Page 2 of 3 [ 35 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

snake321
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2006
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,135

03 Sep 2007, 3:06 pm

a liberal isn't that different than a conservative. Liberals have "political correctness" (inverted bigotry) and conservatives have their theocracy BS.



KimJ
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jun 2006
Age: 55
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,418
Location: Arizona

03 Sep 2007, 3:24 pm

NeantHumain, have you read Liberty magazine? It's a libertarian rag that is just that. It discusses politics without being partisan, obviously neither the Democrats or Republicans represent libertarian ideals. It doesn't support Corporate Welfare for many reasons. It also derides the anti-intellectualism that is rampant in this country, even among our elites in charge.



Bolle47
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 1 Sep 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 36

03 Sep 2007, 4:12 pm

NeantHumain i agree with you. Freedom is good. But freedom is not the same for everyone. Some may have disabilities that hinders them from getting job with salary that allows them to support themselves on their own. The each on their own ideology won't work in any world unless its place called Rapture (Bioshock) :P



JonnyBGoode
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 29 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 820
Location: Long Beach, CA

03 Sep 2007, 5:20 pm

snake321 wrote:
and conservatives have their theocracy BS

conservatives' "theocracy BS" is mostly scare tactics made up by the left.


_________________
18:33. Press 'Return'


NeantHumain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jun 2004
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,837
Location: St. Louis, Missouri

04 Sep 2007, 12:32 pm

Bolle47 wrote:
NeantHumain i agree with you. Freedom is good. But freedom is not the same for everyone. Some may have disabilities that hinders them from getting job with salary that allows them to support themselves on their own. The each on their own ideology won't work in any world unless its place called Rapture (Bioshock) :P

I disagree with you that freedom is subjective although I would agree that people use their freedom differently. You seem not to have read my whole post because I do support a measure of social welfare for those with serious disabilities or as a temporary respite for those between jobs.



NeantHumain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jun 2004
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,837
Location: St. Louis, Missouri

04 Sep 2007, 12:34 pm

KimJ wrote:
NeantHumain, have you read Liberty magazine? It's a libertarian rag that is just that. It discusses politics without being partisan, obviously neither the Democrats or Republicans represent libertarian ideals. It doesn't support Corporate Welfare for many reasons. It also derides the anti-intellectualism that is rampant in this country, even among our elites in charge.

I am not a libertarian and do not support libertarianism (except social libertarianism). Some political magazines I read are The Nation, The New Republic, and The Atlantic Monthly.



JonnyBGoode
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 29 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 820
Location: Long Beach, CA

04 Sep 2007, 12:56 pm

NeantHumain wrote:
I do support a measure of social welfare for those with serious disabilities or as a temporary respite for those between jobs.

I also support a measure of social welfare for the aforementioned. But I strongly disagree with the cradle-to-grave nanny state socialism of the Dems, which unfortunately it seems the Republicans to a large degree are starting to also sign on to.


_________________
18:33. Press 'Return'


GoatOnFire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,986
Location: Den of the ecdysiasts

04 Sep 2007, 6:51 pm

I would be very authortarian if I were in charge. Until then, I'm rather libertarian.


_________________
I will befriend the friendless, help the helpless, and defeat... the feetless?


Cyanide
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2006
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,003
Location: The Pacific Northwest

04 Sep 2007, 7:36 pm

I don't even know what one would describe me as, but I do know one thing: I'm anti-Libertarian.



marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

04 Sep 2007, 11:23 pm

I would think some aspies might lean towards socialism. When I was a naive little kid I asked my teacher why people with easy white-collar jobs could make more money than people who do hard manual labour. It didn’t seem fair to me. Of course rather than explaining how economics and capitalism work she just responded that “life isn’t always fair”. My understanding was that you should get paid based on the amount of effort you put in.

That’s how I see socialism, as an attempt to make things more fair. I see economic/social justice as a form of liberty so I’m very against laissez-faire capitalism. I’m not a socialist in the old fashioned sense of the word though. I’m against government trying to shoehorn socialism into society. However I wouldn’t be against a bottom-up form of socialism if there was a way to make it work.

In practical terms my philosophy is to maximize personal liberty as much as possible. For social issues it’s pretty much a no-brainer. For economic issues I have to take a more nuanced approach.



mmaestro
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Aug 2007
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 522
Location: Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA

05 Sep 2007, 11:56 am

You know, my experience is that geeks are mostly socialists, which I suspect means there is more to do with social upbringing than any inherent bias. It may be the case that people tend towards idealistic extremes rather than the practical measures if they're geeks, because within a geek "ecosystem," such utopian ideals would be more likely to work, be they pure libertarianism or communism, but in the real world, with real people, they Just Don't Work(TM).

marshall wrote:
My understanding was that you should get paid based on the amount of effort you put in.

There is, however, still a supply and demand dynamic to this, though. Unskilled blue-collar work is badly paid because most people, if they have no other choice, can do that work, with little or no education, but skilled blue collar work? That's actually pretty well paid, these days. Plumbing and carpentry, for instance, do better than low level white collar work because less people are willing to do the job, and yet the work still requires decent skills. And education to get to a certain point is effort, your abilities have to be taken into account also. It's never just going to be how much effort you put in, because regardless of effort, some people just don't have the capacity to do certain jobs.
Quote:
However I wouldn’t be against a bottom-up form of socialism if there was a way to make it work.

But with socialism, it's central or nothing - you can't make bottom-up socialism work, because it's too easy for corporations or other moneyed interests to keep all the pie. Socialism will inherently always require redistribution of wealth from the upper echelons, regulation of industry (only really practical done by central government), there's a wealth of stuff that just can't be done in a bottom up way.


_________________
"You're never more alone than when you're alone in a crowd"
-Captain Sheridan, Babylon 5

Music of the Moment: Radiohead - In Rainbows


Spaceplayer
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 29 Jun 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 311

05 Sep 2007, 2:03 pm

There is no reason why Libertarianism or laissez faire capitalism is imcompatible with charity. Socialism requires the government to confiscate wealth from one to another with the backing of force. And too often, the problem is not one of a lack of charity, but a reluctance on the part of the person receiving that charity to consider charity as a priviledge. The desire is for the unearned. But everything has a price...



marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

05 Sep 2007, 3:23 pm

mmaestro wrote:
marshall wrote:
My understanding was that you should get paid based on the amount of effort you put in.

There is, however, still a supply and demand dynamic to this, though.

I agree there. “Effort based pay” was my reasoning when I was like 8 years old, not now.

Quote:
Unskilled blue-collar work is badly paid because most people, if they have no other choice, can do that work, with little or no education, but skilled blue collar work? That's actually pretty well paid, these days. Plumbing and carpentry, for instance, do better than low level white collar work because less people are willing to do the job, and yet the work still requires decent skills. And education to get to a certain point is effort, your abilities have to be taken into account also. It's never just going to be how much effort you put in, because regardless of effort, some people just don't have the capacity to do certain jobs.

Perhaps a better example would be someone who acquires a large amount of property through inherited wealth and just sits around collecting rent vs a highly skilled carpenter. Also CEOs of large technology corporations are often less educated than the scientists who work hard to come up with the products, yet they make orders of magnitudes more money.

Quote:
Quote:
However I wouldn’t be against a bottom-up form of socialism if there was a way to make it work.

But with socialism, it's central or nothing - you can't make bottom-up socialism work, because it's too easy for corporations or other moneyed interests to keep all the pie. Socialism will inherently always require redistribution of wealth from the upper echelons, regulation of industry (only really practical done by central government), there's a wealth of stuff that just can't be done in a bottom up way.

I was thinking more in terms of socialism happening within corporations. Maybe this already happens to a small degree (I’m not very knowledgeable in this area). The main problem is that making corporations more democratic eats into the bottom line so that it won’t just happen spontaneously. It only happens to the degree to keep workers happy and prevent unions from getting involved.



gwynfryn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Aug 2004
Gender: Male
Posts: 708
Location: France

05 Sep 2007, 3:50 pm

NeantHumain wrote:
My politics tends towards the liberal. I mean liberal in the sense of free speech, freedom of belief, free association, and freedom from intrusive government regulation of, say, sexual mores (intellectual and personal freedom are crucial to me). I believe the state does play a role in guaranteeing social welfare and regulating the private sector of the economy to ensure the common weal. Essentially, I believe the role of the state is in protecting what is common to the whole society.

Libertarians claim to be both socially and economically liberal, but I tend to see the distinguishing feature of libertarianism as laissez-faire capitalism. Libertarians loathe government of any kind, especially a central government, yet most seem to trust corporations just because they're not the government (let's not forget that corporations are chartered by the government). The possibility of market competition is not enough to ensure ethical behavior. The few libertarians I have met offline (Slashdot is a haven for them) usually take a callous attitude towards the poor, uneducated, or otherwise disadvantaged from being exploited by moneyed interests. To me, it is a core imperative of the state to prevent this.

All this said, despite my liberal leanings, I am not a particularly huge fan of Democrats (seeing them as only the lesser of two evils). Many self-proclaimed liberals (really Democratic apologists) don't blink at taking numerous illiberal positions or merely parroting back the party line (not thinking for oneself is distinctly illiberal). Most people desire to be led (whether self-proclaimed liberal, conservative, socialist, libertarian, or unaffiliated), and so many feel compelled to conform to their ideology or party line. At Slashdot, the party line is libertarianism, so the poster assumed most nerds are libertarian (when, outside Slashdot, I've met very few libertarian nerds).


Me? I'm just an egalitarian! I have no leanings, I just wish to live as I wish, without bothering anyone. I'm just autistic.



CentralFLM
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 5 Sep 2007
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 302

06 Sep 2007, 3:18 pm

Actually a great deal of Aspies are considered ultra consevative like in my case. Try not to link being liberal or conservative with a party (democrat or republican). I use to be a republican until what has happened in the past few years. So now I consider myself a Libertarian.



poopylungstuffing
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Age: 49
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,714
Location: Snapdragon Ridge

06 Sep 2007, 3:28 pm

btw..I was joking when I said Librarian instead of Libertarian.

I tend to lean towards Socialism