- Joined
- Jan 24, 2012
- Messages
- 2,106
- Reaction score
- 452
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
Then I disagree with your claim.
And this is where the misunderstanding arises. You see, modern, mainstream liberalism agrees with you. Most liberals favor equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. But we also understand that fostering such opportunity requires political will and that sometimes in the real world cooperation works better than competition.
And this is where the misunderstanding arises. You see, modern, mainstream liberalism agrees with you. Most liberals favor equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. But we also understand that fostering such opportunity requires political will and that sometimes in the real world cooperation works better than competition.
Why don't police and military count? Why is forced taxation and social planning acceptable only for areas you define but not others? You'll probably cite the constitution, but I have decades of legal precedent to stand up to any argument based on strict constructionism.
On the one hand, you're proposing a mixed economy (by your definition, a community police force is certainly a socialist organization) but arguing that mixed economies are based on abuse. But that's a point that's almost not worth making, because your ideas are anathema to most Americans, so they will continue to safely exist only in your mind.
And this is where the misunderstanding arises. You see, modern, mainstream liberalism agrees with you. Most liberals favor equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. But we also understand that fostering such opportunity requires political will and that sometimes in the real world cooperation works better than competition.
And this is where the misunderstanding arises. You see, modern, mainstream liberalism agrees with you. Most liberals favor equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. But we also understand that fostering such opportunity requires political will and that sometimes in the real world cooperation works better than competition.
Yes, that post clearly aligns me with Karl Marx and Pol Pot and the Chairman Mao.
Hmmm. Quandary. If capitalism is a code word for me choosing what is in my best interest and you choosing what is in your best interest than how can anything else be part of that equation? Unless you mean, as I suspect that you do, that you will decide if there is just way too much free-decidin' goin' on out theah! You can fix that by taking away a portion of my ability to choose for me. You will choose on my behalf. That is what you really mean, isn't it?
It's not me deciding anything. It's the political will of the electorate. Thus, representative democracy is what ultimately regulates the market and makes it responsive to our needs.
I would say that from a legalistic stand point, America has leaned more Right. Moreover, if many of the states that went (more) Republican since the 2010 mid-term election had their way, they'd push the country more Right from a legal perspective. In that regard, how would that America any different from the Middle-Eastern countries we've witnessed from afar retain a particular party in power for upwards of 20-35 years? To be sure, the only thing that truly separates us from them where the hold on power is concerned is in countries like Libya, Iraq, Iran, Syria and Egypt it's been a matter of one man rule (for the most part; the Baath Party in Iraq and religious zealots in Iran notwithstanding).
Think about it...think long and hard. And while you're at it consider which party's politics have been in play the majority of the time since the 80's.
Well, ask yourself these simple questions:
1) Have your moments been restricted? Can you not go wherever you please both within your city? Your State? Your country? Or do you have to show your papers at every checkpoint?
2) Can you not still say whatever you want short of yelling "FIRE" in a crowded room?
3) Have you or anyone you know been pulled from the peaceful confines of your home against your will WITHOUT explanation or WITHOUT a warrant?
Well, when you have economic instability and equality for as long as it's been present in this country,
when people are are assailed for no other reason than to trim expenditures for budgetary concerns and when regulations
which could help move the nation forward but are instead stimmied for political reasons than to win political points, I'd say there's a reason the "class wars", "race wars" and "religious wars" have seemed to take root.
So you are more of a traditional liberal. Understood.
The issue I have with traditional liberalism, with the goal of equal opportunity, is that you simply can't have equal opportunity. The only way to have completely equal opportunity, is to remove all opportunity.
Well, equal opportunity is an ideal. I agree that it's not fully possible in practice. But, remember, this thread started equating American liberalism to communism, which is patently false. I believe equality of opportunity is an ideal most Americans share.
Two things.
Capitalism is not a code word for self-interest, although self-interest obviously plays a key role. Capitalism harnesses human behavior to fuel production, which is why it works. But self-interest isn't the only human motivation.
It's not me deciding anything. It's the political will of the electorate. Thus, representative democracy is what ultimately regulates the market and makes it responsive to our needs.
Are you serious? The market is already responsive to your needs.
In theory, yes. Again, I agree that the market is useful and good, but it does not exist as an ideal.
The problem you won't admit is that there is only so much of it to be had unless you force people to pay for and provide things to people and then you are just walking into the building I said you were in.
Stick to what you said. You said that the market is not responsive to your needs. Do you admit that is false or not?
I believe in capitalism, actually. But I believe that capitalism should serve humanity, not the other way around.
No I said political will makes it responsive, meaning that I believe political will and regulation is required for capitalism to function as intended.
You're not calling for a world without force, Henrin. I don't share your ideal that all force is abuse anyway. Some force is necessary, as you acknowledge.
More redirecting focus from you, I see. Up to the old tricks again, are we? I never said we shouldn't punish criminals that violation our rights and liberties, but you my friend want to punish the innocent and make them pay for what you need and want. See the difference? Do you notice how you just robbed from them? Do you notice how you just violated their rights, misused tax revenue, and violated their liberty? I Know you do or you wouldn't be trying to redirect focus away from yourself and on to me.
No I said political will makes it responsive, meaning that I believe political will and regulation is required for capitalism to function as intended.
I don't share your belief that taxation is punishment, especially not when those being taxed have a say.
Oh so my tax dollars should go towards things to give you want you need? Are you saying that isn't theft?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?