Liberalism and why I despise it

Liberal always wins. We are more liberal by far than in the fifties and the pace world wide is growth in that direction. The conservative conception of sinister authority out there is mostly sour grapes at home. A reasonable conservatism wouldn't deny progress.

 

so why couldnt individual states pool resources for that common goal...your gonna say thats what we do but not exactly. my federal taxes go up because california passes wacky laws or dosnt enforce immigration. the only need for a government (in this case a federal one) is to defend it from aggressors.

 

i thought conservatives were "supposed" to want less government...or was that only republicans?

 

Don't forget libertarians.

 

I don't know what a conservatives ideology is supposed to be. Seems like government is a good thing to some when it comes to providing tax breaks for energy companies or providing a "good climate" for business or creating corporate rights insulating individuals from responsibility. I'm not sure what less government is supposed to accomplish. If self regulation is the issue then it need not be antithetical to government, it is in fact the agreement of people that keeps the authorities in authority and allows the monetary system to seem worthy.

I am referring to the inevitable pulse of a liberal idea inherent in modern government of legislating toward the greatest good for the greatest number of people when I say liberal always wins. Our society becomes progressively more liberal as civil rights of all kinds are institutionalized. Of course in practice the ideas of free and secure society clash with those of absolute title to individual wealth and destiny. Contrary to what appears to me to be a conservative instinct to preserve the status quo, for example resistance to environmental regulation because it is bad for profitability, we share the planet with all kinds and the weight of humanity eventually overwhelms the special interests of the few.

 

Some of you seem to think the corporations are separate from the government, and that somehow more government equates to less corporate corruption. Well, government is in the pockets of the corporations, and the reason the corporations have so much power to screw the general public is because they're backed by the government, which has become a vehicle of control for these corporate interests. When you have a corporatist system, such as what we have today in America, there is no distinction between the government and the biggest, most exploitative corporations. Some of you appear to still not get this. You think that by giving the government more power, the corporations will have less, when in fact the bigger government becomes, the more power and control the corporations have to screw the public, since the government is merely a tool of corporate control. This is perhaps one of the biggest flaws in lliberal thinking and why things are becoming increasingly totalitarian and fascistic in the US.

Regulations are a fucking joke, since the biggest (and worst) corporations can afford government lobbyists. The small businesses, however, cannot, so it's these small businesses that are hurt more than anything by government regulations. And that is the true purpose of government regulations: to eliminate competition and consolidate corporate control.

 

True.
Meaning there are two things that lead to corruption: too much power in the hands of few small private entities, and too much government. Once the wealthy elite get to use the government as a tool to increase their control you got a bad combination.
This is why, we need some kind of regulation to prevent this from happening.... but how do we do this? Because, what does regulation mean generally? GOVERNMENT CONTROL!
Its a tough issue, and its a constant battle. And well, its tough to say for sure who has the correct solution to the problem. I guess we just have to vote, and play the game of politics and hope for the best. Just like we have always done since the beginning of this country. I think some of the best things that we have is a government that limits terms on politicians. Prevents dynasties and royalty from occuring. Prevents one person from having all the power to do things all their way all the time. Because every person/politician has their weak points. They all have their fair share of policies and ways of ruling that is not good for the country. This allows us to bring in someone new so that we do not have to suffer from their flaws such a prolonged period of time that it ruins us all. You may like one politician, but it doesnt matter how well you agree with that politician they are going to be a disaster if you keep them their too long. Even if YOU take the job as president, senator, representative, or whatever, we got to give you the boot eventually so that someone else who will do everything that YOU DONT want done can take over and do all the things that you wouldnt do.

 

the house, senate and supreme court dont necessarily get the boot eventually
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Term_limits_in_the_United_States

 

Who is making an appeal for more government? Who equates more government with less corporate power? At this time as the banks are consolidating power and beginning again to dispense huge bonuses government is scaling down. I don't think there is anyone who does not long for honest government. Honest and big are separate issues. Big can be helpful as in terms of large scale public works that provide vital infrastructure, weather forecasting and the like which serve the interests of the public not withstanding the contractors take.

Regulation works with proper incentive. Certainly to fashion environmental regulation as a cooperative effort with the industries being regulated creates a conflict of interest. Environmental degradation is a serious issue for well being of everyone on the planet and it is purely on the basis of that incentive that regulations would be more popularly adopted.

 

I always thought so. However, this has to be subjective from the standpoint of the common citizen and the politically empowering will to take advantage of the government's maiden plan. The government communicates the objectivity only objectively, and the people disappoint themselves that the government's agencies are a bunch of buffoons. Sounds good on first impression though.

 

Yes competent government is a different issue than large, big, or more government. The objective case is that we are reliant on each other even if the subjective stance may be we are being put upon. I don't know anyone who complains who does not contrarily demonstrate with the habit of their lives that they are with the program. Railing against the corporate machine while hungrily lapping at the trough of their corporate entertainments. If the government is out of control it is because the citizenry is hypnotically manipulated by merchandising. The whole controversy is full of mixed signals like the corporation is bad but my manufactured dietary supplements are good so I can see where some are freaked out.

 

Me Again, I know you wrote others, and I will be getting back to the other posts.

I agree to some degree. Libertarians are socially Liberal- we believe in ending the drug war, allowing gay marriage and, ending all these wars, and not starting any to being with. I see and understand that these are all Liberal beliefs also, and ones that are appropriate and common sense.

Although, I'm economically conservative, because Liberals typically want to expand spending (and therein expand government,) and. Therefore I think we should scale back to a Constitutionally adherent government.

I'll explain more later.

Forcing people to buy into government monopolies is force. That means mandatory healthcare, social security (which isn't paid by the wealthiest 900 Americans,) and, not allowing people to opt out of such program.

If you're being made to do something against your will, that is force.

You don't really live in a co-operative society- Government forces their anti-drug, anti-fat and, anti-peace policies onto accepting and understanding people. We need to realize that addiction is a decease, and stop treating peaceful people as violent criminals, and society would advance just from that. More businesses would rise up etc. But the idea also is that you're responsible for your actions, and you need to deal with the consequences. I wouldn't cut welfare right away, I think government caused alot of the lack of jobs problem, but, I also think we should teach our citizens to fish, rather than giving them government fish which cost the taxpayer 3 fishes(so they can pay their employees, print cards and, make themselves seem useful. The idea also is that people should be moral, and give to people you see suffering- but, states could take care of that.

The idea is to transition the Federal Government to only state governments. The Federal government was created for checks and balances on the individual state governments, but the problem is they've expanded and have taken far more power than any legitimate government deserves.

I mean, the only reason I dislike Obama so much, is because he's repeated violates the Constitution, and Liberals still think he's better than Bush, or any other president.

Either way, the federal government as a whole is too corrupt- so the idea is, to allow state governments to take care of the humanitarian spending.

First of all, look up the Monsanto Protection Act, which Obama signed to law; It makes it impossible to sue monsanto for any damages their untested food may cause- yet, we dont even know when we're eating it- Liability sounds much better than the bribe system we live in.

And yes, I know corporations are corrupt- but, the idea is to shrink government, and the federal government is constantly expanding, using our money inappropriately and, cause physical harm on peaceful individuals. My point is they've taken far too much power, and I don't want to raise kids in this Orwellian Nightmare.

As Pensfan13 said, small government doesn't mean no government. Eventually, I believe mankind will realize that most people just want to live their life and get by peacefully, and also, that we don't need government to protect us from one another and "redistribute" our money to rich people in Africa, Israel and, Afghanistan.

The idea over corporations is that they can't destroy other peoples property, it's illegal, Bribery is illegal and, fraud is illegal. If these laws were enforced, on top of consumer awareness and, lawsuits- we'd be more protected than we are today.

We can have the same extradition process we have today- I doubt if it has much to do with the Federal government, I'm pretty sure that states hire private companies.

The Governmental laws and regulations obviously have had the opposite effect. State Governments would be a better representation of those citizens.


I've mentioned a few examples where government is allowing companies to get away with way more than they should. The problem is, there's a federal entity to bribe- no one company could bribe all 50 state governments to go to war. We'd only go to war is America was attacked or threatened.

I believe, as I said, that mankind is advancing, and will realize that government is not the answer, but power more focused on the citizen and states, is power that can contain this mess today. I mean, the old days were different, because we didnt have communication technology like the internet. We need to push back on unfair and illegal practices, because the military-industrial complex that funds them, will never let them fix the loopholes.

 

It is frustrating being forced to purchase healthcare.. Reason why: What if I really just dont fucking want it?
What are you trying to do? Put a funnel in my mouth and dump the medicine in then taking the money out of my pocket and saying "you got what you paid for, if you didnt take that medicine you would have died". Well... some people do not want to prolong their lives. If you look at long-term care facilities and see all the misery forced health care causes you might understand where I am coming from.
Though, the issues is complicated.. Wether or not I want to prolong my life is really dependent upon the circumstances. So, I get shot and I manage to make it to the hospital and im bleeding to death... They hospital fixes me up and tells me ill make a full recovery. Thank you doc! Im 100% willing to take the healthcare. But then the doc nails me with a HUGE fucking bill that I cannot pay, and pretty soon I have to file for bankruptcy and my credit is destroyed.... And yea... Clearly there is an issue in this country. Its not my fault I got shot, unless I was doing something really stupid like fooling around with another man's wife... But im not that fucking dumb.
So what are we to do? People are constantly getting sick and injured and by no fault of their own.. They want the option to refuse treatment and medication. But... when they choose to be treated, and choose to live on, will we continue to ruin them financial for life? Think about it, imagine a situation where you got a citizen of this country and he obeys the laws, productive, hard working, but is not well paid,and does not have the ability to get health insurance. Are we just going to have to say that, that is his fate. He does not get to be treated because he is poor? Should the options for such a person be: 1) Go into an even worse financial situation than you are now, to where you cannot feed your family even the bare minimum, and on top of that deny the person any social services. Or 2) Die, live on with your illness for as long as you can with that illness, live a very compromised existance one that may even push one toward suicide.
Is there an answer to these issues in healthcare? One that does not involve taking away our freedoms or compromising the free enterprise system?

 

Have YOU recently?

 

It is not about more government or less government it is about good governance. It seem simplistic to me to think that having a an ineffectual weak governments will bring about good governance and is most likely to bring about the opposite.

To me and others the problem is that wealth has gained too much power and influence in US society but many right wingers seem to feel the ‘solution’ to this is to give wealth even more power and influence it just doesn’t make sense.

And wealth has gained so much power because of 30 odd years of ‘free market’ ideas and policies.

But many right wingers seem to feel the ‘solution’ to this is to pursue even more ‘free market’ ideas and policies thereby giving wealth even more power and influence it just doesn’t make sense.

I get it – but I’m just pointing out that the right wing ‘solution’ seems about making a bad situation worse.

It is not about more government or less government it is about good governance. But right wingers don’t seem to be able to address the criticism that their ideas would make a bad situation worse.

But the supposed ‘flaw’ doesn’t exist it’s a mirage, its not black and white ‘more’ or less’ that is my problem with much of right wing thought it’s too simplistic, not thought through and cannot be defended from criticism.

So the ‘solution’ is to get rid of regulations and laws and allow wealth free rein?

Many times right wingers come here and quote or cite wealth sponsored lobbyists like the Cato Institute,, the heritage foundation, Americans for fair taxation etc etc etc to back up what wealth wants to promote.

Do they not realise that they have become corporate lobbyists themselves pushing the line that corporations want pushing?

No as explained many times right wing libertarians are right wingers in there thinking not part left wing and part right wing. The left wing idea is to help and assist people the right wing libertarian stance is often one of don’t care as long as it doesn’t cost them anything in taxes.

Drugs RWL don’t care what people take but many would not fund anything that might lessen the problems that policy would likely bring about.
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=368871

Many feel the same about abortion as long as it doesn’t cost them anything in taxes then they don’t care if it takes place, they don’t wonder if they could limit it through access to education, social services and contraception.

In their attitude to homosexuality they seem to be slapping themselves on the back for not being bigoted.

But people are not totally in control of circumstance, I mean what action can a baby take to get born into advantage rather than disadvantage so does it deserve the consequences that come from being born into disadvantage?

This attitude also brings up the old self serving con game of the supposed deserving and undeserving poor.

The deserving being those that don’t ask for help and so don’t need any. And the undeserving being those who do ask for help thereby showing that they are lazy irresponsible scroungers who don’t deserve any help.
And so it was plain - the argument went – that there was no need to give assistance to the disadvantaged.

The problem was that these people were often the same people but just at different stages of life or circumstance. Many things can happen to people that are beyond their personal control, many times people make choices that they wouldn’t have if their circumstanced had been better and they had better choices open to them.

And this is similar to your argument as if people are responsible and make “better decisions” they don’t need assistance but if they’re irresponsible and make “poor decisions” they don’t deserve assistance. They have to be responsible for their actions and need to deal with the consequences.

Please explain?

I agree but education and training cost a hell of a lot more than providing basic assistance. It would be a matter of the tax payer having to pay out 6 fish rather than 3 and the jobs have to be there at the end. Having a trained and educated workforce is nothing if there are no jobs for them.

 

The problem I see here is that the right wingers are just not addressing the many criticisms levelled at them so we seem to be going around in a circle of repetition.

Please just stop shouting at us that we want ‘big’ government, I and many others here have explained we don’t care about big or little more or less what we would like to have is good governance the type of government that brought about what we considered to be good outcomes.
So what outcomes do we want?

Well as I have explained many times I’d like more balance between the interests of advantaged and disadvantaged , between wealth and the rest, between the few and the many between the interests of the community and those of the individual and so on.

I along with others here feel that at the moment in the US wealth has gained too much power and influence which we’d wish to curtail.
In the past ‘free market’ ideas, limited regulation, inequality and the corrupting power of money in a political system has equated to just the type of imbalance we see today.

So it would seem to me and others that the best way to bring back balance is by curbing and countering the supposed ‘free market’ ideas and policies, bring in appropriate regulation and try and limit the influence of wealth in the political system, through measures that bring about more equality.

But many right wingers here cry NO

They argue that more ‘free market’ is what’s needed – any regulation is ‘big’ government so they want less regulation, they seem to sneer at equality as some type of communism and instead want to give wealth a huge tax cut increasing inequality and giving it even more disposable wealth to use to further its agenda

As I’ve said it doesn’t make sense unless they actually want the opposite of the things they claim they want.

 

Sec. 735. In the event that a determination of non-regulated status made pursuant to section 411 of the Plant Protection Act is or has been invalidated or vacated, the Secretary of Agriculture shall, notwithstanding any other provision of law, upon request by a farmer, grower, farm operator, or producer, immediately grant temporary permit(s) or temporary deregulation in part, subject to necessary and appropriate conditions consistent with section 411(a) or 412(c) of the Plant Protection Act, which interim conditions shall authorize the movement, introduction, continued cultivation, commercialization and other specifically enumerated activities and requirements, including measures designed to mitigate or minimize potential adverse environmental effects, if any, relevant to the Secretary's evaluation of the petition for non-regulated status, while ensuring that growers or other users are able to move, plant, cultivate, introduce into commerce and carry out other authorized activities in a timely manner: Provided, That all such conditions shall be applicable only for the interim period necessary for the Secretary to complete any required analyses or consultations related to the petition for non-regulated status: Provided further, That nothing in this section shall be construed as limiting the Secretary's authority under section 411, 412 and 414 of the Plant Protection Act.[1]
​

Legal effect

If a biotech crop had already been approved (or deregulated) by the USDA and a court reversed that approval, the provision directed the Secretary of Agriculture to grant temporary deregulation status at the request of a grower or seed producer, to allow growers to continue the cultivation of the crop while legal challenges to the safety of those crops would still be underway.[7]

 

I do not mean have you read it/actually know what it is. I meant have you read about it recently.
Because when I Googled it it said it had expired: http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/3985673/

So if you want to talk about it you have to talk about it in the past tense.

Correct me if I am mistaken.

 

You keep saying this over and over again. How exactly is "good governance" supposed to be enforced when a populace allows their government to grow to astronomical proportions?