This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Politics Explained (In 1 Simple Table)
Having clarified where you stand on the political spectrum, we thought this handy guide to what you believe in for the most hot-potato-like political factors would be useful at your next cocktail party...
»
- 45942 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
Just look at it... If it looks like a fish, it's a fish! If it looks like a Darwinan lizard, guess what? It's a lizard! But if it looks like a kid - it's a kid! I guess this is why I sterilized myself... Should I lock myself up for the un birth of 100 trillion never to be born babies? Or only the ones that were killed during the procedure?
k, let me put on my Mr. Science Professor hat.
cool picture for those who like visuals.
so a zygote is not a zygote when it's a singular gamete, aka "ovum" or "sperm", nor when it's an egg initially released by the ovary. so as you can see, it actually takes a female AND a male to make a zygote - amazing eh! pretty much everyone here seems to think in "immaculate conceptual" terms. . .
a fetus tends to earn its name at around nine weeks - and continues to grow I would assume, unless the womb expels it - which happens quite frequently as even a scientist would tell you. so a fetus is a fetus unless it spontaneously aborts, naturally - or is aborted by the choice of the woman (who may be taking the sperm donor's wishes into consideration, happens)
you didn't ask, but here:
So, I can assume we can finally "cut off" your constant haranguing and nagging about the subject of liberty at around nine weeks then.
Case closed, Margaret ;-)
you believe whatever you like nmewn, and post whatever cute words you like too, and apply your made-up "labels" to me, same as always.
that's the ZH way.
I'll most likely continue to try and provoke a somewhat deeper level of thought on the subject of voting/control over/what it is folks "believe" the nationstate they live in actually "is", and how its actions fit into a greater reality overall.
it's my nature. I like to see folks dis-entangled from falsehoods long held, free to just go about, being.
.....free to go about being....
Strange choice of words for the infanticidal inclined. That's almost as interesting as it is repulsive.
This is like drinking and driving - my choice to drink and drive should be protected the other motorist got in the way of my desire to weave all over the road so that motorist was a interference. Therefore it is the other drivers fault.
You should be free to drink and drive with the knowledge that if you injure anyone as a result you will go to jail.period. No precrime thank you.
One would think that cops would put bars and night clubs under special surveillance, and then. per bar/nightclub bust drunk drivers by the dozens.
One would think this to be an excellent tactic.
But, they don't. Do they.
They just set up random road stops without probable cause. Public safety you know. Its all about public safety, and when seconds count they will be there in minutes, if not preoccupied.
They do in San Diego County, California.
I live very close to a bar. That I have watched from my front window.
Ya I agree. I am an atheist but I still find it abhorrent to kill babies in the womb. We knew what we were having at 13 weeks, you could already see his human shape, it's not just a climb of cells. I mean we already provide these people with food, housing, healthcare. You can get free condoms at plenty of places, and cheap over the counter birth control. And it's still not enough, we are expected to pay to have the baby terminated as well. I don't want the heavy hand of govt involved in this, so at the very minimum, taxpayer money should NEVER be used for this.
I feel the same way.+1
Everyone, and I mean EVERYONE! - has their own agenda. Seeing a pattern?
That's the idea.
I agree with your disagreement.
Good thing most women do not go this route, most of them I know are ecstatic after the baby arrives. There may be apprehension and fear prior to birth, understandably so, but it is quickly forgotten after the fact. If it weren't for the fact most women desire motherhood, we wouldn't be here, or at least a lot of us wouldn't.
You are correct, a fetus is life. It isn't dead, it isn't a thing.
The nic "cherry picker" is not really appropriate in the context of this dicsussion.
What about Librarians?
They go by the book. At least that's what I read into it.
Welfare= wealth redistribution. Warfare= Wealth redistribution plus killing. Which is the greater sin (since we all here at ZH know 9/11 was an inside job...)
Now **that** is just plain stupid. Welfare (state run/forced food/housing/walking around money => Socialism/Communism) has killed many more than wars ever have.
When you take it to the extreme, yes, but when you don, take it to the extreme, no. Warfare has killed far more than Welfare.
What you all don't seem to appreciate is that someone will always come along and take it to the extreme. It is inevitable human nature. Those types also tend to make war.
So, give psychopaths a chance at hyper power or don't? Welfare or warfare? If we do not submit to the welfare state it will make war on us. Don't believe me? Get a job and don't pay any taxes. Check back in a year. In a liberal paradise, prison might as well be death. How many millions in US prisons now for non-violent offenses (such as illegal drug sales - tax avoidance)?
Yeah.
The most efficient government system that can be created is the one where the responsibility of the individual rest with the responsibility of the individual.
- Someone on welfare or Employment Insurance - Is not responsible for feeding or clothing ones self - it was provided and usurped by the state.
- Someone on Universal Health Care - the individual is not responsible for their own health care - it was provided and usurped by the state.
A perfect government would not tax and would not provide services outside of incarceration and court. Don't want to look after yourself - starve. Don't want to work - be broke. You will reap the rewards and benefits of your own effort, and you will not be taxed to support others. If you wish to help others of charity go ahead, but the state will never mandate a taxation for the benefit of itself or it's dependents.
Frederick Bastiat 'The Law' is a must primer and online for free.
I disagree. I don't like imprisonment. The reasons are legion.
I do like old Norse Icelandic law. You murder someone (versus kill) and you get banished. Until you leave, anyone is free to kill you in retribution for your crime. You can either live amongst us or you cannot. No prison.
That is very simplistic reasoning.
Welfare and warfare are aspects of government.
That's the number one killer.
Totally wrong and lies. "Capitalims" has killed more people around the workd than Communims will ever hope to do. Example: dare to guess the number of people killed during 400 years of slavery in North America alone?.
Here's how Democrats explain crushing election defeats- racism and sexism:
http://tinyurl.com/k4ymrwg
Yes. The women and racists who voted the dimwit into office in 2008 and again in 2012 are now too feminine and racist to vote a black mom jeans wearing fellas' buds into office.
Says it all
Panic much?
Me me me me me me .... I got a clue! Mrs Schultz! I got an idea for ya'!
O, and where is the right to leave the planet rather than join the FSA, and/or banker suicides?
The lefties will stop you from doing it unless you're elderly and becoming a burden on ObamaCare, the the culling of the herd is judicious.
The right will say it's against God's will and outlaw it
Libertarians don't give two shits what you do with yourself as its entirely your own business, as long as you do not interfere with anybody else when leaving the premises.
succint as always, thank you, knuckles.
but as we all know, "libertarians" come in many flavours knuckles.
the notion of "libertarian" has many lofty words defending the rights of the "individual" - yet some are attempting to re-define the moment "sperm meets egg" as a "baby" or even "child" - neither of these words have ever before been used as descriptives for "zygote". . .
which is why it's very important to get folks to DEFINE the words they chose to use.
at least then they'll be forced to think for a moment about their opinions.
So, it is your opinion that the murder of a pregnant woman should not be a double homicide?
to be perfectly honest, I don't have an opinion about this conundrum.
there are questions a jury might want answered, such as:
circumstances
how far along the pregnancy was (2months? 8months?)
intent
surviving family members testimony
it's not a decision I'd willingly be comfortable taking, certainly not without hearing the full story. but again, I'm not one to do the "eye for an eye" revenge thing. . .
Thats all I ever ask for is honesty Cat. If one were to say...eight months...or six...there is a cut off and that cut off implies something much more.
It implies a another life, a human life, a separate life.
I don't think anyone is saying a sperm and an egg are not alive, they clearly are. What they are saying is at some point the two become one.
No ones trying to steal your liberty, we're only trying to help you understand anothers who can't yet speak for themself.
no, you're wrong here.
those who are seeking to encode in governmental laws the made-up via god-beliefs that
are combining their religious beliefs with laws regulating solely WOMEN's bodies. bodies which very often have a pregnancy that doesn't "take", and menstruation results. I'm sure many will roll their eyes, but I've watched this little pet-project evolve for over a decade, and we're at this stage with more to come, should these numpties get their little creeping fascist state in motion.
because there will eventually need to be monitoring of the womb, just in case, and all kinds of idiot .gov employees will be parsing decisions as to exactly how that zygote disappeared and menstruation "happened". because that will be their jawb, and if you think training a volunteer military to perform inhumane acts on already birthed children, globally, and their mothers, fathers, family was easy - then you ain't seen nothin' yet!
and these new laws - still zero mention of the sperm donor's role in makin' baybees. agenda much?
50 MILLION babies have been murdered in the US since Roe v Wade.
I'd like to not have that blood on my hands, please.
No, I'm correct, you just agreed with Rand to some extent by admitting that after nine weeks they are no longer "zygotes" but living human beings and you cut off what he said next:
"It is unconscionable that government would facilitate the taking of innocent life. I have stated many times that I will always support legislation that would end abortion or lead us in the direction of ending abortion. There are many ways we can work toward this ultimate goal and items we can hope to accomplish in the near term. I strongly oppose any federal funding of abortion and will attempt to stop the flow of tax dollars to groups who perform or advocate for abortion."
True enough, he personally is in the camp of human life beginning at conception (while many others are not) the bill is to stop the FEDERAL FUNDING of abortion. If abortionists had not wormed their way into having others pay for things they oppose of, it wouldn't be a funding issue at all, would it?
Something the Free Shit Army never seems to grasp is, a government big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take everything away.
On a related topic, I oppose the government funding of sex change operations, its an elective procedure. Just because someone is born with plumbing they psychologically don't appreciate or understand what its used for is no reason I have to pay for remodeling their dwelling ;-)
Abortion should only be legal for those who support it. A self resolving problem. Nature always provides.
so you would not disagree with a woman choosing to have an abortion provided she sourced the fee?
I disagree with many things, but that does not mean that I have the power or write to pass a law to prevent it. If there is God's law or "natural" law then that implies to me that God or nature will pass judgement and punishment if called for. I just retain the right to publicly disagree without fear of reprimand or punishment....which includes forcing me to pay for another's decisions, be it an abortion OR the care of their unwanted children. This is where God or nature comes in to correct the error in judgment. There are plenty enough regrets to go around, but bad choices define us as much or more than those trying to correct them.
Choice SHOULD have consequence.
thanks for your reply, and I agree all choices should have consequences. I actually believe they do.
and I don't disagree with your caveat that you are not forced to pay for anothers actions/choices - in fact, were the State to stop subsidising their tax'd peoples, I suspect the "baby" problem would resolve itself rather quickly. particularly since there's been an agenda to keep certain folks, shall we say, dependent on .gov monies, dating back to LBJ. though to be fair, both teams are complicit at this stage.
actions -> consequences. . . that's what a learning experience is all about.
Oldwood: Nature always provides? Are you a Darwinian? Is nature allowing for the 'Survival of the fittest?"
Should you decide to reply, think first.
Refer to above...and stuff it up your ass. And I say that in the most loving and Libertarian way. You are free to choose.
He is a cop, Oldwood.
He believes that laws actually prevent behavior...which they do not.
They only provide for sociallly imposed penalties after the fact of the evidence of a violation.
And that is what he believes justice to be.
Of course I believe that Levitical and Mosaic codes are must more just than his system.
But from my reading he does not believe in God or God's ultimate justice...
He worships the state...Rome.
Politics explained:
To continue, INSERT COIN.
Lashonda, is that you?
h_h asked:
In the uterus, except for unusual cases like tubal pregnancies.
Cost of a condom/pill 1$ per act
Cost of Abortion in the Free Market 1-2k per abortion
Cost of raising a child (without government help) 10k per year
yawn, bullshit
<== Brawndo (The Thirst Mutilator)
<== Coke, Pepsi, Dr. Pepper
Brought to you by Carl's Jr.
Good stuff indeed... The first few times. It's like telling the same joke to the same folks now, though!
But...but...but electrolytes are good for you.
That is not a joke.
Government IS force. No one wants the rules voluntary for others, only for ourselves. Face it people, you can't get to utopia voluntarily.
" Face it people, you can't get to utopia voluntarily."
As the fictional Utopia was a compulsory, centrally planned society that's true. The (inevitably doomed) search for Utopia is for statists alone.
Utopia....a mythically contrived existence populated by non human AI bots.
Immigration?
Education?
Government involvement in the food industry?
Privacy?
Race relations?
Public displays of Christian symbols during Christmas?
And this is precisely why I hate labels. In fact labels are the lazy (wo)man's solution to navigating his or her own ignorance.
Freedom is just too damned scary for most folks. They need tyranny to hide behind and another to fear.
A few years ago I would have agreed with you.
Nowadays, I'm more inclined to think that most folks are just too fucking stupid and/or brainwashed to understand the concept of freedom- let alone embrace it.
We have always been stupid when we have subcontracted the responsibility for our personal freedoms and well being to others.
Well said, CD. Tolerance is good for us, but the priorities of some seem a bit odd.
Left to my own devises, I could go for months without getting worked up about gay marriage;)
It is a mistake to equate gay marriage to abortion. Conservatives who seek to preserve the sanctity of marriage do not realize that ship has sailed and sunk years ago. Marriage is nothing of what it was originally conceived. It was about family, about procreation, about a survivable economic unit that would perpetuate our existence AND values. That shit is dead. As a veteran of three marriages (well I'm still in the third) with NO children, I can say marriage for me has been equal if not less meaningful than most gay relationships I know.
Abortion is about not just societal values but actual life and death and while it is to all of our personal immediate advantage to assume that NO life on this planet matters but our own, ultimately when we each find our lives placed in the societal balance of economy and convenience, especially with our new progressive healthcare, we may find society's value of our life coming up somewhat short. In a world where we are only responsible for ourselves and can place no burden on another, an abortion would seem to be only a personal choice with little relevance to others, BUT, in a socialized society, with the public's "interests" increasingly becoming policy decisions, each of us has their lives, the value of their lives, held in a public perception balance. Be they a zygote lump of cells or a feeble lump of elderly tissue no longer adding value to the public balance sheet. Just think about it. Not saying there should be a law, but there is ALWAYS consequence.
Oldwood,
when the "society" we live in stops the war machine that kills OTHER human's actual babies/children, when children in amrka are desired and cared for, the ones that are already born - then maybe start worrying about forcing full term pregnancies on women who obviously don't want them. when every baby has a loving home, with food and care, then go after the "strays".
and to add - when this culture decides to involve the man who has donated his sperm to make that zygote, involve him financially, then maybe an argument can be made. as it is, this invisible sperm donor never gets a mention in these "abortion rights" threads. and I'm not talking about divorced dads, I'm talking about men who impregnate and vanish.
takes two to make a "baby".
Short of rape it takes two to impregnate and while it is unfair that it is left to the woman to bear this burden, it changes nothing. We have publicly promoted every attitude that contributes to unwanted pregnancies, while simultaneously providing an easy "solution". As children of our parents who are increasingly aging by the day, we did not choose to have them. It is an unfair burden to care for them and many are difficult and unappreciative, so shall we abort them? It is a dangerous path you tread. Life is not convenient or fair but that does not justify ending it. We all have responsibilities and not all are of our choosing. How we choose to respond to those responsibilities defines us. You are entitled to your opinion as am I, but I did lose a child to abortion, something I went along with, not because I couldn't afford it or that is would destroy my career choices, but because it was convenient. 30 years ago...and I still wonder and carry its guilt. I do not want to impose that guilt on others but it means something, the loss of life and what it might have meant, but what it says about me as well. Like most things in the abstract seem simple, yet in reality not. My sister in law is progressive an fully supports abortion. Given that she has two children I asked if she would have an abortion and she emphatically affirmed she would. I asked her why given that the child could be easily adopted by someone who would love and care for it and she responded she could NEVER surrender her child to adoption, much preferring abortion. How can you argue with that logic? This is the logic of abortion. Convenience and emotions over life. Responsibility only after freedom. This is our loss. Freedom infers ultimate responsibility, not freedom from it.
again, I appreciate your reply.
and as you write, the subject is emotive for many, and often opinions have much backstory propping them up.
I'm just going to say "I" haven't promoted these notions, and perhaps neither have you? the "culture" is definitely steered in directions those of us who live "in" it might disagree with. I don't support adding more governing at a time when we can barely move for the "laws" being enacted, and they continue to increase.
a sane culture/society would recognise that a media that promotes "choices" and enforces "consequences" doesn't work over time. but then, a sane culture wouldn't be heavily invested in a military killing machine that exists globally, and threatens all human lives, merely for more power and resource extraction. we don't live in a sane culture, and amrka chooses to ignore the actions of a global police state, in favour of flag-waving and yellow ribbon nonsense.
if amrka was as devoted to the gods it professes to love, none of this would be an issue. I think you might agree.
peace.
The argument for abortions is about "my" rights. The argument against war is about other people's right to life. When we minimize life, be it in an uborn child or in a land far away, we minimize our own life. Again, I'm not arguing law, I'm arguing morales and their value. Too many see morals as a legal restriction and I resist that. We don't need written laws to enforce morals, we simply need to understand that morals have value in their thousands of years of evolution. I don't need a law to tell me it is wrong to kill. We make laws to justify killing, providing legal protection for "justifiable homicide" and war. Abortion is simply another justified killing protected by law. It should not be a matter of law but of morals. Something that those promoting this law claimed would be safe AND rare. Nothing rare about it. Legal justification has defacto created moral justification. No one is ashamed of having an abortion as it is their right, like all of the other entitlements that used to be looked down upon. As a matter of fact the only public resistance is to suggest these entitlements are bad behavior. To voice your opinion to the contrary is to offer yourself up for destruction.
"I hate labels..."
So then verbs only? How ya gonna call a spade a spade?
i called myself a libertarian when i was 17. then i grew the fuck up
"i called myself a libertarian when i was 17. then i grew the fuck up"
Did you grow up or give up? Or are you a paid gov shill? By the looks of that sentence, you never grew up.
Libertarianism is a wonderful IDEAL.
However it will never work in practice as Humans are Herd Animals and Hard Wired against it.
They seek leadership instinctually. They seek out the alpha male in the herd.
(That is why there is so much Man Love for Putin spewed here. He is most definitely a leader.)
Few and far between can control their instinctual impulses and the commenters on Zerohedge are demonstrative of that fact.
Libertarianism is a Pipe Dream, a distraction from the EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE and the dismal reality that we are all fucked and that...
THERE ARE NO POLITICAL SOLUTIONS.
Left wing girls are better in bed...never done a 'L'.
Earth Girls are Easy
Arrragh...
The leftie babes whine and moan about everything when you're doing it. I mean it is just so damned hard to perform when she's bitching in your ear about the diminutive size of white men's penises and how "you" in particular remind he of the thousands of inequalities needed to be rectified and that if you didn't watch FOX news you'd probably have a bigger schlong and it's such an inconvenience that she's trying to help you out when you've such debilitating deformities and then asks if you want to go to the Obama support rally in a few minutes.
And you're laying there thinking about that for moment when she gets up, slips her jeans back on without washing, tucks her armpit hair back under her Anonymous Sees Everything tee shirt and leaves without washing.
The only good thing to come of it is that you rifle about to find the bleach and take a bath, soak in a 3% solution for about 15 minutes.....
Then go to the local clinic followed by a tanning salon where you pay an additional $10 for a full unfiltered UV light bath for 15 minutes.
dup.
Damn knuks, that smell came through the modem.
Ruined my left over barbeque.
Heheh. This is very true.
I see they're missing one, perhaps a redhead. That would be the "Crony Capitalist. If you are all for the revolving door between regulators and giant corporations. If you are for no bid contracts and nepotism. If you are for a private industry controlling the nations currency. If you are for legislation written by and serving the few. I figured a Redhead would be perfect, communism for the select few. Private gains and public losses. On a side note I think I'd be married to the Libertarian and banging the lefty on the side.
Crony Capitalism usually seems to fit neoliberal economics, so appears as Economic liberalism. No one actually comes out publicly and says "I'm for Crony Capitalism".
Imagine Donald Trump coming out and saying that and then feeling the waters for a presidential run.
- Economic liberalism, the ideological belief in organizing the economy on individualist lines, such that the greatest possible number of economic decisions are made by private individuals and not by collective institutions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism
libertarians are selfish, heartless, stupid anarchists.
that is all.
And?
it's called a joke.
and?
Dup
There is a difference between libertarianism and anarchism. This article is really portraying anarchism, not libertarianism.
The key is to keep organizations small enough that when their experimental Utopian schemes collapse, they don't take everyone else with them. Communists are convinced that the only thing preventing their schemes from succeeding is the lack of total tyranny. One ring to rule them all. Keep it small and maybe most will survive.... Maybe.
Small [in population] republics are anti-fragile - Nassim Taleb
On the other hand, places like the Isle of Man have remained largely intact for 1000 years. I was there in May. Not a lot of taxes, not a lot of regulation on business (i.e. If you want to start-up an on-line gambling business, you are free to do so).
An on-line gambling business? LOL. This is one more "industry" that is ripe for technological disruption. With blockchain technology and some more clever cryptography they are developing games and bets that are executed in a decentralized way, provably fair (i.e. no cheating on the odds), and no need for trusted third parties. Thus there is no longer a business that is taking a cut from the gambling itself, let alone a government taking a tax.
As for government sizes - this is just an illusion coming from the empirical observation that small and less intrusive governments tend to be tolerated longer. However, if the government is designed around violations of basic principles such as non-aggression, then no matter how small the violations and how good the intentions, it is a untenable and unacceptable situation.
"libertarians are selfish, heartless, stupid anarchists."
Fixed --> Statists (e.g. dems and repubs) are selfish, heartless, stupid control freaks.
That is increasingly my assessment as well.
Funny, and true.
if only it were that simple.
Wings are for the birds. Like hh says, "The NFL won the superbowl again last year."
I would put it as thus:
Left wing says they are for a bunch of stuff but arent
Right wing says they are for a bunch of stuff but aren't
Libertarians say 'just leave me the fuck alone"
.
not all flavours agree on whether to leave a woman the fuck alone to make choices about her body. for many, this is an important distinction.
but I reckon this "libertarian" label is a passing fad for many, particularly as they've yet to settle on a definitive "manifesto".
and apparently, according to the OP illustrations, only women vote.
click bait.
A woman IS free to make choices about her body.
If she doesn't want the natural result of sticking a penis in her body,
She is free to NOT stick penises in her body.
this is not a complete picture. If you want to categorise choose the 4 quadrants :
Those who are for/against individual liberties and are for/against strong government under democracy.
Then the 4 quadrants are :
Liberal = for individual liberties but for strong government.
Conservative = against individual liberties (for reasons of morality/tradition). For strong government (for the same reasons).
Libertarian/Anarchist = for individual liberties and for weak government. Ron Paul.
Libertarian/Oligarchist = False libertarian. Died in the wool Neo Con. Rabid, false nosed proto-fascist who would love a dictator (Patton) to run the country once the anarchy shit hits the fans. Koch-a-doodle is a good example.
So this last category is in reality for weak government and falsely for individual liberties which as Oligarchy deniers they really despise.
Examples : Kissinger was a conservative. GWB was a Neo-con. JFK was a liberal.
Reagan was a front man for Oligarchy rule preaching the libertarian mantra. As Maggie said about him (read this : http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/nov/10/margaret-thatcher-r....
Maggie even treated in private Ronnie as not having much "between the ears".
Please try again.
why?
Politics is a dirty game but its simple once the motives are known. Its about power and its wrappings.
In a nominal democracy people have to wrap their product in a brand name which people can relate to and be comfortable with. Madison Avenue meets Power brokers to selling the packaging and it takes at least two Major parties to serve the democracy meme, and two minor variants to complete all trends.
The fourth quadrant is traditionally labelled "populist." Two intersecting axes define the quadrants. These axes are labelled greater or lesser government control and greater or lesser personal freedom.
what a rational poet.
Anarchist libertarians will always be minor players in a nominal democracy.
The main players stay Liberal and Conservative as they understand how power and state work together.
The only question is : what happens to the judicial and fourth estate; do they have the counterpowers to Watergate the executive and to impeach the President ?
Thats the acid test.
"Anarchist libertarians will always be minor players in a nominal democracy."
Yes, free individuals will always be under attack as long as the elite class demands and receives the absolute moral authority to use guns and prisons against them.
'Anarchist libertarians' are a fictional construct, ie, the two labels are mutually incompatible.
Libertarians want to allow the evil to continue to exist so long as it operates within certain pre-defined boundaries.
Anarchists wish to eliminate the evil in its entirety.
Consider the anarchistic and libertarian sentiments expressed by Thoreau in the opening of Civil Disobedience. He sees libertarianism as a pathway to anarchism. He might be right or wrong but the philosophies are definitely not incompatible.
I HEARTILY ACCEPT the motto, — "That government is best which governs least";(1) and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe, — "That government is best which governs not at all"; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have. Government is at best but an expedient; but most governments are usually, and all governments are sometimes, inexpedient. The objections which have been brought against a standing army, and they are many and weighty, and deserve to prevail, may also at last be brought against a standing government. The standing army is only an arm of the standing government. The government itself, which is only the mode which the people have chosen to execute their will, is equally liable to be abused and perverted before the people can act through it. Witness the present Mexican war,(2) the work of comparatively a few individuals using the standing government as their tool; for, in the outset, the people would not have consented to this measure.
[2] This American government — what is it but a tradition, though a recent one, endeavoring to transmit itself unimpaired to posterity, but each instant losing some of its integrity? It has not the vitality and force of a single living man; for a single man can bend it to his will. It is a sort of wooden gun to the people themselves. But it is not the less necessary for this; for the people must have some complicated machinery or other, and hear its din, to satisfy that idea of government which they have. Governments show thus how successfully men can be imposed on, even impose on themselves, for their own advantage. It is excellent, we must all allow. Yet this government never of itself furthered any enterprise, but by the alacrity with which it got out of its way. It does not keep the country free. It does not settle the West. It does not educate. The character inherent in the American people has done all that has been accomplished; and it would have done somewhat more, if the government had not sometimes got in its way. For government is an expedient by which men would fain succeed in letting one another alone; and, as has been said, when it is most expedient, the governed are most let alone by it. Trade and commerce, if they were not made of India rubber,(3) would never manage to bounce over the obstacles which legislators are continually putting in their way; and, if one were to judge these men wholly by the effects of their actions, and not partly by their intentions, they would deserve to be classed and punished with those mischievous persons who put obstructions on the railroads.
[3] But, to speak practically and as a citizen, unlike those who call themselves no-government men,(4) I ask for, not at once no government, but at once a better government. Let every man make known what kind of government would command his respect, and that will be one step toward obtaining it.
http://thoreau.eserver.org/civil1.html
I think you make light of the game---in truth to have power today you must do murder-thats right murder--so you don't have libertarians any where near power--just saying.
"in truth to have power today you must do murder"
The counter to that is intelligence and intelligent allies. Therefore we have public schooling.
falak pema,
Cognitive Dissonance wrote above: And this is precisely why I hate labels. In fact labels are the lazy (wo)man's solution to navigating his or her own ignorance.
Then, here you are, Falak, with a great post, helping the people liberating from their own ignorance.
Love your examples.
Well done, Sir!
Your liberals are for individual freedoms until you feel threatened by them, or just plain insulted. Political correctness is a liberals most favorite weapon.
I think he is saying Liberal in the European Sense. American Liberals typically are though of as the Pro-Gay, Pro-GLBT, Anti-Gun, Anti-Handgun, Anti-War (unless you are Barack Obama)... Pro-Hollywood, Global Warming, PETA, Anti-Oil, Pro Minority Quota Systems (old EEO System).
Founding Fathers were Liberals as they threw off the Monarchy which was Traditional Government.
This might be the Definition:
- Classical liberalism, a political or social philosophy advocating the freedom of the individual, parliamentary systems of government, nonviolent modification of political, social, or economic institutions to assure unrestricted development in all spheres of human endeavor, and governmental guarantees of individual rights and civil liberties.
"classical" definitions have no meaning in today's discussions seeing as how the meaning of words has been turned upon us. I refer to "your" liberals meaning Left wing loonies intent on fracturing anything that anyone would historically refer to as "values". Everything that has advanced us from living in caves is to be discarded as politically incorrect, as destructive, and especially unenlightened. Modernity...lemming over the cliff. Gravity is for Luddites.
falak, I strongly disagree with this:
Libertarian/Anarchist = for individual liberties and for weak government. Ron Paul.
Paul and son are both conservative christian first, and whatever derivatives of the "libertarian" second, nothing "anarchist" about 'em.
Ron Paul
Rand Paul
Ron Paul is NOT a Christian conservative. That label is his cover.
He's a luciferian Rosicrucian.
http://watch.pair.com/synarchy-6.html
+1 for expanding the framework, but hard to accept Ron Paul as an example of libertarian/anarchist...i trust this was an honest mistake ;-)
so, where do you figure in chomsky, bakunin, and kropotkin?
They sound terribly exotic to me but I'll try.
Bakunin was an anachist who invented Socialist libertarian philosophy. He wanted the State to be bridled, away from divine rulers, and governed by the people.
Chomsky is etymologist of a liberal mindset. He fights against state fascism.
Kropotkin died heroicly on battleship Potemkine by the sound of his name and became an Icon in that film by Eisenstein --(Now I have to stop drinking that Chardonnay).
no more exotic than falak pema ;-)
where do you fit, if i may i ask?
or, can you not be boxed in?
The Libertarian stand is always the best one unless you care about such a things as an absolute morality. But, of course, not having an absolute morality is how we got the excesses of both right and left.
To paraphrase Dennis Moore, "This governance thing is more difficult than I thought."
Try that again?
How about this, then -
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
John Adams
You can't have limited government without people who will limit their own behavior and have a moral code that is the basis for a system of justice. This means, eventually, you must say to someone else, "NO. YOU CAN'T DO THAT." Too many libertarians aren't willing to do that.
Libertarianism and anarchism are based on the non-aggression principle. That principle is the only moral principle underlying any political philosophy invented by man. Any political creed which violates the NAP is by definition immoral, unethical and uncivilized. All statist creeds stand in stark opposition to the NAP.
The so-called "non-aggression principle" is ridiculous bullshit. Demanding politics without violence is the same as demanding physics without force. People who promote that "non-aggression principle" are reactionary revolutionaries, who indulge in being as deliberately stupid regarding real politics as they can be, especially since their kind of ignorance also deliberately ignores all the rest of physics and biology too!
"Statist creeds" are based on the de facto history that human realities were always organized lies operating robberies, and must necessarily continue to be. The bullshit ideals of Libertarianism and anarchism actually make the opposite happen in the real world! They are good examples of how people can routinely present relatively good analysis of the real problems, only to then collapse back to bullshit "solutions," based on impossible ideals, which could never exist, and therefore, promoting those kinds of "solutions" continues to ONLY make the opposite happen in the real world.
I ought to knock you silly for spouting that crap.
Does that work better for you than non-aggression? If so, why?
I regard my attitude as consistent with physics and biology, while yours floats free, giving itself poetic license to promote the silly little love songs about political possibilities, which are often far more popular, but much less realistic.
Libertarians are the _only_ political movement that has an absoluate morality - "don't hurt people, don't take their stuff".
Well some of us consider a child in the womb as "people". We also think the laws of God and Nature are worth some consideration as well...like gay marriage is the quintessential oxymoron.
Thankfully, you are welcome to practice your beliefs. Please be so kind as to allow others the same.
You see, the problem with telling a free people (theoretically free) NO, is who gets to say it and what they get to say it about.
Life on this planet is currently an oxymoron.
Humorist Mort Sahl lays it all down in this 1967 episode of Hollywood Palace. Same topic as above. Chuckles guaranteed. Go 42:42 into the vid . . . http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=REZ6e4gxCSw&list=UU4eRidJWTPHhfomeSEaxUjw
The chart is wrong; it shows Libertarians to be Anrchists.
If you want to be an Anarchist, fine. Just don't smear the Libertarians with your stupidity.
Reaspms" Humans are too greedy; charity does not, and has never, worked; and, having no currency is absurd - unless you have an illiterate populace, and a feudal society. But, I suppose you think you will be a Lord and not a vassel.
I recommend you read last Wednesday's Archdruid Report.
Craig
"If you want to be an Anarchist, fine. Just don't smear the Libertarians with your stupidity. "
The real Zaphod would have it the other way around.
Your current life is 90% anarchy, why not the last 10%?
Should the gov't tell you who to marry?, what to buy?, what job to get? what to do in a day?
Administrators can be privatized, then we will have no rulers and the administrators will finally be accountable.
Libertarians are still Statists who just cannot fully let go of their Daddy/Mommy complex.
But, but, somebody has to tell us what to do!
Government does not seek to force to buy or marry or work, they seek to make you WANT to act their will. Force is reserved for the hardheaded, destined for the re-education camp.
The real zaphod was President of the Galaxy. HE ran it the way a Libertarian would.
Libertarians believe that a minimum of government is necessary; and the least necessary is the goal. However, with anarcny you have a Hobbsian nightmare. Minimum of criminal laws to keep bullies in line; minimum armed forces to keep the heathans from our shores; minimum regulation to keep banksters from stealing everything.
School children support anarchy; society will enforce rules, be it forthcoming from the local Lord, Mayor, Governor, President or Emperor.
I note that neither you nor anyone else refuted my statement that the chart used anarchist positions and labeled them as Libertarian. All anyone has done is to cry that this makes Libertarians Statists.
All I would have to add is, be careful what you wish for. You might get it, and I can promise you would NOT like it!
Craig
I think the key is "You should not be forced."
ABSURDITY is promoting whatever "should be" when that has almost nothing to do with what IS!
What is even more absurd is expecting that which should be and denying, instead of accepting, that which is.
But I think that is what you meant.
Yeah, Tall Tom, I do NOT "agree" with big bullies being able to beat the shit out of people until the survivors out of those groups being beaten up will then parrot the bullies' bullshit. However, those are the real social facts, and it does no good to pretend those are not the facts, nor to propose political miracles that the bullies' bullshit could be resisted without resisting.
I think the longer term consequences of forcing more people to accept frauds are TERRIBLE for everyone, including even those who benefit in the short-term. However, any chance of changing that MUST be based on facing the facts regarding the mechanisms that make that happen. Just spouting impossible ideals that that "should not" be the case does nothing, but rather, only actually enables it to get worse!
Thank god it was a "table". I'm getting sick of "charts"!
is this a joke?
The graphic makes it look like Republicans were behind Medicare and Medicaid.
One of the failings of unthinking conservativism is that it sticks to the status quo even if the status quo was initiated by socialists.
unthinking conservativism
It is possible for a 12-year-girl to be a fierce Progressive, and be able to articulate many if not most of the core Progressive dogma.
iow, if you haven't learned to critically think, and instead experience gushing emotions, you can be a Progressive.
Being onservative, however, requires thought. It is hard to understand why the minimum wage, the command-and-control economy, and bans on free speech if they are 'Hate' speech are all bad ideas. It is even harder to understand that the liberal/Progressive goal of redistributing wealth really sucks.
Before I learned to think, I was liberal. After reality and hard knocks had me on the canvas dozens of times, I started to learn to think and became a conservative.
The above does not apply universally, of course. There are unthinking conservatives, but my experience is that liberalism is more emotion than thought, and conservatism is more cerebral than visceral.
I was thinking about the "Don't let the government mess with my Medicare" signs reported at conservative rallies. I understand the point but the message is muddled.
True.
People want to believe and retirees believe that these benefits have been paid for with the deductions of forty years from their paychecks. You can't blame them for feeling this way because this is what they have been told all these years...but they are wrong. The money is gone, it was pilfered and stolen, and demanding to be made whole will create ripples that will mature into waves and eventually tsunamis washing us out to sea to drown. Its a burden to great, regardless of fairness or law.
I copied this earlier this year the data might be from 2009 in some cases.
Medicare take in what it needs to pay out and doesn't have much extra in the trust. Social Security looks a lot better.
- Social Security total of $2.7 trillion (assets of the combined OASDI Trust Funds in 2011)
- Social Security requires (Over the 75-year period) additional revenue equivalent to $8.6 trillion to pay all scheduled benefits
- Total Medicare spending is projected to increase from $523 billion in 2010 to $932 billion by 2020
- Medicare enrollment From 2010 to 2030 is projected to increase from 47 million to 79 million,
- Medicare ratio of workers to enrollees is expected to decrease from 3.7 to 2.4.[60]
- Medicare Total benefits paid in 2009 were $502 billion
- Medicare Total expenditures were $509 billion
- Medicare Total Revenues were $508 bilion
- Medicare Total Investments were $381 billion
- But look at Outlays for Health and Human Services for 2013 = $1.113 trillion...(That is where Medicare and Medicaid budget falls)
well at least we know they are behind income credits--- via the "great communicator"
Tell me one thing they have eliminated from either program. Go ahead, Google it.
Republicans are just like Democrats, in that they are all for whatever keeps getting them votes. Virtually everyone over 50 loves Medicare and Social Security. Everyone who has limited income and likmited prospects for that changing loves medicaid. None of these programs is going away as long as they can print money and buy votes. The only questions, regardless of which party is in charge, is how much and hoow fast they will increase.
Sure, you get the young buck who runs off the reservation evey now and again, like Paul Ryan, but that buck soon learns that he is without followers when it comes time to actaully stop the war dance and actually start fighting.
foolish person--you think medicare/caid is about heath care for the poor--its about guaranteed profits for insurers and big pharma, AMA and other gov't mandated monopolies-- and govt jobs--
with out Medi whatever we would have house calls and $30 doctor visits with $300 dollar a dyy rooms in the hospital and even asprin under $0.50 ------trust me on this
Interesting Point. Not sure I heard that before. People should talk about this more.
We need to Audit the Health Care system, the Hospitals, the Clinics.
And we should cut Lawyer Billing time in Malpractice too. Call it Civil Suit Reform. Establish Benchmarks, Case Precedents, Cases which allow judges quick rulings & quick awards of smaller Dollars... as part of a system that reduces Health Care Costs.
Have to get the Drug Companies under control too.