Is it hard to have the view that big governments are inheritly problematic while maintaining the view that you should police the world with your military?Jay wrote:
When have I ever advocated anything other than a purely defensive military?AussieReaper wrote:
Is it hard to have the view that big governments are inheritly problematic while maintaining the view that you should police the world with your military?Jay wrote:
Who is asking you to?I take it the opposite way. I don't believe in luck outside of birth circumstances. A lot of people chalk bad decision making up to 'bad luck'. "I've had some bad luck holding down jobs and paying rent" Yeah, because you are an alcoholic with a gambling addiction. I don't want to subsidize someone elses poor decision making.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2012-01-01 17:37:35)
You signed up to the current military and went to Iraq to police the world yourself.Jay wrote:
When have I ever advocated anything other than a purely defensive military?AussieReaper wrote:
Is it hard to have the view that big governments are inheritly problematic while maintaining the view that you should police the world with your military?Jay wrote:
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2012-01-01 17:38:58)
That's exactly my point. When is the last time anyone on the political right spectrum ever advocated a defensive military?Jay wrote:
When have I ever advocated anything other than a purely defensive military?AussieReaper wrote:
Is it hard to have the view that big governments are inheritly problematic while maintaining the view that you should police the world with your military?Jay wrote:
You're reading the compass wrong. Up/Down is authoritarianism, synonymous with big government like wanting a huge military. Left/Right is economics. I believe in free market economics, thus I end up on the right on the chart.AussieReaper wrote:
That's exactly my point. When is the last time anyone on the political right spectrum ever advocated a defensive military?Jay wrote:
When have I ever advocated anything other than a purely defensive military?AussieReaper wrote:
Is it hard to have the view that big governments are inheritly problematic while maintaining the view that you should police the world with your military?
So Clinton got lucky when Bush was slapfighting with Perot. Believing in luck isn't a political viewpoint.AussieReaper wrote:
Some people are naturally unlucky is a right wing view point. Rat race mentality is that they don't deserve to be helped, it's their fault, if you help the naturally unlucky you're hindering those who are successful on their own merits, etc.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
I remember taking the political compass test. I also remember these irrelevant questions:Let's see where I stand today:Abstract art that doesn't represent anything shouldn't be considered art at all.
Astrology accurately explains many things.
Some people are naturally unlucky.
Left wing mentality is that the system is designed to make others fail (eg you'll never see 100% employment rate), it's not your fault you were born into a poor family with little access to education, etc. So those who do fail through no fault of their own should be compensated.
I have no idea how the astrology or abstract art comes into it though. But the naturally unlucky is pretty straight forward.
Think you're missing my point. The current US choices of party/candidate doesn't give you anything close to Libertarian and Right.Jay wrote:
You're reading the compass wrong. Up/Down is authoritarianism, synonymous with big government like wanting a huge military. Left/Right is economics. I believe in free market economics, thus I end up on the right on the chart.AussieReaper wrote:
That's exactly my point. When is the last time anyone on the political right spectrum ever advocated a defensive military?Jay wrote:
When have I ever advocated anything other than a purely defensive military?
No answer eh?Dilbert_X wrote:
You signed up to the current military and went to Iraq to police the world yourself.Jay wrote:
When have I ever advocated anything other than a purely defensive military?
Thats pretty much voting with your feet.
Why didn't you join the reserves and actually follow your own ideology?
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2012-01-01 20:10:51)
DuhAussieReaper wrote:
Think you're missing my point. The current US choices of party/candidate doesn't give you anything close to Libertarian and Right.Jay wrote:
You're reading the compass wrong. Up/Down is authoritarianism, synonymous with big government like wanting a huge military. Left/Right is economics. I believe in free market economics, thus I end up on the right on the chart.AussieReaper wrote:
That's exactly my point. When is the last time anyone on the political right spectrum ever advocated a defensive military?
When you do vote, you're going to be hard pressed to find anyone pushing for Libertarian ideals. Other than the unelectable Ron Paul.
The keyword you seem to be missing is highlightedunnamednewbie13 wrote:
So Clinton got lucky when Bush was slapfighting with Perot. Believing in luck isn't a political viewpoint.
Which is bullshit for a start, Left and Right don't believe in free markets, just markets manipulated in different ways to suit their own agendas.Jay wrote:
Left/Right is economics. I believe in free market economics, thus I end up on the right on the chart.
Most of it went to preventing state worker layoffsHurricane2k9 wrote:
It looks like ARRA would have been able to more than cover the costs of upgrading our country's decaying water and sewage systems:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/bil … story.html
Instead it went to... well... who the fuck knows.
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/12/ … erals.html---
Modern liberalism is a mixture of two elements. One is a support of Federal power – what came out of the late 1930s, World War II, and the civil rights era where a social safety net and warfare were financed by Wall Street, the Federal Reserve and the RFC, and human rights were enforced by a Federal government, unions, and a cadre of corporate, journalistic and technocratic experts (and cheap oil made the whole system run.) America mobilized militarily for national priorities, be they war-like or social in nature. And two, it originates from the anti-war sentiment of the Vietnam era, with its distrust of centralized authority mobilizing national resources for what were perceived to be immoral priorities. When you throw in the recent financial crisis, the corruption of big finance, the increasing militarization of society, Iraq and Afghanistan, and the collapse of the moral authority of the technocrats, you have a big problem. Liberalism doesn’t really exist much within the Democratic Party so much anymore, but it also has a profound challenge insofar as the rudiments of liberalism going back to the 1930s don’t work.
This is why Ron Paul can critique the Federal Reserve and American empire, and why liberals have essentially no answer to his ideas, arguing instead over Paul having character defects. Ron Paul’s stance should be seen as a challenge to better create a coherent structural critique of the American political order. It’s quite obvious that there isn’t one coming from the left, otherwise the figure challenging the war on drugs and American empire wouldn’t be in the Republican primary as the libertarian candidate. To get there, liberals must grapple with big finance and war, two topics that are difficult to handle in any but a glib manner that separates us from our actual traditional and problematic affinity for both. War financing has a specific tradition in American culture, but there is no guarantee war financing must continue the way it has. And there’s no reason to assume that centralized power will act in a more just manner these days, that we will see continuity with the historical experience of the New Deal and Civil Rights Era. The liberal alliance with the mechanics of mass mobilizing warfare, which should be pretty obvious when seen in this light, is deep-rooted.
What we’re seeing on the left is this conflict played out, whether it is big slow centralized unions supporting problematic policies, protest movements that cannot be institutionalized in any useful structure, or a completely hollow liberal intellectual apparatus arguing for increasing the power of corporations through the Federal government to enact their agenda. Now of course, Ron Paul pandered to racists, and there is no doubt that this is a legitimate political issue in the Presidential race. But the intellectual challenge that Ron Paul presents ultimately has nothing to do with him, and everything to do with contradictions within modern liberalism.
Good one chiefThis is why Ron Paul can critique the Federal Reserve and American empire, and why liberals have essentially no answer to his ideas,
Liberals r stoopidMacbeth wrote:
Good one chiefThis is why Ron Paul can critique the Federal Reserve and American empire, and why liberals have essentially no answer to his ideas,
