Democrats/Liberals and Individualism?

[Elektrix]

Hi all,

I was recently in a bit of a political debate with someone, but it ended up with something that I really didn't know how to respond to.

This started off with me asking about his signature, which I've seen in many places:

"The common good comes before the private good."
-- Nazi slogan

"Comrades! We must abolish the cult of the individual decisively, once and for all."
--Nikita Khrushchev

"All our lives we fought against exalting the individual, against the elevation of the single person, and long ago we were over and done with the business of a hero, and here it comes up again: the glorification of one personality. This is not good at all."
--Vladimir Lenin

"We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society."
-- Hillary Clinton

See the pattern?


I then asked him about this, as the only source for this Hillary Clinton quote I can find is among other people who have also grouped these quotes together to make some point about her. It struck me as odd, and I also said I thought it was sort of faulty to say the people must be the same because of their quotes. He replied to this with:

I've dropped the "pattern" line from my signature. I will leave the quotes, they are taken from a reliable source. Hillary Clinton, and the Democratic party in general to a lesser extent, are against all forms of individuality IMO. Hillary Clinton is also a quasi-socialist. As opposed to the others in my signature who are full blown socialists.

"It takes a village to raise a child". No, it takes two parents to raise a child. I do not know about you, when I have children of my own, my wife and I, possibly our parents, will be the only people raising our children. Not the potential child molester down the street. The government has no place in the upbringing of our children. Mandatory preschool anyone? Gore ran on preschool, as did Bill McBride, as I am sure other Democrats have. What is best for society is not always best for the individual. I celebrate my individuality, I would hope that others do as well. That is the point that I am trying to get across. The government does not always know what is best for us. As long as I am harming no one, and breaking no laws, stay out of my life.

I asked him to explain this viewpoint on individualism, and he replied with:

As an individual you are responsible for your own actions, correct? Not according to the Left. If you are some gang-bangin’ thug who one day car jacks a pregnant woman and shots her point blank on the side of the road, it’s not your fault. You are a product of the environment that you grew up in. You are a poor African-American (don’t even get me started on hyphenated Americanism) striking back for years of oppression and slavery. You cannot possibly be held accountable for the actions that you took. To recognize said thug as an individual he would then be forced to take responsibility for a murder and grand theft auto. The Liberal point of view is that he is not an individual, he is just part of society.

I am a registered Republican. A pro-choice, anti-religion Republican. I in no way agree with everything that comes from the Right. I find myself agreeing with them more than I do any other party. I voted for several Democrats in the last state election. Buddy Dwyer . I consider myself a Moderate Conservative with Libertarian tendencies.

And then offered this Neal Boortz article saying it represented his views on individualism:

The War on Individualism (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29119)

Now, I have heard some of these things before, but I honestly didn't know how to respond to this. I consider myself a liberal, and a Democrat, but I've never thought of myself or liberalism or the Democratic party being "anti-individual" or whatever.

I was just wondering what you all thought of this, and perhaps how you might respond to these points?

It seems like an interesting topic, at the very least, but I'm not sure I completely understand it.

-Elektrix

[Tony]

Originally posted by Elektrix
I was just wondering what you all thought of this, and perhaps how you might respond to these points?




You're friend has a good head on his shoulders, and he is basically right. Individual rights are not a priority for the left (generally speaking) as evidenced by their various stands on issues i.e., gun control, and taxes.

[Lurker]

I don't see any problem with Hillary's quote. To not think like that would mean charities would be extinct. Volunteerism, or a Million Points of Light, would be dead.

Lurker

[Tony]

Originally posted by Lurker
I don't see any problem with Hillary's quote. To not think like that would mean charities would be extinct. Volunteerism, or a Million Points of Light, would be dead.



False, you can be an individualist and still care about society at large. What Hillary is saying is that we need to care about society at the expense of the individual, with that I disagree.

[Mr Manifesto]

If you are some gang-bangin’ thug who one day car jacks a pregnant woman and shots her point blank on the side of the road, it’s not your fault.

This is a common strawman used against the left all the time. There's a myth that the left would have all criminals running free all the time to rape everyone's mothers.

The problem is that the left's arguments are obviously too complicated for the hang 'em high crowd. Environment, poverty, racism, etc, etc, are used to explain things like crack heads car jacking pregnant women and shooting them point blank on the side of the head. No one in the left (no one who isn't completely insane, anyway) has ever suggested that these people shouldn't go to jail. What they do suggest is concentrating on rehabilitation, rather than punitive imprisonment, and perhaps improving environmental/economical/societal, etc, etc, etc conditions so this sort of thing doesn't happen any more than it absolutely has to.

Your friend's view that all it takes is two parents to raise a child is a little wiggy, too. Is he suggesting that children never get baby-sat, or left with grandparents, or get support from other family friends and neighbours? If so, what planet does he come from?

[Tmy]

Ask not what your country can do for you.........


I dont think its about individulaism. Its about greed. The gimme gimmee, mine, mine, attitude that many people have . (Both on the left and right). Its fine to look out for number 1 but you should balance things out. You can do things that are for the good of society, even if theres little financial gain.

For example picking up a piece of trash on the street. There will people who think "I dodnt put it there so Im not going to pick it up" or "Thats the citys responsibility to pick it up" or "I'm not getting my hands dirty this isnt my neighborhood" then theres the guy who'll pick it up and toss it in the trash, just because. The situation has nothing to do wh individualism, just wh attitude.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Elektrix
"The common good comes before the private good."
-- Nazi slogan

"Comrades! We must abolish the cult of the individual decisively, once and for all."
--Nikita Khrushchev

"All our lives we fought against exalting the individual, against the elevation of the single person, and long ago we were over and done with the business of a hero, and here it comes up again: the glorification of one personality. This is not good at all."
--Vladimir Lenin

"We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society."
-- Hillary Clinton You forgot one.

"And so, my fellow americans: ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country. My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man."
-- John F. Kennedy

edited to add: Tmy beat me to it, but I'll leave the full quote.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Upchurch


"And so, my fellow americans: ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country. My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man."
-- John F. Kennedy


Care to explain how this quote relates to the fascist quotes mentioned above?

[Tmy]

I think the implication is that if facists said these ( and Hillary) things then obviously their ideas about societal thinking are wrong and evil. Thast not really tryue, even JFK's comment was bout the the same idea, and he wasnt a commie. Sometimes commies have a good ideas. You dont have to take things to commie extremes. You can be both an individual and at the same time act in a way that benefits the greater good. People do this all the time. Usually the greater good cosists the family. Dad works a sh*tty job for the good of the wife n kids. And we praise that. Its just some people freak out when we aim for a larger greater good. As if we will turn commie just cause your base some actions on whats best for others rather than yourslef.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Tony

Care to explain how this quote relates to the fascist quotes mentioned above? er... I thought it was fairly obvious, but okay.

"And so, my fellow americans: ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country. My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man."
-- John F. Kennedy

Kennedy's message to both Americans and all people here is essentially to not consider your own needs but rather on the needs of the U.S. and the world, repsectively.

Likewise,
"The common good comes before the private good."
-- Nazi slogan

While the Nazi slogan is a little more demanding, it hold the same basic premise. It is stating that the private good, or need, should not be placed before the common good, or need.

"Comrades! We must abolish the cult of the individual decisively, once and for all."
--Nikita Khrushchev

Again, this is much more heavy handed, then Kennedy's (or even Clinton's) message, but it continues with the same theme.

"All our lives we fought against exalting the individual, against the elevation of the single person, and long ago we were over and done with the business of a hero, and here it comes up again: the glorification of one personality. This is not good at all."
--Vladimir Lenin

Okay, on this one, I'll grant you, isn't a perfect fit. It's less about promotion of the needs of the state and more about the stamping down of needs of the private individual. It's basically only half of the theme and a really oppressive version of it at that.

"We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society."
-- Hillary Clinton

I would guess that this was borrowed directly from Kennedy, personally. I'm not sure how I could explain it that would make it any more plain.

Oh, and I thought of another one.

"The needs of the many outweight the needs of the few, or the one."
--Spock

:roll:

[Tony]

Originally posted by Tmy
Thast not really tryue, even JFK's comment was bout the the same idea...


Actually it wasn’t, JFK's comment was political puffery meant to inspire individuals to elevate the nation. The fascist comments were ominous comments highlighting a policy of crushing the individual. BIG DIFFERANCE.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Tony



Actually it wasn’t, JFK's comment was political puffery meant to inspire individuals to elevate the nation. The fascist comments were ominous comments highlighting a policy of crushing the individual. BIG DIFFERANCE. I'd grant you that on the middle two you posted, but how do you justify that in the Nazi slogan and in Clinton's statement? Those both seem in the same vain as Kennedy's statement to me.

[Tmy]

"Theres no "I' in team!"- Every Coach in the country

Pro sports is an example of balancing the idividual wh the greater good. The individual athlete wants to do well for hinmslef so he can get more $$ and endorcements. At the same time hes part of team. There are times good of the team may not jive wh his individual success (for example contract bonus for good stats). It wont sit well with the team and fans if a player is percived to be motre interesed in his stats than in the teams success.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Tmy
"Theres no "I' in team!"- Every Coach in the country

Pro sports is an example of balancing the idividual wh the greater good. The individual athlete wants to do well for hinmslef so he can get more $$ and endorcements. At the same time hes part of team. There are times good of the team may not jive wh his individual success (for example contract bonus for good stats). It wont sit well with the team and fans if a player is percived to be motre interesed in his stats than in the teams success.

Pro sports is a game people make lots of money playing. It isn't government policy that will dictate how people will live their lives. Please find a better analogy.

[Upchurch]

"Takin' one for the team" is another phrase that I used just the other day.

I have to agree with Tmy. The concept itself isn't inherently evil. In fact, the concept of democracy itself is based on the concept that the opinion of the whole should be more important than the opinion of the individual. Thus, we have majority rule rather than monarchy rule.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Upchurch

In fact, the concept of democracy itself is based on the concept that the opinion of the whole should be more important than the opinion of the individual.

Thats exactly why the US isnt a democracy. In such a government the majority can oppress the minorty.

[Michael Redman]

An individual is most able to enjoy freedom as a member of a strong, stable society. In nature, life is “nasty, brutish, and short”. If you want to enjoy your property, you need a society to recognize your right to exclusive use of it. All of the rights we hold as essential are only rights so far as others recognize and defend them. Without a society, no rights. Individualism in anarchy is far more limited and unpleasant than in a strong, dynamic, and rich society.

Anyone who wants to promote individualism had better advocate for a strong society. To claim that Hillary wants a strong society at the expense of the individual, and not for the benefit of the individual, is simply fanciful, hate inspired thinking. Nothing in fact supports this cynical view of her motives. Even if you feel that she favors a paternalistic socialist government making decisions for people that an individualist would rather the individuals be free to make for themselves, it is for the sake of the individual, not the government, that these decisions are arguable taken out of the hands of the individuals felt not capable of making the right decisions for themselves, in the kind of democratic socialism Hillary is accused of promoting. This is obviously a far cry from the fascist philosophy in which the individual exists to serve the state, and decisions are made by the state for its own benefit. (Kind of like where Ashcroft and Co. take away personal freedom in the name of state security. Or so it could be argued.)

The sports analogy is perfectly good. All do better individually when the whole does better. Acting in a completely self centered manner is not only bad for the group, it's bad for self interest. Wise selfish people act together for the common good.

[Tony]

have to agree with Tmy. The concept itself isn't inherently evil.

I agree its not inherently evil, but the "for the good of society" mentality has been used as justification for the oppression and murder of millions. As such anybody (especially those in power) that has such mentality shouldn't be trusted.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Tony


Thats exactly why the US isnt a democracy. What do you mean?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Tony
have to agree with Tmy. The concept itself isn't inherently evil.

I agree its not inherently evil, but the "for the good of society" mentality has been used as justification for the oppression and murder of millions. As such anybody (especially those in power) that has such mentality shouldn't be trusted. Spotlight fallacy (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/spotlight.html)

Just because there are some examples of people with that mentality who can't be trust doesn't mean that all people with that mentality can't be trusted.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Upchurch
What do you mean?


The US isnt a democracy because the framers knew that in a democracy the majority could oppress the minority.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Tony

The US isnt a democracy because the framers knew that in a democracy the majority could oppress the minority. Okay, that's just repeating what you said before. How is the US not a democracy and what do you think it is?

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Tony
have to agree with Tmy. The concept itself isn't inherently evil.

I agree its not inherently evil, but the "for the good of society" mentality has been used as justification for the oppression and murder of millions. As such anybody (especially those in power) that has such mentality shouldn't be trusted.

"the word of God" has also been used forthe same thing. Doesnt make all religious people evil.

What about the family example. Is it OK for dad to be "High honey, Im quiting my job and running off whj a 20 year old stipper becase "I" want to and its best for "me"".

[Upchurch]

Not to belabor the point, but I want to introduce a definition

democracy (http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=democracy)

Main Entry: de·moc·ra·cy

1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
{snip}
5 : the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges

[Michael Redman]

Our government is not simply majority rules. We have mechanisms in place to keep the majority from stomping on the minority. That's why the US isn't a true democracy.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Tmy

What about the family example. Is it OK for dad to be "High honey, Im quiting my job and running off whj a 20 year old stipper becase "I" want to and its best for "me"".


Is it ok? I dont think so, but the guy is well with-in his rights to do such a thing. Let me guess, in your ideal society the man would be forced to stay at home with his wife?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Michael Redman
Our government is not simply majority rules. We have mechanisms in place to keep the majority from stomping on the minority. That's why the US isn't a true democracy. Yes, there are checks and balances, there are positions that are appointed rather than being elected, like the Judicial branch. But, those positions are appointed by people who are elected to represent the people. It's a complex system, but ultimately it's decided by the people.

Incidently, those mechanisms (I'm assuming you mean checks and balances) are just as much under the sway of majority opinion as anything else. Why else didn't it protect the minority slave population right from the start? or the minority gay population? Did not public opinion make a difference in each of these?

[Tony]

Originally posted by Upchurch

Just because there are some examples of people with that mentality who can't be trust doesn't mean that all people with that mentality can't be trusted.


Its better to err on the side of caution, don’t you think?

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Tony



Is it ok? I dont think so, but the guy is well with-in his rights to do such a thing. Let me guess, in your ideal society the man would be forced to stay at home with his wife?

I dont want to force him to stay. My point is that idividualism (like the greater good) thinking can be harmful if taken to much to the extreme.. I think we should encourage famlies to stay together as well as encourage people to act wh societys benefit in mind. if we all just acted like self centered 2yr olds we wouldnt have much of a country.

[Dancing David]

I can't say that as a leftist that I am against personal freedom, I just bekieve that there is enough food to feed people and that we can provide shelter and safety for more people than we do.

It seems to me that the right is a s guilty of repressing individual rights as the left.

I seem to recall that this whole thing about McCarthy and the loyalty oaths in the 1950s.

Both sides are out to squeeze the middle.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Tony


Its better to err on the side of caution, don’t you think? You're not erring on the side of caution, you're erring on the side of your personal belief.

By the above logic, you shouldn't have trusted JFK. But JFK fought the commies. Regan fought the commies, just like JFK, who was (we're assuming on the side of caution) a fascist. Therefore, we should play it safe and assume that Regan was a fascist too.

See what I'm saying? Where do you stop using the logical fallacies? It's not logical, it's your opinion based on the fact (I'm guessing) that you don't like Clinton. You're rationalizing rather than being rational.

[Michael Redman]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Yes, there are checks and balances, there are positions that are appointed rather than being elected, like the Judicial branch. But, those positions are appointed by people who are elected to represent the people. It's a complex system, but ultimately it's decided by the people.

Incidently, those mechanisms (I'm assuming you mean checks and balances) are just as much under the sway of majority opinion as anything else. Why else didn't it protect the minority slave population right from the start? or the minority gay population? Did not public opinion make a difference in each of these? Tony's point was that the US government was designed to protect the minority by limiting the natural action of democracy, and is, therefore, something other than a classic democracy. This is true. It can be seen in action when a judge prevents a school from imposing prayer on kids, despite the wishes of the vast majority of the population to have prayer in school. In a democracy, there wouldn't be any discussion over whether it was allowable. Prayer would be in schools.

[BillyTK]

"All our lives we fought against exalting the individual, against the elevation of the single person, and long ago we were over and done with the business of a hero, and here it comes up again: the glorification of one personality. This is not good at all."
--Vladimir Lenin
Ole Lenin here is railing against what we'd probably know as "the cult of personality"; he also said,
"Do not raise monuments to him, or palaces to his name, do not organize pompous ceremonies in his memory"
But hey, let's not let context get in the way here of a good strawman :)

In general, I find all this individualism nonsense, well, nonsense really; similar to Mrs Thatcher's classic line that: "There's no such thing as society, there are individual men and women and there are families." Can anyone spot the oxymoron?

As soon as you've got two people interacting you've got society; unless they're going to build everything from the ground up each time they meet; language, laws, rules of behaviour &c &c, and that could get really tedious everytime you wanted to say goodbye to your partner, or greet the postman, or meet your school/college/work colleagues or buy something or or...

[chulbert]

Originally posted by Tmy
"Theres no "I' in team!"- Every Coach in the country

But there is an M and an E. ;)

[jj]

Originally posted by Tony



You're friend has a good head on his shoulders, and he is basically right. Individual rights are not a priority for the left (generally speaking) as evidenced by their various stands on issues i.e., gun control, and taxes.

Indeed, and their positions on civil rights, racial prejudice, sex prejudice, etc, are what?

[Dancing David]

Our government is a representative democracy, thank goodness we do not have direct plebecites on federal matters.

[Lurker]

Originally posted by Tony


False, you can be an individualist and still care about society at large. What Hillary is saying is that we need to care about society at the expense of the individual, with that I disagree.

True. But you are reading your own interpretation into the quote. Must everything be absolute?

How can one say delicately, "I wish people weren't so selfish and did more for society at large." That is how I interpret it. What's the big deal? That is pretty far from socialism, isn't it?

Lurker

[Lurker]

Originally posted by Tony



Its better to err on the side of caution, don’t you think?

Ah, the old presumption of guilt. Well done! Almost as your guilt by tenuous association.

Lurker

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Michael Redman
Tony's point was that the US government was designed to protect the minority by limiting the natural action of democracy, and is, therefore, something other than a classic democracy. This is true.Perhaps. I'm not denying that it is a complex system and doesn't protect itself from the influence of fads. However, underneath it all, all positions in the government is either elected directly by the people, elected by people who were elected by the people, or appointed by people elected by the people. That sounds like a democracy to me.
It can be seen in action when a judge prevents a school from imposing prayer on kids, despite the wishes of the vast majority of the population to have prayer in school. In a democracy, there wouldn't be any discussion over whether it was allowable. Prayer would be in schools. The vast majority of the population wish there to be prayer in school? On a small group level, that may certainly be true, depending on the region, but I kinda doubt the "vast majority" feel that way.

Regardless, while the government resists the short term whims of the majority, it does adapt to the long term changes in the majority. Consider abolition. Consider prohibition. Consider the repeal of prohibition. Consider the civil rights movement. Consider the current shift in both attitudes and laws concerning homosexuals.

[Sundog]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Perhaps. I'm not denying that it is a complex system and doesn't protect itself from the influence of fads. However, underneath it all, all positions in the government is either elected directly by the people, elected by people who were elected by the people, or appointed by people elected by the people. That sounds like a democracy to me.

Sounds more like a republic to me.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Sundog

Sounds more like a republic to me. Well, yeah, but a democratically elected republic. They aren't mutually exclusive, obviously.

[Michael Redman]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Regardless, while the government resists the short term whims of the majority, it does adapt to the long term changes in the majority. That sounds like exactly the reason they went with a constitutional republic over a straight democracy.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Lurker
I don't see any problem with Hillary's quote. To not think like that would mean charities would be extinct. Volunteerism, or a Million Points of Light, would be dead.

I disagree. There's a difference between thinking about individuals other than yourself and putting some vague idea like "society" above the needs of all of those individuals.

Charity is about caring for individuals. Welfare is about caring for "society."

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Michael Redman
That sounds like exactly the reason they went with a constitutional republic over a straight democracy. Alright, alright. Fine. The U.S. is not a democracy in any way, shape, or form. Got it.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Alright, alright. Fine. The U.S. is not a democracy in any way, shape, or form. Got it.
You're both right! ;) :)

The US is a democracy, in the sense that representative democracy is the chosen method for selecting leaders. Whilst a republic doesn't necessarily depend on representative democracy for the selection of its leaders, the word has become interchangeable with "representative democracy" in modern usage.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by shanek


I disagree. There's a difference between thinking about individuals other than yourself and putting some vague idea like "society" above the needs of all of those individuals.

Charity is about caring for individuals. Welfare is about caring for "society."

But society must include "the needs of all of those individuals" by definition, otherwise it's just people playing daftheads with meanings.

[Michael Redman]

I didn't say that the US isn't a democracy.

The point was, however, that the Founders decided to make the country a constitutional republic, rather than a pure democracy, to keep the present whim of the majority from crushing the minority in their haste.

Upchurch said: In fact, the concept of democracy itself is based on the concept that the opinion of the whole should be more important than the opinion of the individual. Thus, we have majority rule rather than monarchy rule.

Tony responded: Thats exactly why the US isnt a democracy. In such a government the majority can oppress the minorty.

Upchurch is right about this being essentially a majority rules democracy, but Tony is right about the fact that this is not a simple democracy, because we don't necessarily agree that "the opinion of the whole should be more important than the opinion of the individual". And so, the Constitution limits the ability of the majority to impose itself on idividuals who fall into the minority, while allowing the majority to have its way generally.

[Tony]

Originally posted by jj


Indeed, and their positions on civil rights, racial prejudice, sex prejudice, etc, are what?

Well since affirmative action is a concept mostly at home on the left, I would say their positions on civil rights and racial prejudice are sketchy at best.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Michael Redman
but Tony is right about the fact that this is not a simple democracy, because we don't necessarily agree that "the opinion of the whole should be more important than the opinion of the individual". But that isn't what he said. As you restated, he said "the US isnt a democracy." That's what I was taking issue with, as it seemed fairly obvious to me that it was, in fact, a democracy. I didn't say it was a simple democracy or only a democracy and nothing else. I was saying that Tony was wrong about his statement.

[Michael Redman]

I think this argument has turned content-less. ;)

[shanek]

Originally posted by BillyTK
But society must include "the needs of all of those individuals" by definition, otherwise it's just people playing daftheads with meanings.

But these programs can't help all of those individuals if the programs hurt individuals!

Although from what I've seen from how the politicos use the word "soceity," "playing daftheads with meanings" does describe it rather well...

[Dancing David]

'daft heads playing with meanings' describes some of the discussions in the R&P forum rather well.

I think that both the left and right want to infringe on personal freedom, it would come down pretty enen in the scales of justice.

While I don't agree many ascribe smoking bans and gun control to the left, although I am not sure why that is 'leftist'.

But I would ascribe sodomy laws and there like to the right. The history of political repression as practised by McCarthy and J E Hoover would emostrate that the right also would like to restrict personal liberty.

I don't believe that the left wants to circumscribe rights any more than conservatives.

As a leftist I would like to see the following three things
. food for the needy
.shelter for the needy
.health services for all
what might make me unique is that I think those can be provided in the frame work of the free market, I like the electric food stamps because they still give consumers the chance to decide where to spend there money. (And yes they can give the dope man thier PIN ). I am not for hotels for the homeless but I do like the voucher programs because they participate in the free market. I would like to see better reimbursement for medical assistance to match private health care, unless there are other free market ideas to promote health.

I don't see how that restricts liberty.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Dancing David
I think that both the left and right want to infringe on personal freedom, it would come down pretty enen in the scales of justice.

You are correct in this. Now, what is your point?

As a leftist I would like to see the following three things
. food for the needy
.shelter for the needy
.health services for all
what might make me unique is that I think those can be provided in the frame work of the free market, I like the electric food stamps because they still give consumers the chance to decide where to spend there money. (And yes they can give the dope man thier PIN ). I am not for hotels for the homeless but I do like the voucher programs because they participate in the free market. I would like to see better reimbursement for medical assistance to match private health care, unless there are other free market ideas to promote health.

I don't see how that restricts liberty.

Because people are being forced at gunpoint to part with their own money to pay for them.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by shanek


You are correct in this. Now, what is your point?



Because people are being forced at gunpoint to part with their own money to pay for them.

My point was just that Ididn't think that the left was anymore guilty than the right.

And it seems that taxation is that way, I will come visit the libertarian paradise when it is established. But I doubt I will live there, problems finding employment as a social worker don't ya know.

Taxation is what it is, I don't like buying all the expensive weapons either.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Dancing David
My point was just that Ididn't think that the left was anymore guilty than the right.

When did I say they were?

[typical desperate "libertarian paradise" crap deleted]

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by shanek


But these programs can't help all of those individuals if the programs hurt individuals!
Popper's law—grand schemes have unintended consequences, and the grander the scheme, the more the unintended consequences outweight the benefits. Perhaps the US is just too big for centralised government?

Although from what I've seen from how the politicos use the word "soceity," "playing daftheads with meanings" does describe it rather well...
:D "Needs of society"="my need to get and stay elected" in polispeak... ;)

[shanek]

Originally posted by BillyTK
Perhaps the US is just too big for centralised government?

We do need a centralized government, just not a big one. We're supposed to be a Republic, with most of the ruling power vested to the states.

:D "Needs of society"="my need to get and stay elected" in polispeak... ;)

I'd say you hit it right on the head!

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by shanek


When did I say they were?

[typical desperate "libertarian paradise" crap deleted]

Uh, you asked so I answered ShaneK, I doodn't say you said anything,

and the thing about the liberatrian paradise is true, no income or porperty taxes sounds very cool, although the tolls may be excessive and I won't live there because I doubt that there would be social workers there. Are you having a bad day or something? It were a joke. So it wasn't meant as condemnation, just a joke.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Dancing David
Uh, you asked so I answered ShaneK,

No, the question was what was your original point in saying so.

[Dancing David]

My original point was that the left and the right both have agendas that limit personal freedom, I am sorry if that wasn't clear. Then I stated what I felt my lefist values were, and you stated that they involved taxation which you find to be an infringement of your personal liberty.

So is that a fair summation.

Since the original post was that the left somehow infringes on personal freedom I just was pointing out that I felt it was evenlt balanced. And very seriously, I will visit the libertarian paradise, but since I doubt there will be work for case managers to assist with disabled individuals or state sponsored DV shelters, I think I would have a hard time finding work. If there are school social workers then perhaps my wife would find employment there. If there would be substance abuse centers then perhaps I could work in one of those?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Dancing David
My original point was that the left and the right both have agendas that limit personal freedom, I am sorry if that wasn't clear. Then I stated what I felt my lefist values were, and you stated that they involved taxation which you find to be an infringement of your personal liberty.

Okay, fair enough.

If there would be substance abuse centers then perhaps I could work in one of those?

Sure there would, they'd just be privately run.

[Tony]

Originally posted by shanek


Sure there would, they'd just be privately run.


Hey shanek, I dont disagree with what you say, but I have a question.

How does a privately run substance abuse center make enough money to pay the bills and stay in business?

Just curious.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Tony
How does a privately run substance abuse center make enough money to pay the bills and stay in business?

There are a lot of ways it could. It could be run as a not-for-profit center paid for partially with patient dollars and partially with donations. It could be covered by insurance. It could defer payments until after, say, someone cleans up and gets a job and can start paying monthly installments...there are all sorts of ways. The free market would probably settle on a few of these, different centers doing it their own way, and they'd choose the ways that are the most effective.

This is what the free market does best: finding ways of making money by giving people what they want. That's why you know a politician is lying whenever he says that we need the government to do something because everyone wants it.

[Dancing David]

Iking of like that idea ShaneK but I feel that the profit motive is very low for SA treatment, the insurance clients are allready sucked up by the for profit SA treatment centers. In Illinois they use DASA funds and Medicaid to provide treatment for most of the people who want SA treatment, there are usually fees involved as well.

So I would argue, but not sucesessfuly that society does benefit from subsidizing SA treatment, the problem is that to be effective take a very long treatment period. The cost benefit ratio is probably to low to be motivating to for profits. Then there is the abysmal succsess rate of SA treatment in general.

But in our current system treating SA is most likely more cost effective than not treating it.

In a total libertarian system there would be no motive to provide subsidised SA treatment. I would assume that treatment would be provided after people are incarcerated. (Perhaps false assumptions)

[shanek]

Originally posted by Dancing David
Iking of like that idea ShaneK but I feel that the profit motive is very low for SA treatment,

Well, I said that one of the options would be a not-for-profit center.

the insurance clients are allready sucked up by the for profit SA treatment centers.

But in a libertarian society, the costs of all medical treatments would be much, much lower. The money would be there.

I would assume that treatment would be provided after people are incarcerated.

Why should someone be incarcerated for simply putting something into his own body?

[jj]

Originally posted by shanek
Charity is about caring for individuals. Welfare is about caring for "society."

Question: Is there any value in investing in the health of the society that you live in?

[jj]

Originally posted by Dancing David
I think that both the left and right want to infringe on personal freedom, it would come down pretty enen in the scales of justice.


Why, of course, but one side wants to do it "for your own good" so that's OK, and the other side "to save your soul" so that's OK too, or so they would both have us believe.

As you may guess, I don't think it's so "OK" myself, thank you kindly.

[Tony]

Originally posted by jj


Question: Is there any value in investing in the health of the society that you live in?

I think so, but americans should have the right NOT to care, just like we have the right not to vote.

[jj]

Originally posted by Tony


I think so, but americans should have the right NOT to care, just like we have the right not to vote.

Fair 'nuff, it wasn't you I was asking, though.

I am quite willing to give the entire fanatical right-wing the right not to vote :)

The fanatical left-wing, too. :wink:

[Dancing David]

It gets down to where the tax money goes, I always liked the idea that we could vote what programs our money went to

say you could proportionaly assign your tax dollars to the programs you wanted to fund.

I could say
10% defense
10% roads
10% police
30% education
30% health care
10% enviroment

It does not address the issue of , is taxation fair, but it could be a cool form of democracy.

[shanek]

Originally posted by jj
Question: Is there any value in investing in the health of the society that you live in?

There is no such thing as "the health of the society," only the health of the individuals who comprise it.

[shanek]

Originally posted by jj


Why, of course, but one side wants to do it "for your own good" so that's OK, and the other side "to save your soul" so that's OK too, or so they would both have us believe.

As you may guess, I don't think it's so "OK" myself, thank you kindly.

Then why are you constantly coming out in favor of things that do infringe on freedom?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Dancing David
It gets down to where the tax money goes, I always liked the idea that we could vote what programs our money went to

say you could proportionaly assign your tax dollars to the programs you wanted to fund.

You really want to have to go line by line down the entire Federal budget every time you vote? Do you have any idea how big that thing is?

[Tony]

:cool:

[Elektrix]

Originally posted by Tony
:cool:

Why are you bumping a 2 month old thread?

-Elektrix

[Scott]

Dead Horse...

Regarding whether or not the US is a democracy, in 1828, the meaning was different. From Webster's 1828 dictionary:

DEMOCRACY, n. [Gr. People, and to possess, to govern.] Government by the people; a form of government, in which the supreme power is lodged in the hands of the people collectively, or in which the people exercise the powers of legislation. Such was the government of Athens.

REPUB'LIC, n. [L. respublica; res and publica; public affairs.]

1. A commonwealth; a state in which the exercise of the sovereign power is lodged in representatives elected by the people. In modern usage, it differs from a democracy or democratic state, in which the people exercise the powers of sovereignty in person. Yet the democracies of Greece are often called republics.

2. Common interest; the public. [Not in use.]

Like so many words today, we've changed them to fit our needs and desires.

"The Constitution is a written instrument. As such its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when adopted, it means now." South Carolina v. United States, 26 S.Ct. 110, 111 (1905).

Recall the Constitution requires states to guartantee a Republican form of government (Article IV Section 4).

Granted you can get me on a technicality here as there is no specific statement of the type of federal government we should have. We do have Franklin's words in response to the question as the Constitutional Convention ended "What form of government have you given us?"His reply, "A republic, if you can keep it."

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

This is a common strawman used against the left all the time. There's a myth that the left would have all criminals running free all the time to rape everyone's mothers.


This has to be a myth! The true agenda of the left is that eventually no one will be "running free". :p