Political Stripes by dreamtrove

Yeah, there's something to this. The powers that be have decided to exploit human's biggest failing: Laziness. The party leaders round people up like sheep and tell them to choose between the puppet on the left and the puppet on the right. Usually lately one of them is a patsy and is trying hard to lose to the other one.

What the people need to do is organize.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 17, 2006 7:49 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

I am a conservative, of a Libertarian mindset. I really identify w/ Mal. The Gov't has a short list of proper functions, which start with National Defense. Keep my taxes low and keep a low defecit, if any at all.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 17, 2006 9:45 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I believe in the power of cooperation.

Little local problems can be solved by local cooperation (sometimes called government), larger problems can be solved by more extensive cooperation.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 17, 2006 6:00 PM

SEVENPERCENT

My 2c (or my 7%, whatever) -

The responsibility of government is not to interfere with the lives of citizens, it is to handle situations the citizens cannot take care of themselves (or to set policies/laws to prevent citizens from oppressing others - which is, I suppose, a situation that couldn't be handled alone).

For example, I'm all for the assisted suicide ruling today. The role of gov't is not to tell people how they can or cannot die, that's their decision (same with the Schiavo thing, etc.). The government's job is national defense, keeping the peace, and providing services the common person can't (such as infrastructure), in exchange for taxes and obeying the laws enacted by duly appointed representatives.

Therefore (more or less):
-I support gay marriage, due to belief that the government has no say in who can/cannot get married; it is a contract between consenting adults. It also causes no harm to me or my family, therefore, none of my business.

-Abortion, same thing; woman's right to decide what is right for her own body. Does not affect me, unless said abortion is prevented and child grows up impoverished, abused, and becomes a danger to me.

-I expect higher incomes to pay more taxes, as they have more to gain from the services the government provides. No roads, no police, and no laws = no wealth from no production, no protection, and no agreements. Part of the social contract, get over it. Also, the country was founded by people trying to prevent dynasties, therefore, it's not a 'death tax,' it's an estate tax. It's taxed against people with millions; little Billy will still go to Harvard, trust me.

-Pro death penalty (though waffling), pro aggressive foreign policy (when not used in an idiotic manner), pro-gun (but really - 1, the Dems are never going to take away guns, contrary to what Fox tells you; 2, the days of a citizen militia were over the minute they invented tanks, jets, and napalm - if Uncle Sam wants your shit, he'll get it; and 3, as a hunter, let me set you straight - you don't need an uzi to hunt deer, and your kids would benefit from trigger locks and registration).

Probably too much for this thread, but I got on a roll.

At one time, these beliefs made me a moderate conservative - Now, I'm apparently a bleeding heart liberal. So much for the neocon revolution.

------------------------------------------
He looked bigger when I couldn't see him.

Anyone wanting to continue a discussion off board is welcome to email me - check bio for details.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 17, 2006 10:49 PM

Actually 7% I suspect that your position is where most of the country is.

Government is a service industry, they should work for us.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 18, 2006 2:24 AM

SERGEANTX

I consider government to be sort of a necessary evil. But I'm not entirely sure on the 'necessary' part.

Anyway, the smaller the better and the less involved in our day-to-day lives the better. I used to be involved with the Libertarians but in the last ten years or so I've turned into your garden variety 'cynical curmudgeon'. I just got tired of trying to convince the peasants that all the stories about Dragons were bullshit. They sure like those stories.

I've recently taken a job at a software company with a pretty radical agenda - namely to change the world. The fascinating thing, and the most appealing part for me personally, is that they plan to do it despite government. The CEO sees our modern notion of government as something we can transcend. The 'cynical curmudgeon' in me finds this hard to swallow, but results speak for themselves and we are making things happen.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 18, 2006 5:47 AM

I'm trying to avoid this from turning into a political war, it's just a statement of position so we can all know where everyone else is coming from, so I won't comment on 7%'s post, but it did make me think about some of my positions I wanted to be sure to be clear on.

I disagree with the assisted suicide ruling, I side witht the dissenters, and oppose the death penalty because I think both can become thinly veiled murder. I don't think right to die is a right to life issue, and I can see circumstances where people either in a not-sound frame of mind or, through deliberate deception, an illusion of of consent cna be created, as is frequently done with wills.

I would add that I support the rights of individuals to do their own thing, as long as they're not hurting others, but I also support that right for consenting groups, or communities, ie. I support the right of a community to have gay marriage, and I also support the right of a community to ban it, ie not recognize it. In short I guess this, and many issues like it, should not be a federal policy issue.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 18, 2006 5:59 AM

ARAWAEN

I have constructed my political philosophy from the likes of Aristotle, Plutarch, G.K. Chesterton and Frank Herbert.

I lean conservative on social issues and liberal on economic issues, so I never have anyone to vote for that actually represents my views. I typically vote 3rd party because the dominance of the two parties needs to be broken, but I have never been enthusiastic about those I have cast a vote for.

Knowledge is sorrow; they who know the most
Must mourn the deepest o'er the fatal truth,
The Tree of Knowledge is not that of Life.
-- Byron

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 18, 2006 7:21 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Quote:
I've recently taken a job at a software company with a pretty radical agenda - namely to change the world. The fascinating thing, and the most appealing part for me personally, is that they plan to do it despite government.

Which is why I support the Free Software Foundation, and open source in general.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 18, 2006 7:47 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I don't know where I stand. I see the dangers of "big" anything, but when you have the "problem of the commons" on a big scale then you need big solutions. The ozone hole, for example, was stabilized by the Montreal Protocol. Needs more thought.

Maybe the groups I support says something about me: Planned Parenthood, Linux (any flavor), FSF, Electronic Frontier Foundation, ACLU, Amnesty International, Tree People, CAW, Earth Justice, public broadcasting, MoveOn, various labor organizations, and some politicians if they're good enough. Right now that means Feingold.

BTW- I think there is a misunderstanding about Marxism. Not a Marxist myself, but I was told that Marx considered the state to be a tool of oppression by the corporations (fascism as the natural expression of capitalism). In his vision the state was supposed to "wither away". I find a curious overlap between Marxists and Libertarians when it comes their views of "the state".

---------------------------------
Please don't think they give a shit.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 18, 2006 11:14 AM

Arawen,

Clafication point. You said 'liberal' economic policy. A while back we got into a spat on the forum because of a misunderstanding on the meaning of this term that went as follows:
In America, the economic left seems to tend towards state supported and collectivist, socialized medicine for example, etc.
In britain, correct me if I'm wrong, but I recall someone posting that liberal economics were free market and laissez-faire.

Signym,

On the Marx, that's interesting, I hadn't heard that. Maybe someone here knows Marx better. I think that everyong probably agrees that Marxism has never really come to be, but has only been a component of some other things. I'd never heard that anything in it was of a libertarian bent, certainly the communist states that have been have been the farthest from libertarian of anything that has ever been.

To me, corporation is a free right of the people to organize economically, and without it, the economic would quickly tend towards a dictatorial nature.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 18, 2006 12:35 PM

I don't think there is any conflict of terms.

You choose to use "liberal economics" as "the economics of liberals" where as the rest of the world takes it to mean economics "liberated" from restrictions.

You live in a "liberal democracy" meaning a free and tolerant democratic state, not that only liberals can vote ;)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 18, 2006 12:51 PM

SEVENPERCENT

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

I would add that I support the rights of individuals to do their own thing, as long as they're not hurting others ... In short I guess this, and many issues like it, should not be a federal policy issue.

That's the crux of my point. Most things aren't federal policy issues, they're state or personal issues. Don't want to marry a man? Don't. Don't like abortion? Don't have one. Don't want to die? Don't commit suicide. Keep your religion or your legal bullshit off my proverbial lawn, so to speak. It's not the federal government's job to interfere with people and live their lives for them. Those are state and local issues (at best; I don't even consider them issues at all - gay marriage is tricky because it involves soc. sec benefits and such, but even that is minimal imo).

------------------------------------------
He looked bigger when I couldn't see him.

Anyone wanting to continue a discussion off board is welcome to email me - check bio for details.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 18, 2006 2:22 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I think this is from Engels, not Marx, but prolly close enuf to get the gist

Quote:
Former society, moving in class antagonisms, had need of the state, that is, an organisation of the exploiting class at each period for the maintenance of its ... production; therefore, in particular, for the forcible holding down of the exploited class in the conditions of oppression (slavery, bondage or serfdom, wagelabour)

www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/lenin-staterev.html "The state" is an enemy of "the people".

---------------------------------
Please don't think they give a shit.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 18, 2006 9:15 PM

PROGDEM

Some further background on why the supposed communist regimes of the USSR, China, Cuba, etc. were all authoritarian, rather than anarchistic as Marx predicted. If people like Mao, Lenin, and Castro had been strict, or even moderately faithful Marxists they would have realized that no revolution which took place in a single country that had not experienced a period of capitalist economic organization could be THE revolution. Marx's predicted revolution would have had to have been worldwide, caused by the excess unemployment, monopolization, and economic instability that he thought capitalism would bring, and would have to destroy the capitalist system completely. Afterward Marx thought that there would be no need for government, as there was no class struggle to regulate. To account for this Lenin came up with the idea of the Vanguard Party, which was supposed to protect the nascent communist movement in Russia, since technically Russia didn't qualify as a nation that could have a genuine communist revolution. After he did this, and gained power over the largest empire in history because of it, many other communist leaders followed suit, sometimes at the behest of Moscow. This is one of the reasons that no one realizes that in a Marxist utopia, there is no government, and one of the reasons that 'communist' is a terribly misused word in the US.

I actually just started posting here, so I am not sure whether knowing my political opinions is that worthwhile.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 19, 2006 3:33 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
I actually just started posting here, so I am not sure whether knowing my political opinions is that worthwhile.

Welcome aboard, Progdem! Well, apparently you know several orders of magnitude more than we do about Marxism. Any opinion that enlightens our discussion with more information is always worthwhile.

Would the moniker "progdem" be a clue that your political stripe is "progressive democrat"? And, how would you describe that?

---------------------------------
Please don't think they give a shit.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 19, 2006 5:01 AM

Fletch,

Don't assume the entire world uses words the way you do either. I was granting a middle ground ambiguity, but I certainly don't accept that I'm alone, and everyone always agrees with you. My statement was based on our previous argument.

My point here was how you interpret this statement might depend on which side of the atlantic you're on.

Quote:
Arawen posted:
I lean conservative on social issues and liberal on economic issues

Leaning liberal on economic issues in America might be taken to mean big govt, pro-social programs, public works projects, at least in the circles I travel in, but I'm willing to grant that people hear, probably because of a large number of brits, seem to sometimes mean free-market and laissez-faire by this. I think that historically, the world liberal was used in a different context, and this might have something to do with it. This thread wasn't for arguing, it just was for clarification to avoid more foot in mouth.

My point was after reading that line I wasn't sure where Arawen stood.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 19, 2006 9:55 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

In general, as I said, I believe in the power of cooperation. Sometimes it is government, sometimes cooperatives.

But your rights end at my nose - or words to that effect. If you form a business which pollutes the air I breathe and takes years off my life - that gives me a stake in what you do and a justification to control it.

Also, corporations are economic entities and should be legally treated as such (though a long-ago Supreme Court ruling said they were 'individuals' with constitutional rights). As anyone with half a brain knows, they are not individuals.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 19, 2006 10:00 AM

FREEDEM

Perhaps you do not take the Libertarian thought far enough. Any time two or more humans(Or whatever that has a mind and opinion) have/wish to do something togeather there must be a method to decide who does what and who gets what out of it.

Color it or spin it how you will, that method by any name is Government. What you wish to accomplish, who is cohersing who, and who gives/gets what etc is just the details of that government.

If your spaceship is motorhome sized or a whole planet, you had better cooperate as you need to for the duration of the trip or everybody dies. After that how pleasant the voyage is depends on just what those government details are and how you can hold any leader responsible.

Most folks are involved with dozens of governments and subject to dozens more, each their own satrapy. You participate in your household, job, friends, this site etc, and live under the thumb of power companies, phones, computer operating systems etc. It could be as ephemeral as two people talking as they walk down a street, deciding how fast to walk, or as complex as a country trying to accomplish a civilization. Someone makes the rules and all have to follow or be rouge, and all held accountable, or all is chaos, or something in between.

Everyone wants to do as they please, and would like everyone else to do the best job of pleasing them. Everything else is how you negotiate. Play nice and play fair and everyone can do well, play not nice or fair and you might do better, or those who notice might be fair and give you a very bad day.

Firefly had a real chance to explore those kind of thoughts. This government has a worthy goal, and I am willing to devote a bit of time, thought and taxes to make it work.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 19, 2006 10:03 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Also, corporations are economic entities and should be legally treated as such (though a long-ago Supreme Court ruling said they were 'individuals' with constitutional rights). As anyone with half a brain knows, they are not individuals.

Actually, it wasn't even in a Supreme Court ruling. It was in some sort of margin notes (or something) written by a law clerk. THAT particular travesty begs to be revisited!

---------------------------------
Please don't think they give a shit.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 19, 2006 10:10 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

In theory self-organization is simple. In practice - not so much.

In general, the more powerful organizations supercede the less powerful. So corporations run governments and people are out of the loop, even in 'democracies'. That's what makes FSF, Linux, open-source biology (founded by an American in Australia) et al so fascinating. They break the paradigm money = power.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 19, 2006 10:24 AM

PROGDEM

I take it that 'progressive' has over the past 5 to 6 years developed into a term that refers to that wing of the democratic party which sees itself in opposition to both the strategy and many of the policies of the Clintons and the Clinton wing of the party. They way I would characterize the Clinton wing of the party is that they wished to move to the right on economic and foreign policy issues, and stay to the left on social and cultural issues (gay rights, abortion, gun control, prayer in school, etc.) Recently Hillary has unveiled a new tactic whereby she renounces none of the rightward movement on economic and foreign policy issues, and also moves to the right on the social and cultural issues.

Less importantly progressives tend to think that what is important is the clash of ideas, and not the clash of parties. The conservatives in this country have dominated the political discourse in this country since the mid 70's, because they put the work into spreading their ideas, even if it meant sacrificing electoral success. The Clintons sacrifice all at the altar of electoral success. This is a short sighted strategy whereby more of the feild shall be ceded to the right, for the purpose of electing officials from the left who are unable to pass any genuine leftist policies.

I am actually fairly conservative on many of the social issues. I don't support as much gun control as many liberals. I don't mind restrictions on abortion rights so long as the first trimester remains open. I am fully accept and support gay marriage, but mostly because of the terrible arguments that have been advanced against it, not so much because I think it is an important issue.

The issues I care about are almost all related to the economy and foriegn relations. I think that for us to be a true democracy we cannot be an economic oligarchy, which is what I take us to be. I don't think that democracy can survive when a small group of people control the economic fortunes of so many. I think we should return to some of the policies of the 1950's and 60's, with much higher tax rates on the top bracket (they were around 90% back then, and I don't think that is necessary, but i think a doubling of the current rate would be good). I think our growing reliance on finance as the engine of our economy is a bad thing and should be fought, both by tax policy, but also by protecting and nurturing industries in the 'real' economy. I am against free trade, I think that the power of multinationals should be curtailed, and I think that corporations that take lots of jobs out of the US should have their charters revoked. I am very pro-labor, and I am very pro-government involvement in the economy (not in setting price supports and things like that, but more in public works projects and investment). I think that supporting the poor and unfortunate is a moral duty, and that government should see to that task. I am very green, not for the sake of the cudly animals, but for the sake of us not so cudly human beings.

In foreign policy I think that China's growing power needs to be dealt with, and that this is the second most important issue in the world today (the first being nuclear proliferation). I think that tariffs and blocks on investment in China until it starts respecting human rights and enforcing labor protections are appropriate, though they will hurt to put in place. I think we should pull out of the Mideast completely, stop supporting governments like Saudi Arabia and Egypt, and put some conditions on our support for Israel (like granting the Palestinians a real state eventually, and in the meantime working to pull them out of poverty. they technically live in the mideast country with one of the highest standards of living, but they live in the worst poverty in that region). I think that this would cause terrorist reserves of suicide bombers to dry up, and would render the problem much easier to deal with. Since we are probably approaching peak oil, there is not that much left to gain from our presence there anyway.

So there it is. A particularly short, poorly argued (in that I didn't even try) and poorly written manifesto. It is what I mean by progressive, and I think it captures a good deal of what most democrats who call themselves progressive really think.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 19, 2006 2:20 PM

No one commented on this before, but I think rather than argue that Clinton is no closer to what I consider conservative than the old dems, I thought maybe I would repost this. Tell me what you think.

The idea here is politicians are most likely to fall somewhere on the circle, and you can view it as left right, and if you go left long enough you end up in the far right. I know this may be illogical, but given the perspectives I read, many people think of Boxer et al as far left, yet policywise they have a lot in common with a lot of republicans.

So really, what we have is three political camps in each party:

1. party loyalists like ted kennedy and john warner, solidly in the middle of their respective party curves.

Next: Two schools of moderate:

2. top-mods or power-mods who supported both the clinton administration and the bush administration most of the time.

3. bottom-mods or free-mods who opposed both the clinton administration and the bush administration most of the time.

I remember recently reading a political analysis refering to Feingold and Leiberman and some others as the "moderates" of the democratic party, and then cited some states as to party loyalty, %s. According to the story, I haven't checked it, Russ was most likely to have voted republican, and Joe was second.

But this line of logic is totally deceptive. Russ voted with the GOP during the 90s with those who were opposing Clinton. Joe voted with the republicans under Bush with those who were supporting Bush. The reality is that Joe and Russ have been on opposite sides of the vote an alarming portion of the time. It would be more honest to say Russ and Joe are polar opposites, but not on a left-right axis, but an axis perpendicular to the left-right. What we are fighting against, IOW, is a one dimensional mind set, which is mainly being fostered I think by the top-center power-mods.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 19, 2006 4:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Fletch,

Don't assume the entire world uses words the way you do either.

I don't redefine the meaning of words to better conform to my own political bias.

What she wrote was completely unabiguous on either side of the Atlantic, it was your attempt at "clarification" that was problematic.

"Economically liberal" or "liberal on economic issues" is not the same as "liberal economics," "liberal economics" does not mean "the economics of liberals" it means a relatively free and unregulated economic system. That is it's meaning everywhere, even in the US press so I know this is not a Euro/US conflict.

And I dont care what definition exists in Wiki.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 19, 2006 6:16 PM

Fletch,

I still don't know what she meant 'til she gives it the 'fletch is right.'

I don't twist words to support my ideology, I speak the language as I know it to be. Somehow, every post of yours has a dreamtrove is a ignorant, arrogant, dishonest pig hidden in it somewhere. I'm beginning to wonder why I bother.

Not to belabor the point, but in the us press this "I lean ... liberal on economic issues" does not automatically mean automatically laissez-faire. Often when people talk about economic/political positions, they mean govt. spending, and if they do, then by liberal they would me in favor of liberal or generous spending, and

just gach! could you be any more argumentative? This wasn't said as a means of starting an argument, just honestly I thought it was ambiguous. It's not like I'm hung up on the answer.

She didn't say 'liberal economics,' she said 'liberal on economic issues.' I thought it was ambiguous. But it wasn't an attack. Could you give the partisan and personal attacks a rest?

I'm trying to help us reach an understanding here. I'm sorry that there's an evil republican president roaming about the world bombing everyone, I really am. But this is not my fault, and there's precious little I can do about it. I feel as if I walked into a war zone here, and I am trying to get people to at least understand where one another is coming from so maybe we can debate things out like civilized folk.

I know you'll try to spin this post one way or another, and frankly I don't care. I'm sick of it. I'm being totally upfront here, as always, and not attempting to redefine words or spin or trying to say anything is what it isn't. I'm really quite ticked off.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 19, 2006 6:50 PM

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 19, 2006 7:06 PM

SERGEANTX

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
...I gave you a chance to show us the groundwork for your "team evil" conspiracy theory but apparently you don't have the time. Consequently I no longer read anything you post that mentions "team evil" (which means just about everything) because if I had time to read fiction there are some Firefly fanfics that would be more entertaining.

TEAM EVIL

Excellent, so that means you won't be posting quibbling nonsense to derail these threads anymore, right?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 19, 2006 10:42 PM

Absolutely!
Have fun.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 20, 2006 4:33 AM