Page 3 of 3 [ 41 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3


Which Political Ideology Do You Afiliate With?
Capitalism 24%  24%  [ 10 ]
Socialism 26%  26%  [ 11 ]
Marxism (similar to socialism) 7%  7%  [ 3 ]
Independence from any system (off grid living) 33%  33%  [ 14 ]
Other (explain) 10%  10%  [ 4 ]
Total votes : 42

thechadmaster
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Feb 2005
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,124
Location: On The Road...Somewhere

11 Jul 2010, 4:35 pm

Janissy wrote:
thechadmaster wrote:

I think that the "environment" should become a priority only after we address more pressing matters, lets get americans back to work before we start restricting emmisions that cost companies money, money that could be used to hire more people at a living wage.


Learn from the BP gulf oil spill. When companies are freed from the restraints that protect the enviroment, they don't turn around and hire more people at a living wage. They pocket the savings. British Petrol could have spent money to make sure their oil rigs were safely maintained. They could have checked and double checked everything and made sure maintenance was a priority. But instead they cut corners and passed the savings on to...the top execs.

Now we have an enviromental disaster in the gulf. And guess what enviromental disasters do besides killing plants and animals? Well, if you put the safety of the enviroment at a distant second after jobs, then look at what ignoring the enviroment cost in terms of jobs? The fishing industry in the gulf has been mortally injured. So has the tourism industry. If you care about jobs, then the enormous number of jobs lost because the enviroment wasn't a priority should concern you.


I dont dispute the fact that the rig explosion was the disaster of the century, but I see the it as an extremely isolated incedent, even if BP had taken every possible measure to ensure safe operation, this still could have happened, human technology is inherently flawed.

As for their business practices, i believe in the democratic process even for corporations, if every employee had one vote and the employees had become disgruntled, the bosses would have to change their practices if they wanted to keep their jobs.

Why is it that (Americans especially) put such a high value on our democracy and freedoms, but as soon as we punch the clock we accept total dictatorship? We know that the bosses hold our employment in their hands, and that is a threat to true freedom. If the top 1% hold 95% of a nations wealth, then they become the administrators of social darwinism, who will be allowed to succeed? who will be proverbially kicked in the groin?


_________________
I don't know what the future holds, but I know Who holds the future.


marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,000
Location: Turkey

11 Jul 2010, 4:46 pm

I was tempted to say capitolism but capitolism isn't really even social darwinism. It isn't always true that the "most fit" are the ones who succeed. Cronyism is far too prevelent for that to be the case.

There's also the fact that everything else being equal people born into wealth have a large advantage over those born into poverty. That's the problem with anarcho-capitalism. Without things like minimum wage eventually society loses the middle class and without that the majority of innately gifted people, potential entrepreneurs, etc. are born into poverty where their potential to the advancement of society is never realized. The pool of sufficiently educated people is simply too small. Thus it's not only the poor that get screwed in that system, everyone does.

At least natural darwinism is a system that leads to an overall positive evolution, even if the "unfit" get trampled under and eliminated. Libertarianism will simply lead to survival of those with the best connections and/or born with the greater wealth. There is less progress in such a system than one that implements some form of level-playing field.



Janissy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 May 2009
Age: 53
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,508
Location: x

11 Jul 2010, 4:51 pm

thechadmaster wrote:
yes, outside of US law. there is still natural law

What is "natural law"?

Quote:
and (i believe) biblical law which both have concequences


Biblical law only has consequences if you live in a theocracy. If you mean that you have faith God will do posthumous rewards and punishments...I don't believe in God so that doesn't work for me, or for anybody else who isn't a believer.

Quote:
as for your examples, that would require me to be in the presence of other people. if i am completely alone, it would be kinda difficult to commit a crime against someone else.


No it wouldn't. Ted Kaczinsky committed his bomb crimes by mail while in isolation in a cabin in the woods. A skilled hacker could easily commit all sorts of crimes against people while in isolation (in fact, I think isolation is one of the prerequisites).



Horus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,302
Location: A rock in the milky way

11 Jul 2010, 5:06 pm

the chadmaster wrote:

Quote:
Our founding documents make clear that we have unalienable rights: LIFE Liberty and the pursuit of happiness. we are not guaranteed happiness but we are guaranteed the right to pursue it. with the government growing larger every day, and the number of viable american taxpayers killed since 1973, it is becoming increasingly difficult to excercise one's rights.




I don't think any of founding documents are very useful to either prolife or prochoice arguments as there is nothing in any of them which would even imply an approval or disapproval of abortion. I have seen some of my fellow prochoicers attempt to use the first sentence in the fourteeth amendment ("All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside") as an indication that the founders approved of abortion. :roll:

As prochoice as I am myself.....such an argument is either totally disingenous, idiotic, or some configuration of both.

There is nothing in any of our founding documents which would suggest that the life of the unborn should or should not be legally protected. I doubt that abortion was even on the radar screen of any of our founders. I fully acknowledge the scientific fact that the unborn are ALIVE ofcourse. I just don't believe the unborn are entitled to the same protection as those out of the womb. We have a conflict of interest between pregnant women and the unborn and as a prochoicer, I believe this conflict is resolved in favor of the pregnant woman.

But since this is not an abortion thread, I really don't wish to defend my position here with a detailed arguments. I have done so countless times before (even here on wrongplanet to some degree) and as expected, few, if any, prolifers have accepted my arguments.

So while I generally respect prolifers so long as they don't demonize those of us who feel differently about abortion, I don't see any point in endless debate over the matter.



As for marijuana...i'm also in favor of it's legalization even though i'm not a user myself.

However....I do believe a distinction ought to be made when it comes to extremely addictive and dangerous drugs like meth and crack.

As bad as alcohol is, at least many people are capable of drinking recreationally and responsibly. This is hardly the case when it comes to meth and crack.


Unfortunately....social issues aside...there are few democrats who are drastically and meaningfully different than most republicans when it comes to economic issues.



Quote:
I think that the "environment" should become a priority only after we address more pressing matters, lets get americans back to work before we start restricting emmisions that cost companies money, money that could be used to hire more people at a living wage.



In what I consider to be all good conscience, this is not something I can agree with. I think the environment is as "pressing" matter as anything else, if not even more so. Obviously every human being on this earth is largely dependent on the natural environment in some form or fashion. Jobs come and go...they always have and we can't sacrifice everything simply to create and preserve everyone's job.

If the choice is between the jobs of a few thousand people and an endangered species, i'm going with the endangered species. The natural environment is of great value for it's own sake as well. It is a significant source of beauty, inspiration and enjoyment for billions of people in this world and for many of these billions, it's a major part of what makes life worth living.

Thus....we should not allow these corporations to bully us with their disingenous fear-mongering tactics. They will not dry up and blow away because of a few reasonable environmental regulations. The only thing that might dry up and blow away is the superfluous and obscene amounts of money the higher-ups in these corporations (and their shareholders) somehow feel they're entitled to.



Horus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,302
Location: A rock in the milky way

11 Jul 2010, 5:26 pm

Ambivalence wrote:
thechadmaster wrote:
socialist Margaret Thatcher

8O 8O 8O 8O 8O

Anyway, people using the term "social Darwinism" are generally failing to understand that evolution acts at species level as well as at individual level. Behaviours which benefit the group can be taken up just as well as behaviours that benefit the individual. Attempting to justify greed by invoking "survival of the fittest" is a failure of logic, though most of the people who do so have, of course, no interest in that. Much easier to maintain the self-delusion that your greed is somehow to the benefit of society - though it transparently isn't in anyone's interest for a handful of people to dispose of the riches of the Earth - than to face the fact that you are a bad person.



The Randroids (and those with a similiar philosophy) go to the logical extreme of this phony "greed is good" mentality. This type of mentality goes almost unchallenged in America. The "haves" simply will never acknowledge the fact that everything the have is thanks to the "have nots".

Furthermore....they like to convince others (and themselves often enough for the reason you mentioned) that of all humankind's greatest achievements were primarily fueled by the desire for enormous and superfluous wealth.


If the achievements of Issac Newton, Mozart, Albert Einstein, RV Jones, The Wright brothers, etc....are any indication, i'd say they're talking through their hats.


Somehow I think we could live happily without the "benefits" of Donald Trump, Paris Hilton and Benny Hinn.



ManErg
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Apr 2006
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,249
Location: No Mans Land

11 Jul 2010, 5:33 pm

Could any of you "Capitalists" please provide a definition of this "Capitalism" of which you speak?


_________________
Circular logic is correct because it is.


Last edited by ManErg on 11 Jul 2010, 5:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Horus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,302
Location: A rock in the milky way

11 Jul 2010, 5:33 pm

Janissy wrote

Quote:
What is "natural law"?




A subjective mental construct of certain dead white males like Thomas Hobbes and John Locke which conservatives like to conflate with absolute truth and the final word in "reason"? :wink:



Horus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,302
Location: A rock in the milky way

11 Jul 2010, 6:25 pm

Thechadmaster wrote


Quote:
I dont dispute the fact that the rig explosion was the disaster of the century, but I see the it as an extremely isolated incedent, even if BP had taken every possible measure to ensure safe operation, this still could have happened, human technology is inherently flawed.



Even if you take every possible measure to avoid getting into a car accident, you could still get into a car accident. Does this mean you should not drive defensively and make every reasonable effort to reduce your chances of getting into one?


I don't think it's correct to refer to deepwater horizon as an "extremely isolated incident" either.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oil_spills


Keep in mind that this is JUST oil spills....we are not talking about the environmental disasters which have occured and continue to occur that aren't related to the extraction of
oil.


Hydraulic fracturing, the Union Carbide disaster, Chernobyl, the depletion of the Georges bank
fish stocks, masssive deforestation in the world's most biodiverse terrestrial regions, (the tropical rainforests of southeast asia, the neotropics, sub-saharan Africa), the fact that world's coral reefs are being devastated by climate change, overfishing, ocean acidification, tourism, blast and cyanide fishing because of the DEMAND millions of wealthy westerners have for beautiful aquarium fish, etc....are just a few examples of environmental disasters (or practices which often result in environmental disasters) which have nothing to do with oil extraction itself.


We are slowly, but surely, desertifying this planet in both land and sea.


And the degradation isn't so slow either. I have personally witnessed some of it occur in a matter of 27 years. I am a certified scuba diver and an avid snorkeler who lives in South Florida.
I can well-recall the condition of the coral reefs in the Florida keys when I was first certified at 13.

Thanks to overtourism, the increase in our population, black/white band disease, coral "bleaching", agricultural runoff, etc....the amount of living, reef-building hard corals
in the keys is NOTHING like it was 27 years ago.

In fact....two species of branching hard coral (Elkhorn and Staghorn coral) no longer exist on the reefs in the keys for all intents and purposes. When I was first certified in 1983, strands of these magnificient corals were present on many reefs as far as the eye could see. But thanks to the prevailing mentality in America which places business interests and the almighty economy over every other human concern, these corals no longer exist in the keys and the reefs are in terrible shape otherwise.

None of this will change until Americans (and humans in general) stop believing they can have and do anything their little hearts desire regardless of the consequences to anything/anyone else.

This mentality is at the core of what conservatives are talking about when they use euphemistic terms like "individual liberty".



Fo-Rum
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 435

11 Jul 2010, 8:15 pm

I just want people to leave me alone. Simple as that. Don't tell me what I can and cannot do. I'm not out to harm others, so why should others be out to harm ME by telling me what I can and cannot do?


_________________
Permanently inane.


Bells
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 23 Jun 2010
Age: 29
Gender: Female
Posts: 230
Location: The Academy, Vulcan

11 Jul 2010, 8:27 pm

Okay, I affiliate with Socialism BUT at the same time, I would never consider that to be a viable solution for most governments of larger countries. My personal ideology and what can be properly implimented a a system of government is a completely different thing.

That said, I am a registered Independent but more liberal that most people out there. I would not consider joining a Socialist Party within the US because I don't feel as though it's a right fit for the country itself.



Meistersinger
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 May 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,776
Location: Beautiful(?) West Manchester Township PA

15 Apr 2013, 8:27 pm

TeaEarlGreyHot wrote:
thechadmaster wrote:
TeaEarlGreyHot wrote:
LadybugQ wrote:
I'm not so sure that a political affiliation can be lumped with "Social Darwinism". I voted "Other" as there wasn't the category of "Libertarian" specified in the listing.

Please clarify why the economic system "Capitalism" is specific to a political system, also.


Libertarians tend to be Capitalist.


I partially disagree. i think capitalism is a close second for libertarians. what provides more personal freedom than living independently of any political or economic system? a libertarian who lives off-grid would have nothing to gain or lose if the government were to utterly fail.


I have to disagree with you. A government of some kind is needed, but that government shouldn't restrict any freedom that doesn't directly affect others in a negative way.

What you're attributing to Libertarianism is actually Anarchism.


Why can't capitalism and socialism peaceably co-exist? After all, capitalism, as defined by Adam Smith, as well as socialism, as defined by Lenin/Trotsky, do not, and probably never will in its purest form.


_________________
I'm back, for the time being. Any one who even attempts to rip me a new rear end because of my opinions will find themselves reported to administration. Anyone on my Foes list that replies to my posts will automatically be reported for harassment. You have been warned.