Hmmm in my experience, it is the liberals that are into displays of conspicuous consumption - driving expensive hybrids, eating organic food, etcetera. Conservatives tend to be frugal, hard working, God fearing types - the kind who give to charity, rather than voting in governments who pretend to help the poor, but end up helping themselves
We should remove the state from deciding what units people are and aren't allowed to use. Yeah, I know, metric is better for calculations... I use it myself... but you show an ugly, geekish side to yourself when you decide to force people who have used another system for generations to stop doing so: tradition is more important than you think; without a feeling of contiguity with the past, we stop taking the lessons of history seriously. Without that, we don't even have a civilization any more.
Let the market decide which system is better in which situation. What to teach in government schools? Let the parents decide on a district by district basis - like I said, it souldn't be a state decision. Signs on government roads? Keep 'em as they are until the demand for change from the private sector becomes irresistable.
"Most pork is really investment"??? That really really begs the question. Certainly, government spending is never justified as investment: investing resources is allocating them in the expectation of making a profit; pork is allocating resources in order to cement political patronage. I guess pork might be considered a form of investment for the politician in question, but never surely for society in general.
On health care, this is complete bollocks - the UK NHS are a bunch of murderers, when it comes to anything serious. I would give anything to return to the old charity hospital system, where a lack of state involvement in healthcare meant that free charity hospitals thrived in the inner cities for those that needed them. State involvement in health care is the absolute pits. Yes, I have personal experience.
I think you will find that it is Marxism that is the con game for funneling money from the poor to the rich. Under Marxism, the politically connected become the new rich, and everyone else becomes the new poor, money notwithstanding.
I disagree with the Churchill quote. The quality of government has gone down during the 20th century as a direct result of our belief that the only legitimate form of state power is democratic - this has meant that all of our government officials are practiced public liars, indebted to political party interests, with no interest in the long term future of the people they were elected by. From Plato to Burke, it has been understood that combining the different systems of political legitimacy - monarchy; democracy; plutarchy; etc - is very important as it allows the bad qualities of each to counter-balance each other. Sadly, the west has chucked out this wisdom in favo(u)r of deciding everything by election.
"Expenses stay the same?" I thought libertarianism was all about reducing the influence of the state on our lives. Surely expenses go down if the state does less.
Cultural conservatism entails the realization that all societies have standards of behavior - even the Democrats are not yet in favor of repealing the repressive rules against having sex in public, separation of the sexes in public toilets, etc. Some standards of behavior build thriving, creative cultures. Other standards lead to decadence, falling birth rates, and cultural failure. Most of the west, primarily thanks to US::liberalism, is falling/has fallen into decadence.
The Republicans are the liberal party presently, by the standards of just a decade or so back. JFK was to the right of the modern Republican party on most issues. The Democrats - rhetorically at least - are a bunch of hysterical greens, unionists, racial provocateurs, and social engineers. Who knows what policies they may come up with?
The main problem with democracy is that is prevents normal people from rioting in the streets when the government starts abusing them - these are fanatics, going against the "will o' the people" the media will say. The will of the people is something of a democratic myth to start with - society is built from competing groups with potentially different agendas - should getting 51% of the vote really mean anything compared with 49%? However the big problem comes in mature democracies - such as the US - where there are a limited number of highly entrenched political parties, with not much to choose between them. This gives us all the effects of dictatorship, with reduced ability for the people to mobilize against them.
Is there any reason for Americans to retain loyalty to the Feds?
The only reason that you think the above are desirable functions of government is that the government has been doing them for over 50 years. The massive economic growth and stability of Europe between the end of the Napoleonic wars and the start of WWI - almost 100 years - proves that government micromanagement of the economy is certainly not necessary.
>shrug Ethnic Cleansing is pretty typical in most western countries. Most of the western democracies seem to be actively involved in ethnically cleansing their native peoples from major cities. Why do our beloved leaders wanna do that? Several reasons - politically correct liberalism insists that people are the same wherever they come from, so speaking out against the ethnic cleansing is considered evil and wrong; secondly, the beloved leaders believe that the immigrants will be grateful enough to vote for them, perhaps even guaranteeing a permanent majority to the party; thirdly, more people gives rise to a higher GNP, which gives the country more prestige internationally, and our beloved leaders just *love* that prestige stuff.
In practise, of course, when the immigrants get enough numbers, they quickly form their own political pressure groups, and the country in question turns from sensible policy making to rabid, inter-tribal strife. Which is more or less violent, depending on the immigrants in question.
Naah this is typical Democrat ignorance. If you think the Dems are better than the Repubs, wait til they get into power - leftist parties are generally harder on civil rights than rightists, if only 'cos they feel they have less to lose and more to gain by putting up a show of strength. The actual reason why we're losing our freedoms is that we have a very very broad suffrage in our current political systems, and cos the majority of working stiffs don't give a toss for freedom when they can have comfort. If the suffrage was restricted to people with more of a stake in the fortune of the nation, we would have a better record for retaining our liberties. viz. the 19th century, for example.
I don't know of any country where legislators are prevented from making laws depending on their field of expertise. All the political structures I am familiar with have a single legislative body where any member of that body can introduce and attempt to pass legislation. You may be thinking of regulators, where a quasi-autonomous body is delegated the power to "manage" a particular section of the economy?
This is why it is such a terrible mistake to have government micro managing pretty much everything. Unfortunately, this is a mistake that all the western countries have made in the last century or so, and it is proving the death of our civilization. Why did anyone ever think that putting a bunch of politicians in charge of health, welfare, communications, civil infrastructure, education (especially education!), research, immigration, etcetera etcetera was a good idea?
The Muslims march on the streets, publicly declaring things like "Prepare for the real holocaust", "Slay those who insult Islam", and other typical Muslim sobriquets. They are observed by the police. They are not arrested, and the few who are arrested are released without charge.
Slashdot Mirror
"People have a right to limit what others do with property"? Alright, stop using your computer. Now.
Hmmm in my experience, it is the liberals that are into displays of conspicuous consumption - driving expensive hybrids, eating organic food, etcetera. Conservatives tend to be frugal, hard working, God fearing types - the kind who give to charity, rather than voting in governments who pretend to help the poor, but end up helping themselves
We should remove the state from deciding what units people are and aren't allowed to use. Yeah, I know, metric is better for calculations ... I use it myself ... but you show an ugly, geekish side to yourself when you decide to force people who have used another system for generations to stop doing so: tradition is more important than you think; without a feeling of contiguity with the past, we stop taking the lessons of history seriously. Without that, we don't even have a civilization any more.
Let the market decide which system is better in which situation. What to teach in government schools? Let the parents decide on a district by district basis - like I said, it souldn't be a state decision. Signs on government roads? Keep 'em as they are until the demand for change from the private sector becomes irresistable.
"Most pork is really investment"??? That really really begs the question. Certainly, government spending is never justified as investment: investing resources is allocating them in the expectation of making a profit; pork is allocating resources in order to cement political patronage. I guess pork might be considered a form of investment for the politician in question, but never surely for society in general. On health care, this is complete bollocks - the UK NHS are a bunch of murderers, when it comes to anything serious. I would give anything to return to the old charity hospital system, where a lack of state involvement in healthcare meant that free charity hospitals thrived in the inner cities for those that needed them. State involvement in health care is the absolute pits. Yes, I have personal experience. I think you will find that it is Marxism that is the con game for funneling money from the poor to the rich. Under Marxism, the politically connected become the new rich, and everyone else becomes the new poor, money notwithstanding.
I disagree with the Churchill quote. The quality of government has gone down during the 20th century as a direct result of our belief that the only legitimate form of state power is democratic - this has meant that all of our government officials are practiced public liars, indebted to political party interests, with no interest in the long term future of the people they were elected by. From Plato to Burke, it has been understood that combining the different systems of political legitimacy - monarchy; democracy; plutarchy; etc - is very important as it allows the bad qualities of each to counter-balance each other. Sadly, the west has chucked out this wisdom in favo(u)r of deciding everything by election.
"Expenses stay the same?" I thought libertarianism was all about reducing the influence of the state on our lives. Surely expenses go down if the state does less.
Cultural conservatism entails the realization that all societies have standards of behavior - even the Democrats are not yet in favor of repealing the repressive rules against having sex in public, separation of the sexes in public toilets, etc. Some standards of behavior build thriving, creative cultures. Other standards lead to decadence, falling birth rates, and cultural failure. Most of the west, primarily thanks to US::liberalism, is falling/has fallen into decadence.
The Republicans are the liberal party presently, by the standards of just a decade or so back. JFK was to the right of the modern Republican party on most issues. The Democrats - rhetorically at least - are a bunch of hysterical greens, unionists, racial provocateurs, and social engineers. Who knows what policies they may come up with?
The main problem with democracy is that is prevents normal people from rioting in the streets when the government starts abusing them - these are fanatics, going against the "will o' the people" the media will say. The will of the people is something of a democratic myth to start with - society is built from competing groups with potentially different agendas - should getting 51% of the vote really mean anything compared with 49%? However the big problem comes in mature democracies - such as the US - where there are a limited number of highly entrenched political parties, with not much to choose between them. This gives us all the effects of dictatorship, with reduced ability for the people to mobilize against them. Is there any reason for Americans to retain loyalty to the Feds?
The only reason that you think the above are desirable functions of government is that the government has been doing them for over 50 years. The massive economic growth and stability of Europe between the end of the Napoleonic wars and the start of WWI - almost 100 years - proves that government micromanagement of the economy is certainly not necessary.
Works good on mac
>shrug Ethnic Cleansing is pretty typical in most western countries. Most of the western democracies seem to be actively involved in ethnically cleansing their native peoples from major cities. Why do our beloved leaders wanna do that? Several reasons - politically correct liberalism insists that people are the same wherever they come from, so speaking out against the ethnic cleansing is considered evil and wrong; secondly, the beloved leaders believe that the immigrants will be grateful enough to vote for them, perhaps even guaranteeing a permanent majority to the party; thirdly, more people gives rise to a higher GNP, which gives the country more prestige internationally, and our beloved leaders just *love* that prestige stuff.
In practise, of course, when the immigrants get enough numbers, they quickly form their own political pressure groups, and the country in question turns from sensible policy making to rabid, inter-tribal strife. Which is more or less violent, depending on the immigrants in question.
Also, if there had been life, we might have to worry about being invaded.
Naah this is typical Democrat ignorance. If you think the Dems are better than the Repubs, wait til they get into power - leftist parties are generally harder on civil rights than rightists, if only 'cos they feel they have less to lose and more to gain by putting up a show of strength. The actual reason why we're losing our freedoms is that we have a very very broad suffrage in our current political systems, and cos the majority of working stiffs don't give a toss for freedom when they can have comfort. If the suffrage was restricted to people with more of a stake in the fortune of the nation, we would have a better record for retaining our liberties. viz. the 19th century, for example.
I don't know of any country where legislators are prevented from making laws depending on their field of expertise. All the political structures I am familiar with have a single legislative body where any member of that body can introduce and attempt to pass legislation. You may be thinking of regulators, where a quasi-autonomous body is delegated the power to "manage" a particular section of the economy?
This is why it is such a terrible mistake to have government micro managing pretty much everything. Unfortunately, this is a mistake that all the western countries have made in the last century or so, and it is proving the death of our civilization. Why did anyone ever think that putting a bunch of politicians in charge of health, welfare, communications, civil infrastructure, education (especially education!), research, immigration, etcetera etcetera was a good idea?
The Muslims march on the streets, publicly declaring things like "Prepare for the real holocaust", "Slay those who insult Islam", and other typical Muslim sobriquets. They are observed by the police. They are not arrested, and the few who are arrested are released without charge.
Look at the Scots wikipedia: http://sco.wikipedia.org/wiki ... they're actually serious about it!