would answer the same, and she'd easily confirm that she's never voted for that douche (her actual Representative).

Shaw Kenawe said...

Name: Soapboxgod said...

If the shoe fits wear it. You obviously have exhibited that do not understand the difference between Private and Public with regards to ownership. Thus, you clearly are uneducated with respect to this particular issue. Deal with it.


And you're a supersilious bully who obviously can't support an argument without becoming stridently personal and cynical. Deal with it.

Name: Soapboxgod said...

And for the record Shaw, the value of my arguments are as priceless as the factual evidence which supports them.

Priceless?

Definition of a cynic: Someone who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.

Satyavati devi dasi said...

First:

Being a socialist hasn't got anything to do with it nor are there any crushes to blame... I'm a socialist.. nothing I said negated any of that.

Moving on:

I don't think people realize that Soviet communism isn't Chinese communism isn't Cuban communism and so on. And none of them are pure Marxist. And actually, communism isn't socialism.

And neither Marxism, communism or socialism is an unmitigated evil, any more than any governmental system is an unmitigated evil.

In fact, there's nothing evil about it. In the same way that people have taken the Bible's message and turned it into religions of hate, socialist theory has also been twisted, manipulated and changed to suit the messengers' agenda, as are all political theories to some extent or another.

There is a vast gaping chasm between the theory and what has been done with that theory, and people fail to see that. Well, some people choose not to see it regardless.

dmarks said...

Tao: Nothing delusional at all. Call me "informed". Robbing people is an expression of greed. And what else can you call taxes? The policy concerning Indians, in which the government crushed people's individual rights, is rather similar to what socialist governments do.

Socialism maximizes greed.

SDD: Communism is a subset of socialism. It's merely a system that is more socialist than others. In a more pure form.

Marxism/socialism/communism may not be pure unmitigated evil, but it is about as close as we come on Earth. It is definitely more so than most other government systems.

Most of the time when the "theory" is put into "practice", you have rather horrific results. The problem lies with the theory, really. Not with the attempts by Pol Pot, Stalin, etc to put it into practice. Karl Marx's observations, theories, and predictions have so little do with the way things actually are.

Name: Soapboxgod said...

Marxism, Communism, Socialism, Fascism, Totalitarianism, etc.....

It makes no difference because at their core exists one fundamental principle and that is Collectivism.

And to all of them, there is but a single alternative and that alternative is individualism.

When people get beyond the politics of Democrats vs. Republicans or Conservatives vs. Liberals, they'll find that the real political battle in America is none of those. The real political battle is and always has been the Collective vs. the Individual.

dmarks said...

Soap: And when you get to the heart of socialism and other forms of fascism, you find individualism again. Except that these systems promote only the invidualist power of the leader, and everyone else and their property are owned by the leader.

Satyavati devi dasi said...

So, how do we reconcile those who, in this almighty bastion of rugged and unflinching individualism, who work in and for their own self interest exclusively (and if it happens to benefit others, so be it, but it certainly wasn't our motivation), with a. national pride (how can there even be conceived a 'nation' when all it is, is a collection of individuals working with only themselves in mind) and b. institutions like the military, who operate along principles of 'unit corps God country' and do the most irrational, insane things (unless you don't find running into gunfire and minefields to be irrational) on the basis of 'defending their country', on a volunteer basis? Surely you wouldn't boil down their 'national pride' into just the merest facade for their own rational self interest? Would we call the firefighters who run into burning buildings to save others working only with the rational self-interest of getting a paycheck?

It is human nature for man to be part of a bigger thing than himself. To that end man is a social creature-he cannot be self actualized in utter solitude-he is not an island.

The concept of 'national pride' springs not from rational self-interest but from the primal urge to be part of a community. A church, a club, and even a street gang can, on a lesser level, provide some of the same requirements, but not in the encompassing sense that a nation does.

If we were all rugged individualists who acted only in rational self-interest, surely we wouldn't give a shit about a little girl trapped in a storm drain, or people stranded on top of their homes in a flood. We wouldn't ever put ourselves into dangerous positions to protect strangers, much less protect misty ideals of 'democracy' and 'freedom' in parts of the world where people don't want you there and let you know with incendiary devices designed to kill you.

People are at bottom social creatures and require society. And as we can even see from the animal world, a successful society depends on its several members to divide the work and also to divide the rewards, fairly. Thus the group and all those in it succeed.

The archaeological evidence of ancient human groups shows that people remained part of the group even when old, disabled and presumably no longer able to contribute to the group's welfare. For a nomadic people dependent on what they could kill and gather, an extra mouth that moved slow, possibly couldn't see or hear well and who basically needed help was a huge burden. And yet those people were taken care of by the group at what might have been considerable collective cost.

Even in primitive peoples we see this.

That should speak for itself.

Name: Soapboxgod said...

By definition dmarks that is not individualism. Because to exist as individualism it must respect individualism. By definition individualism holds that one should have freedom in one's economic pursuits that one should succeed by one's own initiative. The wishes of the individual hold precedence over the state or social group.

If but a single individual holds this authority by way of force and thus tramples all over the remaining individuals, that negates the very premise and definition of individualism.

Name: Soapboxgod said...

Your entire premise and understanding of rational self-interest is false Saty.

What you make the mistake of doing much like so many of those who make a similar argument is that you equate the "self" in a purely physical sense.

In so doing, you fail to recognize the workings of man's mind; his ideas, his desires, his pursuits.

In your view of rational self-interest in the example of a man passing a girl stuck in a storm drain, you make the assertion that he wouldn't give a shit about her and would thus merely pass on by.

You deem such an action as rational behavior? Apparently so.

But, if you actually had a sensible understanding of what rational self-interest TRULY is, you'd find that the man, acting rationally, would not merely pass by because it is about more than just purely a physical sort of thing. A rational human being has a conscience. As such, a rational being (for a whole host of reasons) is not likely to find it beneficial to their self-interest to merely pass by without care or concern.

What is more, because rational self-interest is not purely a physical attribute, someone working for their own rational self-interest will bequeath an infinite number of beneficiaries.

Because a man's rational self-interest could lead him to want to open a homeless shelter, a business, or maybe just maybe even a wireless motor!

All of which defy your very limited understanding of rational self-interest in which self-interest begins and ends with but a single individual.

Satyavati devi dasi said...

The wishes of the individual hold precedence over the state or social group.

This is anarchy.

Just wanted to clear that up for everyone.

Name: Soapboxgod said...

Anarchy is the doctrine of the abolishment of all forms of government because they are oppressive and undesirable.

How exactly you came to the conclusion based on my assertion that "The wishes of the individual hold precedence over the state or the group" is beyond me.

The United States is a Constitutional Republic. It has not dissolved into Anarchy. And yet, precisely what I said is codified in the Bill of Rights. The very purpose of the Bill of Rights protects the individual from the sort of mob rule that would result in a pure Democracy (of which we are not).

Satyavati devi dasi said...

If I assert that my wishes take precedence over state or social group, and said state attempts to stop me from fulfilling those wishes, then I can call that state oppressive, undesirable, and worthy of abolition, thus bringing us to anarchy.

When I put forth that my personal wishes supercede those of the people around me as well as the state then I am in essence denying any other entity any type of authority over me whatsoever.. basically saying that what I want is all that's important. And that, Sir, would be anarchy. The abolition of government; everyone putting their own wishes above the wishes of everyone around them, as well as the state.

Name: Soapboxgod said...

What you're attempting to do is to completely dismiss the fact that legal precedence exists. That a society of law exists.

I wasn't the one that invoked an absence of government or of law Saty. That was you.

And so what I'm driving at is that if the individual's actions are beyond the confines of existing legal precedence and the laws of society (and said individual agrees to live in an existing society where those laws apply) then the state is not an oppressive force and there is no rational behind stating it as such.

Moreover, it is not an oppressive force because if we are ruled by laws, the laws are applied equally to everyone in said society. Hence the equal protection clause.

The personal wishes of an individual in America can very well supercede those of the people around you and as well they ought to so long as your wishes and desires are within the confines of the law. If your desire is to open your own healthcare clinic and you have the means to do so and your actions in that regard meet the necessary legalities then open a clinic for crying out loud.

But, if instead you aspire to get the permission of the rest of the citizenry that surrounds you and that of the state before doing so then by god do that alternatively.

Regardless, make not mistakes that the proper purpose of the state in this regard is one of neutrality. It is not the master or the deity, the citizen, the servant or the votary. As such it is not to serve as some arbiter of what you may or may not do so long as it is in the confines of the law.

Patrick M said...

Saty: And yet, you prove yourself conservative at heart, despite the contrary politics. More in a bit after I get done with you and soapmeister's back and forth.

Soapster: Marxism, Communism, Socialism, Fascism, Totalitarianism, etc.....

It makes no difference because at their core exists one fundamental principle and that is Collectivism.


No truer words than this in the history of the world.

Now, to clarify a point between you and Satyavati that seems to be lost in translation (because you and I agree in principle if not on every specific):

The key point is the rational self-interest versus the collective.

In our Constitutional republic (not the thrice-damned mob rule of pure democracy), the purpose of government is to secure the rights of the individual. The individual is then free to pursue that which he chooses. Whether it be hoarding cash and property, or philanthropy of all kinds or living in a shit-filled box down by the river, the choice is that of the individual.

Where the government may infringe on individual rights is in only two cases. First, where it may restrain the pursuits of one individual to protect the rights of another (murder, rape, theft, etc.). The second (and the one that the Constitution was designed to limit to a narrow focus) is for common goals and needs. This includes national defense, some infrastructure, the legal system (including compulsory jury duty, community services (fire, police), and those things that cannot be done by any private entity.

Beyond that point, a government enters into the realm of oppression.

Name: Soapboxgod said...

Succinctly said. Well done my good man.

Patrick M said...

Well, I had to, lest Satyavati keep going on....

Satyavati devi dasi said...

STFU Patrick....you know you want me. :P

Toad734 said...

Soap:
8 of the 15 wealthiest people in the US inherited their money. They didn't work for it, they were handed it.

My point is that if you are born wealthy, you stay wealthy. That much is true. If you are born poor you are less likely to become and stay wealthy, if you were born middle class you are a little more likely to become and stay wealthy and if you were born rich, chances are you will die rich.

Patrick:

1. Exactly! What's best for the US is usually not the best for the country we are fucking. Thats about the most ethnocentric thing I have ever heard you say. Congratulations! You never have to worry about becoming a liberal!

2. Ok, you are getting somewhere! How is health care any different than the Police, Fire Department or Air Traffic Controllers? They all save lives.

3.Actually, you tend to be of the persuasion that the market will regulate itself. Meaning: If a corporation puts PCBs in the water supply and everyone in that area gets breast cancer then no one in that area will buy their hypothetical boat engines (you can look up Outboard Marine in Waukegan, IL). The problem with that is that maybe only .0001% of their customer base is actually affected by their pollution though it kills many who do not buy their products. Clearly the free market could never correct those actions just as the free market didn't stop the stock market crash, great depression, Enron, housing crisis, 2008 financial crisis, etc. Someone has to step in, guess who?

4. Ok, agreed. Just so you are not delusioned into thinking they have anywhere near equal opportunities, go to the same schools, etc.

5.Just replace the word handgun in that scenario with anything else in the bill of rights and you get where I am going.

6. I do know you are against that and so were most liberals. Corporate welfare is way worse than welfare for hungry children.

Toad734 said...

Ok, anyone who thinks Marxism, Communism, Socialism, Fascism, Totalitarianism are interchangeable synonyms, is a moron.

dmarks said...

SSD: "The archaeological evidence of ancient human groups shows that people remained part of the group even when old, disabled and presumably no longer able to contribute to the group's welfare. For a nomadic people dependent on what they could kill and gather, an extra mouth that moved slow, possibly couldn't see or hear well and who basically needed help was a huge burden. And yet those people were taken care of by the group at what might have been considerable collective cost."

What a way to gloss over the facts. Of a situation where disabled people were put to death, those who spoke out against the chieftan were often killed, and all kinds of atrocities were committed. Perfect conformity was demanded, or you would be outcast. Or tortured and killed. A societal structure based on the strongest prevailing over the weak.

Yes, that is ancient humanity. A lot like animals. Baboon troops, really. This evolved over the centuries into such systems as the absolute god-kings of ancient Egypt. This backward and barbaric "order" has survived into the current day. Some even justify it through pseudo-scientific means. Hitler did. So did Marx. Socialism is a rather regressive idea that has its roots going back to the worst of human instinct.

Toad: They are not synonyms, but are close and closely related. Anyone who does not recognize the fact that marxism/communism/socialism is fascist and totalitarian is a moron.

dmarks said...

Soapy said: "By definition dmarks that is not individualism. Because to exist as individualism it must respect individualism. "

I stand corrected. Socialism is a very limited form of individualism, then, since it only respects the individualist rights of the ruling elites.

dmarks said...

"Clearly the free market could never correct those actions just as the free market didn't stop the stock market crash, great depression, Enron, housing crisis, 2008 financial crisis, etc. Someone has to step in, guess who?"

Well, we can look at two of them. Enron was only able to get away with what it could because there was no free market. Especially in places like California, where the government has tightly regulated energey production. Enron would not have been able to get away with their crap in a free market.

And the housing debacle was specifically caused by government policy. Government agencies deciding to provide a black hole into which the banks could sink debt, combined with regulations to encourage banks to lend to those who could not pay. The same with the 2008 financial crisis, which was triggered by the government-caused housing crisis.

The someone who stepped in was the someone who ineptly caused it in the first place. And chances are the bungling of the government will make thing worse, due to careless crafting of policies without any regards to side effects.

Just like when the government unwittingly engineered the housing crisis.

Name: Soapboxgod said...

Anyone that concluded as much based on what I said lacks a little thing called reading comprehension.

Too bad I didn't assert them as interchangeable synonyms.

I merely said that their fundamental premise centers itself on collectivism.

It's like recognizing that a mobile home, a two story craftsman, an apartment, a cave, and a tent, all of which are very different things, can equally serve as shelter.

Patrick M said...

Toad: 1. I didn't make a value judgment on that, because I'm dealing in facts. Afghanistan (in the 80's) is a great example of us doing what was best for us at the time. The results were not good, even for us (9/11 and the resulting war). And no, I'll never be a liberal.

2. How is health care different? First, local things like fire departments are LOCAL, because it's the ideal way to deal with fires, etc. It's not something that can be done at an individual level. Police are a function of protecting individual rights (which can't be done privately). Air traffic controllers are another safety function that (debatable) could be done privately.

However, paying for health care is a matter of making transfer payments from one individual based on ability and transferring to those with the greatest need AT GUNPOINT and in an area where the private sector can and has been able to deliver (not perfectly). It comes back to an individual responsibility.

Ok, anyone who thinks Marxism, Communism, Socialism, Fascism, Totalitarianism are interchangeable synonyms, is a moron.

They're not. But they do have a common lie based in the "collective good" and revert to a totalitarian government in the end. It's how it will happen here.

Toad734 said...

Really Totalitarianism and Fascism both have a "collective good" motto?? Really? Give me a break!

Franco for instance was a totalitarian fascist and also an anti-communist right winger. Pinochet was a Totalitarian dictator who hunted down socialists and communists.

The Somozas of Nicaragua were also right wing totalitarian governments who fought against the liberal/socialist Sandinistas.

So sorry, Dee and Patrick but you are wrong.

If you want to say that Communism and Socialism and Marxism are closely related then fine but still not interchangeable.

Name: Soapboxgod said...

Under Fascism, Nazism, and Totalitarianism, sacrifice is invoked as a magic, omnipotent solution in any crisis—and “the public good” is the altar on which victims are immolated. But there are stylistic differences of emphasis. The socialist-communist axis for example keeps promising to achieve abundance, material comfort and security for its victims, in some indeterminate future. The Fascist-Nazi-Totalitarian axis scorns material comfort and security, and keeps extolling some undefined sort of spiritual duty, service and conquest.

Whereas the Socialist-Communist aspires towards a collective premise for societal betterment or public good, Fascist-Nazi-Totalitarian aspires towards a collective premise based on racial or national greatness.

dmarks said...

Socialism/communism/etc CLAIMS a collective good, but at the heart it is all about the rulings maximizing their power.

Other types of fascists tend to dispense with the "public good" claim, but it is really just window dressing.

The socialist/communist does not aspire to "towards a collective premise for societal betterment or public good" any more than other fascists do. They merely claim they are.

Toad said: "The Somozas of Nicaragua were also right wing totalitarian governments who fought against the liberal/socialist Sandinistas."

Actually, the Somoza regime was not totalitarian, but was authoritarian. At the worst. The Sandinista regime was, in stark contrast, totalitarian.

Many examples show this. Under the Somozas, the free press (La Prenza) was beleagured and harassed, but it did exist. The Sandinistas outright banned it. Under Somoza, entire regions of the country of Nicaragua were pretty much untouched by the dictator. Check into the history of the Miskito region. When the Sandinistas took power, they expanded totalitarian control to every inch of the nation. Including the heretofore-untouched Miskito. The Sandinistas decided to massacre them and herd them into concentration camps. The non-totalitarian Somoza dictatorship pretty much left them alone, since the Miskitos did not threaten Somoza riches.

Guess which of the two fascist groups claimed that they were doing this to help the poor and the common good? The Sandinistas.

"If you want to say that Communism and Socialism and Marxism are closely related then fine but still not interchangeable."

The close relationship is actually one of subsets. Such as communism being a subset of socialism.

dmarks said...

Soap: Missed this: "Fascist-Nazi-Totalitarian aspires towards a collective premise based on racial or national greatness."

Actually, this is very common in socialism/communism as well. The USSR was all about the superiority of Russians. Chinese communism is a perfect example of fascism "based on racial or national greatness", as shown in the subjugation of non-Chinese minority culture in China, and the imperialist expansion of the nation's boundaries into other countries such as Tibet and Taiwan.

dmarks said...

Toad said: "Franco for instance was a totalitarian fascist and also an anti-communist right winger. Pinochet was a Totalitarian dictator who hunted down socialists and communists."

By the way, these were fascists who hunted down other fascists (socialists and communists). Just because they are the same in on most matters doesn't mean they will get along. Look at how Mafia groups have gang wars, or warlords in places like Somalia fight agaisnt each other. Honor among thieves.

Anyway, when nzzi-type fascists and socialists/communists go to war against each other, maybe the rest of us win. Because in that case, they are not attacking the rest of us. Like the Battle of Stalingrad, where you want both sides to fight each other to their utmost ability, and both sides to lose.