Left vs. Right

[minsue]

Any one else want to defend Darkness's position of forcing every 18 to 25 year old to perform two years of mandatory public service?

Love to see a headcount here...


amicus...

Yup. (quelle surprise )

 

[The_Darkness]

Any one else want to defend Darkness's position of forcing every 18 to 25 year old to perform two years of mandatory public service?

Love to see a headcount here...


amicus...

You told me you were a radio show host. You must have been very good at your job, I'll give that one to you, Ami....hell, I almost didn't catch how you switched that.

I never said mandatory public service. I said mandatory state/federal JOB. Work force development and cheaper labor is what the country gets as well as an improved infrastructure. The kids get the joy of having a job (that they'll most likely hate) that gives them a 401 K and a state/federal benefits package, right when they'll probably need it most.

Mandatory public service makes it sound so cheap....like they'll be planting flowers in highway medians or something like that. Nice try, but still not right.

 

[CharleyH]

A winner-take-all and fuck-you-and-the-horse-you-rode-in-on philosophy seems to have taken over. No more compromise, no more Mister Nice Guy.

At least, that's the way it seems to me, and I often despair that we've begun a race to the bottom here, with no way out. That's probably because I'm on the left, though. I suppose people on the right look at it as finally getting the country back on the right track.

So I thought I'd throw open the floor to discussion. Do you see the pendulum swinging back to the center anytime soon? Will civility return to government? Or is it too late now, are the scars too deep.

What do we have to do to reopen political discourse? Or is it all too late for that?

Me, I'm going to the gym. Don't mess the place up while I'm gone.

--Zoot

I am not an American, though my culture and life is as an incestuous sibling. I am smack in the middle of US political and major cultural views ... intriguing question, so as a Canadian I will answer the best way I can: There was and never is a middle in any socio-political-economic view. Where is the middle ground of a country based in capitalist thinking? Marx was an amazing man, with truly liberal views, but he forgot one thing ... hierarchy is the nature of animals, and humans are still animals.

America, Zoot, under many republican or democratic governments, has always held a position of "I am better than the rest of you, world." (except democrats less likely) So the pendulum does not swing as much for the rest of the world who view the US (not the people) and have for a long time ..."all for one, but mainly one for all of US."

respectufully.

Opening political discourse should have been a given since, what? Nixon maybe?

 

[kendo1]

Yep.

 

[Huckleman2000]

It's with some irony that I note a common theme between Dr. M, Amicus, and Ogg here, as well as some others.

What I'm alluding to is the idea that, first there is a fairly well-defined political spectrum running from far-left (Communism) to far-right (Libertarianism), and second, that one's perception of left and right depends somewhat on where on the spectrum one is living. Thus, "moderate" has no intrinsic meaning like "socialist" or "facsist". As Ogg pointed out, a moderate in the UK is considerably left of an American moderate, and somewhat right of a Scandinavian moderate.

I bring that up because many seem to have the point of view that "moderate" is the same as "middle". And a government that recently "compromised" on approving a judge with the point of view that the New Deal was "Socialist" is already considerably right of center, as evidenced by Libertarian Amicus' approval of that general direction.

By the same token, there is no "left wing" in American politics. No one is seriously advocating Communism or even Socialism as practiced in some European governments. Nevertheless, Libertarian views ("Government is the problem, not the solution") are heard regularly from elected officials. The actual policy ascendency of the Libertarian belief that government should provide for the general defense and not much more has been brought into sharp display by the events in Iraq and the US gulf states.

If you don't think the federal government has a roll to play apart from the general defense, you gut the federal emergency management system and blame the local officials for the poor response to the hurricane (the Bush administration). If you think the federal government shouldn't provide for the general welfare of the poorest citizens, you look at those in the Houston Astrodome and say "this is working out well for them" (Barbara Bush) or "tell me the truth, boys, this is kinda fun" (Tom DeLay). If you think that the only reason people are poor is because they are lazy, you think that they should be fined when they don't evacuate in advance of a looming catastrophe (Sen. Rick Santorum).

And if you can't see the tie between your government and the ghastly effect its policies have on your fellow citizens, you accuse anyone who can see the obvious of politicizing the misfortune of others.

 

[amicus]

Darkness...

"...I never said mandatory public service. I said mandatory state/federal JOB. Work force development and cheaper labor is what the country gets as well as an improved infrastructure. The kids get the joy of having a job (that they'll most likely hate) that gives them a 401 K and a state/federal benefits package, right when they'll probably need it most..."

I see no differentiation between mandatory public service and mandatory state/federal Job...as you put it.

My question to the peanut gallery is whether they support your stated solution of 'forcing' my 19 and 21 year old children to perform a labor of your choosing, whether they or I like it or not.

I suspected that the looney left would support such a position as they have no respect for human individual rights.

I thought perhaps a few of the so called 'moderates' and all of those on the right would jump in and stomp on you for advocating the right to enslave their children.

But then perhaps I hold humanity in to high a regard.

And yes, the phone lines were always full and waiting and the debate raged quite as it does here between the left and right.

amicus...

 

[The_Darkness]

I see no differentiation between mandatory public service and mandatory state/federal Job...as you put it.

I think that may be the problem with many of the people you argue with. You only see your side of the semantic coin and refuse to flip it over to see what's really going on.

 

[rgraham666]

One book that has had a huge influence on my political thinking is Starship Troopers by Robert A. Heinlein.

The society he outlined in it only gave the franchise to those who volunteered for term of federal service. Said term was a minimum of two years.

He believed this would work better for two reasons.

First, by being willing to sacrifice at least two years of your life, and possibly your existence, for society, it proved that the individual put the needs of society ahead of their own.

Second, the franchise was earned. At the very least, you put in a lot of hard work to gain the franchise. Since you worked for it, citizenship had value to you. You were at the very least going to think about how you would vote. You sweated for it and were unlikely to waste it.

I think he may have been close to a truth here. Far too many people vote only because they think they'll get something out of it. Better to vote because society will get something out of it.

 

[Quiet_Cool]

I think that may be the problem with many of the people you argue with. You only see your side of the semantic coin and refuse to flip it over to see what's really going on.

Let me see if I understand you...

Amicus needs to turn the coin from his side and see what's really going on? Meaning you're viewpoint, yes?

I'm pretty sure this attitude is the one we've pinpointed as the problem, isn't it? That the other side doesn't know what's going on because their viewpoint is swayed, and ours is just?

Don't misunderstand me. I'm not agreeing with him any more than I am with you (at least I'm not agreeing with either of you entirely, anyway). Merely pointing out that it's easy for all of us to let our own viewpoints and opinions to get in the way. Step back from the argument and consider his words, or stop responding to him. Honestly, at the risk of being rude, the argument the two of you are having, while helping things along some is doing more to give me a headache (from staring at the screen, I mean).

As for the thought of mandatory public service/JOB, it might not be so bad an idea. I won't take a stance now, but it is something I haven't considered. In response to what amicus said in response to your statement. Amicus, you need to consider the possibility that, while we should definitely respect individual freedom as an ideal, ideals must, to be blunt, be compromised, in order to survive in any system. I see part of our problem in this country is that we forget that, in order for the system to survive, and for those ideals in turn to even matter, we have to compromise them to an extent. Another reason why we're in the hole we're in today. Everyone's right. No one's wrong, and no one wants to budge.

In one respect, it's pointless, but to another, it only makes sense. Case in point:

It just seems strange to me that the people who insist that every pregnant woman carry her child to term are then so willing to let those children grow up in filthy, impoverished households, without the wherewithal to feed and clothe the child. I mean, they force the woman to have the child, then they drop them both into the gutter. I just really don't understand that.

Consider this, Doc. If you're in politics, and these two ideals are yours, meaning you're Pro-life and in favor of reducing if not eliminating welfare (assuming that was the basics of what you meant about the system--personally, I've seldom heard people talk of eliminating welfare altogether, but then, maybe locally it isn't a hot topic. *shrug*). Are you thinking that you should pick the one you feel strongly about and push it? No, not if there's a brain in your head. If you go to purchase a car (as crude an analogy as this is) you don't offer them exactly what you're willing to pay and accept the minimum of what you're willing to recieve right off. If you can negotiate, you offer them the lowest price you can, and ask for the best in terms of warranties, then move toward the middle. If you go into congress and discuss (negotiate) with the opposing side, you take all the tools with you. You take Pro-life (the car) and bring in welfare (the warranty) as well. You negotiate back and forth. No abortion? The other side won't have it, but since it's been in the news lately, with the Unborn Child Pain Protection Act (or something like that, can't remember the actual title, but it involved abortions after the seven-month mark) let's say you decide that you might be willing to settle for something a bit less, like drawing the line at the fifth month, in terms of any given "choice." Unless the fetus shows no signs of life afterward or the mother's life is in extreme jeopardy, no longer can the mother "choose" to abort. In doing so, you'll offer a better warranty. Welfare, remains, but with reform. These single mothers will always be put first, but the rest of the system will need to have funding reduced.

Quite possibly, you might bring in a third option. Say... After a year on welfare, non-parents who aren't disables are offered to give up their assistance, or enter into one of those two-year service periods Darkness was mentioning earlier.

You get my point. We're forgetting to compromise here, as always.

Q_C

 

[Quiet_Cool]

On an unrelated note, nice seeing you Shang.

Q_C

 

[BlackShanglan]

On an unrelated note, nice seeing you Shang.

Q_C

Thank you, QC. I hope that the world has been kind to you of late.

 

[Pure]

Randian position: Hands off Fed!

I'd like a show of hands on the Randian position, based on minimal federal government.

Resolved, the Federal gov. has no business in disaster relief, on the scale of Katrina (3-4 states)-- since that could only occur by forced, punitive taxation of 10s of millions of unaffected Americans who are surely 95% of the population.. Those Americans *wishing* to pay to help can send money to charitable or private, nonprofit agencies, in the amounts they please. States or local communities are free to contract with private corporations for security (Brinks; Blackwater) or rebuilding (Bechtel, Halliburton).

Amicus, of course, has not the courage to state this position, but it's worth examining.

In fact, George Bush, in a speech early on in Katrina, said the Fed would be coordinating state and local responses. And relying on the 'private sector.' The reliance on private sector theme being a part of the Homeland Security legislation.

 

[Huckleman2000]

I'd like a show of hands on the Randian position, based on minimal federal government.

Resolved, the Federal gov. has no business in disaster relief, on the scale of Katrina (3-4 states)-- since that could only occur by forced, punitive taxation of 10s of millions of unaffected Americans who are surely 95% of the population.. Those Americans *wishing* to pay to help can send money to charitable or private, nonprofit agencies, in the amounts they please. States or local communities are free to contract with private corporations for security (Brinks; Blackwater) or rebuilding (Bechtel, Halliburton).

Amicus, of course, has not the courage to state this position, but it's worth examining.

In fact, George Bush, in a speech early on in Katrina, said the Fed would be coordinating state and local responses. And relying on the 'private sector.' The reliance on private sector theme being a part of the Homeland Security legislation.

This is exactly my point, though packaged better than I've been able to so far.

The federal response to this disaster has played out pretty much according to script, and only the broad public revulsion to that has prompted further action.

That is why I don't accept the position that calling the federal govt. on their response to this is somehow politicizing a tragedy. The tragedy was precipitated by political choices! How is it not a political issue?

 

[elsol]

Yeah, sure and you are all for individual freedom and liberty.

Anyone care to cast a vote on forcing our sons and daughters to 'serve' as stated by Darkness?


amicus...

I think tha's a fairly tame suggestion, amicus.

Personally, I believe it should be 'voluntary', but if you don't do it, then you are not allowed to vote in ANY election, not even for the local dogcatcher.

I want proof that someone is willing to do more than talk shit out their ass... that they're actually willing to step up and work alongside me.

Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[elsol]

I'd like a show of hands on the Randian position, based on minimal federal government.

Resolved, the Federal gov. has no business in disaster relief, on the scale of Katrina (3-4 states)-- since that could only occur by forced, punitive taxation of 10s of millions of unaffected Americans who are surely 95% of the population.. Those Americans *wishing* to pay to help can send money to charitable or private, nonprofit agencies, in the amounts they please. States or local communities are free to contract with private corporations for security (Brinks; Blackwater) or rebuilding (Bechtel, Halliburton).

Amicus, of course, has not the courage to state this position, but it's worth examining.

In fact, George Bush, in a speech early on in Katrina, said the Fed would be coordinating state and local responses. And relying on the 'private sector.' The reliance on private sector theme being a part of the Homeland Security legislation.

It won't work.

How fast did 'law and order' breakdown in New Orleans?

Now, try to imagine if we could not turn and 'blame' the governement... if we blamed EACH OTHER.

*BAD FUCKING JUJU*

If you have any questions about how ugly that would get, how ugly has this thread been?

And we're only talking about TALKING.

Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[Weird Harold]

Resolved, the Federal gov. has no business in disaster relief, on the scale of Katrina (3-4 states)-- since that could only occur by forced, punitive taxation of 10s of millions of unaffected Americans who are surely 95% of the population.. Those Americans *wishing* to pay to help can send money to charitable or private, nonprofit agencies, in the amounts they please. States or local communities are free to contract with private corporations for security (Brinks; Blackwater) or rebuilding (Bechtel, Halliburton).

Sounds good on paper, but impractical as demonstrated by much smaller scale disasters through American History.

Even at it's most Randian minimal, the government would still have more resources available to respond faster than any charitable organization.

 

[elsol]

Sounds good on paper, but impractical as demonstrated by much smaller scale disasters through American History.

Even at it's most Randian minimal, the government would still have more resources available to respond faster than any charitable organization.

I took a class on 'political systems' and it was actually funny how fast the perfect examples breakdown when you say:

a) Children
b) Disaster

Unfortunately, a perfect political system cannot handle humanity's humanity.


Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[BlackShanglan]

I took a class on 'political systems' and it was actually funny how fast the perfect examples breakdown when you say:

a) Children
b) Disaster

Unfortunately, a perfect political system cannot handle humanity's humanity.


Sincerely,
ElSol

Amen.

The problems of the world can be summed up in the words "fucking humans."

 

[Quiet_Cool]

Amen.

The problems of the world can be summed up in the words "fucking humans."

Of course it can. For instance:

"Human life would be easy if those fucking humans wouldn't keep getting in the way."

Q_C

 

[amicus]

Oh, my, sighs amicus...the tangled webs that are weaved.


A human community, (begin small so you can follow the reasoning) always looks after its own. It begins with family, of course, blood relations, brother and sister, aunt and uncle and the elders and of course the children.

They look after each other and help in times of need through relationships, cooperation and mutual respect.

The community grows and inter-relationships grow and extend to non family members and if the community continues to be based on the 'family' values of mutual assistance and respect, it continues to grow.

We are far removed from those simple times and yet so very closely tied, if you have listened to the news reports on Katrina victims as they seek family members.

It is not race or poverty but humanity that drives the human response to a disaster on the scale of hurricane Katrina. As it has in other tragic events in human history and as you can easily see now, it is the 'people' here and around the world that respond with kindness and generosity.

There are firefighters from New York City, who survived 9/11, in New Orleans today, returning the help that New Orleans firefighters gave four years ago today.

Look closely and you will see badges of police and fire and rescue units from across the nation in New Orleans.

Government is a poor second to the mutual and volunteer efforts of common people everywhere.

At best, government can only manage and direct those efforts, not provide them.

No beaurocrat from Washington D.C. has the personal interest in anyone in New Orleans or Gulfport or Biloxi, that a friend or family member does, or even a volunteer from the Red Cross of the Salvation Army.

It is somewhat amazing and a little frightening to read back several posts and notice that most seem to think the 'government' is the central issue and that individual humans are in the way.

You folks got it completely backwards; the Randian, minimalist concept is functioning quite well, thank you, it is the Orwellian 'big brothers' that are in the way.

Who ever spoke about 'compromise' in a friendly way should realize that there is no compromise between life and death, right and wrong, true and false; there are only those that passionately and fervently support life, right and truth in the constant face of those who would compromise.

I know you want me, but you can't have me.


amicus...

 

[elsol]

A human community, (begin small so you can follow the reasoning) always looks after its own. It begins with family, of course, blood relations, brother and sister, aunt and uncle and the elders and of course the children.

They look after each other and help in times of need through relationships, cooperation and mutual respect.

The community grows and inter-relationships grow and extend to non family members and if the community continues to be based on the 'family' values of mutual assistance and respect, it continues to grow.

If this were true, then please explain how war began?

By the natural process you describe, we should never have left this state because at one point we were ONLY one family and extended outward as that family grew.

Someone at some point in time had to say "Okay, you're not family" for us to get here... right?

So WHY did it happen if 'A human community ALWAYS...'

If humans and their communities ALWAYS do something then only that which can follow from that 'always' can occur... I think six million dead jews says we don't ALWAYS treat each other as human nevermind like family.


Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[amicus]

Elsol...."...If this were true, then please explain how war began?..."


I suggest you read my book, The First Chief, Ahjeed, by Amicus, from iUniverse or any online bookstore.

It perhaps begins with conflict between families, a prize female stolen away, a theft, a youthful indiscretion, even an accident.

It also occurs when 'families' that have become 'tribes' meet up with other tribes and conflict rather than cooperate.

We humans are a feisty lot.

I am not being facetious, but understanding how evil can flourish in a gentile gathering of humans is a curiosity to me and not easy to comprehend. I have found it possible to deal with easier in fiction than in non fiction essays or even debate.

regards...


amicus...

 

[impressive]

Some reading material: Soul Freedom


... also "interesting" was the article in this week's Time magazine about a bipartisan ticket (Clinton-McCain) for 2006.

 

[rgraham666]

Some reading material: Soul Freedom


... also "interesting" was the article in this week's Time magazine about a bipartisan ticket (Clinton-McCain) for 2006.

Reinhold Niebuhr, who taught at Union Theological Seminary and wrestled constantly with applying Christian ethics to political life, put it this way: "When we talk about love we have to become mature or we will become sentimental. Basically love means…being responsible, responsibility to our family, toward our civilization, and now by the pressures of history, toward the universe of humankind."

Amen, Mr. Niebuhr.

 

[Kassiana]

They're not screaming Bush hates people who make under $15k a year.

--They are where I live. And I think they may well be right. I don't think Bush understands anyone who isn't rich, and thus doesn't get what to do about them.