Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Confessions of an ex-neocon


RankStranger

Recommended Posts

Hi. My name is Jim and I voted for Dubya. I'm sorry. I only voted for him in the 2000 election- I didn't know any better.... heh...

 

I'm looking for advice.

 

I used to be an enthusiastic neoconservative- I listened to Rush Limbaugh, I hated Bill Clinton, I was paranoid about the federal gov'ment (still am)... I figured that Mattew Shepherd got what was coming to him, christians' free speech was being violated all the time when they couldn't "pray in public", and I thought that liberalism was practically a religion- pretty much equivalent to christianity.

 

I was a dick.

 

Starting in about 1999, I began re-evaulating. My views/politics have been gradually moving "left" for years now. Now, I can see that there's little difference between Clinton and Dubya as far as my concerns go (civil liberties, rule of law, etc.). For that matter, I've been thinking that as much as I think Al Gore is an idiot, maybe we'd be better off with him. Half-baked environmentalism seems pretty benign compared to a never-ending war and the potential for WWIII.

 

I can't remember for sure why I ever thought it was a bad thing if somebody was gay... I think it had something to do with the fact that these gay people KNEW that it'd piss everybody off... seems pretty silly now.

 

I now think nationalism is idiotic, racism is simplistic, arbitrary, and pointless. I no longer care about constitutional constructionism or any other form of legal protestantism. So many of my beliefs have gradually changed, that I don't know where it'll end... I think I may end up living in a tree or something.

 

Here's a problem that I'd like advice on- specifically from Nivek, but also from anybody else who wants to weigh in. I like guns and capitalism, which is one reason I can't exactly call myself a liberal in the modern sense. But lately I've been thinking... we all know that the 1994 assault weapons ban was just a political stunt, but it DID effectively raise gun prices enough that every Tom, Dick, and Harry out in the woods could no longer afford one. Remember the mid-90's with the militia movement and fun stuff like that? I was a real sympathizer at the time, but now I don't think I'd like the results had those clowns been successful. Could the 1994 assault weapons "ban" have been worthwhile because it kept recruitment down for this movement (it's fun hang out with your buddies and shoot AK's... and the conversation inevitably turns to the goddamn gov't)? Is this just a silly tangent?

 

Also, capitalism isn't all it's cracked up to be. If the government wasn't subsidizing college for me, I'd likely be stuck forever as a mechanic. Seems like that's a bit of socialism, and I see nothing wrong with it.

 

Look... I don't really WANT to be a bunny-hugging red commie damn dirty hippy... would somebody care to talk me out of it? Or maybe somebody could just give me a few more reasons to go live in a tree and save the whales... nudge me over the edge...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, capitalism isn't all it's cracked up to be.  If the government wasn't subsidizing college for me, I'd likely be stuck forever as a mechanic.  Seems like that's a bit of socialism, and I see nothing wrong with it. 

 

Look... I don't really WANT to be a bunny-hugging red commie damn dirty hippy... would somebody care to talk me out of it?  Or maybe somebody could just give me a few more reasons to go live in a tree and save the whales... nudge me over the edge...

 

When in doubt, go back to the sources. It's very healthy to see all sides of an issue, but it's somewhat less healthy to convert from one extreme to another - it's something that generally happens when you see the problems in your old position so you move to the opposite extreme by default, without really thinking through it. The truth lies somewhere in between.

 

As far as capitalism goes, there is a radical difference between capitalism and plutocracy. Adam Smith, who first articulated the nature of capitalism in "On The Sources and Nature of The Wealth of Nations" also wrote an ethics volume that goes with it - one that nobody reads. His basic premise (and the one that was American Law for over a hundred years) was that the corporation exists for the benefit of society. If a corporation began acting in a way that was contrary to the good of the community, its corporate charter should be revoked. In the late 19th century, the robber barons (with a little help from SCOTUS and some very half-baked social Darwinism) began promulgating laises-fair (sp?) capitalism, and the contingent idea that the corporation is its own good. There's a lot more to this study than what either Limbaugh or his mirrors on the left would have you believe.

 

The same general principles work through the gun control debate, and I think you have it a bit backwards. The assault weapons ban was one of the things that stoked the fire under the militia movement.

 

 

Keep looking and thinking, and don't pay much attention to the rehtoric. Get acquainted with the philosophy behind things and look at how those philosophies play out in real life. Both sides are swimming in bullshit. Don't make the same mistake twice!

-Lokmer

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Welcome back unchainedhillbilly.

 

There is nothing wrong with just going with the flow and forming your opinions according to your logic. Don't name yourself. For me, I categorize.

 

Socially, I'm a liberal. I believe in programs to help the underprivelidged like head start, I believe in limited welfare if it can genuinely help people through hard times, rather than making them permanently dependent. I believe education should be better funded and less expensive, subsidized by taxes. I'm opposed to war except in cases of defense or to hunt down bin laden, and in favor of civil liberties and personal freedom. I strongly support gay marriage and/or the abolition of straight marriage. I'm strongly opposed to religion in government.

 

Economically I'm pretty conservative. I hate waste and I hate to see bloated budgets and riders on bills and all that other shit that pisses away our money. I'd like to see fewer taxes and efficiency increased in the government wherever possible. I do think corporations have too much power and they pay top executives too much. I want to know what happened to the idea that if a company is successful you share it with all the little people who helped get you there. They say microsoft has more millionaire secretaries than any other company in the world. That's how all these fortune 500 billion dollar revenue companies ought to be. Why give one guy a 100 million dollar salary when you could give a hundred guys a million? Nowadays when you help your company make a 100 million dollar profit, they lay you off and give your job to a slave in a third world country, to bump the profit to 102 million.

 

Environmentally I'm in the middle, I'm an engineer so I look at everything from a practical, 'whole picture' angle. I don't believe in littering and urban sprawl, but at the same time I'm not driving a prius or insight to try and get 4 more miles to the gallon. I believe in practical solutions to the energy crisis rather than stopgaps that are only temporary or displace pollution. Like the craze about a decade ago to go to all electric cars. Those cars actually pollute more than gas cars, they just do it out in the sticks at a power plant instead of in the city. I don't want to debate that but let's just say I can pretty solidly back it up.

 

On moral issues, I fall wherever logic dictates. I would never ask someone to get an abortion but I don't want to make them illegal. I'm in support of gun safety, not gun legislation, but I currently don't own a gun and doubt I ever will. I'm in complete support of stem cell research and the use of waste embryos in research.

 

I think it's pretty hard to just say I'm liberal or conservative. I identify most with libertarians but the hardcore ones are nuts. Bottom line I just want things to make sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Welcome to Anarchism 101...

 

"How to live as far off the radar as possible and still have a decent standard of living"

 

First thing you did *correct* in my way of thinking is begin to question everythig and make evaluations for yourself. Quit listening to those who garble and gaddle about trying to attract followers..

 

Try hard to figure in what general direction you'd like to go. Problem is now in our busy world, there are few pleasant places a man can just *go* and do as he pleases. A few places exist now, however you gotta be tough, ready to kill someone for slightest offense, and in return be able to live a life that requires sleeping with both eyes open..

 

Politically I am convicted that what is now won't be in a few more years due to spending beyond imaginable limits and a dead_from_neck_up_electorate..

 

Libertarian is how I describe myself politically UCH. It is easiest for me to take this mantle on, as it does describe a group of fellow travellers that I can live with, rather than have to argue with such as the RINOs..

Far as I'm concerned the current crop of Represenatives are all traitors and deserve at the least impeachment and removal from office for PATRIOT and REAL ID.

 

Not looking for *politcal salvation*. Aint'a gonna happen. Send a *good person* to State or Feral office and in less than one election cycle they are looking for re-election and will forget their represented persons back home..

Lord Acton is right..

That *good person* we sent to Washington DC became a politician, not your next door neighbor.. He's got an armload of Power, not gonna give it up without a fight anytime soon.

 

Fear that the time to start "Regime Change" here in AmeriKa is coming soon if the oppressive laws we've allowed the politicians to pass are borne down on us with the full strength we've allowed them to have.

 

My reality with gay folks is/was a bit different than yours amigo. My family enjoys two women in the household, complicated sometimes, but works..

My friends are of every angle and cut in spectrum. To hate any of them would be to hate a portion of myself..

I've written of my time spent training with the Pink Pistols a bit.. I figure an armed person is one who doesn't get robbed, beaten, bashed or fucked with..

Prefer a 38 Special revolver in pocket over protective orders, good will, and assorted toys..

My gay students are as prepared to defend themselves as any..

 

Being prudently prepared for disaster and problems beyond normal controls is a good thing for ALL of we do do. Having beans, bacon, bullets for uncertain times is an inexpensive way to help ensure that self and family are prepared for.

 

Being alert, politically aware, unchained from religion, and mentally sharp is a good thing..

 

Some may call it paranoia, I prefer prepared myself...

 

n, Freeman, intending on staying that way

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest RevJ

 

Why does it have to one or the other? Become a moderate with an AK and start your own category. That's what I did with my religion quandary.

 

RevJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Starting in about 1999, I began re-evaulating.  My views/politics have been gradually moving "left" for years now.  Now, I can see that there's little difference between Clinton and Dubya as far as my concerns go (civil liberties, rule of law, etc.).  For that matter, I've been thinking that as much as I think Al Gore is an idiot, maybe we'd be better off with him.  Half-baked environmentalism seems pretty benign compared to a never-ending war and the potential for WWIII.

 

I can't remember for sure why I ever thought it was a bad thing if somebody was gay... I think it had something to do with the fact that these gay people KNEW that it'd piss everybody off... seems pretty silly now.

 

I now think nationalism is idiotic, racism is simplistic, arbitrary, and pointless.  I no longer care about constitutional constructionism or any other form of legal protestantism.  So many of my beliefs have gradually changed, that I don't know where it'll end... I think I may end up living in a tree or something. 

 

 

 

Congratulations! You are learning to throw off dogma and are starting to think for yourself. I don't have any advice for you. You will figure it out.

 

I myself voted for Reagan when I was 18; even wrote him a letter for my high school civics class and got a photograph in the mail in response. Then in college I recall writing a scathing review of Dukakus (sp?) who was then running against Bush I. I was sure if that damn NE liberal would win terrible (not sure exactly what, but terrible) things would happen.

 

My family now considers me the "liberal" black sheep. I'm not sure this is a fair label. I'm pretty hard to pin in a box and am willing to reevaluate my positions even today. I don't consider this wishy washy, just evolving and thoughtful. I liked the results of socialism I saw in Italy, but am unconvinced it would work in the US. Moreover, I have a big problem with high taxes and big government.

 

Another poster said it best. It is easy to swing from one extreme to another. The truth is likely somewhere in between. But, when the issues are as subjective as Liberalism and Conservatism (of the American ilk mind you) I'm not sure there even is something as black and white as truth.

 

As I said before, you are on the right track. Keep on thinking. Keep on reading. Keep on caring. Keep on just being happy. After all, you can't change the world, so what does it matter if you get it wrong in the end as long as you didn't dwell on the issues to the point where you suffer high blood pressure or worse.

 

Oops, that sounded like I was giving advice. Sorry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey~

Got no time to talk now, but I agree with the OP. I was the same way. I consider myself now a Republican with a small "r" and a Libertarian with a big "L". I too used to listen to Limbaugh for hours, then a couple of other guys. I do appreciate the fact that Limbaugh made talk radio come alive, but I see that he basically panders to a niche audience. Reading columns by Paul Mulshine helped me see that these "conservatives" don't speak for all on the Right. Also, I appreciate Nivek; his presence on this site made me feel more comfortable.

 

Don't worry, hillbilly, there are plenty like you out there. You don't have to embrace socialism and the nanny state just because you have rejected neo-conism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I promised myself to keep my politics off of ex-C if I started posting again so here's my li'l attempt at tact:

 

For new ideas, read Howard Zinn's The People's History of the United States but in VERY small doses, i.e., read a few pages, think about them for awhile, talk about them with other folks who've read the same book, etc. etc. You may or may not also want to check out Lies My Teacher Told Me, by James W. Loewen, which is apolitical but does give you some idea of how your ideas may have been formed by the poor teaching materials available for high school history classes.

 

For a handy remedy to self-flagellation, learn more about Dwight D. Eisenhower. I'll admit, he was more than a bit naive, but he's a Republican to be proud of.

 

The current regime is not representative of what the Republican party has traditionally stood for in the United States, nor can it possibly be considered to fit the dictionary definition of the adjective "conservate".

 

Congratulations on waking up and seeing what is around you and being motivated to think for yourself and re-evaluate ideas and belief systems you have ridiculed in the past. I only wish that there were more heros like yourself in this world today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It does bear pointing out that the Republican Party is currently controled by a minority faction - an unholy alliance of theonoimsts and plutocrats. Goldwater and Eisenhower, and to a lesser extent Teddy Roosevelt, are still representative of a great number of Republicans that I have known. The problem is that these are often also the sort of people who vote the party rather than the candidate. The Republican party is not unsalvageable. I mean, shit, I used to think the Democratic party was unsalvagable, but recently the minority factions are actually fighting against each other - and some of them are even sensible and well-grounded. It's only a matter of time before the Republican party descends into civil war-like infighting (and the current assholes at the top, that moment is rapidly approaching, I think) between the Gulianni republicans, the Goldwater republicans, and the Dobson republicans. And (though this view may not be popular) I don't think the Dobson faction is likely to win. They're already waaay overextended.

 

-Lokmer

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think nor do I believe that people become Republicans or Democrats or liberals or conservatives because they want to do some harm to their fellow citizens, the environment or the country. I really believe that we choose these political demarcations because we find something in that worldview that we believe will add to our society. That is, if we are not misanthropes from the beginning that seek a political identity or ideology because it will help them do harm.

 

Even racists or bigots in their own way believe they are doing the right things following these ideologies that not only undemocratic, but against the very nature of constitutionally protected minority and the limits on a majority, if not common human decency. I have debated many Social Conservatives of this variety and they earnestly believe that they are protecting children from homosexuality by etc even though all evidence to the contrary is stubborn that they are unequivocally wrong.

 

You can only reason with them.

 

And sometimes through a punch or too.

 

It does bear pointing out that the Republican Party is currently controled by a minority faction - an unholy alliance of theonoimsts and plutocrats.  Goldwater and Eisenhower, and to a lesser extent Teddy Roosevelt, are still representative of a great number of Republicans that I have known. 

 

Who are they presently? I am just not seeing them or they are so minimized that they can not step up to the minority.

 

I have a copy of The Conservative Mind" on my back-burner for quite sometime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, Lokmer; that was very well put.

 

I did want to tack on a word of caution I forgot in my previous post:

 

Do open yourself up to new ideas, UCH, but please avoid the temptation to establish personal relationships based on these new ideas at least temporarily. Emotions run high in the United States right now, as they well should. It's important to protect your heart while you are opening your mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For new ideas, read Howard Zinn's The People's History of the United States but in VERY small doses, i.e., read a few pages, think about them for awhile, talk about them with other folks who've read the same book, etc. etc. You may or may not also want to check out Lies My Teacher Told Me, by James W. Loewen, which is apolitical but does give you some idea of how your ideas may have been formed by the poor teaching materials available for high school history classes.

 

 

Lies My Teacher Told Me is also a good way to re-evaluate the impact of social structure on America, as he does go into detail about it, and how the ignorance and downright digust with discussing it in classrooms (because that's "socialism" and that's right up there with "communism" :Hmm: ) creates many problems than fixes them. Haven't read Howard Zinn's yet, though. Been meaning to find a copy.

 

It's also helpful to realize both "sides" in politics will sling shit no matter what, and a heavy dose of common sense usually sorts out the truth, or at least the reason. Like the whole debacle in Iraq, which I did, and still, attest to a kind of "Big Dick" theory in Saddam's worldview; he couldn't really give two shits about us, we already bitchslapped him. He was more concerned with acting like the tough shit so Iran and the others wouldn't come after his power, which is why he kept up the act of having weapons when they weren't really there. (He even said in an interview after he was caught that it was indeed the case.) And that extremes are never a good thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest zarathustra

I used to be an enthusiastic neoconservative- I listened to Rush Limbaugh, I hated Bill Clinton, I was paranoid about the federal gov'ment (still am)... I figured that Mattew Shepherd got what was coming to him, christians' free speech was being violated all the time when they couldn't "pray in public", and I thought that liberalism was practically a religion- pretty much equivalent to christianity.

 

I was a dick.

 

Starting in about 1999, I began re-evaulating. My views/politics have been gradually moving "left" for years now. Now, I can see that there's little difference between Clinton and Dubya as far as my concerns go (civil liberties, rule of law, etc.). For that matter, I've been thinking that as much as I think Al Gore is an idiot, maybe we'd be better off with him. Half-baked environmentalism seems pretty benign compared to a never-ending war and the potential for WWIII.

 

 

 

Look... I don't really WANT to be a bunny-hugging red commie damn dirty hippy... would somebody care to talk me out of it? Or maybe somebody could just give me a few more reasons to go live in a tree and save the whales... nudge me over the edge...

 

 

You're journey sounds alot like mine. I used to love to listen to Rush. My doubts about him began just after the war in Iraq when he declared the Iraqi's were still hiding WMD's. However,the day before Rumsfeld said there weren't any to be found. This shook me because at that point I immediately realized Rush was not interested in the the facts, rather he was interested in being a shill for the Republican party. That point forward I began to listen to Rush with a more critical ear - and soon many of my ideas of conservative libertarian politics began to unravel. While I still consider myself libertarian leaning, I've come to the conclusion that ideology of any political stripe is really secular religion. Idealogues ask us to accept their untested ponifications whole without dissent or question. Political theory is not scientific, it is akin to philosophical argument in that it is not based in realityand facts necessarily. What many of us accept as the truth is merely someone else's idea of how the world should work.

Youre on the right track questioning all the right wing radio dominated bullshit. Like me, I hope that you no longer feel the need to argue that individuals should have the right to own tanks and missles because if the government has them so should we.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks all for the advice. I haven't gone off the deep end yet... I guess I'm just concerned that I can't say that either side of certain issues is definitely "right"... my wife says that that makes me a moderate... I hate to admit that, but I might just be one.

 

zarathrustra- A few years ago I'd have said that I ought to be able to have a nuke if I wanted... and legally, I reckon I can. That's legal protestantism- deciding what my rights are based on my own interpretation of the constitution (and maybe a few other laws)... it's much like the tax-protest movement. The problem is that we all know that I'll be in jail if I try to acquire enriched uranium... and that we'd all be worse off if I had a nuke. This amounts to an unwritten agreement about what is legal. Maybe it should be written more explicitly, passed through the proper channels... but the fact that a legal arguement can be made on paper doesn't give me the "right" to own a nuke in any practical sense. They'll pry my SK from my cold dead hands though... (not really, but I'll make a big fuss about it.)

 

I voted Libertarian in the last election, even though it's pretty ludicrous to vote for a guy with no driver's licence (more legal protestantism). I agree with them 90% of the time, but does anybody really BELIEVE that it would be a good idea to privatize all roads and completely do away with public schools?

 

My political reevaluation has been a long and gradual process... but I only realized that I may grow up to be a hippy ("grow up" in a figurative sense... I'm getting awful close to 30) a few months back when conservatives raised such holy hell over Ward Churchill. I watched him on C-span and read his essay, "on the business of roosting chickens" or something like that. I can't say I agreed with him 100%, but he made a hell of a lot more sense than any politician or pundit I've heard in years. I mean... isn't it work knowing WHY so many ragheads and such hate us? Shouldn't we at least consider a foreign policy that avoids pissing everybody off... especially when we aren't really gaining anything from it? I guess that makes me anti-amurikan... I'm gonna go wipe my ass with a flag.

 

Nivek- I USED to feel threatened by gay folks... I got over that years ago. I'm all for gay marriage (actually, I think government shouldn't be in the marriage business at all, but if they're gonna be, then I should be able to marry two guys, a gal, and my cousin all at the same time if I want). I'm a big fan of the Pink Pistols, but I doubt there's a chapter out here in Kansas.

 

BTW- what do you mean by "Freeman" in your signature? Do you mean freeman in a general sense, or freeman in the Montana tax protestor sense?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A few years ago I'd have said that I ought to be able to have a nuke if I wanted... and legally, I reckon I can.

We had a similar discussion on the old board about guns and the 2nd and all that. I don't remember what spurned it but I made the similar point about gun control. What are the bounds of reason here? Should I or anyone be allowed to own a tank? A tactical nuke? What is an acceptable means of a weapon for self protection? (If a gun does indeed self protect.) I think Libertus and Nivek and I were in on the discussion, so perhaps they can help me out. Now I wasn't making an argument against no-guns in society. Banning guns is not an easy fix to solving the violent crimes in our society of course and as an American I make the tacit agreement to abide by the Constitution. Meaning, yes, I am pro-gun.

 

Anyway, I've always found the fanatic pro-gunners of the Heston or Nugent type to be just shrill. I mean, all I see is an non sequitar argument based upon that slippery slope argument. The slope runs both ways of course, so why not Nukes for all? (Philip K. Dick wrote a short story based upon this. Instead of arming countries with nukes, they were selling missile defense systems to private citizens to protect their homes and selves! I have to find that a story again. Silly G take note.) So its reason here. Arm yourself if you must, but some weapons are just beyond a civil society. I would argue that heavy automatic weapons and some semi-s too.

 

 

I agree with them 90% of the time, but does anybody really BELIEVE that it would be a good idea to privatize all roads and completely do away with public schools?

This is a problem I have with a lot of right-of-center libertarian thought and conservative thought - it's incoherent. You hear from the right all that time screaming See, that's socialism! Socialism! Socialism! when it comes to nationalized health care or even the current not broken social security debate. Yet when it comes to police, fire, public roads, garbage collection, the military (which by far educates more people, pays for their health care - while active) they are remarkably silent.

 

I also don't get how a social safety-net makes people weak? You have leaches in every system, but so far this crazy assertion is another non sequitar.

 

WHY so many ragheads and such hate us?  Shouldn't we at least

Perhaps because of the use of racial epithets like "raghead?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(unchainedhillbilly @ May 25 2005, 09:48 AM)

WHY so many ragheads and such hate us?  Shouldn't we at least

 

 

 

 

Perhaps because of the use of racial epithets like "raghead?"

 

I doubt that all those camel-jockeys hate us citizens of The Greate Satan over something that petty... I think hyper-sensitivity to certain epithets is mainly a western phenomenon. It probably has a lot more to do with U.S. foreign policy that favor and arms certain countries, props up some regimes, and threatens or invades others, with little or no thought given to any but out immediate interests.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I doubt that all those camel-jockeys hate us citizens of The Greate Satan over something that petty... I think hyper-sensitivity to certain epithets is mainly a western phenomenon.  It probably has a lot more to do with U.S. foreign policy that favor and arms certain countries, props up some regimes, and threatens or invades others, with little or no thought given to any but out immediate interests.

 

And the cultural war and world dominance that US are winning.

Coke, McDonalds, TV Shows, Movies, ... it's going into each country and wiping out the smaller competitions.

 

I think that is the main reason for the Muslim countries, because they keep their faith very high, and don't want half nude women in the comercials selling a Lincoln.

 

So maybe the whole Xianisation that's happening here in US will help somewhat, with all the censor and regulation and more holiness movement. Maybe it will be less threatening? Well, actually I don't think that will change anything...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I doubt that all those camel-jockeys hate us citizens of The Greate Satan over something that petty... I think hyper-sensitivity to certain epithets is mainly a western phenomenon.  It probably has a lot more to do with U.S. foreign policy that favor and arms certain countries, props up some regimes, and threatens or invades others, with little or no thought given to any but out immediate interests.

So much for showing your respect for another culture or religion. Epithath away. Enjoy!

 

Tell me, do you stroll around and say HEY NIGGER!

 

(I am making the assumption that you are a whitey like me.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like guns and capitalism, which is one reason I can't exactly call myself a liberal in the modern sense.

 

But you can call yourself a liberal in the classical sense.

 

Also, capitalism isn't all it's cracked up to be.  If the government wasn't subsidizing college for me, I'd likely be stuck forever as a mechanic.  Seems like that's a bit of socialism, and I see nothing wrong with it. 

 

If you are willing to force others to subsidise you, don't bitch too loudly when its comes your turn to subsidise crack whores. If you are willing to steal from others, you deserve to have everything you work towards stolen from you.

 

Look... I don't really WANT to be a bunny-hugging red commie damn dirty hippy... would somebody care to talk me out of it?  Or maybe somebody could just give me a few more reasons to go live in a tree and save the whales... nudge me over the edge...

 

Why don't you check out anarcho-capitalism? It sort of sounds like where you're coming from (other than subsidising crack whores of course).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with them 90% of the time, but does anybody really BELIEVE that it would be a good idea to privatize all roads and completely do away with public schools?

 

Yes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with them 90% of the time, but does anybody really BELIEVE that it would be a good idea to privatize all roads and completely do away with public schools?
Yes.

 

Okay, I keep hearing this said over and over again about privatizing schools. But I have a question. What are the alternatives? That's what no one's ever clear about. How will children be educated? Are they homeschooled or rely on others that run co-op home schools in their homes? Or maybe kids go to private schools that receive government funds.

 

But surely these schools would want some form of tuition. So how will the parents who are struggling to even keep lights on afford it? I think sometimes when folks talk about ending public schools, they forget that not all kids are from middle-class, suburban homes with a stay-at-home mother and a father who makes enough to adequently support the household. There are plenty that have only one parent who's the sole bread-winner, making home school impossible. And more families with both parents are forced to live off two incomes because salaries are not keeping up with the cost of living.

 

As a matter of fact, I think I will start a thread on this subject. :Doh: (See Rants section)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So maybe the whole Xianisation that's happening here in US will help somewhat, with all the censor and regulation and more holiness movement. Maybe it will be less threatening? Well, actually I don't think that will change anything...

 

Hans- While Christians and Muslems have plenty in common, they don't seem to get along very well. Matter of fact, I think Bush is well into his own modern-day crusade now... he was even stupid enough to refer to his 'war on terror' as such at least once. I'd much rather the U.S. be hated for being too secular and liberal than for harboring competing zealots. Hell, western europe doesn't seem to be as much a target as the U.S., so fundyism probably isn't much of a defense.

 

So much for showing your respect for another culture or religion. Epithath away. Enjoy!

 

Tell me, do you stroll around and say HEY NIGGER!

 

(I am making the assumption that you are a whitey like me.)

 

Quicksand- I do enjoy the occasional epithet, thanks. No, I don't make a habit of uttering that unmentionable word, "nigger", mainly because I don't want to get my ass kicked. Lots of people are way too sensitive about certain words, and attitudes like yours legitimize what some see as a license for blind rage at the mention of mere words. Making words or whole categories of words effectively unmentionable gives them more power than they warrant. If you didn't pick up on it, "raghead" was meant sarcastically in that post (as that's how people refer to those desert brown people sometimes... and those are likely the same people who think it's unamerican to wonder why those evil brown people hate us). I wasn't looking to pick a fight or a self-righeous browbeating.

 

If you are willing to force others to subsidise you, don't bitch too loudly when its comes your turn to subsidise crack whores. If you are willing to steal from others, you deserve to have everything you work towards stolen from you.

 

Don't get me wrong Spamandham- we likely agree more than we disagree... but this is exactly the kind of non-sequitur that has made me question libertarian thinking. I realize that by attending a state school, I'm effectively getting tax money... so I DON'T bitch too loudly about subsidized crack whores. "Deserve" is a difficult concept to define, but exactly how do I DESERVE to have everything I've worked for stolen from me?

 

I think the libertarian/socialist arguement (and perspectives in between) comes down to a question of ultimate goals. Libertarians seem to believe that property rights are paramount... They seem to see absolute property rights of individuals and corporations as an ultimate goal... but I have to ask why? Because there is some fundamental moral reason to hold property rights sacred? Because more people would benefit from this system than any other? (or is that even a concern?) Or for some other reason that I'm not aware of? If I understand correctly, the sociallist goal is to benefit the most people, with some measure of equality. Of course, a their lack of respect for property rights discourages investment... generous safety nets discourage work ethic (maybe ethis isn't the best word here?)... and the required beaurocracy can be very inefficient and slow to react. That said, could the answer lie somewhere in between? I hate to be a moderate, but Lokmer made a good point:

 

As far as capitalism goes, there is a radical difference between capitalism and plutocracy. Adam Smith, who first articulated the nature of capitalism in "On The Sources and Nature of The Wealth of Nations" also wrote an ethics volume that goes with it - one that nobody reads. His basic premise (and the one that was American Law for over a hundred years) was that the corporation exists for the benefit of society. If a corporation began acting in a way that was contrary to the good of the community, its corporate charter should be revoked. In the late 19th century, the robber barons (with a little help from SCOTUS and some very half-baked social Darwinism) began promulgating laises-fair (sp?) capitalism, and the contingent idea that the corporation is its own good. There's a lot more to this study than what either Limbaugh or his mirrors on the left would have you believe.

 

As I understand it, mainstream U.S. economic thinking works on the premise that capitalism is the most efficient means to an end... that end being the bennefit of the american people as a whole. Obviously this capitalism is regulated where deemed neccesary and mixed with socialism here and there.

 

Property rights are not handed down from on-high. They're an agreement enforced by society. Without social enforcement, the only "right" you have to your property is your "right" to defend (and/or take?) whatever you can.

 

If property owners are willing to rely on society to enforce these "rights", they they shouldn't bitch too loudly when society chooses to define the extent of those "rights".

 

It's easy to see where my current line of thinking is going. I'm on that slippery slope... slipping further and further down towards communism. The more I struggle, the more I slip... maybe my fellow libertarians can give me a hand? Or does that sound like a plea for welfare?

 

BTW- how do ya'll make those quotes that show the poster's name?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

spamandham- I forgot to mention a couple things.

 

Privatizing schools: Let's say the pie-in-the-sky dream of anarcho-capitalism happens. There are lots of stupid people in this world... they won't be able to afford to pay for school tuition for their kids because they're spent the money on crack and bass-boats. What about those younguns? Would you just say "to hell with 'em" and leave them to their uneducated fate since they were short-sighted enough to have been borne to stupid parents? Lots of kids would never realize their full potential... society could end up with a few thousand of your 'crack whores' instead of a few thousand productive professionals.

 

If roads were privatized... exactly how would payment for these roads be enforced? Sure, limited access roads could be made into toll roads- that's easy. But what about all these other roads... you can't just fence 'em off and limit access to on-ramps.

 

I tried out anarcho-capitalism for a while. I have an irrational hatred of cops (I know it's irrational... but those mustaches just PISS ME OFF!), so the anarcho part should work... but I've been having my doubts about the capitalism part lately, which is one of the reasons for this board.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW- how do ya'll make those quotes that show the poster's name?

 

Look directly under the post you want to quote. Do you see the two buttons on the right that say "Quote" and "Reply"? Now click on the one that says "Quote". Grumble and moan that NOTHING HAPPENS!!!!! But it did turn red, right?

 

Now scroll down and click on "reply" at the bottom of the thread. Feel sorry for yourself because you think everybody else has broadband even though they don't. Go make yourself a cup of coffee, wash the dishes, and remember the computer.

 

The page FINALLY loaded and there's the post you wanted to quote in the "reply" window!

 

;)

 

All hyperbole, exaggeration, and sarcasm intended, but no offense to the people who work so hard to make these forums available to us.

 

I love this thread, unchainedhillbilly; it gives me enough courage to take the next breath.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quicksand- I do enjoy the occasional epithet, thanks.  No, I don't make a habit of uttering that unmentionable word, "nigger", mainly because I don't want to get my ass kicked.  Lots of people are way too sensitive about certain words, and attitudes like yours legitimize what some see as a license for blind rage at the mention of mere words.  Making words or whole categories of words effectively unmentionable gives them more power than they warrant.  If you didn't pick up on it, "raghead" was meant sarcastically in that post (as that's how people refer to those desert brown people sometimes... and those are likely the same people who think it's unamerican to wonder why those evil brown people hate us).  I wasn't looking to pick a fight or a self-righeous browbeating.

Thanks for your thoughts. I am not trying to be unduly confrontational just the sake of it, but I think your use of these types epithets misses the point.

 

Yes, it is true we do take our "race" (the difference in hues of our skin that is) a bit too serious. Did I find it funny in Blazing Saddles when Sheriff Bart asks the Klansmen in line, "Where the White Women at?" Did I find it funny in the Kentucky Fried Movie in the skit about "True Daredevils" where the white guy dressed in a powder-blue jumpsuit, straps on a crash helmet, and yells in downtown Harlem "Nigger!" to only be chased to the ends of the Earth? Yes I did.

 

So what's my problem?

 

Context. We're having a geo-political discussion, not a discussion about the quirks of race.

 

If it was sarcastic (meaning to paint the attitudes of those that hold that view...) I wish you would have pointed it out to me in your first rejoinder, but no you came right back with "camel-jockey." What am I left with here?

 

Dude, if is a misunderstanding, its a misunderstanding. And I am cool with it. I am just a natural over-the-top hothead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.