CDZ Liberal/Conservative Labels Miss the Point

[Rikurzhen]

Who decides whether or not something is a public good? Is a shelter that keeps a family from spending the night in a cardboard box a public or private good?

Whenever the government wants to do something, it should send you a specific request for money to do that thing. You then decide if you want to send money or not.

That's unworkable. The line between private goods and public goods is fairly clear, so all government really need do is pay attention to the line. Most people object to being made slaves for the private benefit of strangers but they don't see any problem with paying for government provision of public goods. If you have a problem with paying for street lighting, then that puts you at odds with most people.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

. If you have a problem with paying for street lighting, then that puts you at odds with most people.

few have a problem with paying for street lighting but many have a problem with crippling welfare entitlements that destroy ever increasing generations of Americans and weaken our nation more and more.Liberals are anti science and anti evolution. Their theory is survival of the least fit.

 

[Treeshepherd]

It's all the same thing.
Bunch of wing nuts, flying around in circles.

dear, Aristotle and Plato thought freedom and govt were opposites as did Jefferson and Marx. So freedom and govt are not the same thing. Welcome to the first day of the rest of your life.

Sure, distinct philosophies exist. My point, and maybe it's misplaced in this thread, is about political parties. I don't think either Marx or Jefferson were fans of political parties, for different reasons.

We say that Bush and Obama are radically different, because their rhetoric is different. At the end of the day, the results are very similar. And really, that's the genius of Obama, that he was the one sort of candidate who had the New and Improved packaging to be able to advance the Babylon System just a little further down the road.
Who else could have gotten away with increasing the military budget over and above the Bush war years? Who else could have gotten away with preserving the Wall Street too big to fails, and increased the already raging deficits. Who else could have gotten away with advancing Bush's domestic spying programs, and strengthening the Patriot Act? In 2016, his replacement shall be selected accordingly.

 

[Ellipsis]

Who decides whether or not something is a public good? Is a shelter that keeps a family from spending the night in a cardboard box a public or private good?

Whenever the government wants to do something, it should send you a specific request for money to do that thing. You then decide if you want to send money or not.

That's unworkable. The line between private goods and public goods is fairly clear, so all government really need do is pay attention to the line. Most people object to being made slaves for the private benefit of strangers but they don't see any problem with paying for government provision of public goods. If you have a problem with paying for street lighting, then that puts you at odds with most people.

Street lighting is fine.

Birth control is not.

Fire department is fine.

6+ months of unemployment is not.

Police is fine.

Using food stamps to buy junk food is not.

Street maintenance is fine.

Giving a tribal member $3,000 per month just for breathing is not.

Get the picture?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

. I don't think either Marx or Jefferson were fans of political parties, for different reasons.

dear,Jefferson and Madison started the Republican party in 1793 so it must be 100% mistaken to say they didn't beleive in political parties. Did they wish everyone agreed with them so that there was no need for party divisions? Of course but that is not to say they didn't believe is good ideas and good parties to represent those ideas. Do you understand?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

We say that Bush and Obama are radically different, because their rhetoric is different..

Dear, please try to understand that we live in democracy where power is shared by many many groups so the rhetoric of the president is very different from what he can do once in office. The country is split 50/50 so each administration will appear similar but only to the uneducated eye that wants to pretend that the president is the govt. Do you understand now?

 

[Rikurzhen]

Who decides whether or not something is a public good? Is a shelter that keeps a family from spending the night in a cardboard box a public or private good?

Whenever the government wants to do something, it should send you a specific request for money to do that thing. You then decide if you want to send money or not.

That's unworkable. The line between private goods and public goods is fairly clear, so all government really need do is pay attention to the line. Most people object to being made slaves for the private benefit of strangers but they don't see any problem with paying for government provision of public goods. If you have a problem with paying for street lighting, then that puts you at odds with most people.

Street lighting is fine.

Birth control is not.

Fire department is fine.

6+ months of unemployment is not.

Police is fine.

Using food stamps to buy junk food is not.

Street maintenance is fine.

Giving a tribal member $3,000 per month just for breathing is not.

Get the picture?

Yeah, I've got the picture. You've just neatly delineated support for paying taxes dedicated to funding public goods and rejected the notion of paying taxes to fund the consumption of private goods. Exactly what I've been arguing in this thread.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

In 2016, his replacement shall be selected accordingly.

what you mean is that in 2016 a divided the country will sent an equal number of Republicans and Democrats to Washington where very little change will be possible. Making sense now?

 

[Treeshepherd]

In 2016, his replacement shall be selected accordingly.

what you mean is that in 2016 a divided the country will sent an equal number of Republicans and Democrats to Washington where very little change will be possible. Making sense now?

No, what I mean is much more conspiracy theorish. What I mean is that the election of 2016 will be a charade, and that there will be a theatrical semblance of an election, and the White House, Senate and Congress will be salted with enough patsies to maintain the status quo.

What you seem to mean is that the rhetoric on either 'side' is actually genuine, the natural outpouring of conscience. If that is even close to what you are saying, then I must respectfully disagree. Our choice in national elections is between Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum.

And stop calling me "dear". I'm a dude. Your name is Edward, so I'm assuming you're also a dude. Don't be a creeper. I realize that my avatar is wearing a robe, but I think he might also be bald with a beard.

 

[Mac1958]

The adoption of Liberal or Conservative positions is based more on personal psychology than it is on political philosophy. It has been said that politics is the religion of the Left, but this observation misses an essential point: One's political affinity is really based on which area of the brain is most activated by this subject area.

If one views politics as a problem solving (right brain) activity, the resulting answers will tend to be more "conservative." If one views politics as a therapeutic (left brain) activity, a more "liberal" orientation will emerge. In other words, Conservatives seek answers, while Liberals seek personal ratification. Thus, "never the twain shall meet."

Interesting thread.

The psychology of partisanship is absolutely fascinating to me (who knows why), and I've started a couple of threads on it. This forum provides me with an ongoing amateur psychological / sociological / anthropological study on the behavior.

Since hardcore partisan ideologues (let's call 'em HPI's) on both ends of the spectrum regularly demonstrate very similar behaviors -- and boy, do they hate to hear THAT -- I'm more likely to divide HPI's and non-HPI's, not liberals and conservatives. Definitely the Left & Right are easy to identify by issues (and I do), but for the purposes of my little amateur studies the HPI/non-HPI thing is pretty clear.

Bottom line, they're causing this country great damage, and I truly wish they'd find another hobby.

.

 

[Rikurzhen]

In 2016, his replacement shall be selected accordingly.

what you mean is that in 2016 a divided the country will sent an equal number of Republicans and Democrats to Washington where very little change will be possible. Making sense now?

No, what I mean is much more conspiracy theorish. What I mean is that the election of 2016 will be a charade, and that there will be a theatrical semblance of an election, and the White House, Senate and Congress will be salted with enough patsies to maintain the status quo.

What you seem to mean is that the rhetoric on either 'side' is actually genuine, the natural outpouring of conscience. If that is even close to what you are saying, then I must respectfully disagree. Our choice in national elections is between Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum.

And stop calling me "dear". I'm a dude. Your name is Edward, so I'm assuming you're also a dude. Don't be a creeper. I realize that my avatar is wearing a robe, but I think he might also be bald with a beard.

Good call on the "Dear" comment but now it's my turn, don't be a manjina and internalize the female creeper formulation which women apply to men who don't meet their standards of behavior. We need to shame women who deploy that tactic and most especially men who've been propagandized into normalizing the phrase.

 

[Pogo]

In 2016, his replacement shall be selected accordingly.

what you mean is that in 2016 a divided the country will sent an equal number of Republicans and Democrats to Washington where very little change will be possible. Making sense now?

No, what I mean is much more conspiracy theorish. What I mean is that the election of 2016 will be a charade, and that there will be a theatrical semblance of an election, and the White House, Senate and Congress will be salted with enough patsies to maintain the status quo.

What you seem to mean is that the rhetoric on either 'side' is actually genuine, the natural outpouring of conscience. If that is even close to what you are saying, then I must respectfully disagree. Our choice in national elections is between Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum.

And stop calling me "dear". I'm a dude. Your name is Edward, so I'm assuming you're also a dude. Don't be a creeper. I realize that my avatar is wearing a robe, but I think he might also be bald with a beard.

We'd like you to meet the poster we call "Special Ed". He calls everybody "dear". No one knows why but it makes as much sense as the rest of his moronity.

Case in point:

dear,Jefferson and Madison started the Republican party in 1793

I like the way you think. You've nailed the political paradigm precisely.

 

[Mac1958]

.

The last thing partisan rhetoric is, is a genuine, natural outpouring of conscience.

It's calculated dishonesty meant to "win" some artificial "war", a study in either narcissism or (more likely) faux self-esteem. Or perhaps the release of pure pain & anger.

.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

As to freedom, that is nonsense. Conservatives are no more interested in freedom than liberals.

Which side is fighting the good fight for restoring the right to free association? Liberals favor oppression, conservatives favor human rights.

Nonsense. Marriage equality - conservatives oppose. Abortion rights - conservatives oppose. Legalization of drugs - conservatives oppose. Conservatives, like liberals, are for the human rights they want - not the human rights of other people. That isn't a desire for freedom, it's a desire for entitlement. Freedom means you get to do what you want to do whether I approve or not, and that is not the position of conservatives.

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

Abortion is the taking of human life, upon the justification that the life being taken is INCONVENIENT. Therefore given the absence of a valid moral justification, the act amounts to MURDER. You're response is that such is LEGAL... wherein the LAW sets the would-be RIGHT upon 'privacy' grounds, wherein the taking of a human life is legal, where it is kept PRIVATE. This convoluted rationalization is as logically invalid as it is intellectually unsound. Abortion merely provides an unacceptable escape from one's responsibilities...

The moment that the law reflects that those addled by drugs are not entitled to social subsidy, or to claim 'recovery' from addiction to such on 'INSURANCE'... then I'll join the cry to legalize it. But as long as your needs for weed, coke and heroin are set upon ME and others... screw you and your needs.

Again, the Left's cry for "LIBERTY" is always tethered to someone else having to LOSE THEIR FREEDOM for a Leftist to be 'FREE'.

And there is simply no such thing as THAT. Therefore we, the Americans... Oppose YOU and your drive for 'it'.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

.
The last thing partisan rhetoric is, is a genuine, natural outpouring of conscience.
.

dear, Jesus, Hitler, and Jefferson for example were very very very partisan and very very genuine. Its stunning how wrong you are and that you could develop such an idea. We have to assume you lack the IQ to understand ideas or philosophy and so perceive ideas and philosophy only as noise beyond your hearing range.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

.
It's calculated dishonesty meant to "win" some artificial "war", a study in either narcissism or (more likely) faux self-esteem. Or perhaps the release of pure pain & anger.
.

now that is so very very sad. This poor soul lacks the IQ to understand conceptual thinking so attributes any conceptual thinking he encounters to psychological weakness.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

In 2016, his replacement shall be selected accordingly.

what you mean is that in 2016 a divided the country will sent an equal number of Republicans and Democrats to Washington where very little change will be possible. Making sense now?

No, what I mean is much more conspiracy theorish. What I mean is that the election of 2016 will be a charade, and that there will be a theatrical semblance of an election, and the White House, Senate and Congress will be salted with enough patsies to maintain the status quo.

What you seem to mean is that the rhetoric on either 'side' is actually genuine, the natural outpouring of conscience. If that is even close to what you are saying, then I must respectfully disagree. Our choice in national elections is between Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum.

And stop calling me "dear". I'm a dude. Your name is Edward, so I'm assuming you're also a dude. Don't be a creeper. I realize that my avatar is wearing a robe, but I think he might also be bald with a beard.

We'd like you to meet the poster we call "Special Ed". He calls everybody "dear". No one knows why but it makes as much sense as the rest of his moronity.

Case in point:

dear,Jefferson and Madison started the Republican party in 1793

I like the way you think. You've nailed the political paradigm precisely.

if you disagree with the way I think please say exactly why you disagee or admit the discussion is over your head. Thank you.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

. Our choice in national elections is between Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum.

of course thats 100% idiotic, and stupid too!! Liberal and conservative are exact opposites. One is for freedom and the other is for govt. Given that the electorate is split and sends 50-50 to Washington it is not surprising that we have little movement but rather a long long continuation of the drift to the left.

Do you understand now?

 

[Mac1958]

.
It's calculated dishonesty meant to "win" some artificial "war", a study in either narcissism or (more likely) faux self-esteem. Or perhaps the release of pure pain & anger.
.

now that is so very very sad. This poor soul lacks the IQ to understand conceptual thinking so attributes any conceptual thinking he encounters to psychological weakness.

Being an obedient, dependable, binary, simplistic, transparent partisan ideologue = "conceptual thinking"

Dittos!



And the obligatory "I don't like what you said so you're dumb", right out of third grade.

You folks are a hoot. And always fascinating.

.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

"I don't like what you said so you're dumb", right out of third grade.
.

dear, if you disagree with the political philosophy of Aristotle Cicero Lock and Jefferson please say exactly why or admit you lack the IQ to defend what you say.