Discussion in 'Politics' started by proletarian, Mar 5, 2010.
From the Cato Institute
I find it interesting that you are for the reduction of government but seem to promote the liberal agenda most of the time. Forgive me if anything I say here is offensive, incorrect or looks like a flame as I do not mean anything of the kind, I am simply curious. As I see it, most of the time the core principals of the left is redistribution of wealth through the implementation of social programs. This inherently increases the size of the government. I largely disagree with this concept and find the conservative idea of getting the government out of the way a much better way to reduce its size. Granted, it is rare for actual republican candidates to accomplish this as it is rare for liberal candidates to actually set up those wonderful social programs they always talk about. Just was wondering where you stand on this as I usually find myself disagreeing with you on issues that are not rights issues.
I was wondering the same thing.
Just what the fuck, pray tell, is 'the liberal agenda'? Has it anything to do with the gay atheist conspiracy?
Then you're really not that familiar with Leftism, outside of what you're told to believe. Recall that Leftism is a broad category that includes:
-feminism (first- and second-wave, not third-wave neofeminazism, which seeks to merely invert the system of oppression, rather than to achieve greater liberty and egalitarianism)
-the Labour movement
-classical liberalism, which was considered far left when it led the progress away from monarchy and oligarchy and moved society into the age of Bourgeois Capitalism- a necessary stage of socioeconomic development that paved the way for socialist progress and the liberation of women, ethnic minorities, and those not possessing great wealth.
Ask your local librarian for information regarding Marxian theory of socioeconomic development.
There are some government functions that must be performed and some functions the government must not perform. There are many functions that work well under local governance but cannot possibly function on the large scale. For instance, local (city/county) clinics that provide routine checkups and basic medical care for the poor at little or no cost through local taxation, charitable organization, and partnerships with clinics and medical schools can do much to provide the poor with the medical care they need to stay healthy and reduce the burden on major hospitals caused by people with no medical insurance showing up at the ER after they wait until they're very ill. However, such clinics must be administered by persons specializing in medical administration and medical decisions must be made by the medical staff. The larger the bureaucracy, the less efficient the system will be. It is possible, though not advisable, in my opinion, for the same cities/counties or even for most American States (California might be large enough to warrant two operate systems for North- and South-California) to run not-for-profit government-run health insurance companies. I cannot see a system the size of the Fed being successful in administrating such a thing, as political decisions by a representative from Arkansas should not effect the medical care of a person from New England.
Do recall that 'conservative' means absolutely nothing. All the term means is opposition to change and support fro the status quo or stats quo ante. It was Liberalism which first stressed the individual rights of men (John Locke is perhaps the most well known Liberal philosopher, with Spinoza also having some influence). The problem that soon became apparent was that the Bourgeois Liberalism which marked the American War for Independence and the French Revolution really only paid lip service to human rights. The Right to Exploit was the ultimate Liberal right, as the rights of the wealthy were placed far before those of the poor. If a man was starving and therefore able to do little to negotiate for better wages and safer working conditions (let alone to earn enough that he need not have his 12-year-old son working in the coal mines), then he was out of luck, for the Capitalist need only suspend his pay for a short time and the man would have no choice but to come back to his slave wages or starve. Thus began the Labour movement and the fight for fair wages, safe working conditions, and other workers' rights. It became clear that one role the government must fill is to enforce legislation requiring that businesses meet minimal safety and other regulations, not only for the workers, but also for the safety of their products (consider the numerous toxic Chinese imports).
Ask your local librarian for resources documenting the history of the Labour movement from the First International onward.
Also inherent in the Bourgeois system was that women continued to be placed in subservient sub-human positions. The rights of men did not extend to women, and the same God who was said to to have given Man his inalienable rights was used as justification for keeping women so. Thus began the struggle for women's rights and the first- and then second-wave feminists who fought for suffrage, equal pay, and basic rights such as not having their complaints ignored when they were raped by their spouses (recall that spousal rape was not illegal not so long ago). They, too, marched under the Red flag and had close ties to the Communists, Labour movement, Progressives, Social Democrats, and Democratic Socialists. (The revolutionary communists pretty much went their own way after the split of the First International). It became clear the the government must enforce laws requiring equal pay for equal work, protect women's right to vote, and protect women who are abused by their spouses the same as if they'd been accosted by strangers.
The greater civil rights movement, of which feminism was a part, became necessary and came about in much the same way, although the racial aspect developed later, as early Communists didn't seem to stress that matter- possibly do, in part, to the fact that many of the people involved still didn't like the Jews.
Ask your local librarian for information regarding feminism (not to be confused with 'women's liberation'), Communism, the First International, and Marx's connection to feminism.
I don't see how it matters what letter is after a candidates name, when both parties are doing the same things: growth of the Fed, massive deficit spending, open borders, and screwing the American people to line their own pockets.
Again, the central government (fed) must perform a few basic functions. Those functions include managing the military (though not the local/State militias), working to coordinate the States' development of infrastructure, handling foreign negotiations, and ensuring that all States have in place and enforce laws protecting the rights of all people. It is far too large to be considered local governance by any stretch and far too large to successfully manage any of the social safety nets that an enlightened society should have, such as emergency medical care for all who need it, safety nets for those who are laid off*, education for all our children (although I do support national standardized testing, that should be the extent of federal involvement), and food banks or other programs designed to ensure that everyone has access to nutritious food.
*there are a few conditions that should be met to qualify for such a safety net, IMO
Again... your made up definition of conservatism does not make it so... no matter how many times you repeat this bullshit
I didn't make it up. It's in every reputable dictionary.
Catholics during the reformations
Czarists (the Whites) during the Russian Revolution
'Conservative' is the reactionary who cannot state his principles or define his ideals. It is the scared oppressor about to lose his power and also his useful idiots.
This is why I don't say too much around here. I'm with Pro on this, and "whoda thunkit!" Well, those who don't think.
Separate names with a comma.