Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Are you anti-government?

Page 12 of 15 [ 235 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

11 Jul 2013, 6:19 pm

RedHanrahan wrote:
I am only anti BAD government, some form of social regulation is inevitable and some governing body comes with it, the process and choice is the part I start to take issue with as the results seem to inevitably resemble a swamp with the scum always rising to the top in a mist of bad gas...

peace j


All government is Bad. Some government is even Worse.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,160
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

11 Jul 2013, 8:46 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:

That's unless that centralized government is like ours, founded on the precepts of liberty, and continued to grow in that direction, even beyond the intent of the founders. That sort of government I'd like to have my back regarding civil rights.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


During the administration of John Adams the second president, the Alien and Sedition Acts which completely violated the First Amendment was passed. It was repealed under the administration of Thomas Jefferson.

If you think our government is all about liberty and equality under the law, think again.

Our laws favor the very very rich and the deadbeats and do-nothings of the land. Liberty and -Justice- for whom?

ruveyn


That is of course true. But I like to think we've grown up as a country since the Adams administration - or the Wilson administrator, for that matter. The point is, with Jefferson repealing the Alien and Sedition acts proves our government has the mechanisms for being self-correcting.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,160
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

11 Jul 2013, 8:49 pm

adifferentname wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
adifferentname wrote:
redriverronin wrote:
That's 100% right unless that is your a liberal then whenever you try to explain the history of all governments they get very angry and very confrontational. They use the most childish tactics they can to reassure themselves in there dogmatic belief that government in an all powerful tool of good.


While a liberal might suggest that government should be used as a tool for creating equality of opportunity or quality of life, this is entirely independent of the understanding that no government has ever come close to achieving this goal.

I am, however, curious to read any material you personally produce on "the history of all governments".

On topic:

I would fully support any form of government which was proven to be a morally impeccable servant of the people. This probably makes me anti-government.


Civil rights legislation certainly has brought black Americans and soon gays that much closer to equality. That couldn't have been done without a national government. Same could be said for workers rights, especially for the right to organize and bargain collectively, which led to the American middle class. Again, that would have been impossible without government intervention for the sake of equality.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Apologies if my meaning was unclear, a result of it being late night (early morning?) after some distracting news. That sentence should have read "...no government has ever come close to achieving this goal perfectly.

Ultimately, though, can we really give credit to the government for simply passing legislation? Surely this is merely government doing its job? I'm not suggesting that your short post undermines the fine work of prominent civil rights protesters such as MLK, but don't the campaigners who fight for equality deserve far more credit than the pencil-pushers do?


Of course civil rights activists should get the lion's share of the credit. But without the government passing the civil rights act, it would have been for not.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



adifferentname
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,885

12 Jul 2013, 10:46 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
adifferentname wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
adifferentname wrote:
redriverronin wrote:
That's 100% right unless that is your a liberal then whenever you try to explain the history of all governments they get very angry and very confrontational. They use the most childish tactics they can to reassure themselves in there dogmatic belief that government in an all powerful tool of good.


While a liberal might suggest that government should be used as a tool for creating equality of opportunity or quality of life, this is entirely independent of the understanding that no government has ever come close to achieving this goal.

I am, however, curious to read any material you personally produce on "the history of all governments".

On topic:

I would fully support any form of government which was proven to be a morally impeccable servant of the people. This probably makes me anti-government.


Civil rights legislation certainly has brought black Americans and soon gays that much closer to equality. That couldn't have been done without a national government. Same could be said for workers rights, especially for the right to organize and bargain collectively, which led to the American middle class. Again, that would have been impossible without government intervention for the sake of equality.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Apologies if my meaning was unclear, a result of it being late night (early morning?) after some distracting news. That sentence should have read "...no government has ever come close to achieving this goal perfectly.

Ultimately, though, can we really give credit to the government for simply passing legislation? Surely this is merely government doing its job? I'm not suggesting that your short post undermines the fine work of prominent civil rights protesters such as MLK, but don't the campaigners who fight for equality deserve far more credit than the pencil-pushers do?


Of course civil rights activists should get the lion's share of the credit. But without the government passing the civil rights act, it would have been for not.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


And perhaps this is where our views part ways. Perhaps the ageing process is making me more cynical, but I'd like to focus on this part of your previous post (quoted above):

Quote:
Again, that would have been impossible without government intervention for the sake of equality.


I struggle to trust that government intervention can ever be solely 'for the sake of equality'. Such, I fear, is not the primary motivation behind such legislation. To my mind, any belief to the contrary constitutes naive idealism.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,160
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

12 Jul 2013, 10:55 pm

I'm forty seven, and my idealism is still wide eyed and bush tailed. Not every action of the federal government has to have an ulterior motive behind it. I think civil rights was pushed by elected leaders who wanted to do the right thing. To be sure, LBJ had formerly been anti-civil rights in order to ensure his political career in Texas, but once he became President, he was freed to do what was right.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



Magneto
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jun 2009
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,086
Location: Blighty

12 Jul 2013, 11:14 pm

So, he sold out his principles for power?



adifferentname
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,885

12 Jul 2013, 11:36 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
I'm forty seven, and my idealism is still wide eyed and bush tailed. Not every action of the federal government has to have an ulterior motive behind it. I think civil rights was pushed by elected leaders who wanted to do the right thing. To be sure, LBJ had formerly been anti-civil rights in order to ensure his political career in Texas, but once he became President, he was freed to do what was right.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


We all age differently, and I should clarify that I still consider myself an idealist - albeit with a deepening layer of cynicism and mistrust.

In my limited understanding of LBJ, he comes across as driven more by a need for adulation than by a genuine desire to create equality for its own sake. Though perhaps that assessment is unfair, coming as it does, from a layman's perspective.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,160
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

13 Jul 2013, 12:17 am

Magneto wrote:
So, he sold out his principles for power?


He had, till he reached the highest office. Then he did then right thing.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,160
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

13 Jul 2013, 12:22 am

adifferentname wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
I'm forty seven, and my idealism is still wide eyed and bush tailed. Not every action of the federal government has to have an ulterior motive behind it. I think civil rights was pushed by elected leaders who wanted to do the right thing. To be sure, LBJ had formerly been anti-civil rights in order to ensure his political career in Texas, but once he became President, he was freed to do what was right.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


We all age differently, and I should clarify that I still consider myself an idealist - albeit with a deepening layer of cynicism and mistrust.

In my limited understanding of LBJ, he comes across as driven more by a need for adulation than by a genuine desire to create equality for its own sake. Though perhaps that assessment is unfair, coming as it does, from a layman's perspective.


Johnson was hardly a perfect individual. He had had deep personality problems, including the driving need to be king of the hill, as well as being a vindictive, overbearing prick. But he seemed to have had a genuine commitment to the civil rights cause, even though his advisers felt it was a noble but lost cause.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



Magneto
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jun 2009
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,086
Location: Blighty

13 Jul 2013, 8:22 am

You sure he wasn't just doing it to get applause from people? It seems a more simpler explanation than him having been voting against his conscience all the time up to that point and deciding to "do the right thing"...

This is, of course, ignoring the fact that any civil rights issue it is morally acceptable for the government to solve is one that is caused by the government itself, and wouldn't exist if the government didn't...



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

13 Jul 2013, 9:06 am

Kraichgauer wrote:

Johnson was hardly a perfect individual. He had had deep personality problems, including the driving need to be king of the hill, as well as being a vindictive, overbearing prick. But he seemed to have had a genuine commitment to the civil rights cause, even though his advisers felt it was a noble but lost cause.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


"Landslide Lyndon" was a conniver and a crook who stole an election. We was a crony and a buddy who help his friends by morally AND legally dubious means. He was a sleazoid and he was an example of the worst in American politics. He also let his large about to burst pus boil ego get in the way of the public good. And that son of a b***h ended up killing 60,000 Americans for nothing.

ruveyn



Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

13 Jul 2013, 3:45 pm

Johnson seems to be better remembered for the escalation of the war in Vietnam than civil rights.


_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson


Tollorin
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Jun 2009
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,178
Location: Sherbrooke, Québec, Canada

13 Jul 2013, 4:32 pm

ruveyn wrote:
RedHanrahan wrote:
I am only anti BAD government, some form of social regulation is inevitable and some governing body comes with it, the process and choice is the part I start to take issue with as the results seem to inevitably resemble a swamp with the scum always rising to the top in a mist of bad gas...

peace j


All government is Bad. Some government is even Worse.

That's a simplistic view.



Magneto
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jun 2009
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,086
Location: Blighty

13 Jul 2013, 4:51 pm

Not really. Simple, but not simplistic.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,160
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

13 Jul 2013, 5:41 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:

Johnson was hardly a perfect individual. He had had deep personality problems, including the driving need to be king of the hill, as well as being a vindictive, overbearing prick. But he seemed to have had a genuine commitment to the civil rights cause, even though his advisers felt it was a noble but lost cause.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


"Landslide Lyndon" was a conniver and a crook who stole an election. We was a crony and a buddy who help his friends by morally AND legally dubious means. He was a sleazoid and he was an example of the worst in American politics. He also let his large about to burst pus boil ego get in the way of the public good. And that son of a b***h ended up killing 60,000 Americans for nothing.

ruveyn


While that is all true, he's still the President responsible for civil rights legislation. Very few, if anybody, is entirely good or entirely bad.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,160
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

13 Jul 2013, 5:43 pm

Magneto wrote:
You sure he wasn't just doing it to get applause from people? It seems a more simpler explanation than him having been voting against his conscience all the time up to that point and deciding to "do the right thing"...

This is, of course, ignoring the fact that any civil rights issue it is morally acceptable for the government to solve is one that is caused by the government itself, and wouldn't exist if the government didn't...


Considering that he lost the south because he chose to champion civil rights, I think that says how much he actually believed in this cause.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer