Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[littlefallsmets]

I certainly don't go to celebrities for political advice.

I look at the ballot, pick the most left-wing person with a reasonable chance of winning and hope that... over the course of decades... this will lead to some kind of Darwinian "survival of the liberal" whereupon slowly but surely all politics are pulled toward, like, letting people marry who they wanna and only go to war in direct self-defense and maybe letting poor people go to the doctors occasionally and so on.

I find that, oddly enough, this strategy offends my friends to the left of me, far more than it does my friends to the right of me. People to the right of me at least respect my pragmatism and patience whereas, like, people who voted for Ralph Nader want to punch me in the head for not throwing my vote away on the principle of a thing.

My main beef with American Liberalism today is that... we, they, whatever... there's this certain group of people who really just expect to have one election that just changes the world completely for the better and for forever and ever amen.

The big changes... women's rights, civil rights... in America have never been overnight. They've been about generations of vigilence, taking little steps forward as you hold off the people trying to take the whole thing big steps back.

It might be some kind of weird arrogance? But I think it's more just that...

History is taught in a really dumb way in American schools. It makes history sound like a few... zaps of a welder's torch, you know? Boom, that guy gets shot, that piece of paper gets signed, this new kind of bomb kills a bunch of people and... things change.

But history ain't a welder's game, history is the realm of sculptor's fine chisel.

[littlefallsmets]

littlefallsmets don't those first two criteria kind of contradict each other

To speak to this point belatedly...

Currency is not a freedom, a right or a liberty... it is a construct... a tool of economic convenience, created and regulated by the state as an extension of the people, all of the people, not just the people with large amounts of that currency.

If it exists as a tool of all the people, as one of the keys of a stable and functioning society and all of the people therein, then it needs to be created and regulated to the benefit of all the people... and taxed with respect to what the needs of all of the people are and the amount which a given taxed individual within the state can give.

We'll call, for this discussion, a baseline of... dignified subsistence... an economic potential for life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. In this society, the wealth is great enough where that shared dignified substance can include... food and shelter, health and education.

So if I live above that line to the point where... I should be able to give up a Wednesday or five at the comic book shop and a rock star, say, should be able to give up that new yacht... then these are the prices we pay for the safety of a shared stable and dignified society.

If we have the resources, say, to take that schizophrenic man begging for quarters in front of the 7-11 at Sunset and LaBrea and rehabilitate him in a hospital... and we surely do... then my fair chunk above dignified subsistence and, oh, Axl Rose's fair chunk above dignified subsistence should be taxed away.

Because that currency is not my right or Axl's right or whatever, it's a tool of all of the people, through our surrogate, the state.

Many people would and will talk a big game about their "rights" to their money but... I have to imagine would quickly blanche at the realities of a society not stabilized by the benefits of taxation and... furthermore, I'd also argue that with additional taxations that would be almost unnoticeable to the working poor and lower-middle-class and that... would only be fairly expected of the rich...

Our society would be all the more enriched by the overall gains in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all... by that minor and only-fair redistribution of a tool that belongs to each and every American through their participation in the shared American Experiment.

A man, whose philosophy I deeply respect though of whom personally there might be too much made, may have said it best that... you've gotta render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. Money is money, there is nothing essential at all to it in comparison to the dignity and divinity that is in every woman and man.

[side_show]

littlefallsmets don't those first two criteria kind of contradict each other

People significantly richer than me don't count as "people."  So in my logic, the two never contradicted.

[jay-ell]

In re: people getting more conservative as they get older, I've certainly gone the other route.  I was pretty conservative until midway through high school, when I started reading lots of political theory (Locke and Hobbes, etc) and got really into existentialism (Emerson could kick Thoreau's ass). 

My friend went all conservative when his daughter was born, totally did that "wait you mean someday MY LITTLE GIRL could have an abortion without me even knowing who I have to kneecap?" thing.  I've been getting steadily more liberal since college and having a kid has made that waaaay worse.  Having a kid with autism who is getting services through county government at no cost to us has only reconfirmed my faith in the welfare state.

At this point I'm pretty much basically a socialist.  I think that big government is a good thing because more government = more services.  I'm all about nationalized health care (and if anyone cares to debate this point you may as well split this thread now).  I'm also all about eliminating abortion, because I think it is a social problem, but I think outlawing the practice is a backwards way to approach it.  Abortion is a last resort for most women and I believe that the process further victimizes women of limited options.  I think women are better served by directing resources towards preventing unwanted pregnancies, which I believe can be aided by universal access to quality health care. 

Basically I feel like separation of church and state is important but that there needs to be a universal moral standard that we all agree to live by.  If that's so, some minimal level of morality must come from the government in the form of good citizenship and civic virtue, enforceable by law as well as by societal pressure.  I personally think that marijuana should be legalized (and regulated and taxed, like tobacco) but if the consensus in this country is that weed is a social ill, so be it.  It's a small price to pay for the privilege of living in a place of relative safety and peace. 

That said, back in the real world, I'd love to see a race between McCain and Obama.  If they both got the nomination, I might have a hard time figuring out who to vote for instead of against. 

[theinevitable]

John McCain is like my favorite guy. Except for now he is all Pandering to the Base, and that is no fun.

[Noah]

littlefallsmets i think where i don't get your logic is where you assume that since our currency has been established as a tool of the people, it should represent each person equally?

i mean if a person generates a lot of wealth, how is it fair that that wealth belongs to everyone, against the person's will?

i actually think people who have money have a moral obligation to help those in need, but in a "free" society, that obligation shouldn't be law.

how would anything else qualify as "letting people do what they want if they aren't hurting others"?

i do appreciate why people prefer socialism and i know i'm simplifying things here, but you can't be given a lot of freedom by a government makes it illegal to not help keep every person healthy and happy.

sorry for being bad at wording things

[Arachno-capitalist]

WHOA. Sorry for not getting in this sooner as some of you know my political views are far radical and entertaining...
Paper Currency evolved as a form of warehouse slip whereby it represented something valuable somewhere that it could be redeemed. Now it is fiat currency in the U.S.A. meaning it has no worthy what so ever other than what we give it as a society. The government says you have to use to pay taxes so generally we keep it around as the most convenient thing going.

What LFM seems to advocate is that we should all have some basic standard of equality. And some of you seem to agree in this socialist propaganda.
Look. Life sucks for a lot of people whether it is their choice or not. That is not my problem. I have enough problems. I work extremely hard for my money and if I don't give the government what it wants- men with guns will come to my door and take away my rights.

There are things I believe in helping such as schizophrenia-leukemia-and i am a volunteer firefighter. Many of you claim to have lots of beliefs in where money should go. Well then... put your money there. I believe we all know what we want to do with the money we earned and should be allowed to make that decision rather than have a couple hundred people in D.C. tell us what we want to do with our money.

We tried socialism on this planet remember? People died. Millions of people starved to death. It didn't work.
We also tried capitalism. Look around you. Look in your fridge. Life is better.

[theinevitable]

I am not going to argue, as I don't know my shit well enough to come off as anything other than an Interested Amateur.
Firstly, it seems to me that Communism has never really existed on this earth. Neither has socialism. Both have been co-opted by power-hungry elites in order to become... basically serfdom? Capitalism too seems to be slowly fuck*ng up as we enter a new millennium where the rich get ever-richer and the poor get ever-poorer.

secondly, in regards to your final question; this is hardly a fair sample. By default, someone who is spending their time posting on Message Boards about Alive Stuffed Animals probably has at least some level of monetary success-- at least enough to own a computer, have an internet connection, etc.

Lately I'm coming to think that large-scale human governments are destined to fail. Humans are capable of some wonderful things... as well as horrible things. Corruption is just as inevitable as do-goodery. Unfortunately, corruption necessarily means a gain of power, whereas do-goodery rarely does.

However, based on what I've read/heard, anarchism basically repulses me.

[littlefallsmets]

The purer capitalism gets, the more it fails. See the Great Depression, see the Guilded Age.

See the death of the American Middle Class in the dawning of the 21st Century.

Ditto for socialism. Pure socialism has pretty much failed as well.

A hybrid wherein those things essential to human dignity and national stability are provided through taxation and the collective purchasing power of government and... the rest is left to a free market, albeit a free market that is regulated to an extent that it doesn't become a beast of its own... seems to be what has worked best for human rights and socioeconomic peace.

Western Europe and to a lesser extent Canada seem to have found a sane and equitable middle ground between these theories and... crafted something that actually works, better than laisse-faire or collective farming ever could've.

The problem with a free market is that... it seems like a pretty awesome idea at first... and it stays a pretty awesome idea when contained to small scale or constrained by regulation from being corrupt.

But there comes a tipping point in free-market capitalism where competition is overwhelmed by economic momentum and you... no longer have a free market. Once a family or a company has crossed a certain threshold, free competition no longer applies to them and is no longer the tool they use to make money.

You cross a tipping point and... monopolies form... and the innovation of competition is crushed by monopoly. Workers no longer function in a market where they're paid what they are worth because the whole show falls under one roof.

You cross a tipping point and that business or family or industry and... they have the money to cheat and get away with it. They have the money and influence to rewrite laws or move outside of the reach of the law.

The end-game of an unfettered free-market is a completely un-free and closed marketplace, where business and government are interchangable and the business world is an interlocking mosiac of corporate fiefdoms where... innovation is irrevelant to profit, talent is irrelevant to profit, etc.

All that really matters is the momentum of the capital held by the company previously... or the family previously. Enough Prescott Bushes on the reigns and there's never gonna be the space for a Bill Gates to breathe and grow again.

The free-market is awesome as a snowball but when you let it roll, you have an avalanche of suck.

An avalance of suck wherein there is certainly no room for anarchists of any stripe.

But that's my numbers-and-facts argument.

My gut feeling as a humanist is that... all of the above is fine... but if we have the resources to provide everyone within our society with a certain level of dignity in this brief and stumbling charade called human life, it is our moral obligation as a collective society to provide as such.

This is a mad and heartbreaking enough a journey without the deck being stacked against most of us from the start. The trick is, yes, to find the balance where the most human dignity is provided without stifling too much the human desire to grow and innovate and... not fall into Soviet stagnation.

Thesis, antithesis, synthesis, man. Ain't no one extreme that's ever fixed anything.

But Western and Northern Europe seem to have the best idea so far in human history, providing the basic tools of life... an education, health care, enough money for bare minimum food and housing... without stifling the creative drive and averaging everything out into a dull gray.

The bonus for businessmen who aren't looking to cheat or rig the system of that is... a stable educated class of people really able to do things that isn't constantly being driven toward revolt.

The New Deal saved American business with a little dab of socialism by... preventing an eventual revolt of the underclass that could've well turned full-on-communistic or military or Christ knows what.

FDR, after all, was old motherfuck*ng money. He understood the score. A socio-economically unbalanced society will make for great profits in the short term but will eventually collapse under the weight of its own inequity.

The underpinnings of American innovation and capitalism has been an underlying safety net of certain public entitlements and government regulation preventing the tipping points of monopoly from upending the entire fuck*ng apple cart.

Not to mention that most economic booms have been driven by... good ol' government-driven military development. The prosperity of the 50s that we were arguably still coasting on until the Eighties was jumpstarted by the government nationalising industry in the WW2 effort.

Only place there's one thing or the other, man, is in text books.

[theinevitable]

LFM-- you do not have to pay for the cans I am giving to you. Consider them a Service.

Or, if you will, payment for services rendered.

[littlefallsmets]

As long as you are reading it in the voice of James Whitmore, that is payment enough.

[Sub_Topical]

You sir, are a wonderful writer. However, I am completely in disagreement with you on your concept and world view.

Unfortunately, it's not  a battle I'm equipped to run with particularly as well as you.

But I find your vision of the future absolutely destructive to the manner in which I've conducted my life. I think you underestimate the impacts of a governmental and social construct that I see as stifling the necessary rewards of achievement. People have already learned they can vote in any damn old bread and circus under the current system, and to maintain political currency the reinholders are more than willing to drive down that road. I also don't find your Europen examples persuasive. Europe is on the precipice of turning a casual, leisurly decline into an apocolyptic plummet. Even our benign lovely neighbor to the North is relying on foreign imports as their more than adequate university system is not turning out enough natives with skills in the solid sciences.

But hey, we're different. I just happen to feel that this country still allows one the best chance to reach as high as one is willing to grasp. I feel that achievement is up to the individual and should be an incentive to use all the resources so immenently available to do so. I feel governments role should be severely curtailed to keeping the playing field fair, structuring necessary public services and providing enough of a social safety net that people don't freeze in the streets when a cold snap hits or go with less than one meal a day.

I believe in a leg up rather than the hand out.

But hey, we're different. See you at the polls.

[theinevitable]

I really want to say something trite like "this is why Democracy works!"
but seriously folks, the balance is what makes everything work. Or... mostly work.

[Arachno-capitalist]

The great depression was not a product of capitalism. The great depression was a product of government messing around in the economy and distorting it from its natural state. The war based economy forced the UK to abandon the gold standard so it could inflate the money supply. Then in 1925 they snapped back to it against the advice of economists. The result was a shock to the monetary base. The money supply in the U.S. slipped to 66% of its pre 1930 size while the federal reserve refused to contribute to inflation. What would have been a natural but painful correction in the market was made into a global crisis by government reaction with the Smoot-hawley tariffs that effectively shut down the global free market (ITS HArD TO SELL YOUr GOODS WHEN THE GOVErNMENT WONT LET YOU).
The only way that government appears to help the economy is that it has the power to spend money it doesn't have. It does this whenever things look bad and politicians dont want to lose their jobs. rather than loosen up restrictions to let money move freely across the economy the government tightens up with regulation and spends money to look like the hero. Meanwhile its debt grows to numbers so large that we can't even comprehend.
All of those government programs we all cheer have left the government with $8,836,411,390,201+ in debt (To put that in perspective there is only $6.25 trillion in circulation by the broadest definition of money M3). Most of this owed to foreigners who fully expect to cash in. Ben Bernanke himself pointed out just last week, If we don't find a way to cut social programs like welfare and social security and healthcare... well be looking at how to shutdown the defense department along with everything else in the not too distant future. The money simply doesn't exist.
Sure it feels good to help the poor among us. But at what cost?

[slink]

Meanwhile its debt grows to numbers so large that we can't even comprehend.
All of those government programs we all cheer have left the government with $8,836,411,390,201+ in debt (To put that in perspective there is only $6.25 trillion in circulation by the broadest definition of money M3). Most of this owed to foreigners who fully expect to cash in.

I'm trying to not get involved , but seriously... Let's blame social welfare programs and not, say, the war. Tallies like $100,000 a minute, and $5.8 billion per month, and you blame social welfare - which you know, actually helps people - for your governments debts.
We are in Europe, we have universal health care, new deal programs for new business, guaranteed income for the unemployed and support for asylum seekers and refugees, and we are in the same war as you guys...

Sorry, but letting more people die at home so you can kill more elsewhere just seems really, really fucked up to me! It may seem like hyperbole, but, you know, not so much.

And the quoted debt - well, your current administration raised the possible debt level to 9 trilliion so it could pump more money into the war, so that debt is only even possible thanks to their dedication to wasting your money abroad.