That's what governments are for- get in a man's way...what's so hard to understand here? by chrisisall

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

That's what governments are for- get in a man's way...what's so hard to understand here?

POSTED BY: CHRISISALL
UPDATED: Thursday, April 10, 2008 11:15
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 3062
PAGE 2 of 2

Thursday, April 3, 2008 2:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by LightBringer:
Thanks to the rest of you for leaping on this digression like rapid dogs
I think you assumed too much about a keystroke there, Socrates.

Fast canine Chrisisall

Damn you, damn your eyes! You caught me in an error, but I'm comforted that it wasn't one of spelling or grammar. Good call on the Socrates bit, too; maybe we can drag the Cynics in too with all this rabid canine business...

This may be all a dream, but at least mine was consistently erotic. -LB

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

Thursday, April 3, 2008 3:19 PM

FLETCH2

Quote:
Originally posted by LightBringer:
It's simply that more often than not it's the Democrats who do these things; that may simply be their legacy as the "opposition" party in late 20th century American politics. Their whole raison d'etre is to disagree with the core principles of the nation, and to pander to those who lack the self-respect or intelligence to actually function as citizens. Their platform, as with any socialist party in an affluent society (go figure that one), is to promise to redistribute the wealth and resources of those who are doing things right to those who are doing things wrong; that is, to the populus mobile, the moronic, lazy, and self-indulgent, the wheedling children who make up an alarming proportion of today's America.

Or another explanation for the rise of the various "social democratic" parties is that they were created to ensure the continued survival of the current economic system and the incumbent elites. In this theory the 1918 Russian revolution so scared those in power (because the elites in Russia had been executed) that they feared similar uprisings in their own countries. By creating movements that promised the disgruntled masses "jam tomorrow" it was hoped to dull the attraction of radical Communism and this allow business as usual. The idea was that these movements could throw some bread to the populous, persuading them to support a social contract that didn't favour them rather than resort to violent revolution to change the current order. In this context "welfare" is what it has always been --- antirevolution insurance.

Or in short, the Democrats exist to keep the disaffected in the system rather than on the streets.

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

Thursday, April 3, 2008 4:11 PM

FREMDFIRMA

"Most people don't have a clue, don't want one or need one, they like to think they have a good bead on things..."
-Agent K

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

Friday, April 4, 2008 8:57 AM

LIGHTBRINGER

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Also, just to point out - no where in the constitution does it say capitalism or god. So I guess the founders were godless socialists and those are the core ideals of the country.

It is certainly true that the words "capitalism" and "god" do not appear in the Constitution, or in the Declaration. Then again, the word "revolution" does not appear in the Declaration either, nor "socialism" in the Constitution. The problem with nit-picking semantics like this is that they willfully ignore the plain intent of the document and its writer[s]. In reality (you know, where I live), the concepts of capitalism and free enterprise are inextricably bound up in the aims and ideals of the American Revolution. You can't have a nation founded on the "God-given" right to self-determination, individualism, and a citizen-driven democracy without positing capitalism as a corollary. That is, capitalism wasn't the goal of the founders, it was simply an utterly necessary component as well as a welcome product of those goals. Capitalism, personal freedom, and political freedom are only facets of the same gem, and as both communist and fascist revolutions have demonstrated repeatedly, when you take away one or the other, the rest swiftly fall. So to make myself clear: socialism and its collectivist ilk are diametrically opposed to the Enlightenment ideal of the free and self-determined human being. Whatever up-side you may think such political philosophies have, they have shown themselves historically to be unacceptable, and they are anathema to any free person with a grasp of human nature.
Just as a side-note. "God" is in fact not mentioned in the Constitution, but is in the Declaration. Two points:
A) I do view the Declaration as establishing the founding principles of the nation. Many argue that it has no legal power, and that's fine, because it is simply a primer which lays out the fundamental assumptions of the "new order." And it should be noted that Jefferson ultimately justifies virtually all of those assumptions about equality and liberty by playing the God card, the old "deus ex machina" that makes everything right. This was my point in an earlier post where I asked "Why is slavery wrong?" Most answers to that question presuppose the principles that Jefferson laid at the feet of Deity. So one could argue that if you don't believe in a Creator, you in fact cannot "hold these truths to be self-evident."
B) The fact that the Constitution doesn't mention God doesn't say anything either way. The Declaration already made its point, and unless you're planning to build a theocracy, you don't have any reason to refer to God in the instruction manual for your new government. Also, of course, the current Constitution was the 2nd such blueprint, replacing the Articles of Confederation, though I don't think they mentioned God either. The point is, the manual for your toaster may not mention "electricity," but it's kind of assumed that electricity informs the process.

This may be all a dream, but at least mine was consistently erotic. -LB

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

Friday, April 4, 2008 9:39 AM

RUE

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

" The problem with nit-picking semantics like this is that they willfully ignore the plain intent of the document and its writer[s]."

Not willfully nit-picking. For example, the original text of the Declaration of Independence was "that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and Property ..." but property was too big a stumbling block. What if the new government wanted to, for example, collect taxes itself ? So property was out and the more useful but less explicit 'pursuit of happiness' was put in. Now of they HAD left 'property' in you might argue that they were at least indirectly supporting capitalism (a thing which, if I may reiterate, didn't exist at the time) but it's not there and so you can't point to anything other than your vague - and 1950's generated - 'everybody knows' notions. (And I thought you'd didn't hold with 'everybody knows' or 'common wisdom' factoids. You seem to have have adopted the concept after lambasting it earlier.)

Also, I think you would have a hard time finding individualism - which is a very modern concept - anywhere in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution. So consider this a challenge - please find it for me.

"Capitalism, personal freedom, and political freedom are only facets of the same gem ..." Again, let me point out that is a very modern concept created in the 1950's, along with the insertion of the phrase 'under god' in the pledge. The three - god, democracy and capitalism - were explicitly tied together for propaganda purposes via a vis the godless, communistic totalitarians. There have been and are many countries that have democratically chosen a socialistic or partially socialistic economic system.

Democracy, which is a political system, and capitalism or socialism, which are economic systems, are not even in the same category.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

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

Friday, April 4, 2008 10:33 AM

LIGHTBRINGER

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
There have been and are many countries that have democratically chosen a socialistic or partially socialistic economic system.

Democracy, which is a political system, and capitalism or socialism, which are economic systems, are not even in the same category.

Rue, I'm proud to have elicited such a thorough response from you. Thank you for the attention.
And of course, I disagree. For one, the "right to property" was problematic because it isn't something you are inherently born with. By definition, you are born with life, and by assumption liberty, but very few people are born with property, so it doesn't really fit the category Jefferson was angling at. "Pursuit of happiness" can be presumed to mean anything the individual construes, including property and wealth.
I would also like to note that Adam Smith's An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations was also published in 1776, so it can certainly be argued that capitalism, while not called by that name, was already in the consciousness. It is quite evident to me that the foundation of the US was driven primarily by a desire to secure more control over one's own wealth and property, eliminate restrictions on trade, and reduce or even eliminate the burden of taxation.
I know it's lame, but here's a Wikipedia excerpt from the article on "Individulism":
At the time of the formation of the United States, many of its citizens had fled from state or religious oppression in Europe and were influenced by the egalitarian and fraternal ideals that later found expression in the French revolution. Such ideas influenced the framers of the U.S. Constitution (the Jeffersonian Democratic-Republicans) who believed that the government should seek to protect individual rights in the constitution itself; this idea later led to the Bill of Rights. According to Ronald Scollon, the "fundamental American ideology of individualism" can be summarized by the following two statements: 1. The individual is the basis of all reality and all society. 2. The individual is defined by what he or she is not." Explaining the latter statement, he says that American individualism emphasizes that the individual is not subject to arbitrary laws, and not subject to domination by historical precedent and preference.
I would argue that "individualism," while once again perhaps not called by name, is rampantly evident in the mores and actions of early generations of Americans, and has in fact become less common over time as the jaws of the state,in concert with urban industrialization, closed in.

I'm trying to be less long-winded, but one more point. I must categorically disagree with your contention that political and economic systems are "not even in the same category." I don't see how they can be separated; an economic system defines the relationship between self and others, the nature of wealth and ownership, and various other elements that must be reflected in the political arena, and vice versa. As for democratic societies democratically choosing socialist economic policies, I would argue that as far as they do so, the less free they make themselves. Maybe that's not a big deal, but it rarely seems to stop with a little sacrifice of liberty. Then there's the whole question of whether a "democratic" decision is actually a good or right one in the first place; that's another a priori argument we tend to make. The Confederacy democratically voted to secede, so what was the problem?

This may be all a dream, but at least mine was consistently erotic. -LB

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

Thursday, April 10, 2008 11:15 AM

BROWNCOAT2007

Heh, my Philosophy Professor assigned us a report on "Why is Democracy the best form of Government?" Gotta say that I took the stance that any form of government may not be called the "best" simply because people are always gunna look out for number 1, and if we give our governmental control to a person... well...

Democracy may be the... least harmful form of government, but the idea of a government is flawed... not going all anarchist or anything here, very fun thread Chris

Also... Kirk, good plan, but... well... violence would ensue... I almost guarentee it

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

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE