What is it with this 'Liberal' thing?

[lazs2]

yep.. I am an individualist and a property rights kinda guy.   My brand of libertarianism is not anarchism.   I believe that government is evil but least evil when it protects rights.   Your rights should not infringe on your neighbors.... owning guns or saying the word "******" does not infringe on anyones rights or freedoms but robbing at gunpoint or moving a pig farm next door to you does for instance.  

eddit... it seems that the deragatory word for black folk is not allowed here... that is fine tho since it is a privately owned and controled BB...  I would not make any law against it tho.... for example.
lazs

[lord dolf vader]

I'm a liberal. my view of human nature is such that i believe fear of death is a deturant only when it is excersied. some humans are predators and rather than spending huge amounts of my cash preserving them to die horribly. i believe killing is kinder call me crazy but it works.

oh and screw gun control.

but national health care is a inevetable forgone conclusion.


I'm still a liberal.    go figure.

[nopoop]

Haven't been in here for a read in quite awhile. Must say this is the most civil discussion of opposing views I think I've ever read in here.

Good show.

What I see in the USA from my small corner of it is this. Everyone is born a liberal, as they get older they slide to the conservative side.

By definition from my view a conservative in the most basic sense, is taking responsiblity for one's own actions with a minimum of goverment intervention. In business, what you earn, what you create for you and those you employ should not be penalized if you do well.

My view of liberals in the USA sense is this. It's a two tiered equation. More goverment is good. Taking care ( supporting ) bad individual decisions makes liberals feel good. The "little people" don't know what's good for them, but in our goodness we will provide it.

The two tier equation comes in where the liberal stating the mantra is far removed from having to pay for the cost. That is left to the "little people". Every effort is made to have the people remain "little" They will let you feel good about yourself tho..

Where one philosophy inspires individual accomplishment and goals and structures itself not to be a hinderance, the other strangles it in the name of "goodness"

The Ivory tower comes to mind.  Long live the "little people" For with them the tower will remain.

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by lord dolf vader
or they spent 40 plus million of my money to publicise a blowjob.
and other unproven or unimportant gossip.

your acting all patronizing is really funny.

im still laughin at you.

Since when are blowjobs unimportant?  Somebody got you p-whipped?

[AKcurly]

We don't have too much government.  Perhaps what we have is misguided or perhaps money is ill spent, but folks, we have serious problems.

Today isn't like the 40s-50s-early 60s.  We have situations where a small number of folks can create havoc.

1.  One individual can disrupt network activities world wide.

2.  A small group of individuals can easily terrorize a large country with lax border controls.  The things that one can do ...  

a) dynamite dams above cities,
b) botulism in the water supply,
c) infect one of Allah's chosen with pneumonic plague (or a virulent form of smallpox or ebola or whatever) and turn him loose in LA/NYC/DC/.
d) borrow some plutonium from Iran and set off a small nuke in London/NYC/Paris/Berlin/where ever
e) park a truck load of fertilizer in front of somone's house
and etc.

3.  Corrupt police departments in all cities, all states and all countries as near as I can tell.

4.  Corrupt political systems where political actions are controlled by special interest groups.

5.  Inadequate controls on companies who have become so rich by the sale of their products/services, they are completely lacking in morality.    They have lost sight of their original vision and will literally do anything to maintain the status quo.

6.  And so on.  Hell, the list is endless

The problem isn't that we have too much government.  It's that our government is struggling to be effective.

I honestly believe the American political process will resolve all of the above.  The cost will probably include throwing out all current political parties and find some new and acceptable solutions.

I suspect the changes will be so radical  that many will label it revolutionary.

You rugged individualists are so full of it, well it boggles my mind.  Here we have guys who have struggled through life, conquering all of the nice little problems that occur.  

What have I seen all of us worry about?  Divorce, alcoholism,  drug addiction(other than alcohol), deaths?

And now that you've conquered your demons, you want to pretend that you did it by strength of character.  Bull!  If you had any character, the problem wouldn't have happened in the first place!

You acquired character only after you hit rock bottom and someone gave you a helping hand.

curly

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by lord dolf vader
I'm a liberal. my view of human nature is such that i believe fear of death is a deturant only when it is excersied. some humans are predators and rather than spending huge amounts of my cash preserving them to die horribly. i believe killing is kinder call me crazy but it works.

oh and screw gun control.

but national health care is a inevetable forgone conclusion.


I'm still a liberal.    go figure.

You havnt said one word other than I'm a Liberal that actualy says you're a liberal aside from the health care.  Besides a dweeb, I'm not sure what you are.  Aside from the health care all of those are conservative Ideals

[Hooligan]

Curly wrote:

We don't have too much government. Perhaps what we have is misguided or perhaps money is ill spent...

Our government's legitimate functions (as enumerated by the constitution) make it its business to deal with criminals, terrorists and war (i.e. the stuff you first mention in your post).

However I don't see how seatbelt and anti-smoking legistation have anything to do with preventing small groups of individuals from creating havoc.

As far as the government poorly using the resources we give to it.  Of course they do; everything they touch turns to crap.  The obvious solution to this is to give them less money to waste.  I can't name one thing they do better than or even anywhere near as well as private industry.  No doubt the armed forces are horribly inefficient also, but fortunately there is nothing like a free market where private armed forces hone their skills so the only armies ours have to fight are similarly crippled by being government bureaucracies.  God help us if we had to defend ourselves against an armed force as well run as Toyota.

I am pretty sure that I DON'T want the guys who run the DMV and postoffice to have anything more to do with my healthcare.  And it boggles my mind that anybody would.

The Department of Education, Department of Energy, Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms, Bureau of Indian Afairs and about a billion other federal agencies are expensive and harmful.  I'd just as soon be rid of them.

Thank god they waste most of the money we give em.  Thank god we don't get all the government we pay for!

Hooligan

[AKcurly]

Originally posted by Hooligan

However I don't see how seatbelt and anti-smoking legistation have anything to do with preventing small groups of individuals from creating havoc.


If someone wants to smoke and ultimately kill himself, I am all for it.  I wish it would kill them while they are in their teens since it would have a positive effect on the gene pool.

However, the effects of second hand smoke are well documented now and no one has the right to hazard the health of others.  


As far as the government poorly using the resources we give to it.  Of course they do; everything they touch turns to crap.


Nah, not so.  It's certainly true the government has become more unwieldy since Eisenhower's days, but the general trend is positive.    Too bad the government isn't like Microsoft, eh?  They made a fortune from producing crap.


The obvious solution to this is to give them less money to waste.  I can't name one thing they do better than or even anywhere near as well as private industry.


You can't?  Man, I can!  Industry is unable to police itself and prevent the sale of DDT; Industry is unable to guide itself away from monopolistic practices.  Industry (in Europe) was unable to police itself when it comes to safe drug policies (remember thalidomide?)   Good grief, Hooligan, the thought of corporate thugs on the loose is worse than Saddam on the loose.


No doubt the armed forces are horribly inefficient also, but fortunately there is nothing like a free market where private armed forces hone their skills so the only armies ours have to fight are similarly crippled by being government bureaucracies.  God help us if we had to defend ourselves against an armed force as well run as Toyota.


Ya think?  Are you familiar with the history of WW2?  You familiar with Alfred Loomis?


I am pretty sure that I DON'T want the guys who run the DMV and postoffice to have anything more to do with my healthcare.  And it boggles my mind that anybody would.


Simple solution there, feller.  Pay for your own health care and you will have no worries.


The Department of Education, Department of Energy, Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms, Bureau of Indian Afairs and about a billion other federal agencies are expensive and harmful.  I'd just as soon be rid of them.


I've never claimed to be wise enough to think that I could devise an effective and efficient government.  If you really believe everything in the above paragraph, Hooli, I would encourage you to emigrate.   Palestine comes to mind.  You won't be troubled with government intervention at all.

curly

[ravells]

Thank you for putting the argument forward so much more eloquently than I could, Curly.

The danger in all of this is to believe that 'absolutes' work. e.g. Corporations having absolutely no controls over them.

I suspect if most people thought about it there would recognise that they would have to be some government intervention, but they may differ as to how much.

Ravs.

[lazs2]

seatbelt... helmet laws... gun control... all intrusive government action.   smoking?   why on earth does government tell privat bussines if they can smoke in their own buildings?    

curly... you say you want to throw out all the government we have and form a whole new party.... one that will make us safe from the foreign threat... one guy did all that in the 1930's in germany... first thing he did when he got in power was to make the population safer with bans on private citizens owning firearms... in fact... he spread gun control through most of the world.   drastic times require drastic solutions huh?

If you allow government to run health care then if won't matter if you pay for it or not... the best health care will no longer be available to anyone.  

Many... no... most government agencies and programs in this country are worthless and could be simply shut down.  All of the ones hoolign mentioned are on the list.
lazs

[Hooligan]

If someone wants to smoke and ultimately kill himself, I am all for it. I wish it would kill them while they are in their teens since it would have a positive effect on the gene pool.

However, the effects of second hand smoke are well documented now and no one has the right to hazard the health of others.

I agree wholeheartedly.  However, if somebody wants to open a Bar in LA, it should be up to them whether or not it is a non-smoking establishment.  If somebody wants to accept the risk of entering a smoking establishment, that is their right.

Nah, not so. It's certainly true the government has become more unwieldy since Eisenhower's days, but the general trend is positive. Too bad the government isn't like Microsoft, eh? They made a fortune from producing crap.

If you don't like Microsoft or Apple, you don't have to buy their products.  Try not paying for the DEA and see what happens.

You can't? Man, I can! Industry is unable to police itself and prevent the sale of DDT; Industry is unable to guide itself away from monopolistic practices. Industry (in Europe) was unable to police itself when it comes to safe drug policies (remember thalidomide?) Good grief, Hooligan, the thought of corporate thugs on the loose is worse than Saddam on the loose.

One of the government's proper jobs is deal with those who harm others or their property.  Fraudulent business practices are also a no-no, so I certainly think that thalidomide falls under that.

Ya think? Are you familiar with the history of WW2? You familiar with Alfred Loomis?

Yes, I am rather sure that US war production in which much of the production details were left to private industry was much more efficient that the state run industries in Germany and the USSR for example.  And Alfred Loomis was a product of private enterprise who got involved because of the war, not a career Government bureaucrat.  Even though the Atomic bomb was produced in time, it is rather a stretch to say that it was produced efficiently or quickly compared to what may have happened in a market based competitive environment.  I haven’t noticed 20 nuke companies trying to undersell each other, and until we do we won’t know how efficiently and cheaply they can be produced.

I am pretty sure that I DON'T want the guys who run the DMV and postoffice to have anything more to do with my healthcare. And it boggles my mind that anybody would.

Simple solution there, feller. Pay for your own health care and you will have no worries.

I’m sure the Canadians get a laugh out of that.  Under the fed’s most recent attempt to give us national healthcare, what you suggest would be illegal.  Try to license your car independently of the state.  I doubt they will approve of your homemade license plates, although they may be impressed enough to offer you a career in that field.  Similarly try telling fedex or UPS to feel free to put their packages in your mailbox, i.e. the one you bought with your own money which resides on your property and see what they say?

I've never claimed to be wise enough to think that I could devise an effective and efficient government. If you really believe everything in the above paragraph, Hooli, I would encourage you to emigrate. Palestine comes to mind. You won't be troubled with government intervention at all.

As you well know, I don’t want anarchy.  And as far as I can tell our founding fathers did a better job than anyone else in devising an effective and efficient government.  I’d be perfectly happy to see the government cut back to what they envisioned.

Hooligan

[airguard]

I think as a socalled liberal norwegian, USA and Norway are two totally different nations and there is nothing wrong with that.

The difference is huge but we all are happily living in each of our way of free living (free speach, freedom to move, and freedom to choose whatevever we want within the law)

In Norway we have a huge land vs the inhabitants (4,5 million only) and that is supposed to cover a land that is at the size of UK.

But its harder to buildt.
Just take the roads they have to go trough huge mountains,fjords, ice and terrible weather.
cant be done without paying taxes.

population is also spread out, wich means hospitals have to be too.
Cant be done by inusranse companies, must be paid my taxes (otherways none woulda been able to pay for it)

Alcohol taxes is high (cant see a problem with that it isnt food)

car taxes is high( we need that for our roads and we afford it)

We was the one of the poorest countries in  europe in the  1930`s and from that to 1960 (before the oil) we went out pretty good.
(taxes again)


Some still call  us commis but we never been there, did we ?

I think this is a kinda socialism that actually works, but maybe just in small countries ?


USA prolly need to be a land of self made men, but Dont discriminate other countries for beeing able to do it otherwise.

I always looked at USA as a good place to be, for those who live their lives there but dont come talking bull about other places that actually made it ok too please.

I think not I hope.

I pay my 34% income tax and dont worry to much about it and still having a good life. (when i worked)
( student now and have a 0% tax and a low intrest loan to make it )

[ravells]

Hey Lasz....this should be interesting:

Click on

this website

to take the test. Tell me your result.

I was in halfway down down and three quarters to the left (in the neighbourhood of Nelson Mandela and the Dalai Lama.)

p.s. I am against anti-smoking legislation too. I reckon the reason why most places don't allow you to smoke is because of the number of 'passive smoking' legal claims against the owners of the premises - but the government didn't have to ban it.

Ravs

[Kieran]

p.s. I am against anti-smoking legislation too. I reckon the reason why most places don't allow you to smoke is because of the number of 'passive smoking' legal claims against the owners of the premises - but the government didn't have to ban it.

Not true. Referendum vote from an activist population does this. Since most people don't get involved in the political process, a comparatively small but active group can dictate the behaviors of the majority. You could argue this gives the people no more than they deserve (because of their chosen inactivity), except the shop owners only get one vote apiece. This means relatively few people get to tell private business owners how they can run their businesses.

Bottom line is conservatives didn't come up with this stuff. A few people that decided the populace isn't smart or responsible enough to decide for themselves whether or not to frequent an establishment that allows smoking did this. These people were liberals.

[DmdNexus]

Originally posted by Kieran
Bottom line is conservatives didn't come up with this stuff. A few people that decided the populace isn't smart or responsible enough to decide for themselves whether or not to frequent an establishment that allows smoking did this. These people were liberals.

Referendums aside....

Just so I'm clear on who's a liberal and who's not...

when a state with a republican majority in the legislature and a republican goveroner passes an anti-smoking law in public places... that's the liberals at work?