I'm a social anarchist. Libertarians forget the purpose of government: protecting the weak from the strong. They will not admit it, but libertarians are elitists and think that, by banding together, the weak are usurping the natural right of the strong to profit from them.
Anarchists are not against government. We are against rulers. An-archos, not an-ocracy. Libertarians are anocratic, they do not want the government to protect the weak from the strong, which is its primary purpose. Libertarians see the primary purpose of government as protecting the property of the wealthy from the poor.
Libertarians want license, the power to do whatever they please and damn the consequences. Social anarchists such as myself want real freedom, which is always a trade-off. You must give something to get something, lose some license to gain some freedom. Freedom requires a commitment to uphold and defend the freedoms of others, while license says 'fuck them, I've got mine. Let them defend themselves.' It isn't about freedom, but power.
That's what Republicans are telling us, yes. Slavery to the rich is freedom. The freedom that comes from banding together to protect yourself (i.e. government) is slavery.
How so? We want the rules to apply to everyone equally, unlike conservatives who want rules for everyone else. Like sex, it's so cliche, if you hear a Republican preaching family values, that man is cheating on his wife. If he preaches against homosexuality, he's fucking a dude. And fiscally? Conservatives are first in line at the feeding trough, sucking down the pork. Bridge to nowhere, anyone?
You have demonstrated a fascinating trait of conservatives: projection. Pretty much anything a conservative accuses someone else of, they are doing, guaranteed.
Russotto, man, I was not expecting such sense from you.;) There's nothing here I can disagree with, what gives? I'm trying to troll here, man, you can't pull this reasonable and nuanced shit on me! I'm powerless against it!
Yeah, that is exactly what the wealthy have been doing for the last sixty years with the help of the cheap labor Republicans. That is the basis of the party platform: what policies will make the working man more desperate and vulnerable to exploitation by the rich? Every single policy decision can be analyzed according to that criteria, and you will find that every single policy decision of the Republicans helps advance that cause.
I'm not here to be open minded. I'm open minded on my own terms. Far more open minded than most. I'm here to do two things: make a point and fuck with asshole fascist motherfuckers. I'm not here to hear the opinions of asshole fascist motherfuckers, I'm here to knock their dicks in the dirt. Don't like it? Fuck off.
Liberals tend to think for themselves, so I imagine we will see many different viewpoints emerge, rather than some lock-step, campus wide consensus.
It's possible for people to reach a consensus AND think for themselves.
True, but that takes honest discussion and a very long time, I've been part of consensus run activist groups for a long time. I don't see conservatives doing that.
Liberals know that without banding together to protect ourselves, forming what is known as a 'government,' then the weak are fodder for the powerful. We want enough government to ensure no one can oppress others through economic coercion (as in, be my slave or starve to death) and everyone has an equal opportunity to succeed.
Depends on what you mean by broken. For instance, I doubt the CEOs of Wall Street see anything wrong with the economy, after all, they are still making their hundred million dollar bonuses. When someone says something isn't broken, we have to look at what benefits they are getting out of keeping the status quo, and how that is harming others.
Not really. Well, not for them. Not so far anyway. But honestly, if the Tea Party could get rid of it's wingnut "birther-death squadder-omahgawd a commie muslin" core, the fringe that was left would make a decent replacement for the failed Republican party.
It's funny the myths conservatives believe. Conservatives ruin the economy. If you look at the economy over the last hundred years or so, under Republican administrations, it grew on average less than one percent, while under Democrats, about eight percent.
Liberals are the true fiscal conservatives, we spend and tax to pay for it. Conservative spend just as much, on worse things, and borrow to pay for it.
Liberals don't think we are superior. We just think all laws, proposed or on the books, should be judged by the net benefit they bring to everyone. Conservatives want to protect and extend the power and privilege of the owning class, preserving the status quo.
Actually, you are right. But what is 'works?' Works for whom? So let me clarify your point a bit: conservatives tend to stick with what they think works for them. Liberals believe that every law, proposed or on the books, should be judged by the same criteria: what are the net benefits, considering everyone.
I agree with your assessment, as far as it goes, but let me show you how racism plays into all three of your problems, not just poverty.
Obviously, minorities make less than whites. Poverty IS institutionalized racism. But culture is an important component. Being a part of the dominant culture has its privileges. You don't have to question your assumptions and beliefs, because no one does. When you are a part of a minority culture, whenever your assumptions and beliefs butt up against the dominant culture's, you are the one who must adapt. You are demonstrably a second class citizen, and you have it thrust in your face every day. This makes it difficult to succeed.
And expectations, when all you see people like you doing is failing, getting jailed, getting killed, or living on the streets, it is hard to expect anything different. Where are the role models? Sure, we have 'black' president now, but it will be years before the effects of that are seen.
The three main problems all have their roots in institutionalized racism. Minorities do not have the same opportunities as whites. Thus, we try to create more opportunities for them. This is only fair.
Yet, if you are, say, the leader of the Republican National Committee, and you say something Chairman Rush does not approve of, you must retract your statements, and abjectly beg his forgiveness. Republican policies harm the self employed, in favor of big business. Republicans only give subsidies to the rich, and encourage the rich to live off the backs of the working American.
Conservatives love to get angry at liberals, which is why they read liberal viewpoints: simply to have something to justify their anger.
Liberals think that everything is open to debate, and that both new laws and old must be weighed in terms of utility and effectiveness, whereas conservatives think the old ways must not be questioned. But that's just my experience, take from it what you will.
Libertarianism makes us less free. We need government to protect the weak from the powerful, libertarians want to place us all into wage slavery for their corporate overlords. All libertarians believe they will be the overlords, which is why they want the freedom to own wage slaves. This is why libertarians want to do away with anything that will protect the weak from economic coercion, backed up by private property protectors with guns. (the only true function of government in Libertarian eyes is protecting the haves from the have-nots.)
Both. Meaning, I actually believe what I'm writing, but yes, I am writing it deliberately to piss off the closed minded. If you even need to question whether or not I am the best troll ever, you've not been paying attention.
Yes, "liberals and conservatives are all the same" is a popular lie put out by conservatives. As is "Political correctness," "Rewarding poverty," and "Stepping on self employment." All of which are actually things conservatives do. Which makes them different from liberals.
So I'm not allowed to say that people who think for themselves actually think for themselves, or I am showing bias? I don't think your argument is quite as logical as you'd like to believe. What should I call them? "Folks who think for themselves and tend not to vote Republican?" How about that?
But those things you mention are true. The truth has a noticeable liberal bias. Liberals think for themselves, yes, but when they see the truth, they ay what they see. So everyone is seeing the same thing? It doesn't mean they all have the same ideas, just that they have eyes.
Sorry, but in order for people to be free, we need government intervention. Otherwise, the powerful oppress the weak. That was the whole reason we fought off King George, and we still need protection against tyrants, who now use economic coercion. Wage slavery is still slavery. Wall Street CEOs are the new kings, not Obama.
Slashdot Mirror
I wish I could offer you some hope, but you've pretty much outlined how I see things as well.
I'm a social anarchist. Libertarians forget the purpose of government: protecting the weak from the strong. They will not admit it, but libertarians are elitists and think that, by banding together, the weak are usurping the natural right of the strong to profit from them.
Anarchists are not against government. We are against rulers. An-archos, not an-ocracy. Libertarians are anocratic, they do not want the government to protect the weak from the strong, which is its primary purpose. Libertarians see the primary purpose of government as protecting the property of the wealthy from the poor.
Libertarians want license, the power to do whatever they please and damn the consequences. Social anarchists such as myself want real freedom, which is always a trade-off. You must give something to get something, lose some license to gain some freedom. Freedom requires a commitment to uphold and defend the freedoms of others, while license says 'fuck them, I've got mine. Let them defend themselves.' It isn't about freedom, but power.
That's what Republicans are telling us, yes. Slavery to the rich is freedom. The freedom that comes from banding together to protect yourself (i.e. government) is slavery.
Dude, that film clip was faked, everyone knows it.
How so? We want the rules to apply to everyone equally, unlike conservatives who want rules for everyone else. Like sex, it's so cliche, if you hear a Republican preaching family values, that man is cheating on his wife. If he preaches against homosexuality, he's fucking a dude. And fiscally? Conservatives are first in line at the feeding trough, sucking down the pork. Bridge to nowhere, anyone?
You have demonstrated a fascinating trait of conservatives: projection. Pretty much anything a conservative accuses someone else of, they are doing, guaranteed.
Russotto, man, I was not expecting such sense from you. ;) There's nothing here I can disagree with, what gives? I'm trying to troll here, man, you can't pull this reasonable and nuanced shit on me! I'm powerless against it!
Yeah, that is exactly what the wealthy have been doing for the last sixty years with the help of the cheap labor Republicans. That is the basis of the party platform: what policies will make the working man more desperate and vulnerable to exploitation by the rich? Every single policy decision can be analyzed according to that criteria, and you will find that every single policy decision of the Republicans helps advance that cause.
I'm not here to be open minded. I'm open minded on my own terms. Far more open minded than most. I'm here to do two things: make a point and fuck with asshole fascist motherfuckers. I'm not here to hear the opinions of asshole fascist motherfuckers, I'm here to knock their dicks in the dirt. Don't like it? Fuck off.
Liberals tend to think for themselves, so I imagine we will see many different viewpoints emerge, rather than some lock-step, campus wide consensus.
It's possible for people to reach a consensus AND think for themselves.
True, but that takes honest discussion and a very long time, I've been part of consensus run activist groups for a long time. I don't see conservatives doing that.
Liberals know that without banding together to protect ourselves, forming what is known as a 'government,' then the weak are fodder for the powerful. We want enough government to ensure no one can oppress others through economic coercion (as in, be my slave or starve to death) and everyone has an equal opportunity to succeed.
Depends on what you mean by broken. For instance, I doubt the CEOs of Wall Street see anything wrong with the economy, after all, they are still making their hundred million dollar bonuses. When someone says something isn't broken, we have to look at what benefits they are getting out of keeping the status quo, and how that is harming others.
Not really. Well, not for them. Not so far anyway. But honestly, if the Tea Party could get rid of it's wingnut "birther-death squadder-omahgawd a commie muslin" core, the fringe that was left would make a decent replacement for the failed Republican party.
Well, I may have said that, but what I meant was: conservatives only think about themselves.
It's funny the myths conservatives believe. Conservatives ruin the economy. If you look at the economy over the last hundred years or so, under Republican administrations, it grew on average less than one percent, while under Democrats, about eight percent.
Liberals are the true fiscal conservatives, we spend and tax to pay for it. Conservative spend just as much, on worse things, and borrow to pay for it.
Liberals don't think we are superior. We just think all laws, proposed or on the books, should be judged by the net benefit they bring to everyone. Conservatives want to protect and extend the power and privilege of the owning class, preserving the status quo.
Actually, you are right. But what is 'works?' Works for whom? So let me clarify your point a bit: conservatives tend to stick with what they think works for them. Liberals believe that every law, proposed or on the books, should be judged by the same criteria: what are the net benefits, considering everyone.
Exactly. It doesn't always work in Dems favor.
I agree with your assessment, as far as it goes, but let me show you how racism plays into all three of your problems, not just poverty.
Obviously, minorities make less than whites. Poverty IS institutionalized racism. But culture is an important component. Being a part of the dominant culture has its privileges. You don't have to question your assumptions and beliefs, because no one does. When you are a part of a minority culture, whenever your assumptions and beliefs butt up against the dominant culture's, you are the one who must adapt. You are demonstrably a second class citizen, and you have it thrust in your face every day. This makes it difficult to succeed.
And expectations, when all you see people like you doing is failing, getting jailed, getting killed, or living on the streets, it is hard to expect anything different. Where are the role models? Sure, we have 'black' president now, but it will be years before the effects of that are seen.
The three main problems all have their roots in institutionalized racism. Minorities do not have the same opportunities as whites. Thus, we try to create more opportunities for them. This is only fair.
Yet, if you are, say, the leader of the Republican National Committee, and you say something Chairman Rush does not approve of, you must retract your statements, and abjectly beg his forgiveness. Republican policies harm the self employed, in favor of big business. Republicans only give subsidies to the rich, and encourage the rich to live off the backs of the working American.
Conservatives love to get angry at liberals, which is why they read liberal viewpoints: simply to have something to justify their anger.
Liberals think that everything is open to debate, and that both new laws and old must be weighed in terms of utility and effectiveness, whereas conservatives think the old ways must not be questioned. But that's just my experience, take from it what you will.
Libertarianism makes us less free. We need government to protect the weak from the powerful, libertarians want to place us all into wage slavery for their corporate overlords. All libertarians believe they will be the overlords, which is why they want the freedom to own wage slaves. This is why libertarians want to do away with anything that will protect the weak from economic coercion, backed up by private property protectors with guns. (the only true function of government in Libertarian eyes is protecting the haves from the have-nots.)
Both. Meaning, I actually believe what I'm writing, but yes, I am writing it deliberately to piss off the closed minded. If you even need to question whether or not I am the best troll ever, you've not been paying attention.
Yes, "liberals and conservatives are all the same" is a popular lie put out by conservatives. As is "Political correctness," "Rewarding poverty," and "Stepping on self employment." All of which are actually things conservatives do. Which makes them different from liberals.
So I'm not allowed to say that people who think for themselves actually think for themselves, or I am showing bias? I don't think your argument is quite as logical as you'd like to believe. What should I call them? "Folks who think for themselves and tend not to vote Republican?" How about that?
But those things you mention are true. The truth has a noticeable liberal bias. Liberals think for themselves, yes, but when they see the truth, they ay what they see. So everyone is seeing the same thing? It doesn't mean they all have the same ideas, just that they have eyes.
Sorry, but in order for people to be free, we need government intervention. Otherwise, the powerful oppress the weak. That was the whole reason we fought off King George, and we still need protection against tyrants, who now use economic coercion. Wage slavery is still slavery. Wall Street CEOs are the new kings, not Obama.