Page 6 of 6 [ 88 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6


What is your overall political outlook?
Nihilist 6%  6%  [ 2 ]
Anarchist 3%  3%  [ 1 ]
Libertarian 15%  15%  [ 5 ]
Theocrat 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
Fascist 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
MAGA 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
Royalist 3%  3%  [ 1 ]
Reactionary 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
Conservative 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
Democrat 9%  9%  [ 3 ]
Liberal 21%  21%  [ 7 ]
Socialist 12%  12%  [ 4 ]
Communist 3%  3%  [ 1 ]
Apatheist 3%  3%  [ 1 ]
Other (specify in comment) 24%  24%  [ 8 ]
Total votes : 33

Texasmoneyman300
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2021
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,255
Location: Texas

05 Feb 2023, 4:57 pm

MaxE wrote:
stratozyck wrote:
Texasmoneyman300 wrote:
In the US we are united by a value system and not ethnicity. Our value system is freedom to pursue happiness and representation by a government that is of us and for us. We do not have that now.

A fascist wants a strong military to advance the country's borders. A leftist nationalist wants a strong military to advance the countries' values. FDR and Truman again was that and not trying to expand our borders.

You're saying that in the 30s and 40s the US value system was in effect but now it isn't? What changed and when?

I did not say that.Someone else must of accidently messed up their post by putting my name with their post.



Texasmoneyman300
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2021
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,255
Location: Texas

05 Feb 2023, 5:01 pm

stratozyck wrote:
Texasmoneyman300 wrote:


Sounds like fascism.


Its FDR. FDR was a leftist nationalist.

Fascism often has an ethnic component and I do not believe ethnicity matters. Fascists tend to be pro corporation and I am not. All that matters is the citizens willingness to defend the state if need be. If someone is willing to do that or have their kids do that, then they are a citizen. It doesn't have to be just military service, it can be paying your taxes.

In the US we are united by a value system and not ethnicity. Our value system is freedom to pursue happiness and representation by a government that is of us and for us. We do not have that now.

A fascist wants a strong military to advance the country's borders. A leftist nationalist wants a strong military to advance the countries' values. FDR and Truman again was that and not trying to expand our borders.

I did not say it sounded like fascism....someone else did .someone messed up their post by attributing their post to me.



Texasmoneyman300
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2021
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,255
Location: Texas

05 Feb 2023, 5:08 pm

stratozyck wrote:
Texasmoneyman300 wrote:

Why do you think the government should be allowed to make it a crime for me to live off the land way out in the boonies in Texas on a 10,000 acre ranch off the grid as long as I aint hurting nobody.I just dont know what legit purpose that would serve.


Read what I said again. I never said it should, I said it can. And it most definitely can. All governments have the monopoly right to decide what is allowed and not. The idea of owning a 10k acre ranch is akin to winning the lottery for most so really not a useful counter point. But the government most definitely has that right to tell you what you can do with that land.

I never said specifically it should prohibit you from living off of it, merely that it has that right.

For the typical citizen born into this country, living off the land is not an option. All the land is owned by someone at this point. People who are living off land they do not own are almost certainly doing it illegally. As soon as that option is off the table, we are forced to participate in society. If we are forced to participate in society, that society only deserves our potential blood sacrifice if it at least tries to give us a decent chance at happiness.

If a society doesn't deserve its citizens blood sacrifice, it is a weak society that will fall at some point, either internally or externally.

What I said was "You cannot simply decide to live off the land in a state - the state can and does deny you that right. Even if you own the land, the state can and does tell you what you can do with it." Even if you are living off the land, the state is allowing it and that right can be taken away at any moment. Look up the list of Russian and Chinese businessmen who forgot that and are now dead/under arrest/disappeared.

I mean nothing more and nothing less than what I said, and I never said the government should prohibit you from living off the land. Please, do not do the "this person said X, so they must mean Y" thing. That is all too common on the internet.

Finally, I would say if you did own 10k acres of land in the US, you got that because the Federal government kicked killed off the natives for you. They stole it and you bought the stolen property. Its not illegal for a government to steal land, even if its immoral. Its legal because they have the monopoly on deciding whats legal.

I was just using 10,000 acres as an example.It doesnt matter if its 100 acres.What are you are saying the gov has the right to do sounds like government overreach and an abuse of power on the part of the government.I know you were not saying they should so I am sorry if I typed it wrong but still I think it would be wrong for them to ban people from living on 10 acres out in the sticks off-grid and off the land.I dont believe it would constutional for the U.S. to ban people from living off the land.I dont think the Founding Fathers would approve of that.I wouldnt use Russia and China as examples of government exercising its rights by kicking off those business owners to help your argument because Russia and China are horrible abusive governments.



MaxE
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,224
Location: Mid-Atlantic US

05 Feb 2023, 6:20 pm

Texasmoneyman300 wrote:
MaxE wrote:
stratozyck wrote:
Texasmoneyman300 wrote:
In the US we are united by a value system and not ethnicity. Our value system is freedom to pursue happiness and representation by a government that is of us and for us. We do not have that now.

A fascist wants a strong military to advance the country's borders. A leftist nationalist wants a strong military to advance the countries' values. FDR and Truman again was that and not trying to expand our borders.

You're saying that in the 30s and 40s the US value system was in effect but now it isn't? What changed and when?

I did not say that.Someone else must of accidently messed up their post by putting my name with their post.

stratozyck made a comment that read in part:

"In the US we are united by a value system and not ethnicity. Our value system is freedom to pursue happiness and representation by a government that is of us and for us. We do not have that now."

I was responding to that. Sorry I fumbled it.


_________________
My WP story


Texasmoneyman300
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2021
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,255
Location: Texas

05 Feb 2023, 8:27 pm

MaxE wrote:
Texasmoneyman300 wrote:
MaxE wrote:
stratozyck wrote:
Texasmoneyman300 wrote:
In the US we are united by a value system and not ethnicity. Our value system is freedom to pursue happiness and representation by a government that is of us and for us. We do not have that now.

A fascist wants a strong military to advance the country's borders. A leftist nationalist wants a strong military to advance the countries' values. FDR and Truman again was that and not trying to expand our borders.

You're saying that in the 30s and 40s the US value system was in effect but now it isn't? What changed and when?

I did not say that.Someone else must of accidently messed up their post by putting my name with their post.

stratozyck made a comment that read in part:

"In the US we are united by a value system and not ethnicity. Our value system is freedom to pursue happiness and representation by a government that is of us and for us. We do not have that now."

I was responding to that. Sorry I fumbled it.

No worries.



Dengashinobi
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Dec 2022
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 598

06 Feb 2023, 3:39 am

The_Walrus wrote:
Bertrand Russell died in 1970, when Nelson Rockefeller was still governor of New York, so I wouldn't trust his assessment of the Republican Party over 50 years later!


Rockefeller was definitely not representative of the Republican party's historical ideological stance. Also Russell wrote that in the 40's. No connection to Rockefeller whatsoever.

The_Walrus wrote:

You're both equally right, in my view.

"Europe" is a diverse place. There are countries with strong liberal parties, often as part of a multi-party parliament, such as Germany's FDP and the Netherlands' VVD and D66. There are countries without a major liberal party, like France and Italy (LREM in France is close but is probably better understood as centrist) as well as Ireland. I think generally it's harder for liberal parties in Eastern Europe, except in Estonia and Latvia where they are the dominant parties. In Poland and Hungary, every vaguely sensible party seems to have formed a grand coalition to try to defeat the ultra-conservative, fascist-leaning ruling parties.

Norway's traditional big parties are called "left" (Venstre) and "right" (Hoyre). "Left" is a liberal party, while "right" is a conservative-liberal party. In recent decades, "left" has been outflanked by parties like Labour, who are social democratic.

In countries like Germany, Netherlands, or Belgium, people (at least those with an interest in political affairs) know what liberalism is. They probably don't always think it aligns with Dengashinobi's definition, which is useful and has its place but is not universal or "correct" (no definition is truly correct). The political systems there encourage a variety of diverse viewpoints rather than "two sides". In the Netherlands, there is VVD, who are quite conservative by liberal standards, as well as D66, who are quite left-wing by liberal standards (well to the left of Norway's Venstre for example).

In the UK we have the Liberal Democrats, but our electoral system forces them to try to concentrate their support in certain seats, which means the party lacks the ideological rigour of the FDP. Activists often get very involved in lively policy debates, but when it comes to campaigning time, that all goes out the window in the quest for target seats.

The theory about prosperity, I'm not sure holds water. Western Europe has been prosperous for longer than the US. I'm also not sure how that would change perceptions of "liberalism" specifically.


You seem to mention only parties who Have "Liberal" as part of their name or who self identify as Liberal. But you fail to mention or recognise that every center-right conservative party is also Classical Liberal. Most famously Margaret Thatcher's Conservative Party. Every party which believes in free market, rule of law, checks and balances and small government is a Classical Liberal party.



The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,789
Location: London

06 Feb 2023, 11:42 am

Dengashinobi wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
Bertrand Russell died in 1970, when Nelson Rockefeller was still governor of New York, so I wouldn't trust his assessment of the Republican Party over 50 years later!


Rockefeller was definitely not representative of the Republican party's historical ideological stance. Also Russell wrote that in the 40's. No connection to Rockefeller whatsoever.

In the 1940s, the leading Republican was Rockefeller's mentor Thomas Dewey.

But in any case, if the quote is from the 1940s then it's even less relevant to modern politics.
Quote:
The_Walrus wrote:

You're both equally right, in my view.

"Europe" is a diverse place. There are countries with strong liberal parties, often as part of a multi-party parliament, such as Germany's FDP and the Netherlands' VVD and D66. There are countries without a major liberal party, like France and Italy (LREM in France is close but is probably better understood as centrist) as well as Ireland. I think generally it's harder for liberal parties in Eastern Europe, except in Estonia and Latvia where they are the dominant parties. In Poland and Hungary, every vaguely sensible party seems to have formed a grand coalition to try to defeat the ultra-conservative, fascist-leaning ruling parties.

Norway's traditional big parties are called "left" (Venstre) and "right" (Hoyre). "Left" is a liberal party, while "right" is a conservative-liberal party. In recent decades, "left" has been outflanked by parties like Labour, who are social democratic.

In countries like Germany, Netherlands, or Belgium, people (at least those with an interest in political affairs) know what liberalism is. They probably don't always think it aligns with Dengashinobi's definition, which is useful and has its place but is not universal or "correct" (no definition is truly correct). The political systems there encourage a variety of diverse viewpoints rather than "two sides". In the Netherlands, there is VVD, who are quite conservative by liberal standards, as well as D66, who are quite left-wing by liberal standards (well to the left of Norway's Venstre for example).

In the UK we have the Liberal Democrats, but our electoral system forces them to try to concentrate their support in certain seats, which means the party lacks the ideological rigour of the FDP. Activists often get very involved in lively policy debates, but when it comes to campaigning time, that all goes out the window in the quest for target seats.

The theory about prosperity, I'm not sure holds water. Western Europe has been prosperous for longer than the US. I'm also not sure how that would change perceptions of "liberalism" specifically.


You seem to mention only parties who Have "Liberal" as part of their name or who self identify as Liberal. But you fail to mention or recognise that every center-right conservative party is also Classical Liberal. Most famously Margaret Thatcher's Conservative Party. Every party which believes in free market, rule of law, checks and balances and small government is a Classical Liberal party.

Classical liberalism arose as a separate ideology from conservativism. Gladstone and Disraeli were in opposing parties, after all. Most centre-right parties are liberal only in the broadest sense of the term (supporting democracy and freedom of belief), with elements of economic liberalism and soft social liberalism.

While there are some elements of liberal economics in Thatcher's government, overall it's hard to call Thatcher a classic liberal given things like Section 28 and her attitude towards immigration. It would be like calling Harold Wilson a classic liberal because his government legalised homosexuality and suicide, increased access to birth control, and abolished the death penalty and theatre censorship. Classical liberalism isn't "when the government is small", it's an ideology that requires economic, political, personal, and social freedom.



Dengashinobi
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Dec 2022
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 598

06 Feb 2023, 4:27 pm

The_Walrus wrote:
Dengashinobi wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
Bertrand Russell died in 1970, when Nelson Rockefeller was still governor of New York, so I wouldn't trust his assessment of the Republican Party over 50 years later!


Rockefeller was definitely not representative of the Republican party's historical ideological stance. Also Russell wrote that in the 40's. No connection to Rockefeller whatsoever.

In the 1940s, the leading Republican was Rockefeller's mentor Thomas Dewey.

But in any case, if the quote is from the 1940s then it's even less relevant to modern politics.
Quote:
The_Walrus wrote:

You're both equally right, in my view.

"Europe" is a diverse place. There are countries with strong liberal parties, often as part of a multi-party parliament, such as Germany's FDP and the Netherlands' VVD and D66. There are countries without a major liberal party, like France and Italy (LREM in France is close but is probably better understood as centrist) as well as Ireland. I think generally it's harder for liberal parties in Eastern Europe, except in Estonia and Latvia where they are the dominant parties. In Poland and Hungary, every vaguely sensible party seems to have formed a grand coalition to try to defeat the ultra-conservative, fascist-leaning ruling parties.

Norway's traditional big parties are called "left" (Venstre) and "right" (Hoyre). "Left" is a liberal party, while "right" is a conservative-liberal party. In recent decades, "left" has been outflanked by parties like Labour, who are social democratic.

In countries like Germany, Netherlands, or Belgium, people (at least those with an interest in political affairs) know what liberalism is. They probably don't always think it aligns with Dengashinobi's definition, which is useful and has its place but is not universal or "correct" (no definition is truly correct). The political systems there encourage a variety of diverse viewpoints rather than "two sides". In the Netherlands, there is VVD, who are quite conservative by liberal standards, as well as D66, who are quite left-wing by liberal standards (well to the left of Norway's Venstre for example).

In the UK we have the Liberal Democrats, but our electoral system forces them to try to concentrate their support in certain seats, which means the party lacks the ideological rigour of the FDP. Activists often get very involved in lively policy debates, but when it comes to campaigning time, that all goes out the window in the quest for target seats.

The theory about prosperity, I'm not sure holds water. Western Europe has been prosperous for longer than the US. I'm also not sure how that would change perceptions of "liberalism" specifically.


You seem to mention only parties who Have "Liberal" as part of their name or who self identify as Liberal. But you fail to mention or recognise that every center-right conservative party is also Classical Liberal. Most famously Margaret Thatcher's Conservative Party. Every party which believes in free market, rule of law, checks and balances and small government is a Classical Liberal party.

Classical liberalism arose as a separate ideology from conservativism. Gladstone and Disraeli were in opposing parties, after all. Most centre-right parties are liberal only in the broadest sense of the term (supporting democracy and freedom of belief), with elements of economic liberalism and soft social liberalism.

While there are some elements of liberal economics in Thatcher's government, overall it's hard to call Thatcher a classic liberal given things like Section 28 and her attitude towards immigration. It would be like calling Harold Wilson a classic liberal because his government legalised homosexuality and suicide, increased access to birth control, and abolished the death penalty and theatre censorship. Classical liberalism isn't "when the government is small", it's an ideology that requires economic, political, personal, and social freedom.


The eastern establishment was a faction of the Republican party at the time. There are still moderate Republican factions to this day. As there are moderate Democrats. The Republicans though are the ones who have upheld the values of the founding fathers better intact. The adherence to the constitution, the right to property, the right to bear arms, the distrust of the expanded state, laissez fair economics and most importantly Protestantism. It is forgotten that Classical Liberalism and Protestantism were closely connected. No other political entity has preserved better the Classical Liberal tradition than the Republican party.

About Thatcher, all you have to say is about a law that prevented LGBT propaganda in schools? That was the biggest concern for John Locke definitely.