JohnG@lt wrote:
Diesel_dyk wrote:
Socialist? no.
Its like that test a few weeks back where you are either left or right, libertarian or authoritarian. I was left libertarian actually right beside the Dali Lama. I'm not that big on collectivism because I'm not interested in having someone else tell me what to do. My basic view is that the govt has only real three main responsibilities, 1. national defense, 2. protecting people from the negative effects of the market and 3. creation of a well educated and healthy workforce.
A lot of what looks like socialist thought is really about protecting individuals from big market players who want to run over people or bleed them dry. Which is why on cap and trade, I see that for what its is, a big scam to pick peoples pockets. And I see the enviro movement moving from the people opting out of society by going off the grid, which is kind of cool in the sense of epxressing ones individuality, and now its turning more authoritarian as big players jockey to scam people out of their money through governmental edict. I see the corporations as the collectives that try to do harm to individuals. I guess you could say market good, corporations bad.
And on things like health care and education. Provding a capable wrokforce is the only subsidy that businesses should get. To that end you really can't make a market out of those things without them turning into a real ass raping experience for the individual.
And on things like cops beating people up, I side with the individual because really the cop is the govt and when its the cops making the accusation then that's the govt accusing someone and you have to side with the individual because of presumption of innocence and all the other ideas that are necessary to safe guard personal freedoms. I'm pro-individual.
Anyway, IMO having a religious right authoritarian socialist who is a racist, likes it when police beat people up and thinks that corporate welfare is good while starving children is natural is pretty much about as unamerican as you can get. now where's my retard baby
I believe that the only roles a government should have lie in National Defense (as in a purely defensive force that can't be co-opted for economic gain elsewhere on the globe) and Justice. Justice comprising in punishment for people who commit acts that negatively effect other people, not in laws protecting people from their own stupid actions. I consider environmental laws to be included within justice to stop overt dumping and other actions that have a detrimental impact on society as a whole. But, and this is a big but, only if the action can be proven. Climate change has insufficient data to start punishing people for CO2 emissions and frankly, you have to draw the line somewhere anyway. Included in this I also believe in harsh punishment for those convicted of fraud and theft, not the slap on the wrist that white collar crime currently receives (My previous two points mesh well with your second point).
I also happen to believe strongly in public education and subsidized health care for children because I do not believe in punishing a child just because he happened to be born into the wrong family. But there are serious flaws in the system because if you haven't noticed, poor people tend to have more kids, and their kids tend to be poor because of the environment they're brought up in regardless. When you lessen the responsibility of the parent you end up with a cycle of ever weakening parental guidance and more burden is placed on society itself to 'raise' these kids. Is it worth it to expend so much effort in the hopes that a few gems rise to the surface in every generation? Yes, but I believe we're at a breaking point in our society where so much responsibility has been dumped on teachers and so much responsibility removed from parents that the kids coming out of our schools seem half-retarded.
I dunno, I just prefer a more minimalist approach to government subsidies because the more you try to protect the weak in a society, the more they come to depend on it and they don't learn anything from it. When you take away the negative social stigma of accepting assistance and turn it into a positive as many of our current 'underclass' have, it eats away at a society until nothing is left. I'm a big believer in 'nothing should ever be free'.
Your post was all over the map.... on climate change... I see polution as a problem, but I don't buy into the climate change as a global issue... to me its local problem and the whole climate change is global is the solution to an entirely different problem unrelated to polution. To elaborate IMO there are some local interests, mostly in Europe that are facing problems with local polution regulation of their local industries and they are trying to get the rest of the world to accept "global" regulation to keep the playing field level for their local businesses.
So, on the rest of your post, really I'm not that far from those points of views. But when I analyse things I usually take the perspective of the individual and I see a lot of problems that inhibit individuals like corruption, evengelicals, I see carreerists pandering towards their retirement, and generally I see a lot of people who don't really care if they climb all over someone to get something... like stomping someone to death on a black friday. And when people like that get into groups they can do some horrible things whether they are just a mob or they claim to be the majority. So to me when the market causes someone harm I think well may be they can change and adapt, but when I see other factors in the mix like the problem people mentioned above, then its no longer a market issue but an issue of mob mentality that needs to be corrected for the sake of promoting individualism.
Like you said, you can't take it out on the kids, but you wish people would take some responsibility for their action when they produce them... its a catch 22. We don't dictate harsh treatment or permit the mob to dictate forced sterilizations, abortions, adoptions etc etc. We don't let people starve, but we don't really want to pay for them to eat either... but we do it anyway.
Anyway, I was thinking about the left libertrian score I received in that test... most of that is because I think social conservatives are the actual socialists, and according to the scoring that makes me left which I don't agree with, imo social conservatives are the leftists. AND I don't believe in the death penalty because it's not the govt's role to kill its citizens nor the role of a group of individuals to decide on the life or death of another individual, I say lock them up and throw away the key instead and so that makes me score left and I see the prodeath penalty people as authoritarian. Take away those two things and I'd me more middle.
PS... playing who am I.... "Now where's my retard baby?" who am I? initials SP
