Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Political core philosophy (Page 3)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   
Author Topic: Political core philosophy
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"And with a usual tactic, you switch to plain insults, when you prove yourself bereft of arguments. It's not as if I'm describing a fantasy here. History has been *full* of societies that describe a tiny fraction of their members as "citizens" -- capable of abusing any non-citizen any way they like."

Already covered, Aris, if you'd bothered to read in depth and think about it. And yes, "that's weak" registered as a denigration, but I don't think that's just a matter of idiom: it was lame of you to call something weak on the basis of assumptions you made that were clearly shown not to apply.

FYI: my experience has been that whenever someone uses the 'resort to insult/bereft of valid argument' riff with me, they're tied up in their own knots and victims of self-defeat.

But whatever.

[ September 20, 2009, 09:18 PM: Message edited by: kenmeer livermaile ]

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 888

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Very well -- I apologize, PSRT, that I said "That's weak" instead of "That's a weak set of criteria that you've just set forth." (which is what I meant). It seems there's some dialect of English where the former has insulting connotations.

And I'm also sorry that I assumed you'd be using the same definition for "citizen" that the US constitution is using.

Posts: 3318 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
We were using citizen in it's prime contemporary meaning as 'members of a polity'. Seems a rather dark assumption that we would envision an ideal governance that allowed for slavery via a bit of semantical fine print.
Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rallan
Member
Member # 1936

 - posted      Profile for Rallan   Email Rallan   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by RickyB:
"Wrong anarchists actually. I'm talking about the Black Army during the Russian Civil War, not the anarchists responsible for the failed uprising before WWI. "

Nestor Makhno?

Yep. And Maria Nikiforova, although she went and got herself shot fairly early on in the piece.
Posts: 2570 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 888

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Seems a rather dark assumption that we would envision an ideal governance that allowed for slavery via a bit of semantical fine print."

It's not as if half the American political spectrum hasn't spent the last few years arguing that constitutionally protected rights only apply to citizens, and that the government is free to imprison and torture non-citizens indefinitely.

And it's not as if the rest of that spectrum hasn't let them have their way.

And that's when the word "people" was the word in question.

So, no, it's not a big or particularly dark assumption. It's the reasonable assumption that if you use the word "citizen", you mean it to exclude non-citizens.

Posts: 3318 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
That was one scary dude. True to his cause though. Coulda bewen more interesting than the inevitable Lenin/Stalin farce.
Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Aris, the following is from page 2:

"a) One assumes that this extends to those citizens that other citizens might wish to enslave. If those slaves should be imported from outside the state's boundaries, we then have to decide whether rights of citizenship apply to anyone within those boundaries.

b) This is, in effect, much of what is being discussed in the recent illegal alien/immigration debate."

If you wish to continue stand on pedantic details when they have already been rendered irrelevant, it is likely that you will be rendered irrelevant in the process.

It doesn't add luster to Ornery perceptions of the character of your postings.

That's OK. The majority of your posts teach me things I didn't know, or show them to me in different perspectives, so I'm content. But for the record: IMO, you're making a petty ass of yourself n this matter.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 888

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Kenmeer - I had said I wouldn't discuss with you further in this thread until you apologized.

I deeply regret (and apologize) that I have violated and am still violating that promise. I probably shouldn't do so.

For your information I have responded to those comments of yours that you quote quite fully -- The issue is NOT just whether rights of citizenship apply to anyone within the borders of a nation. The issue is whether non-citizens also have rights. There's citizen rights (e.g. voting, the right to be elected) -- and there's also human rights (e.g. the right not to be tortured, or held imprisoned arbitrarily).

If I travel to America (even as a tourist) I shouldn't need to make myself an American citizen in order to want myself to still have certain rights DESPITE my lack of citizenship. I wouldn't ask to be able to vote. I *would* ask to not be arrested and sent to Guantanamo without a trial.

[ September 22, 2009, 05:06 AM: Message edited by: Aris Katsaris ]

Posts: 3318 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
gruevy
Member
Member # 2985

 - posted      Profile for gruevy   Email gruevy   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Not to derail the derailment of this thread, but I've been thinking about the answers that came closest to the question I asked (thanks btw guys) and I'm starting to think that it's merely a question of perspective. For a leftist, the people ARE the government. The will and morals of the people are exercised in and by the government, in which we are all part. For a rightist, which should be a word, the government is a tool or a weapon, depending on how its authority is used. In other words, leftists love government because it is them, whereas rightists hate government because it is NOT them (and never really can be.) How's that sound?
Posts: 256 | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think that might be fair. Classical liberals think of democratic government the way some conservatives think of guns: a tool that's wielded by a person, or The People.

[ September 22, 2009, 09:49 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Good analysis. I can't figure out why rightists feel that way when they control government half the time, but there you have it.
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
gruevy
Member
Member # 2985

 - posted      Profile for gruevy   Email gruevy   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Because it may be people on their side, but we really only trust them a little more than people on the other side. Especially when they run as conservatives and become moderates a year in. Besides, even if we controlled it 100% percent of the time, it's not "us." It's "them."
Posts: 256 | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 888

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
In other words, leftists love government because it is them, whereas rightists hate government because it is NOT them (and never really can be.) How's that sound?
It sounds absolutely wrong. I'm not the government. I don't "love" the government. In the whole of the western world, it's the rightwingers that are more likely to love and glorify parts of the government, especially the army and the police. It's the rightwingers that want the government to have the power to execute convicts, or imprison people without a trial, or wage wars against people who might potentially at some future point in time look at America the wrong way.

If you begin with the false assumption that leftists love governments and rightists hate it, you'll end up getting your conclusions all wrong.

[ September 22, 2009, 10:33 AM: Message edited by: Aris Katsaris ]

Posts: 3318 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshCrow
Member
Member # 6048

 - posted      Profile for JoshCrow   Email JoshCrow   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by gruevy:
Not to derail the derailment of this thread, but I've been thinking about the answers that came closest to the question I asked (thanks btw guys) and I'm starting to think that it's merely a question of perspective. For a leftist, the people ARE the government. The will and morals of the people are exercised in and by the government, in which we are all part. For a rightist, which should be a word, the government is a tool or a weapon, depending on how its authority is used. In other words, leftists love government because it is them, whereas rightists hate government because it is NOT them (and never really can be.) How's that sound?

I agree with this analysis 100% - in fact, I've been lately noticing this myself. The left-leaning people like myself believe the government is composed of people like myself with similar values (this feeling is particularly strong when I regard Obama - hence his popularity), which engenders trust. There is, of course, always the serious risk of corruption. The right, on the other hand, has a seemingly innate "us" and "them" mentality about governance, and when they take the reins they are confronted with a bit of odd cognitive dissonance because they, at some point, must trust that the person in charge is like-minded.
Posts: 2281 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshCrow
Member
Member # 6048

 - posted      Profile for JoshCrow   Email JoshCrow   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Aris Katsaris:
quote:
In other words, leftists love government because it is them, whereas rightists hate government because it is NOT them (and never really can be.) How's that sound?
It sounds absolutely wrong. I'm not the government. I don't "love" the government. In the whole of the western world, it's the rightwingers that are more likely to love and glorify parts of the government, especially the army and the police. It's the rightwingers that want the government to have the power to execute convicts, or imprison people without a trial, or wage wars against people who might potentially at some future point in time look at America the wrong way.

If you begin with the false assumption that leftists love governments and rightists hate it, you'll end up getting your conclusions all wrong.

Aris - I think you're speaking about a very particular nationalist sentiment in the right insofar as it concerns the military - not so much about "government": defense is only a fraction of governing.
You may not be familiar with the right-wing distrust of government, but it's a long-standing sentiment that is expressed daily on this forum by the right-wing. Moreover, it is the nature of left-wing social programs to be dependent on the proper executions of those programs by a "trustworthy" government.
I think gruevy's analysis is really spot-on, and you (and the issue of national security) are perhaps an exception more than the rule.

Posts: 2281 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshCrow
Member
Member # 6048

 - posted      Profile for JoshCrow   Email JoshCrow   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by gruevy:
JoshCrow and Lina, now that you have stated the 'what' very succinctly, now I'm wondering about the 'why.' WHY should a government "Prevent its people from oppressing each other"? That sounds like a given, but there are a million ways to interpret that (like I, for instance, think taxation IS oppression) but what do you mean, and what highest ideal or emotion causes you to have that belief? I think that it's the emotional desire for "salvation," as I stated, and that it's the same desire we all have, just worked out in different ways. One step down from that, for me, is freedom. One step down from that for you might be something else. What is it for you? Or do you disagree with everyone having the same basic desire?

This was an interesting question I never got around to... but if you're asking "why" and want to get to the real bottom of things, I think (speaking for myself) that there is a deeply human and innate sense of morality at work, one that may have evolved from people being more successful when working together than at cross-purposes (resulting from unregulated competition in the long run). I am pretty staunchly atheist, so you won't get a religious argument from me - I feel more that we are all participants in the "social contract" and it is our duty to "minimize suffering while maximizing liberties", I suppose because that is where my understanding of social order has led me.

... but there is a deeper layer, even still. I think that fundamentally (as you do) people seek... something. You call it "salvation". I think Socrates and Plato called it Eudaimonia. It is a state of "happiness" that arises from leading a "good" life. I believe that doing "good", even when it is against your immediate self-interest, leads to improved mental well-being.

[ September 22, 2009, 10:57 AM: Message edited by: JoshCrow ]

Posts: 2281 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 888

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
You may not be familiar with the right-wing distrust of government, but it's a long-standing sentiment that is expressed daily on this forum by the right-wing.
This long-standing sentiment I only see expressed when there's a Democrat president. When there's a Republican president, the sentiment I hear from right wingers is "Bush IS America. By insulting Bush, you insult America."

Despite cherry's mocking talk about "The One", I've not seen left-wingers say the same about Obama yet.

So, yeah, my position is that right-wingers PRETEND to distrust the government. In reality they merely like or dislike different parts of the government. The left wing distrusts the police, the military, the secret services. The right wing "distrusts" the social services and the courts.

quote:
Moreover, it is the nature of left-wing social programs to be dependent on the proper executions of those programs by a "trustworthy" government.
It is the nature of right-wing military projects and police forces to be dependent on the government too.

quote:
I think gruevy's analysis is really spot-on, and you (and the issue of national security) are perhaps an exception more than the rule.
Here's a genuine question. Is a rightwinger or a leftwinger more likely to dislike the pledge of allegiance to the Flag and to the Republic for which it stands?
Posts: 3318 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
> Aris Katsaris


> So, yeah, my position is that right-wingers PRETEND to distrust the government. In reality they merely like or dislike different parts of the government. The left wing distrusts the police, the military, the secret services. The right wing "distrusts" the social services and the courts.

That's not too bad. Yes, the right wing appreciates the people who work hard and risk their lives to protect us like the police and the military. Not to say many on the left don't appreciate them too. I'm certain they do.

And it's also fair to say that the right distrusts the social services side of the government that takes our hard earned money and gives it to the lazy. Sure, a lot of it goes to those who need it or make themselves better people with the opportunities provided, but not enough is done to carefully control who gets what and for how long. A lot of the money is worse than wasted. It's used to enable sloth and reduce human potential.

Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JoshCrow:
quote:
Originally posted by gruevy:
Not to derail the derailment of this thread, but I've been thinking about the answers that came closest to the question I asked (thanks btw guys) and I'm starting to think that it's merely a question of perspective. For a leftist, the people ARE the government. The will and morals of the people are exercised in and by the government, in which we are all part. For a rightist, which should be a word, the government is a tool or a weapon, depending on how its authority is used. In other words, leftists love government because it is them, whereas rightists hate government because it is NOT them (and never really can be.) How's that sound?

I agree with this analysis 100% - in fact, I've been lately noticing this myself. The left-leaning people like myself believe the government is composed of people like myself with similar values (this feeling is particularly strong when I regard Obama - hence his popularity), which engenders trust. There is, of course, always the serious risk of corruption. The right, on the other hand, has a seemingly innate "us" and "them" mentality about governance, and when they take the reins they are confronted with a bit of odd cognitive dissonance because they, at some point, must trust that the person in charge is like-minded.
You could go even for a more cynical spin there by asserting that those who mistrust government do so actively because they feel that the people there are very much like-minded.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshCrow
Member
Member # 6048

 - posted      Profile for JoshCrow   Email JoshCrow   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Aris - I think patriotism is a different topic: what you present for the right-wing's side is not a love for government, it is a love for country. The distinction is significant (at least, to them!) Your examples have to do with the right-wing's professed "monopoly" of the concept patriotism (complete with serving country in the military) more than faith in the actions of government.

As it happens, I don't think the right-wing is "pretending" or faking their distrust so much as they are simply reacting to "the other team". This is politics. If a Republican were in charge, they would be silent even if the policies were more or less the same. Evidence? Look how quiet the anti-war voices are right now, despite the continued presence overseas. This is the same story on both sides.

Posts: 2281 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Bush IS America. By insulting Bush, you insult America...
But that's not the government. That's Bush. Right-wingers trusted Bush; they welcomed him into their homes and hearts and families. In fact, they substituted Bush for country, here, too, so that a love of Bush was seen as love of country. I think, the more I think about this, that this might explain why they're always ranting about Obama being the Left's "Messiah:" because right-wingers form cults of personality around individual leaders, and rally to the defense of those individuals -- and do not realize that the Left generally does not. That's why leftists always tilt their head in confusion when the "Messiah" thing crops up: it's an attack that might find traction among conservatives, who revere individuals, but not liberals.

[ September 22, 2009, 11:42 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshCrow
Member
Member # 6048

 - posted      Profile for JoshCrow   Email JoshCrow   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
You could go even for a more cynical spin there by asserting that those who mistrust government do so actively because they feel that the people there are very much like-minded.

Hahah, I didn't go there, but I confess to thinking along those lines occasionally too. There is something to be said for the distrustful being afraid of precisely what they themselves would do if they had the power. Most people's opinions of others' behavior and desires are heavily informed by their own.
Posts: 2281 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshCrow
Member
Member # 6048

 - posted      Profile for JoshCrow   Email JoshCrow   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
Bush IS America. By insulting Bush, you insult America...
But that's not the government. That's Bush. Right-wingers trusted Bush; they welcomed him into their homes and hearts and families. In fact, they substituted Bush for country, here, too, so that a love of Bush was seen as love of country. I think, the more I think about this, that this might explain why they're always ranting about Obama being the Left's "Messiah:" because right-wingers form cults of personality around individual leaders, and rally to the defense of those individuals -- and do not realize that the Left generally does not. That's why leftists always tilt their head in confusion when the "Messiah" thing crops up: it's an attack that might find traction among conservatives, who revere individuals, but not liberals.
Is that really it? I've been wondering about that. I've been admonished as an Obama-worshipping, unthinking automaton again and again (I like the guy, but come on). Nobody on this forum is particularly one-dimensioned in their support of Obama as some kind of infallible brand, but it comes up all the time. They're either talking about people somewhere else, or their conception of how it feels to agree with a president based on their own experiences.
Posts: 2281 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
Bush IS America. By insulting Bush, you insult America...
But that's not the government. That's Bush. Right-wingers trusted Bush; they welcomed him into their homes and hearts and families. In fact, they substituted Bush for country, here, too, so that a love of Bush was seen as love of country. I think, the more I think about this, that this might explain why they're always ranting about Obama being the Left's "Messiah:" because right-wingers form cults of personality around individual leaders, and rally to the defense of those individuals -- and do not realize that the Left generally does not. That's why leftists always tilt their head in confusion when the "Messiah" thing crops up: it's an attack that might find traction among conservatives, who revere individuals, but not liberals.
To be honest this doesn't resonate with me at all - I think it's not actually true. I don't personally know anyone who reveres (or revered) Bush. Bush Sr., either.

What I have seen is a lot of strident partisanship, but it has not been about individuals but about the team. And I see it from both sides.

The Messiah thing is BS, and I can't explain exactly why it has any traction on the right, but I suspect it's a matter of mere contrast between GWB and Obama: Obama actually has some charisma. There are a few Obama supporters who display something that looks like rapturous joy, so there's a weak corroboration available. Mostly I think it's a denigrating and distracting argument, and is likely pushed by demagogues for the reason that it generates a defense from the Left about their relationship with Obama, instead of focusing on something important.

(It actually seems impossible for there to be a cult of personality around someone like GWB - although I guess I can't rule out some people who bought that he was doing the will of God. What I did see was a successful distraction from the Left: getting Bush supporters to focus on why the man was not defective, instead of what he was doing.)

Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 888

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JoshCrow:
Aris - I think patriotism is a different topic: what you present for the right-wing's side is not a love for government, it is a love for country.

Hardly. That's merely how the right-wingers want to present it.

quote:
Your examples have to do with the right-wing's professed "monopoly" of the concept patriotism (complete with serving country in the military) more than faith in the actions of government.
So which military intervention by America has the right-wing ever opposed on moral grounds?

They've opposed lots of helping-people-with-social-programs on moral grounds, but I don't remember them ever opposing killing-people-with-military-interventions on moral grounds.

Lots of "don't use our money to treat the sick" but no "don't use our money to shoot Iraqis".

quote:
Evidence? Look how quiet the anti-war voices are right now, despite the continued presence overseas. This is the same story on both sides. [/QB]
Hypocrisy is one thing -- but it doesn't really affect which elements of government each side likes or dislikes.

I don't remember the left-wing opposing Bush's social programs.
If there was significant opposition on Clinton's Kosovo intervention from the right-wing, I don't remember it either.

Why? Simple. Because the Kosovo intervention was tiny in scale comparatively (no single American casualty), and because Bush's social programs were similarly microscopic.

Left-wing vs Right-wing has nothing to do with trust or mistrust of government. It has lots to do with trust or mistrust of different aspects of government.

Posts: 3318 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshCrow
Member
Member # 6048

 - posted      Profile for JoshCrow   Email JoshCrow   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Aris - perhaps we can agree to narrow the trust/distrust statement to "domestic affairs", where I think it's clearer. I get you on the military stuff overseas, fair enough. I still think it's an exception to the general trend.
Posts: 2281 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JoshCrow:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
You could go even for a more cynical spin there by asserting that those who mistrust government do so actively because they feel that the people there are very much like-minded.

Hahah, I didn't go there, but I confess to thinking along those lines occasionally too. There is something to be said for the distrustful being afraid of precisely what they themselves would do if they had the power. Most people's opinions of others' behavior and desires are heavily informed by their own.
In the general case, I don't think it's true, but I do think that there's a definite subset of people for whom it absolutely stands. The problem is that many of those people tend to be high on the economic ladder specifically because of such attitudes and thus have the influence to either do direct damage or to convince other people that they're right.

Not completely tangentially, this is a fun graph to contemplate:

http://www.jmooneyham.com/the-invisible-american.html

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
To hijack back to the original, a bit, my core political belief is that progress is necessary for human survival and "salvation." Humanity, as a whole, must continue to improve politically, technologically, socially, culturally and intellectually if we are to resolve the problems that confront us and correct our mistakes. It is also necessary in order to alleviate the suffering that is currently endemic to the human condition. If we do not, if we stagnate or regress, will either destroy ourselves or consume resources until "civilization" collapses causing an extraordinary amount of misery. I think the next century or so will decide the outcome.

I see liberal and similar streams of thought as the best way to encourage progress, as conservative and reactionary beliefs revolve around how to prevent it. Rather than seeking to maintain the status quo, human institutions should be seeking to improve it.

As for the relationship between right and left wing, I'm inclined to think that the right tends to trust the government with force, and the left tends to trust the government with money.

Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 888

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Aris - perhaps we can agree to narrow the trust/distrust statement to "domestic affairs", where I think it's clearer.
No agreement by me on the domestic affairs either. It is the right-wing that most trusts government with the death penalty. Likewise with the war on drugs.

On the whole I agree with NobleHunter: The left may trust government more with money, but the right trusts government with lethal force.

My interpretation on that is pretty harsh but also pretty simple: I simply believe that the right-wing cares much more about money than it does about human lives.

After all the left-wing called Bush "Hitler" because of war/torture/etc, but the right-wing calls Obama "Hitler" over the *deficit*.

Posts: 3318 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshCrow
Member
Member # 6048

 - posted      Profile for JoshCrow   Email JoshCrow   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Aris - if much of the right is as comfortable with "government force" as you claim, how do you reconcile that with the fact that the right-wing is prominently anti gun-control, often for (delusional) reasons of being prepared to take up arms in civil defense AGAINST government? Perhaps it is MORE true to say "the right is more comfortable with the use of force" rather than, specifically, government force.

Also, the death penalty is only a "trust" issue in relation to the judgement of the courts (and jury-based trial - which is in fact the very antithesis of central government), not strictly the government... and since the right opposes drugs more vocally to begin with (as opposed to the left), there's little contest in the matter.

Posts: 2281 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 888

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Also, the death penalty is only a "trust" issue in relation to the judgement of the courts (and jury-based trial - which is in fact the very antithesis of central government),"
Not just the courts -- also of the police chain of evidence, etc. And decentralized government is still government.

quote:
Perhaps it is MORE true to say "the right is more comfortable with the use of force" rather than, specifically, government force.
Possibly. But I much more often see the right-wingers be supportive of police violence than I see left-wingers. And it tends to be the opposite with violence *against* the police.

I've seen conservative forums where they seriously argued that a thrown stone by a teenage kid is perfect justification for a policeman to shoot the kid dead. I can't imagine the same being said in left-wing forums.

[ September 22, 2009, 03:25 PM: Message edited by: Aris Katsaris ]

Posts: 3318 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
hobsen
Member
Member # 2923

 - posted      Profile for hobsen   Email hobsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Members from outside the United States may get a better perspective on some issues, perhaps because they get their news from sources with nothing to gain from promoting U.S. interests.

[ September 22, 2009, 03:40 PM: Message edited by: hobsen ]

Posts: 4387 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
gruevy
Member
Member # 2985

 - posted      Profile for gruevy   Email gruevy   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I have to disagree with that, Hobsen. I get far better news here in the States than anyone in Berlin did while I was living there. Although to be fair, I know a bit better where to look, and I have a pretty good BS filter. Basically, while I was in Berlin, 2000 small businesses in that city alone collapsed (little mom and pop shops) and most people had no idea what was going on. There was a big problem with the health care programs and banks that basically no one knew about. You know what was on the news when the German parliament decided to raise taxes yet again, right after the election, so they could bail out the big players? Stories about silly lawsuits and fat people in America. I kid you not. It was horrifying. We like to pretend that our media is in cahoots with the government, but in Germany at least, it's absolutely the case.

[ September 23, 2009, 10:13 AM: Message edited by: gruevy ]

Posts: 256 | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Evidence? Look how quiet the anti-war voices are right now, despite the continued presence overseas. This is the same story on both sides.
(1) Many of the voices on the left who were voicing disapproval with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are still doing so (I see those diaries in DailyKos on a regular basis), and while they are getting very low levels of coverage from the MSM, they got low levels of coverage during much of the Bush Administration (say, the first 8 months of the war in Iraq).

(3) Many Obama supporters are not surprised that the Administration has not withdrawn troops from Iraq by now. Obama talked about a timetable to be out of Iraq in 18 months. He also said that he would escalate in Afghanistan. I am also not dissatisfied that when things are not working as planned (as in Afghanistan), the Administration appears to be carefully looking at alternatives (both further escalations as well as a change in mission).

Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by gruevy:
I have to disagree with that, Hobsen. I get far better news here in the States than anyone in Berlin did while I was living there. Although to be fair, I know a bit better where to look, and I have a pretty good BS filter. Basically, while I was in Berlin, 2000 small businesses in that city alone collapsed (little mom and pop shops) and most people had no idea what was going on. There was a big problem with the health care programs and banks that basically no one knew about. You know what was on the news when the German parliament decided to raise taxes yet again, right after the election, so they could bail out the big players? Stories about silly lawsuits and fat people in America. I kid you not. It was horrifying. We like to pretend that our media is in cahoots with the government, but in Germany at least, it's absolutely the case.

To be fair- I think Hobsen was refering to perspectives on US issues- on their own internal issues, they'll have the same failings as the US has on its own issues.

[ September 23, 2009, 11:47 AM: Message edited by: Pyrtolin ]

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
hobsen
Member
Member # 2923

 - posted      Profile for hobsen   Email hobsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yes, that was it, Pyrtolin. Otherwise Gruevy was in Germany, and I was not. So he is no doubt right that German media were afraid or otherwise unwilling to criticize the German government, or to point out defects in German society.

[ September 23, 2009, 11:50 AM: Message edited by: hobsen ]

Posts: 4387 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Viking_Longship
Member
Member # 3358

 - posted      Profile for Viking_Longship   Email Viking_Longship       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by hobsen:
Members from outside the United States may get a better perspective on some issues, perhaps because they get their news from sources with nothing to gain from promoting U.S. interests.

From my perspective I'd say I get a different perspective. I do think I get a better perspective on affairs within Russia than the US MSM gives, but that's mostly because the US MSM is forced to report faster than it can analyze. That and we like stories with heros and villians. If Putin is a ruthless dictator than the opposition must be noble democrats.
Posts: 5765 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Possibly an expression of someone's core political philosophy?
Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gina
Member
Member # 6372

 - posted      Profile for Gina   Email Gina   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by hobsen:
Yes, that was it, Pyrtolin. Otherwise Gruevy was in Germany, and I was not. So he is no doubt right that German media were afraid or otherwise unwilling to criticize the German government, or to point out defects in German society.

I regularly read German newspapers and newspapers from the Middle East. Their perspectives on events in the US are largely regurgitated from wire service reports. It's sometimes comical to see the way AP and Reuters distortions get further distorted in translation, but it hardly makes for more accurate perspectives.
Posts: 476 | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Viking_Longship
Member
Member # 3358

 - posted      Profile for Viking_Longship   Email Viking_Longship       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kenmeer livermaile:
Possibly an expression of someone's core political philosophy?

I suspect he got mistaken for FBI by a pot grower.
Posts: 5765 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1