Liberalism Is Eating Itself
Excellent article.
Deserves attention of Gulchers.
Deserves attention of Gulchers.
SOURCE URL: http://ricochet.com/liberalism-eating/
- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
But eventually they stop chewing on those closest to them and turn to face others.
You are "others".
Be ready.
Conservatives are not conservative. It's a meaningless term. Many "liberals" are conservative in how they would like to see the governments money spent. The only constant is we are all weakened by the hatred of the other side. It's so bad that there is nothing but contention in Washington. Maybe this is by someone's design. We are kept busy by the
wrong issues. The obvious is never the root of the problem.
Despite your good intentions to establish that liberals and conservatives are not really so different, I must disagree with your contentions.
Liberals in general want government to always spend more as lng as it's other taxpayers money. They can't seem to understand that a government spending and growing an ever greater deficit can not grow an economy that will provide jobs. Conservatives want government to live within its means. Conservatives understand that a growing economy aided by lower taxes will generate more tax revenue as the economy inevitably grows.
Liberals look at social progress to mean everything is acceptable from lifestyles to drugs to abortion. Conservatives recognize that traditional rules of society work better for everyone. That's not to mean that change is not good, but that it is not always goo to have change without responsibilities.
These are just a few of the major differences that liberals and conservatives have. Ultimately, conservatives recognize and appreciate the brilliance of our Constitution and want Americans to live by its laws and standards. They recognize that our government ind its liberal Congress and present administration has discarded all understanding of the Constitution and has almost no respect for it at all.
Fred Speckmann
commonsenseforamericans@yahoo.com
I'm curious as to who you think ventured into absolutes,
The word, "liberals in general" should have pointed out that I certainly wasn't speaking in absolutes. By definition, when speaking of groups it is understood that not all within that group are in lockstep.
As to Heinlein, he was speaking about absolutes and and the vaunted consensus. I would agree with him, if there's consensus, e.g. "man made Global Warming," then the consensus is bound to be wrong.
Fred Speckmann
commonsenseforamericans@yahoo.com
That opens the doors to what you defined as what Liberals believe to be OK....To quote you "everything is acceptable from lifestyles to drugs to abortion". Yet one of your most Randian groups fits one of your Liberal definitions. So which is it?
Which politician group is conservative or how does conservatism express itself in American politics?
Getting all muddied...
I'm not sure whose belief you are referring to, yours or libertarians, when you state, "Libertarians believe that there is no crime unless there is a victim ( you can't be your own victim).?
I would reverse that statement to, there is no victim unless there's a crime. There are such things as victimless crimes. you may have a legitimate argument on whether those victimless crimes should be crimes at all, but that is a different argument.
I am curious to know what "Randian groups" you're referring to that fits one of my definitions for liberals. If your point is that some of Rand's beliefs may have been socially liberal, i don't disagree.
However this debate has strayed from my disagreement from you that all bankers and politicians can be done without and that a utopian life can be found. as I stated before, I would disagree with you.
Furthermore, I believe that many in the Gulch seem to believe that Ayn Rand's philosophy is the end all and be all. I believe that it is the beginning of a philosophy and many here can add and expand on her beliefs.
Fred Speckmann
Thank you for clearing that up because it seemed that you were using Libertarian and Liberal interchangeably. I do agree with you that they are socially liberal although I might differ with you on my understanding of “human diversity.” However, please keep in mind that there is a great difference between libertarians and the Libertarian Party. As a political party they have no cohesion or clear vision for the future. I do also disagree as to your view about conservatives, I believe that is because you probably believe that republicans are conservatives. Nothing could be further from the truth.
I also agree that the labels Conservative and Liberal have very little meaning anymore. However that is because those “names” in a political sense haven't had meaning in a long time. The conservatives only belong to the Republican Party because they have no strong organization of their own and most republicans only pretend to be conservatives.
Of course the word “liberal” has been turned around to mean nothing anymore. Certainly the Democrat Party denies being liberal in the real meaning of today. Liberal Progressive/Socialist and worse should be the name for them.
“Democrats,” especially those in the present administration know nothing of economics and certainly don't understand how tax policies affect our economy. Of course, most “Republicans” know nothing about those subjects either.
I would agree, a new strong party is needed, but in my view that should be a Conservative Party, but please remember, a multi-party establishment will lead to further balkanization of this nation.
My hope is that a Conservative Party will grow out of the disintegration of the Republican Party.
Fred Speckmann
Cheers
There's just too many that buy off on the deceptions.
I've collected some thoughts and comments here...
http://www.plusaf.com/lessons/fear-guilt...
http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts/6d...
Thanks for playing!
http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts/6d...
Each 'half' just stakes out the territory they want to control. Personal or Economic Freedoms.
"It's not a conspiracy, but it just works out that way". Well said.
The only remedy for hate is for everyone to recognize his/her own individuality and accompanying flaws and then - knowing of one's own imperfections - to tolerate others for theirs. Easier said than done, however.
He'll often tweet to a Leftist, "Back in the Centipede, Segment!"
Will they change their political stripes?
The US is far from being communist, though alot of today´s state intervention isn´t just from the Obama period, it began way back. Bush took a giant leep in government control with the infamous "war on terror". Civil rights went out the window more than a decade ago, and continues to do so more and more. Is it really a case of jungle politics? Let´s not be arses or elephants and get real.
The policies show a continuum, a linear chronalogical tendency to a demagogue policy that seems to please the people and uses George W.´s and Barrack´s photograph as a false façade. How many people in this "democratic" system have permanent status? Shouldn´t we start looking at them and asking new questions?
Obama is as much a puppet as Clinton, Bush and Bush Jr. and see here that some are donkeys and some aren´t. So political parties are, by contrast, pretty much the same thing here. This is happenning on a global scale, not only in the US. Who really runs the country? Are they even in the government? That´s what I´d like to know.
Another observation ... We should never...ever have gone to China to do business. The Chinese are learning from us and stealing ideas.... That is stealing power. I have read articles that their doors open and close depending on what they want from us.... The more desirable the ideas the easier to do business. Some of the business owner who had been doing business are now being edged out. The market does not rule in China ... Politics for power does. The US opened the door to unforeseen consequences in dealing with China or maybe it was by design... I guess time will tell.
The truth is that the best ideas are the ones kept secret. Patenting is a guarantee of intelectual currency, but it´s submission is barely exclusive. Especially if one takes into account that most patents go public after 20 years. But keeping things appart from the general public is like being a musician that doesn´t share his compositions. So there´ll always be a glitch.
Look at industrialists and big corporation production. They care not for borders, nations, people or even their own products that much. They care about the all mighty buck, and today China is the best option for production. So, like I said before, local economies crash and we´ve got that alienating effect of no one talking to each other anymore, rather texting or skyping or whatever to someone on the other side of the globe. I love this age of communication, but I dare not forget that there´s nothing like a one on one conversation or a real meeting. I tell all my clients, friends and colleagues to write sms´s for I won´t answer cell phone calls unless I´m free, I hate having to interrupt a real life conversation.
I'm not justifying the rampant IP theft going on, just pointing out that the real problem in software is in defining what constitutes a real and novel method of doing something anymore.
When the cashier asked, 'is there anything else?' and mom replied 'no,' the clerk moved one lever on the cash register to the 'complete' position and the total appeared.
One-click checkout, 1955-style. Electromechanical, and totally NON-web OR 'electronic,' but the same metaphor, and here was Amazon trying to claim it as IP.
To me that's a bit like trying to patent David's sling as an improvement over rock-throwing by hand...
over you
I reject all that. Someone who knows how to do something that serves lots of willing customers is the closest thing to a ruling class.
I highly recommend reading it.
http://spectator.org/print/39326
Then I got to the middle section and watched the tide turn from 'both sides are equally guilty' to 'the ruling class are Godless, non-believing Democrats,' and I wondered what happened.
Then, as I tried to complete the last third or so, I realized that the author is NOT, like in the first third, acknowledging guilt and blame for BOTH 'major parts of the ruling class,' but is expressing a theological basis and righteousness that I wholeheartedly can not support.
So I won't be forwarding the link to anyone I know, but I might quote some of the early parts in other discussions.
Thanks for the link! It was a very enlightening read.
The most important reason that the founding farhers placed the 2nd A in the bill or rights was to assure that the people would be able to bring the force of arms against a tyrant who gains power by deception. To insure that we can take our country back from those who would give it away OR who would bring force of arms against the American people.
It's not rich people we need to worry about, we need to be concerned about the puppet president some rich people might buy the path to the WH.
Jan