View Full Version : Politians can really be Dumb
Rand Paul was being interviewed on some TV station and said that the government or FEMA should not help the victims of Sandy if the government has to borrow the money. He said the Salvation Army or church's should help them.
He is an educated md and yet makes a stupid statement. The US military is using C10 cargo plans to fly resources into the area. Power company employees and their equipment including trucks are being flowen from the West Coast to the East Coast. The Salvation Army does not have a fleet of cargo airplanes!
Church groups do not have the estimated 50 billion dollars to cover the damage. Another politician said every dollar spent has to verified before it is spent. He does not want a dime wasted. I guess people will need to prove they need water or food.
I just feel a tragedy like this shows how stupid some of the our political leaders are.
What would he want done if his family is in the same difficult circumstances?
It's nonsense - given we're borrowing around a trillion a year, it's silly to wave around one particular instance and say we shouldn't do it if we have to borrow the money. Everything the government does involves borrowing money, does that mean we should shut it all down until the money is available?
I still think its just a matter of having our priorities screwed up on one hand and a disconnect between the 'leadership' and the rest of us on the other. I'm not sure anyone in our government, since the constitution was written anyway, ever actually sat down and made a very clear, very precise list of priorities. Americans are good people. If they had a say in it I bet a huge majority would tell the Party to do whatever it takes to help people clean up the mess and get back to normal. I would guess that roughly the same majority of us would check a box telling our illustrious leaders to get the hell out of Afghanistan (for example).
If anyone is interested in Romney's stance on FEMA, here you go. He has flip-flopped enough that's it is hard to tell what he might do.
http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/01/romney-on-fema-then-and-now/
The Storyteller
11-3-12, 10:36am
In Paul's defense...
He is a libertarian. His dad is Ron Paul who ran as libertarian candidate for president. He was, after all, named for Ayn Rand. This is merely the logical extension of libertarian thinking.
There are many in the Republican party who have some libertarian leanings, but it isn't truly a libertarian party. Otherwise, the Defense of Marriage Act would never have passed. Paul is more of a purist.
...does that mean we should shut it all down until the money is available?
Now there's a thought.
In Paul's defense...
He is a libertarian. His dad is Ron Paul who ran as libertarian candidate for president. He was, after all, named for Ayn Rand. This is merely the logical extension of libertarian thinking.
There are many in the Republican party who have some libertarian leanings, but it isn't truly a libertarian party. Otherwise, the Defense of Marriage Act would never have passed. Paul is more of a purist.
Of COURSE we will never be completely libertarian, just like we will never be completely capitalist or completely socialist. That the libertarian Ron Paul camped out in the GOP is the best thing for the Republicans since Reagan came along. I am pumped by the energy provided by Paul followers and I want to see the GOP move in that direction.
You said "It's not a true libertarian Paraty" well doh. No kidding. There IS an official libertarian party around you know. And they will continue to be marginal.
The Storyteller
11-3-12, 2:16pm
You said "It's not a true libertarian Paraty" well doh. No kidding.
Just didn't want the Republican party as a whole to be blamed for Paul's position on helping the needy during times of crisis. For a libertarian, it makes sense. For the GOP, not so much.
But you can own it if you want it.
He may be an ex opthalmologist but his ideology is deranged. A lot of these folks are so anti government or for the smallest possible government but when disasters or wars of big magnitude occurs, we all need the massive power of the government to take care of our problems.
That's why we pay taxes, so the government can help us.
I'll buy the shut it down till there's more $$ view when I see all those in favor of this waving off the first responders plucking their families from the roofs of flooded or burning homes, and waiting for the "private sector" to rescue them.
I don't think Rand Paul is dumb. I think he's really smart. He's a physician, isn't he? You have to be really smart to make it through medical school, after all.
What he's really bad at is coming up with a plausible story to get us to believe why he doesn't want to fund FEMA. He claims it's because he's a anti-government and because government is inherently incapable and too flawed to solve big problems. His line is that private industry, churches and charities are much better at doing these jobs.
If we think really hard it's easy to see that even he doesn't buy that load of crap. We all know that there's another self-serving reason he doesn't think the government should help those in need. Think entitlement. Think deigned by God. Think privilege. Think more deserving. Think survival of the fittest. These are the real reasons.
His method and many libertarians method of having a smaller government may have worked 200 years ago when the population of the US was a little over 300,000. Many of if not most of their libertarian views will not work with the US population of over 300 million.
I guess we should just let them die unless it happens to be me.
I guess we should just let them die unless it happens to be me.
I think the theory with this and other decentralization policy is that without federal assistance the states and private enterprise would come to the rescue. Our federal taxes would be less and it would avoid cumbersome and inefficient big government and allow the agencies closest to the problems to have better solutions.
Not that I agree, but that is how I understood Ron Paul's approach when he was a possible candidate. It does have some interesting possibilities, but I doubt that they would work out.
That is my basic understanding as well, Rogar. I do think it makes sense to put a lot of different responsibilities in the hands of the states and provide federal assistance as a back up in extreme cases, like the recent storm. Where the logistics get really tricky is in the fact that all states are not created equal. The federal government can be helpful when it comes to providing some equity to our states that lack resources, geographically or demographically, as well as providing services that are in all our interests such as national defense. Rand Paul's statement about not paying for anything until we have the cash does make a point that I hope gets noticed, but there are times when a balanced budget should not be the highest priority.
But that's the problem isn't it. All states are not equal. Far from it. We have fairly poor states and pretty wealthy states, and unless we want to give up our 'United' moniker, and just be 'The Various States of North America', there are many things that need to be standard, across all the states. That 's the beauty of the US. That's what makes us desirable to us and to the world. This is a very big country with loads of regional flavor and dialects, but everyone knows that if you drive from California to Vermont, you will have the same standards in food safety and labeling, auto safety standards, education standards, etc..
If you buy your car insurance in California but have an accident in Vermont, you're covered. The police will protect you in both places and the hospitals will treat you in either place, even if you don't have coverage! And the hospital capability care (because of course there are differences from hospital to hospital, even in the same city) will be equal.
Really, which standards/programs/policies would you transfer from the feds to the states? Right now? Let's pick one that many people talk about. Education. Sure, it's easy to say let each state make their own standards. No skin off your nose, you live in a state that actually believes the world is round and revolves around the sun. Who cares if Mississippi is anti-science and teaches that the world is only 5 thousand years old? Well, what if your daughter marries someone from Mississippi and they move there. Your grand kids will be raised and taught there. Suddenly Mississippi's standards are very important, even though you don't live there. And that also decreases your pool of competent work force for your progressive modern business. And all the progressive modern businesses in the country, bringing the country down with it. A chain is only as strong as it's weakest link.
So what other things would you transfer to the states? I'm curious.
He was, after all, named for Ayn Rand.
Despite his father's libertarian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism) views and strong support for individual rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individual_and_group_rights),[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rand_Paul#cite_note-AW-8)[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rand_Paul#cite_note-9) the novelist Ayn Rand (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand) was not the inspiration for Paul's first name; he went by "Randy" while growing up.[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rand_Paul#cite_note-NYT1-10) His wife shortened his name to "Rand"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rand_Paul
So what other things would you transfer to the states? I'm curious.
I'm sure you realize that virtually everything you listed began with the individual states and were usurped by the federal government, so the word "transfer" might be a bit misleading.
I'm reminded that there was a time when the educational system in this country was on par with anywhere else in the world. Of course, that was before it was nationalized. The path to uniformity usually leads to the lowest common denominator.
The Storyteller
11-5-12, 5:59pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rand_Paul
Yeah, I'm not buying it.
Rule #1: all Big Government is evil
Rule #2: it's only Big Government if *I* don't need it or want it right now
Rule #1: all Big Government is evil
Rule #2: it's only Big Government if *I* don't need it or want it right now
True that! But if my home/town is struck by a natural disaster, or my crops fail....or I want to dictate how the women in my country act (heads down, subservient, respectful of the decisions of the christian males of the government) then, it's all good!
I'm sure you realize that virtually everything you listed began with the individual states and were usurped by the federal government, so the word "transfer" might be a bit misleading.
I'm reminded that there was a time when the educational system in this country was on par with anywhere else in the world. Of course, that was before it was nationalized. The path to uniformity usually leads to the lowest common denominator.
So, you think teaching that the world is only 5 thousand years old, or that evolution is a liberal lie, or re-writing history to suit the republican christian right agenda will put us 'on tract' with the world? Well, maybe with some of the world, like North Korea or the Taliban version of the world. No thank you. It's actually been the interference of ignorant people that has kept us from competing with the world in education.
Do you really think food safety/labeling laws should be handled by each state? Really? Insurance? You think each state should dictate standards? wow! You don't actually plan to go 50 miles beyond your home do you!
You never said which laws/regulations/standards you would turn over to the states and why. Give me an example and the reason it would be better for the people.
You only say that it 'used' to be that way. Yeah, when the population of the country was much much smaller, and more 'scattered' in scope. But these laws/regulations/standards were nationalized for a reason. THEY DIDN'T WORK! It was a mi sh mash of standards that was all over the map over the country.
We are a mobile society. I want to know that if I move from one state to another, I know what to expect in education, food/water safety, health care standards...you know, being a member of one country, the UNITED STATES of America.
The problem I see with the libertarian view is, there is not a single example of a successful society in the world with these policies in action. Not one! Not. One! Show me where this form of government is in action and successful and I'm certainly willing to take a look. But there isn't one. It's all in Ron Paul's, and Ayn Rands heads. It's fiction. It's a dream of a perfect society that's actually not perfect.
My country is not a social experiment. It works and is the envy of the world because of what it is..right now. Not Liberian, not right wing theocracy, not total democracy. It is a blend of what works. Somehow, someway, we have achieved a good blend. But that doesn't mean we can't tweak it, or fiddle with it. But those who want to trash it, or drown it in a bathtub are not for this country. They are traitors to what we have and have some other agenda which they will not disclose but only say, 'Trust Me'.
Libertarians do not love America. Because they don't want America. They want some Ayn Rand utopia that could never really exist. We must fight against these people taking America and turning it into their vision.
To be honest, there are large aspects of libertarian ideologies that I like. There are others that I do not like.
THere are a lot of different kinds of libertarians -- and it's really important to understand these differences.
For example, there are libertarians who do believe that there should be a federal government and that the federal government should manage a lot of things because some communities are simply not capable of managing it on their own due to circumstance (natural disasters are a great example).
There are other libertarians who believe in a more socialized aspect to things. For example, the power company would be owned by the people, the power going to the people, and any power sold to other states/countries/whatever would then go into a fund spread among the people. It's pretty much pure socialism. Noam Chomsky talks a lot about this sort of libertarianism (btw, I find old Noam really interesting, but often quite confusing).
Anarcho-libertarians tend to be considered the "most extreme" -- who basically believe that there should be no government and focus on individual sovereignty as the starting point for everything (which is great concept, honestly), and that we will all just be good people and figure it out without the need for any sort of government at all. I'm not quite sure how that would work. A lot of folks in this camp like to talk about "family" -- but my family doesn't work that great, so I"m not so enamored. LOL
From there, though, I would say that I do find some libertarian ideas really interesting and valuable. The more "mainstream" libertarians (such as the Cato Institute) is really a form of economic liberalism (which we then call conservative -- so confusing). And they leave the social aspects simply to the given states -- not a federal issue or whatever. But, I don't know if civil rights quite work that way -- or they don't seem to anyway.
It seems to me that Rand falls much closer to the anarcho-libertarian camp than his father does, but I can't say so much what Ron Paul is up to. He's been consistent in his politics, and he seems to be economically liberal (which is to say conservative in our common language), and he's also socially liberal, but would prefer all of that stay out of politics as far as I can tell (which means to not legislate on anything such as abortion, legal marriage, etc) and that everyone would just have natural legal rights.
And, our country is a social experiment. It has been from the very beginning. IN a way, all countries are social experiments. We get together and we try things and some things work and some things don't. That's just life.
LOL Peggy, if you're happy with bland mediocrity and willing to "fight against these people" who believe in a more individualized opportunity, then by all means let a centralized government rule every aspect of your life. But wishing it upon everyone else seems a little mean spirited dontchathink? ;-)
Have you ever contemplated the irony of self-styled liberals usurping the concept of libertarianism, stealing it's name and then turning it's back on the ideology?
So, you think teaching that the world is only 5 thousand years old, or that evolution is a liberal lie, or re-writing history to suit the republican christian right agenda will put us 'on tract' with the world? Well, maybe with some of the world, like North Korea or the Taliban version of the world. No thank you. It's actually been the interference of ignorant people that has kept us from competing with the world in education.
I think religious liberty is an important aspect of a civilized society and that religious/political persecution is uncivilized and undemocratic. I know that a centralized government forcing a point of view or ideology is uncivilized and undemocratic. Perhaps you disagree?
You never said which laws/regulations/standards you would turn over to the states and why. Give me an example and the reason it would be better for the people.
Everything outside the realm of interstate commerce, foreign treaties and national defense. Those are the only reasons a collection of sovereign states would gather together as a collective entity. Do you think England or France or Germany should give up their sovereignty in subservience to the European Union?
But those who want to trash it, or drown it in a bathtub are not for this country. They are traitors to what we have and have some other agenda which they will not disclose but only say, 'Trust Me'.
Libertarians do not love America. Because they don't want America. They want some Ayn Rand utopia that could never really exist. We must fight against these people taking America and turning it into their vision.
Wow, just wow.
iris lily
11-5-12, 10:14pm
But that's the problem isn't it. All states are not equal. Far from it. We have fairly poor states and pretty wealthy states, and unless we want to give up our 'United' moniker, and just be 'The Various States of North America', there are many things that need to be standard, across all the states.
No. You are wrong.
ApatheticNoMore
11-5-12, 10:36pm
LOL Peggy, if you're happy with bland mediocrity and willing to "fight against these people" who believe in a more individualized opportunity, then by all means let a centralized government rule every aspect of your life. But wishing it upon everyone else seems a little mean spirited dontchathink? ;-)
The marketplace can promote plenty of bland mediocrity on it's own and it can impose it pretty well and frankly be plenty intolerant of true human individuality.
Have you ever contemplated the irony of self-styled liberals usurping the concept of libertarianism, stealing it's name and then turning it's back on the ideology?
they are mostly probably civil liberties people, and they have as much claim as anyone to civil liberties.
Everything outside the realm of interstate commerce, foreign treaties and national defense. Those are the only reasons a collection of sovereign states would gather together as a collective entity.
why even have that? Why gather together as a collective entity for that but not to address the fact of say excessive smog from one state which just pollutes as much as it wants, ignoring all state boundaries, and rudely crossing into and polluting another state?
Yossarian
11-5-12, 11:23pm
They are traitors to what we have and have some other agenda which they will not disclose but only say, 'Trust Me'.
Liberals do not love America. Because they don't want America. They want some ... utopia that could never really exist. We must fight against these people taking America and turning it into their vision.
[edited for emphasis]
Funny, that sounds exactly like what the fringe says about progressives
They are traitors to what we have and have some other agenda which they will not disclose but only say, 'Trust Me'.
Libertarians do not love America. Because they don't want America. They want some Ayn Rand utopia that could never really exist. We must fight against these people taking America and turning it into their vision.
"Traitors".... The penalty for treason, of course, is death.
It is to be expected that Peggy would go down that road. Because that's what leftists are particularly good at - killing those who disagree with them, after dehumanizing them, and naming them enemies of the State.
http://dukeengagecambodia.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/0102034388000.jpg
Never again, Peggy, never again.
Dude! Peggy is not Pol Pot.
It's true. That's a mega slippery slope argument.
There's a great article in a blog that a friend shared that describes how we are really all liberals. It's really brilliantly written, and it talks about how of our two parties, one focuses on "this aspect" of liberalism vs the other party focusing on "that aspect" of liberalism.
But what has happened (particularly with the rise of theocons) is a rise of traditional conservatism -- which is antithesis to liberalism (the idea on which the US is founded).
The blog explains it nicely and gives you buzz-words to look up on Wikipedia (and further) if you would like. The only real problem with the blog, in my opinion (which can undermine it's intelligent discussion points) is the name-calling of his governor. Still, the other information makes a lot of sense and helps clarify things.
4 quarters, 10 dimes blog (http://4quarters10dimes.blogspot.co.nz/2011/02/rise-of-actual-conservatism-in-america.html)
Rolling Stone also has a great article (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/hurricane-sandy-and-the-myth-of-the-big-government-vs-small-government-debate-20121101#ixzz2B4VJL0NE) about the myth of big vs small government that has some interesting ideas.
Zone bird I both articles were very good. I really liked the Rolling Stone one. This paragraph from it is so true.
"The truth is, nobody, be he rich or poor, wants his government services cut. Drive up and down route 128 outside Boston, you'll see a lot of affluent white people waving Romney signs, complaining about entitlement spending. But about four thousand percent of those same people working along the high-tech ring there are totally dependent on the Pentagon contracts that keep doors open at companies like Raytheon and General Dynamics."
gimmethesimplelife
11-6-12, 1:54am
Dude! Peggy is not Pol Pot.+1
word, free.
I see the same thing all the time. Most of the people voting republican whom I know utilize several government entitlements on an on-going basis. I'm not against this. I just am not sure if they know what they are talking about when they are rambling on about cutting them.
word, free.
I see the same thing all the time. Most of the people voting republican whom I know utilize several government entitlements on an on-going basis. I'm not against this. I just am not sure if they know what they are talking about when they are rambling on about cutting them.
Oh certainly, it's The Kansas Effect. The numbskulls in flyover country keep voting against their own good. Gosh if only they would listen to their betters. Just lie down and let he government them take over, they'd be so much better off. We all would.
Iris lily,
I honestly don't know what you are talking about. I never said (or insinuated) such a thing. I spoke to my personal experience of talking to friends about this.
I don't want them to not be republican or even change their position on entitlements. Instead, I'd like to honestly talk about the ideas around this -- the ideas around why entitlements exist, whether or not they benefit the society as a whole on-going, and where we want the lowest bar of poverty in our society to be (I already wrote about this on another thread). Just honest discussion on the matter.
And, I want them to be clear on which entitlements they do value -- because they do obviously value those from which they personally benefit. And yet, most of them assert that they are an exception, not the rule, and as such they should get the benefits (they are deserving) while others should not. I find this confusing, and perhaps intellectually dishonest.
Likewise, I simply like to talk about ideas. To me, these ideas are interesting. In several other threads, many of the more conservative members of the boards have agreed with me on certain measures: it's not about whether or not we should have entitlements, but really where the bar of poverty is going to be in our society (where is poor enough?) and what that means for our society as a whole; lets stop talking about entitlements and start talking about how the policy and ideology of military interventionism is what is really blowing our budget (a neocon idea, part of the republican party now, and an idea that started to take root in the 1980s); and how if we let go of military interventionism and seek to spend on defense only that which is needed to maintain our standing military for security purposes and support our vets, then we will be able to more quickly balance the budget and do what we want for all of our citizens.
Several of the forum stalwart conservatives agreed with these ideas. They are not radical ideas. They are really starting points for discussion (because after you agree to an idea, you have to figure out the 'how' of achieving it -- and that's what's interesting to me).
The problem here is, as soon as I bring up an idea like this -- particularly to one of my republican friends (again, educated people who live all over the US), I am shut down immediately for being stupid, brainwashed by liberal professors, uneducated on the topic (even when I provide evidence and policy papers from republican and libertarian as well as democrat and other liberal sources), an "obvious lover of big government," accused of "using too many words isn't winning your argument" (that's a personal favorite. I posted three linked articles to conservative think tanks, go figure), and even accused of being pol pot (or similar), as well as -- as you have done -- accused of thinking that everyone else is dumb.
Reality is, I think everyone is smart, and I'd like to talk about ideas -- and be open and honest about what we are really talking about, thinking about, researching, feeling, etc.
I give The Cato Institute (http://www.cato.org) -- in case any of you have missed it.
Speaking of libertarianism, looking forward to seeing the results of ballot measures to end Marijuana prohibition in Washington, Colorado and Oregan (and DC).
"Traitors".... The penalty for treason, of course, is death.
It is to be expected that Peggy would go down that road. Because that's what leftists are particularly good at - killing those who disagree with them, after dehumanizing them, and naming them enemies of the State.
http://dukeengagecambodia.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/0102034388000.jpg
Never again, Peggy, never again.
What a load of BS! Leave it to bae to try to put that 'whip' in my hands! And that's a libertarian tactic, isn't it.
But, I think Ayn Rand would be right at home in Cambodia!
LOL Peggy, if you're happy with bland mediocrity and willing to "fight against these people" who believe in a more individualized opportunity, then by all means let a centralized government rule every aspect of your life. But wishing it upon everyone else seems a little mean spirited dontchathink? ;-)
Have you ever contemplated the irony of self-styled liberals usurping the concept of libertarianism, stealing it's name and then turning it's back on the ideology?
[/COLOR]I think religious liberty is an important aspect of a civilized society and that religious/political persecution is uncivilized and undemocratic. I know that a centralized government forcing a point of view or ideology is uncivilized and undemocratic. Perhaps you disagree?
[/COLOR]Everything outside the realm of interstate commerce, foreign treaties and national defense. Those are the only reasons a collection of sovereign states would gather together as a collective entity. Do you think England or France or Germany should give up their sovereignty in subservience to the European Union?
Wow, just wow.
[/COLOR]
You think the US is bland mediocrity? Really? So which country is your ideal? Which one?
I never said that I wanted a centralized government to rule my every move. Never said that, and that's actually a lie, isn't it Alan. That isn't the way the US is now. The government doesn't rule every aspect of my life, nor does it yours. You are fighting and railing against something that doesn't exist! This evil, all controlling government that the right keeps selling as needing 'drowning' DOES NOT EXIST! You're fighting ghosts.
You think it's undemocratic and uncivilized to have educational standards? You think Mississippi should be able to teach creationism in science class in the name of religious freedom? Or maybe Indiana can teach that a baby from rape is a gift from god, as the rep. from Indiana thinks. Hell, economic, science and history/geography classes could just turn on Fox news and learn from that!
so what you're saying is, religious dogma should dictate the school curriculum...in the name of civilized democracy of course.
Yeah, that's going to increase our standing in the world!
Oh Alan, you do realize that France and England and Germany are SEPERATE countries, don't you? They are not the various regions of one country. The United States is not 50 little countries, each with it's own regulations/laws/policies. This is one country. One, with 50 little regions/states. One country dude.
This is what I mean by libertarians not loving this country. They want to take this country and turn it into something we wouldn't recognize.
Do you know why we are the envy of the world? Because of what we have, right now, warts and all. Not because of some fantasy laid out in a work of fiction by a woman who thought every man for himself sounded good.
That doesn't mean it couldn't be better, and we are constantly working on that. But a regression back to the 1700's isn't it.
You should find yourself a nice little island of a few thousand folks, perhaps bae's island, and set up your Ayn Rand utopia, then get back with us on how that's working for ya.;)
Funny, that sounds exactly like what the fringe says about progressives
Do not edit MY words. Do not!
Do not edit MY words. Do not!
I won't...but if I were to do a little selective editing I could easily come up with...
I would
give
anything
to teach creationism
with President Romney
in an
Ayn Rand utopia .
Smile. It's election day.
To be honest, there are large aspects of libertarian ideologies that I like. There are others that I do not like.
THere are a lot of different kinds of libertarians -- and it's really important to understand these differences.
For example, there are libertarians who do believe that there should be a federal government and that the federal government should manage a lot of things because some communities are simply not capable of managing it on their own due to circumstance (natural disasters are a great example).
There are other libertarians who believe in a more socialized aspect to things. For example, the power company would be owned by the people, the power going to the people, and any power sold to other states/countries/whatever would then go into a fund spread among the people. It's pretty much pure socialism. Noam Chomsky talks a lot about this sort of libertarianism (btw, I find old Noam really interesting, but often quite confusing).
Anarcho-libertarians tend to be considered the "most extreme" -- who basically believe that there should be no government and focus on individual sovereignty as the starting point for everything (which is great concept, honestly), and that we will all just be good people and figure it out without the need for any sort of government at all. I'm not quite sure how that would work. A lot of folks in this camp like to talk about "family" -- but my family doesn't work that great, so I"m not so enamored. LOL
From there, though, I would say that I do find some libertarian ideas really interesting and valuable. The more "mainstream" libertarians (such as the Cato Institute) is really a form of economic liberalism (which we then call conservative -- so confusing). And they leave the social aspects simply to the given states -- not a federal issue or whatever. But, I don't know if civil rights quite work that way -- or they don't seem to anyway.
It seems to me that Rand falls much closer to the anarcho-libertarian camp than his father does, but I can't say so much what Ron Paul is up to. He's been consistent in his politics, and he seems to be economically liberal (which is to say conservative in our common language), and he's also socially liberal, but would prefer all of that stay out of politics as far as I can tell (which means to not legislate on anything such as abortion, legal marriage, etc) and that everyone would just have natural legal rights.
And, our country is a social experiment. It has been from the very beginning. IN a way, all countries are social experiments. We get together and we try things and some things work and some things don't. That's just life.
Well that's true. There are various degrees of libertarians. I guess I'm really answering to the Ayn Rand breed of libertarian, like the Pauls.
But yeah, there are some aspects of the more progressive libertarian philosophy that is appealing. But then our country/government is not one thing or another but a blend of philosophies. Pure anything just doesn't work.
Despite what the ultra right/tea party folks are trying to sell, our government doesn't control our every move and in fact gives us lots of leeway, but with a safety net. In this country we have the freedom to succeed spectacularly...and the freedom to fail spectacularly. If you want a business, you can start a business. And if you don't want to work within the regulations (enviromental, labor, etc..) well, then step aside because there are plenty in line behind you who will.
And oh by the way, our government will be sure you have nice, wide, maintained roads to conduct your commerce on, and Internet, and electricity, and an educated workforce to choose from who aren't constantly sick from tainted meat, or breathing filthy air.
And on and on, we have cobbled together this way of life that is the envy of the world. We do fiddle and tweak, but we don't let some band of nut jobs completely overturn it and 'let's try this'. (which is what I meant by our country isn't an experiment.)
Iris lily,
I honestly don't know what you are talking about. I never said (or insinuated) such a thing. I spoke to my personal experience of talking to friends about this.
I don't want them to not be republican or even change their position on entitlements. Instead, I'd like to honestly talk about the ideas around this -- the ideas around why entitlements exist, whether or not they benefit the society as a whole on-going, and where we want the lowest bar of poverty in our society to be (I already wrote about this on another thread). Just honest discussion on the matter.
And, I want them to be clear on which entitlements they do value -- because they do obviously value those from which they personally benefit. And yet, most of them assert that they are an exception, not the rule, and as such they should get the benefits (they are deserving) while others should not. I find this confusing, and perhaps intellectually dishonest.
Likewise, I simply like to talk about ideas. To me, these ideas are interesting. In several other threads, many of the more conservative members of the boards have agreed with me on certain measures: it's not about whether or not we should have entitlements, but really where the bar of poverty is going to be in our society (where is poor enough?) and what that means for our society as a whole; lets stop talking about entitlements and start talking about how the policy and ideology of military interventionism is what is really blowing our budget (a neocon idea, part of the republican party now, and an idea that started to take root in the 1980s); and how if we let go of military interventionism and seek to spend on defense only that which is needed to maintain our standing military for security purposes and support our vets, then we will be able to more quickly balance the budget and do what we want for all of our citizens.
Several of the forum stalwart conservatives agreed with these ideas. They are not radical ideas. They are really starting points for discussion (because after you agree to an idea, you have to figure out the 'how' of achieving it -- and that's what's interesting to me).
The problem here is, as soon as I bring up an idea like this -- particularly to one of my republican friends (again, educated people who live all over the US), I am shut down immediately for being stupid, brainwashed by liberal professors, uneducated on the topic (even when I provide evidence and policy papers from republican and libertarian as well as democrat and other liberal sources), an "obvious lover of big government," accused of "using too many words isn't winning your argument" (that's a personal favorite. I posted three linked articles to conservative think tanks, go figure), and even accused of being pol pot (or similar), as well as -- as you have done -- accused of thinking that everyone else is dumb.
Reality is, I think everyone is smart, and I'd like to talk about ideas -- and be open and honest about what we are really talking about, thinking about, researching, feeling, etc.
+1
I won't...but if I were to do a little selective editing I could easily come up with...
.
Smile. It's election day.
:laff::laff::laff:
Go vote!
So, you think teaching that the world is only 5 thousand years old, or that evolution is a liberal lie, or re-writing history to suit the republican christian right agenda will put us 'on tract' with the world?
I don't think that at all, but I do think its critical to let people make up their own minds. Some people in this world believe that when you die you keep coming back until you finally achieve the state of being a cow. Some picture a dude on a throne dealing out final judgments like playing cards. Some think you better take care of what we have here because its all there is. People come up with all kinds of explanations for all kinds of events that we didn't actually witness.
Evolution makes sense to a lot of people because we can put puzzle pieces together to form a picture. Creationism is accepted by a lot of people because they have faith in the existence of a God that could pull it off. We do not follow any particular religious path at home, but we talked with our kids about both ideas and tried to give them the tools to decide for themselves. That's the track I would like to be on. And you know what? If you remove only the most extreme, literal interpretations the two ideas are not mutually exclusive. Maybe there's a lesson there that could apply in other places.
iris lily
11-6-12, 10:54am
I give The Cato Institute (http://www.cato.org) -- in case any of you have missed it.
What goes this mean, you give the Cato Institute?
iris lily
11-6-12, 11:17am
Iris lily,
I honestly don't know what you are talking about. I never said (or insinuated) such a thing.
Yes you did insinuate that those who vote against bigger/better entitlements are numbskulls. You said:
"I just am not sure if they know what they are talking about when they are rambling on about cutting them."
It's right out of Thomas Frank's What's the Matter with Kansas? book in which the author explains how conservative citizens in Kansas vote against their best interests in economic policies and entitlements because they been swayed by polemics of the right on non-economic issues. Your statement is derisive of conservative voters.
So if you wish to debate entitlements, then do so. And you did do that in your next post.
iris lily
11-6-12, 11:20am
I won't...but if I were to do a little selective editing I could easily come up with...
.
.
.
Smile. It's election day.
haha, that's funny!
Evolution makes sense to a lot of people because we can put puzzle pieces together to form a picture. Creationism is accepted by a lot of people because they have faith in the existence of a God that could pull it off. We do not follow any particular religious path at home, but we talked with our kids about both ideas and tried to give them the tools to decide for themselves. That's the track I would like to be on. And you know what? If you remove only the most extreme, literal interpretations the two ideas are not mutually exclusive. Maybe there's a lesson there that could apply in other places.
There is a very significant difference between science and faith, which distinguishes them from each other. Science is testable in the tangible, material world. Faith is belief. Both are important to the human experience; they are not at all equal as theories, however, as they dwell in very different domains.
"Science does include logic—statements that are not logically true cannot be scien- tifically true—but what distinguishes the scientific way of knowing is the requirement of going to nature to verify claims. Statements about the natural world are testedagainst the natural world, which is the final arbiter. Of course, this approach is not perfect: one’s information about the natural world comes from experiencing the natural world through the senses (touch, smell, taste, vision, hearing) and instrumental extensions of these senses (e.g., microscopes, telescopes, telemetry, chemical analy- sis), any of which can be faulty or incomplete. As a result, science, more than any of the other ways of knowing described here, is more tentative in its claims. Ironically, the tentativeness of science ultimately leads to more confidence in scientific under- standing: the willingness to change one’s explanation with more or better data, or a different way of looking at the same data, is one of the great strengths of the scientific method. The anthropologist Ashley Montagu summarized science rather nicely when he wrote, “The scientist believes in proof without certainty, the bigot in certainty without proof” (Montagu 1984: 9).
Thus science requires deciding among alternative explanations of the natural world by going to the natural world itself to test them. There are many ways of testing an explanation, but virtually all of them involve the idea of holding constant some factors that might influence the explanation so that some alternative explanations can be eliminated."
http://ncse.com/files/pub/creationism/Evo%20vs.%20Creationism--2nd%20edition--Chapter%201.pdf
You mean science would tend not to believe in a virgin birth unless they had more proof then it was written in a book and this book was published hundreds of years after the birth.
Yossarian
11-6-12, 12:49pm
Do not edit MY words. Do not!
Your words are the same as their words and are complimentary contributions to political pollution. I just love the irony when people get caught in bed with those they mock.
More election season irony
“You’re laughing, but who wants a president who will knowingly, repeatedly tell you something he knows is not true?” Clinton asked, after discounting a claim in a recent Romney ad that the Obama administration’s auto bailout hurt American workers.
I don't think that at all, but I do think its critical to let people make up their own minds. Some people in this world believe that when you die you keep coming back until you finally achieve the state of being a cow. Some picture a dude on a throne dealing out final judgments like playing cards. Some think you better take care of what we have here because its all there is. People come up with all kinds of explanations for all kinds of events that we didn't actually witness.
Evolution makes sense to a lot of people because we can put puzzle pieces together to form a picture. Creationism is accepted by a lot of people because they have faith in the existence of a God that could pull it off. We do not follow any particular religious path at home, but we talked with our kids about both ideas and tried to give them the tools to decide for themselves. That's the track I would like to be on. And you know what? If you remove only the most extreme, literal interpretations the two ideas are not mutually exclusive. Maybe there's a lesson there that could apply in other places.
You're kind of talking in circles here. You don't think Kansas should be able to teach creationism in science class, but you think people should be able to make up their own mind? About what to teach? Well, what if they make up their minds to teach the world is flat? Is that OK? Isn't that kind of what you're saying?
No one is saying people can't believe what they want to believe. Just try to stop them! But should educational standards/curriculum be based on that?
I think you're trying to deflect/redirect with this straw man argument that I somehow want to dictate what people believe. You know that isn't true. And a dishonest redirect. I believe there should be standards in education across the entire US and shouldn't be left up to the individual states because we have seen what some states will try to do if given half the chance.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/26/indiana-senate-creationism-teaching-bill_n_1234185.html
http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/politics/stories/tennessee-opens-door-to-teaching-creationism-in-schools
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/02/17/alabama-latest-state-to-attempt-teaching-creationism-to-public-school-students/
States behaving badly when given a chance. As redfox said, faith and science are two completely different things. When you start teaching religious dogma as truth and reality, then you invite a Taliban mentality. Isn't that what we have been fighting all this time? Religious dogma as public policy?
In fact, I think you would find that most things that are handled by the feds and not at state level were designed that way or taken over BECAUSE states took advantage of/or screwed their people in the process somehow.
In fact, I think you would find that most things that are handled by the feds and not at state level were designed that way or taken over BECAUSE states took advantage of/or screwed their people in the process somehow.
So I take it you're in favor of an all powerful state making value judgements for you?
Your words are the same as their words and are complimentary contributions to political pollution. I just love the irony when people get caught in bed with those they mock.
NO. My words are my words and you will not change them and then attribute it to me. That is deceitful and dishonest. Do not do that again.
I believe a word from the moderators about this despicable practice is called for here.
NO. My words are my words and you will not change them and then attribute it to me. That is deceitful and dishonest. Do not do that again.
I believe a word from the moderators about this despicable practice is called for here.
There was full disclosure that the words were edited. It is a common internet practice, all we are missing here is the strikeout font. Everything despicable in the quote came directly from you, the only word that was changed was "libertarians" to "liberals"
So I take it you're in favor of an all powerful state making value judgements for you?
Value judgements? Really Alan, science isn't a liberal conspiracy! Neither is truth. Science education isn't a 'value judgement'.
And I guess you would rather have Ohio making value judgements for you. And Kansas making value judgements for people who live there, and Mississippi...oh, you get the drift. Gee, I guess it would be a real problem if you were to move from, say Ohio to Mississippi. Your whole set of 'value judgements' would have to change. Your kids might have to stop saluting the flag every morning to bowing to the east cause that's their value judgement.
There was full disclosure that the words were edited. It is a common internet practice, all we are missing here is the strikeout font. Everything despicable in the quote came directly from you, the only word that was changed was "libertarians" to "liberals"
Taking my words "originally posted by Peggy" and editing them (unattributed) is dishonest! If you want to say something, say something, but don't you dare post them as my words. Period!
Value judgements? Really Alan, science isn't a liberal conspiracy! Neither is truth. Science education isn't a 'value judgement'.
And I guess you would rather have Ohio making value judgements for you. And Kansas making value judgements for people who live there, and Mississippi...oh, you get the drift. Gee, I guess it would be a real problem if you were to move from, say Ohio to Mississippi. Your whole set of 'value judgements' would have to change. Your kids might have to stop saluting the flag every morning to bowing to the east cause that's their value judgement.
I would certainly take that sort of thing into consideration before changing states, but honestly, I love having a choice. Just consider how inclusive it feels to live in a country with choices. You're in favor of choices aren't you?
Look assclown, taking my words "originally posted by Peggy" and editing them (unattributed) is dishonest! If you want to say something, say something, but don't you dare post them as my words. Period!
It was attributed, said so in the original post.
You don't think Kansas should be able to teach creationism in science class, but you think people should be able to make up their own mind?
Ahhh...what?
Well, what if they make up their minds to teach the world is flat? Is that OK? Isn't that kind of what you're saying?
No peggy. Scientifically and logically we know the world isn't flat. We've observed and proved that to be true. To you and me creationism (literally speaking) is about the same as someone saying the world is flat, but there are differences. I can prove to you that the world is a sphere, but I can not absolutely prove to you that what we comprehend as billions of years of evolution didn't actually happen in a few thousand years or for that matter a few minutes. I don't personally accept the notion that it did and I don't want to go all Gene Roddenberry on you, but no matter how remote it may be scientifically the possibility does exist. We have a responsibility to teach our kids to consider EVERY option, they're going to need that skill. Also important to note politically is that a significant part of our population believes creation is at least possible. See below...
No one is saying people can't believe what they want to believe. Just try to stop them! But should educational standards/curriculum be based on that?
Based on that? No. But a strong education is one that exposes the student to as many of the possibilities as is, well, possible. I would not stand for my kids schools replacing evolution with creation theory, but I would stand up in support of them making a class in world religions a requirement for graduation. There's lots of ways to skin a cat.
I think you're trying to deflect/redirect with this straw man argument that I somehow want to dictate what people believe. You know that isn't true. And a dishonest redirect.
I know you don't want to dictate beliefs, but I don't see this as a strawman in any way. A tangent, yes, but a dishonest redirect? Nope. Evolution is a belief that you and I share. There is a ton of evidence proclaiming its truth. The only real evidence in favor of creation theory, IMO, is the fact that we are here. All the science kind of boils down to trying to explain how that happened. So far, no one's been able to do it. I don't see any harm in letting our kids know that.
***MOD HAT ON***
An example originally posted by Yossarian:
They are traitors to what we have and have some other agenda which they will not disclose but only say, 'Trust Me'.
Liberals do not love America. Because they don't want America. They want some ... utopia that could never really exist. We must fight against these people taking America and turning it into their vision.
[edited for emphasis]
Funny, that sounds exactly like what the fringe says about progressives.
The practice of cherry picking words in a quote is standard internet forum fare. A note explaining that it was done is not mandatory on these boards, but it has become our de facto practice as a courtesy to other posters. I think that is a good and civil way to handle the practice. A technicality to be sure, but it would be more clear what has been done if notes describing such actions are included in your post and not inside the quote from a previous post. Why don't we try that unless someone has a better suggestion.
Re: any name calling or personal attacks. Don't do it. That is one of the VERY few hard and fast rules around here. If it's already done please edit on your own. Let's keep it civil and self moderating.
***MOD HAT ON***
“But it was alright, everything was alright, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother.”
“But it was alright, everything was alright, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother.”
No accusations of thought crimes here. I believe the prior line in the book goes something like...
Forty years it had taken him to learn what kind of smile was hidden beneath the dark moustache. O cruel, needless, misunderstanding!
Certainly not a direct parallel to us taken in context, but aren't we all struggling to find truth like Winston? And wouldn't avoiding needless misunderstanding generally be a good thing? Of course if you feel the moderation here has crept into the realm of being Big Brother-esque that is an entirely different conversation that we should all engage in.
Ahhh...what?
No peggy. Scientifically and logically we know the world isn't flat. We've observed and proved that to be true. To you and me creationism (literally speaking) is about the same as someone saying the world is flat, but there are differences. I can prove to you that the world is a sphere, but I can not absolutely prove to you that what we comprehend as billions of years of evolution didn't actually happen in a few thousand years or for that matter a few minutes. I don't personally accept the notion that it did and I don't want to go all Gene Roddenberry on you, but no matter how remote it may be scientifically the possibility does exist. We have a responsibility to teach our kids to consider EVERY option, they're going to need that skill. Also important to note politically is that a significant part of our population believes creation is at least possible. See below...
Based on that? No. But a strong education is one that exposes the student to as many of the possibilities as is, well, possible. I would not stand for my kids schools replacing evolution with creation theory, but I would stand up in support of them making a class in world religions a requirement for graduation. There's lots of ways to skin a cat.
I know you don't want to dictate beliefs, but I don't see this as a strawman in any way. A tangent, yes, but a dishonest redirect? Nope. Evolution is a belief that you and I share. There is a ton of evidence proclaiming its truth. The only real evidence in favor of creation theory, IMO, is the fact that we are here. All the science kind of boils down to trying to explain how that happened. So far, no one's been able to do it. I don't see any harm in letting our kids know that.
The truth isn't an option. It is what it is. Creationism and evolution are not two sides of one coin. Creationism is pure religious dogma. Maybe you believe it, i don't believe it, but the truth is, it is a BELIEF, and science isn't a belief.
Evolution is a truth, with mountains of evidence. It's not a belief system, and just because some refuse to see the evidence doesn't mean it isn't there. We can't 'see' gravity but all the evidence and data point to it's existence.
I think many people are thrown off by the term 'theory' as in the theory of gravity or the theory or evolution. Scientifically it's used differently.
So, actually science has explained how it happened.
The point is, without national educational standards, many schools would replace science study with creationism, and all the other 'facts' from the bible. They are trying to do it now. Could you imagine what would happen if each state was given the green light to 'have at it'? Talk about a race to the bottom!
Yes, i think a class on comparative religions would be a good one for all students.
***MOD HAT ON***
An example originally posted by Yossarian:
The practice of cherry picking words in a quote is standard internet forum fare. A note explaining that it was done is not mandatory on these boards, but it has become our de facto practice as a courtesy to other posters. I think that is a good and civil way to handle the practice. A technicality to be sure, but it would be more clear what has been done if notes describing such actions are included in your post and not inside the quote from a previous post. Why don't we try that unless someone has a better suggestion.
Re: any name calling or personal attacks. Don't do it. That is one of the VERY few hard and fast rules around here. If it's already done please edit on your own. Let's keep it civil and self moderating.
No gregg, yossarian didn't simply 'cherry pick' my words to answer to them. Nor were MY words quoted to answer to. What yossarian did was to CHANGE my words, then post them as a quote from ME. That's why I got pissed, and so would you. It's thoroughly dishonest and not some Internet standard as some would claim.
And bae, seems to me you got ticked when someone simply lifted your words from another thread. They weren't changed, just picked up.
If yossarian doesn't have the intellectual ability to come up with an original thought, well then that person should just stay out of the discussion.
Yes you did insinuate that those who vote against bigger/better entitlements are numbskulls. You said:
"I just am not sure if they know what they are talking about when they are rambling on about cutting them."
It's right out of Thomas Frank's What's the Matter with Kansas? book in which the author explains how conservative citizens in Kansas vote against their best interests in economic policies and entitlements because they been swayed by polemics of the right on non-economic issues. Your statement is derisive of conservative voters.
Any relationship to that book is purely coincidental, because I have never read nor heard of that book. As I stated before in my prior post, the "they" was specifically reflective of the people to whom I am speaking directly in terms of friends and family. It is not derisive of all conservative voters or even these conservative voters.
I argue that it's not even derisive. I simply question whether they really understand what they are talking about. My experience bears out (with these people) that they may not.
This does not mean (or imply) that they are "voting against themselves" or "numbskulls." I think that these issues are very complex, and either they don't know what they are talking about (i've run into that about 1/3 of the time) or they do, but are unable or unwilling to communicate about it.
What I also find is an extreme "touchy"-ness about anything I happen to say because of an assumption that I, myself, am not conservative.
The reality is that I am conservative. Most of my values align within libertarianism and traditional republicanism. BUT, it does not align with neocon and theocon agendas, which means that at this time, the party is working against my political views and values.
Likewise, what I see is that we actually all have shared values in terms of desired outcomes (both liberals and conservatives), as Gregg so rightly points out what it is that we are already, but that there are many methodologies of getting to that place.
Democrats have one methodology, Republicans another (with diversity in methodologies in both -- since theos and neos and tea partiers are actually three different methods as an example; and dems have the same with new left, social democracy, and several other ideologies floating about). But, there are also many, many other methodologies out there (different kinds of libertarians, different kinds of greens, different kinds of socialist/communist parties, etc).
Which then brings me to political discussion. What I find when I communicate with my friends/family who are republican is that they seem to dislike anyone questioning their perspective. My sister and I got into an argument over the birth-control/catholic church as employer issue. I brought up the facts that it's already law in 28 states, that the church was already functioning under this employment law, etc. She brought up separation of church/state. I brought up the history of that doctrine. She accused me of being a "big government lover" and her husband said we are "diametrically opposed" and that there's no need to discuss it.
I hadn't even brought up my own position. I'd only provided history and context of the current situation and begged the question: if it wasn't a problem in X state 10 years ago when it became law there, why is it a problem (for them, personally) now simply because it's federal mandate? Or is it simply because it is federal mandate (they disagreed with methodology, but overall have no issue with the law itself, so long as it is state designated, which is traditional republicanism)?
They vehemently asserted the separation of church/state doctrine as the origin, which would mean that they then oppose the 28 states already doing it, but didn't know about it before now, so now it's a problem for them. I asked if this was correct. They said that I was just making noise and having more links and resources wasn't going to "win" the argument.
Where does a person go from there? I wasn't trying to win any argument. I was trying to figure out what they were "on about" in terms of this particular law, and what alternative outcomes they were interested in.
becuase in my opinion, we would do much better to not have health insurance covered by employers, move into an individual-purchasing with tax parity element in a wider free market (which is what the MA law does in the marketplace), and as such the individuals can choose based on their own ethics whether or not they want their birth control covered.
Which is a very conservative, and in fact libertarian (as per Cato institute), perspective of how this should go. It's also very closely related to the republican party's first incarnation of Obamacare in the 1990s (response to Clinton care).
So, in essence, I agree with them in terms of conservative policy, but they were completely cluttered in terms of the actual elements of the issue in question. And unable to dialogue without getting defensive.
And I've had the same sort of issue over entitlements, military spending, etc etc.
And I know it's confusing to people that I would vote "against myself" and vote for Obama. But currently, the green party lacks power, the libertarian party is too confused/diverse, and the republicans want to continue against my better values and judgement in terms of theocon and neocon agendas. Their tea-party aspect has a lot of loud noises, but I don't think it has any actual power at this point. I don't think they'll really follow the Pauls or any libertarians once in office at this point (maybe in another 15 years?).
Right now, for me at least, the only party that looks viable in terms of my social values and even my economic values is the Democrats. So, I'm voting that way.
It's subject to change over the next 4 years. It's anyone's game, imo. If the republicans CAN walk away from theocon and neocon agendas in the next 4 years (long shot), and then return to traditional republicanism with libertarian leanings (in certain aspects), then I'm golden. I'll vote republican again.
But until then, it's against my conscience to do so.
And, I was providing the link to the Cato Institute, since I'd provided it as reference to that before, but hadn't provided the link.
Creationism is pure religious dogma.
Since I know you like to stick closely to your affirmative position, I will take the negative. Prove to me that there is no possible way the creation story is true. If you can't do that, you're argument is flawed regardless of how much "evidence" you have to prove something else. Proving evolution is true in no way proves creation false. They aren't mutually exclusive. Granted, I haven't read Genesis for 35 years or more, but to me creationism and evolution blend pretty well if you can accept the idea that a "day" might be more than 24 hours. What got created, the order it all came in, etc. all follow roughly the same path in either 'theory'. The only real friction revolves around how long it took.
*** ONE MORE MOD COMMENT***
What yossarian did was to CHANGE my words, then post them as a quote from ME. That's why I got pissed, and so would you.
Yes peggy, I would. I do see that a word in your original post was indeed changed in the quote. I missed that earlier, my bad. In the name of fairness people, if you're going to quote someone, please just quote what they actually said. Grabbing sound bites is one thing, but changing other's words isn't what we're about.
Dude! Peggy is not Pol Pot.
Neither is Ayn Rand. She's just a very poor novelist.
I can't imagine what in libertarian philosophy supports Peggy's assertion that Rand would have U.S. citizens commit genocide against those who disagree with the state.
I totally agree that A.Rand is a poor novelist. I don't know how people can wade through those works. LOL I did give it the old college try (back in college even), and just couldn't get through it.
And, since I'm no expert in Rand (or that brand of libertarianism per se), but I have no idea what in these policies would lead to genocide either.
Largely because all forms of libertarian policy (as far as I can tell) focus on inalienable rights that would be protected by government (and largely ungoverned otherwise -- as per bill of rights).
That being said, the authoritarian theocon agenda could lead that way in it's most extreme forms (i don't think the parties or government would allow it to go to it's most extreme forms). So perhaps peggy was confusing libertarians and theocons?
*** ONE MORE MOD COMMENT***
Yes peggy, I would. I do see that a word in your original post was indeed changed in the quote. I missed that earlier, my bad. In the name of fairness people, if you're going to quote someone, please just quote what they actually said. Grabbing sound bites is one thing, but changing other's words isn't what we're about.
Holy cow, is this everyone's first trip to the intenet? Hello? Yes one word was changed- that was exactly the point! That's why it said the text was EDITED [note- edited means changed]. Ordinarily when you do that, which is fair game in forum discussions, you use the strikethough but here we don't have that so you have to use a manual override and say "edited" or the like. If you have a quibble about where to put that fine, near the text, in the comments where ever, but really you have lost the forrest for the trees.
All this faux outrage and name calling is simply a smoke screen. If someone had posted the exact same thing but said it about liberals instead of libertarians, we would be flooded with insane rants and incoherent babbling diatribes about mouth breathing low information voters and how stupid the people are that say someone is un-American merely because they hold a different political view . And you know what, I would agree, that's wrong, and people who have the bad manners to say something wrong should have the courage to apologize or admit they were wrong. Do you really think anyone here thought peggy was calling liberals traiters? Of course not, it was obvious what was changed and no one tried to misattribute words to anyone, just plain obvious to anyone who isn't one of those beloved mouth breathers we keep hearing about or trying to deflect attention from the fact they did something inappropriate. Someone is losing an election tonight but for god's sake let's not lose our grip on common sense.
ApatheticNoMore
11-6-12, 10:21pm
I totally agree that A.Rand is a poor novelist. I don't know how people can wade through those works. LOL I did give it the old college try (back in college even), and just couldn't get through it.
I don't know, when the left goes into this they fall into some kind of belief in "forbidden thoughts", like you must never actually like a badly written novel, or read a bad philosopher or even an amateur popular one, or something. I'm not at ease with this, as I'm compelled to think all forbidden thoughts anyway, to like trashy art now and then. Just as I am. My karma ran over your taboo, it had to, it must. Thoughts want to be free.
But bad ideas can lead to bad policy? For sure they can, fight the policy, and fight the bad ideas with better ones (for instance most people benefit more from a safety net than they ever will from any likely implementation of objectivism - especially given the actual political system).
And, since I'm no expert in Rand (or that brand of libertarianism per se), but I have no idea what in these policies would lead to genocide either.
possibly some ranting about native Americans (I'm not sure she ranted about the Palestinians but her followers surely do, hey if the Indians have no rights to their land ....)
"I believe, with good reason, the most unsympathetic Hollywood portrayal of Indians and what they did to the white man. They had no right to a country merely because they were born here and then acted like savages. " supposedly a quote from Ayn Rand
That WAS genocide. But it's a genocide already done and in the past. Now even that position of Rands doesn't necessarily follow from the most basic and central libertarian beliefs in objectivism, however Rand also believed that Reason was equivalent to whatever she believed and her preferences. SERIOUSLY, even though absurd, that was the actual position she took even if she never put it in those words. Thus all inner circles of objectivism if not entirely cult-like (cults use very specific forms of manipulation, so I'm careful with that term) were people willingly and paradoxically giving up their individuality (which is emotional not just rational) and even their ability to *THINK* on many manners to believe whatever Ayn Rand or her disciples believed is true!
Largely because all forms of libertarian policy (as far as I can tell) focus on inalienable rights that would be protected by government (and largely ungoverned otherwise -- as per bill of rights).
That being said, the authoritarian theocon agenda could lead that way in it's most extreme forms (i don't think the parties or government would allow it to go to it's most extreme forms). So perhaps peggy was confusing libertarians and theocons?
I really don't analyze strictly that way - as in what ideologies might lead to something purely based on their principles. Because pure ideological principle is nothing that gets implemented in the real world. What gets implemented in the real world, especially in something as corrupt and money drenched as the U.S. political system, are INTERESTS. Not ideologies, interests. And so I then reason what kind of world certain interests will ultimately lead to .... not to mention what kind of world ACTUAL LAWS will lead to.
For instance if no regulation is being preached today and libertarianism forms the ideological argument, it's not ultimately what is going to matter. The same business interest that doesn't want to be regulated today and is pushing that with a libertarian veneer, will take hand outs (bail outs) tommorow. We KNOW this. We see the very game being played. We see ourselves played. They were never libertarians to begin with, they were just interests, out for their own interest, money without principle (the natural nature of corporations).
No clue what that first bit about the book is. I tried to read her books. I couldn't get through them/didn't like them. I feel that way about a lot of books/novels/poems/movies/albums/photography exhibits/policy papers/etc. No big deal. It's not a judgment on content per se, just that I couldn't manage to wade through.
i agree re: interests. That's why, for me, this is largely an intellectual exercise of trying to do the best we -- as average citizens can. What can we do? Well, we can think about this, try to find people who would actually represent us, and do the best we can locally. Otherwise, what else?
Live life as if it doesn't exist is another viable options, and there is the option of just being upset about it all the time, too. There are probably others.
iris lily
11-7-12, 10:05am
I miss the strikethrough features. Just sayin'
*** ONE MORE MOD COMMENT***
Yes peggy, I would. I do see that a word in your original post was indeed changed in the quote. I missed that earlier, my bad. In the name of fairness people, if you're going to quote someone, please just quote what they actually said. Grabbing sound bites is one thing, but changing other's words isn't what we're about.
Thank you Gregg.
Yossarian, and everyone, I do apologise for sounding so harsh over a seemingly minor point, but in the end all we own is our word(s), and for someone to change someones words without specifically saying 'I changed her words around to make my point", and remove the quotes is dishonest. In essence it's trying to frame someone with their words.
Neither is Ayn Rand. She's just a very poor novelist.
I can't imagine what in libertarian philosophy supports Peggy's assertion that Rand would have U.S. citizens commit genocide against those who disagree with the state.
Survival of the strongest. In Ayn Rands world, the strong will survive and thrive. Obviously genocide is an extreme example of that, but every man for himself kind of comes with that slippery slope in play.
Survival of the strongest. In Ayn Rands world, the strong will survive and thrive. Obviously genocide is an extreme example of that, but every man for himself kind of comes with that slippery slope in play.
Although I disagree with a lot of what Rand put forward, I thought she was pretty spot on with the looters and moochers in government. The only difference being they now wave flags saying patriotism and capitalism.
I miss the strikethrough features. Just sayin'
Me, too. Alan, will the forum software support a strikethrough feature without inflicting huge amounts of brain damage on anyone (mostly meaning you)?
Alan can do anything! ;)
By the way Gregg, I just love that quote at the bottom of your posts. It's a hoot!
Me, too. Alan, will the forum software support a strikethrough feature without inflicting huge amounts of brain damage on anyone (mostly meaning you)?
The editor used in the forum software does not include the strikethrough feature. The functionality can be added through the use of custom bbcode and the placement of an appropriate icon within the editor's toolbar.
Unfortunately, due to the quirks of our hosting provider, I am not able to make those changes myself as they require that custom files be uploaded to the server, which requires that they do it for us and we pay for their efforts (currently approximately $90 per hour with a 2 hour minimum charge).
I have considered installing the latest version of the software on a personal server, making all the tweaks we might enjoy and then zipping the entire thing up and submitting it to our hosts as an upgrade, which they will do for free. Perhaps when the next major upgrade is available.
Ok Alan, thanks for taking a look. Don't know what we did without you!
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.