Federation vs. US principles

[Rush Limborg]

Brave explorers founded America and the space program.
I have never encountered a leftist that is blessed with this gene. Maybe in talk but not in the harsh reality of life.

Sorry to break it for you - SURAK - but America's Founding Fathers were leftists in their time. Maybe you logic is uncertain when your political ideology is concerned.

As I stated before, in the political scale derived from the Founding, at the Far Right is Radical Capitalism/Anarchy, and at the Far Left is Totalitarianism. And of course, they were Captialists.

Sorry to break it for you - iguana_tonante - but America's Founding Fathers were rightists in their time. Maybe your own logic is uncertain when your political ideology is concerned.

You can certainly count me in that list as well. Leftism is simply not logical.

I would love to see a robust formal proof of that. In symbolic logic, possibly. Or maybe you should admit that your claim is just an opinion and not a mathematical fact.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

He could. You would not accept it, of course.

 

[scotpens]

. . . alcoholics tend not to cause trouble, they generally prefer to drink alone and not draw attention to the fact that they have a problem. They'll destroy their personal lives, they may lose their jobs and their families, but they're usually not the people that cause trouble for others while drunk.

Also, compare the effects of alcohol vs. marijuana on driving. (Not that anyone ought to drive under the influence of any mind-altering substance, of course.) The drunk is going to be wandering all over the road, putting countless others at risk, while thinking he's doing a great job of driving. The driver who's been smoking weed is more likely to be creeping along the shoulder at twenty miles per hour, afraid that he’ll fall off the edge of the road.

 

[Rush Limborg]

The cuture war goes on and on. It was fought 1,000 years ago. It will continue to be fought 1,000 years from now. The "good" side has had its share of victories--and then, a bunch of "intellectuals" speak of "Progressing" beyond those "rigid and inflexible" morals.

Sorry, maybe my reading skills are failing me. Are you saying that nothing changed in the last 3000 years? That there were no social, moral, or ethical advances in human history? Two thousand years ago people though it was ok to raze conquered cities to the ground. Five hundred years ago, people though it was ok to burn suspected witches at the stake. One hundred years ago, people thought it was ok to deny women's rights. I don't know about you, but having that times behind us is definitely a "Progress" in my book.

Again, a sorry "straw man". The fact that I mentioned a breakdown means that I imply a previous higher standard. This higher standard was, indeed, achived by social, moral, and ethical advances in human history.

To claim that I denied the facts of social progress is illogical.

Your "moral upstanding times" were actually the times of racism and discriminations, the times of brutal oppression and endemic violence against women.

I hardly need to repeat myself. Suffice it to say that there has been progress in certain areas, amid other areas that have seen breakdowns.

Did the United Stated prior to the '60s see rampant racism? Of course! It also saw families that were unafraid to send their kids out into the neighborhood to play, and so on.

Well...when you consider all the pot shops in California's metro area...and other examples of "Progressive" tolerance...I'd beg to differ on that. The federal government can only do so much on the War. The states have to do their part, too. And to be honest, California in particular has consistantly failed in that regard.

The "horrors of marijuana smoking" actually amount to a few potheads that spend all their time playing guitar and eating cheerios. I can live with that.

I don't have to remind you of the rampant drug violence we see today....

So...how do you explain Singapore?

Singapore is an authoritarian, almost-fascist state ruled by what is a de fact one-party government. It is ranked "partly free" by the Freedom in the World report, and classified as a "hybrid regime" in The Economist's Democracy Index. Sure, it may not have drug problems, but it has much bigger ones. Again, I don't know about you, but I wouldn't trade.

Funny...your "authoritarian, almost-fascist state" is ranked with Hong Kong at the top of the scale in the Wall Street Journal Index Of Economic Freedom.

Certainly...no one with any knowledge of the subject would call Nazi Germany economically free. Fascism and free enterprise are simply incompatible.

 

[Rush Limborg]

. . . alcoholics tend not to cause trouble, they generally prefer to drink alone and not draw attention to the fact that they have a problem. They'll destroy their personal lives, they may lose their jobs and their families, but they're usually not the people that cause trouble for others while drunk.

Also, compare the effects of alcohol vs. marijuana on driving. (Not that anyone ought to drive under the influence of any mind-altering substance, of course.) The drunk is going to be wandering all over the road, putting countless others at risk, while thinking he's doing a great job of driving. The driver who's been smoking weed is more likely to be creeping along the shoulder at twenty miles per hour, afraid that he’ll fall off the edge of the road.

That's why drunk driving is illegal.

And...I'm not altogether certain that the pot smoker would be concious enough of his situation to drive slowly and extra-carefully. But then, what do I know? I don't smoke pot.

I have, however, seen a dope addict driving past other cars, sticking his head out of the window, and spewing nonsense towards other drivers....

I'd say such a guy is a danger to the road.

 

[JarodRussell]

Ugh, alcoholics don't cause trouble, only to themselves. Yeah, right.

 

[Rush Limborg]

^I could say the same about pot addicts.

 

[Mr Darcy]

Drugs are bad for you, taking them is utterly immoral and disgusting.

I would argue that Tasha Yar's speech on the subject was definitely all of the above.

 

[iguana_tonante]

As I stated before, in the political scale derived from the Founding, at the Far Right is Radical Capitalism/Anarchy, and at the Far Left is Totalitarianism.

This is silly. You are just redefining Left and Right to suit your own purpose. The political Left is not Totalitarian, and the political Right is not Anarchist. How do you explain the existence of both Corporate Totalitarianism (i.e. Fascism) and Anarcho-Communism? You should really expand your understanding of government and society. Your political landscape is skewed beyond belief.

And of course, they were Captialists.

True. But as wealthy bourgeoisies opposing a landed aristocracy, they were on the progressive side of the conflict.

Sorry to break it for you - iguana_tonante - but America's Founding Fathers were rightists in their time.

Not by a long margin. You are judging them by today's standard. In their time, they were wealthy, socially progressive bourgeoisies deeply concerned with social equality. You know, the "liberal intellectuals" you despise so much.

Maybe your own logic is uncertain when your political ideology is concerned.

I'm not the one stating my political opinion as a logical fact.

I would love to see a robust formal proof of that. In symbolic logic, possibly. Or maybe you should admit that your claim is just an opinion and not a mathematical fact.

He could. You would not accept it, of course.

I don't think you are familiar with formal logic. If his argument was actually logical, the truth value of the resulting statement would be necessarily defined. No room for interpretation. You can't "not accept" that, if p is true and q is true, then (p and q) is also necessarily true. That's the beauty and power of formal logic.

The fact that I could or could not accept the truth value of his claim clearly demonstrate that it's not logic, it's opinion. Which is fine: my political observations are opinion, too. I just frown upon using inappropriate scientific or mathematical terminology in your argument to load your position with unearned authority.

The fact that I mentioned a breakdown means that I imply a previous higher standard. This higher standard was, indeed, achived by social, moral, and ethical advances in human history.

Not necessarily. You may have endorsed a "fall from grace" position, which depicts things as constantly worsening. I just wanted to be clear what is your position.

To claim that I denied the facts of social progress is illogical.

I'm glad you don't.

I hardly need to repeat myself. Suffice it to say that there has been progress in certain areas, amid other areas that have seen breakdowns.

So, something is better, something is worse, and everything is state of flux. Wow, what a insightful discovery about society.

Did the United Stated prior to the '60s see rampant racism? Of course! It also saw families that were unafraid to send their kids out into the neighborhood to play, and so on.

You might be mistaking the real 50s with something you saw in Happy Days.

Funny...your "authoritarian, almost-fascist state" is ranked with Hong Kong at the top of the scale in the Wall Street Journal Index Of Economic Freedom.

Yeah, wealthy financiers and corporate sharks are free to do as they wish. I hardly consider it a positive.

Certainly...no one with any knowledge of the subject would call Nazi Germany economically free. Fascism and free enterprise are simply incompatible.

For once you are right. Singapore has an authoritarian government, a strict police control, and serious limitations in civil and political rights. It lacks, however, the merging of state and corporate power. As I said, not fully fascist, but surely "almost-fascist".

 

[JarodRussell]

Oh boy I so hope that mankind will grow out of its infancy and will some day judge people by the rationality and sanity of their words and decisions, and not by categories of leftists, rightists, anarcho-communist, liberal intellectuals, and other bullshit like that. Childish bickery, nothing else.

 

[Mr Darcy]

Your political landscape is skewed beyond belief.

He is a US conservative, it is part of the package.

 

[Mr Darcy]

I hope that mankind will grow out of its infancy

One thing is for certain:

None of us will still be around when (or shall I say "if"?) this day comes.

 

[Rush Limborg]

As I stated before, in the political scale derived from the Founding, at the Far Right is Radical Capitalism/Anarchy, and at the Far Left is Totalitarianism.

This is silly. You are just redefining Left and Right to suit your own purpose. The political Left is not Totalitarian, and the political Right is not Anarchist. How do you explain the existence of both Corporate Totalitarianism (i.e. Fascism) and Anarcho-Communism? You should really expand your understanding of government and society. Your political landscape is skewed beyond belief.

On the contrary. Corporate Totalitarianism, as you label it, is not true capitalism, but totalitarianism in capitalim's clothing--just as "Anarcho-Communism" is simply the Far Left using anarchy as a temporary means to an end. It is you who has a political landscape skewed beyond belief.

And of course, they were Captialists.

True. But as wealthy bourgeoisies opposing a landed aristocracy, they were on the progressive side of the conflict.

I would agree, if by "progressive" (small "p") you mean true progress. But by that definition, I would argue that those on the Right of today are those who are truly "progressive".

Not by a long margin. You are judging them by today's standard. In their time, they were wealthy, socially progressive bourgeoisies deeply concerned with social equality. You know, the "liberal intellectuals" you despise so much.

They were concerned with equality of rights, and protection under the law. They were contemptuous of "utopian schemes of leveling, and a community of goods". In short, they despised the ideals which your "liberal intellectuals" hold so dear.

I'm not the one stating my political opinion as a logical fact.

Indeed.

I don't think you are familiar with formal logic. If his argument was actually logical, the truth value of the resulting statement would be necessarily defined. No room for interpretation. You can't "not accept" that, if p is true and q is true, then (p and q) is also necessarily true. That's the beauty and power of formal logic.

The fact that I could or could not accept the truth value of his claim clearly demonstrate that it's not logic, it's opinion. Which is fine: my political observations are opinion, too. I just frown upon using inappropriate scientific or mathematical terminology in your argument to load your position with unearned authority.

So you admit that your political obervations are not logic, but opinion?

Not necessarily. You may have endorsed a "fall from grace" position, which depicts things as constantly worsening. I just wanted to be clear what is your position.

I'm glad you don't.

Glad to be of help.

So, something is better, something is worse, and everything is state of flux. Wow, what a insightful discovery about society.

Thank you.

You might be mistaking the real 50s with something you saw in Happy Days.

I never saw Happy Days. I simply recall conversations with my grandparents, and others who had lived during that periods.

Refute, please?

Funny...your "authoritarian, almost-fascist state" is ranked with Hong Kong at the top of the scale in the Wall Street Journal Index Of Economic Freedom.

Yeah, wealthy financiers and corporate sharks are free to do as they wish. I hardly consider it a positive.[/QUOTE]

Capitalism and Corporatism are not the same thing. Corporitism is "wealthy financiers and corporate sharks" using their friends in the government, through favors and so on, to control the market. That is not "Economic Freedom", but the opposite. In Corporatism, the government is involved, propping up the "big guys", so that power is shared amongst them.

Corporatism is the straw man which no Conservative defends--and which the "Progressives" insist on linking to Capitalism--or "Free Enterprise". The two concepts are not the same. Corporatism is incompatible with a free society--and, indeed, it is a stepping stone to Totalitarianism.

Certainly...no one with any knowledge of the subject would call Nazi Germany economically free. Fascism and free enterprise are simply incompatible.

For once you are right. Singapore has an authoritarian government, a strict police control, and serious limitations in civil and political rights. It lacks, however, the merging of state and corporate power. As I said, not fully fascist, but surely "almost-fascist".

Again, Singapore is #2 on the Index of Economic Freedom. Economic Freedom and "almost-fascism" (i.e. Corporatism) are incompatible.

 

[TheGodBen]

Ugh, alcoholics don't cause trouble, only to themselves. Yeah, right.

I admit that I phrased that wrong. Of course alcoholics cause trouble for others, particularly for people in their own families, and alcoholism often leads to domestic violence and abuse. But, people with an alcohol dependency problem aren't necessarily the people on the streets late at night causing trouble, they often try to keep their alcoholism out of sight of others.

It's past 2am where I am, and if I took a drive into the city centre right now I'd see hundreds of drunk people leaving pubs and nightclubs. I'd see people having trouble walking, I'd see people shouting at nothing, I'd see people pissing on the side of buildings, and I may even see a fight or a confrontation with the police. And if I was really lucky, I might get to see some fornication down an alley or in a public park. Most of the people doing this sort of thing don't have an alcohol dependency problem; they'll wake up tomorrow with a hangover, they'll take it easy, and go into work on Monday morning being a completely different person. Then, next Saturday night, they'll head out on the town and fuck themselves up again.

My people have a cultural problem where this sort of activity is considered acceptable behaviour by many. It's a nuisance upon society and costs hundreds of millions each year in law enforcement and to deal with the aftermath. It's an alcohol problem, but it's not necessarily an alcoholism problem.

 

[I am Surak]

Sorry to break it for you - SURAK - but America's Founding Fathers were leftists in their time. Maybe you logic is uncertain when your political ideology is concerned.

Ahh - the delusional mindset of the progressive elitist. Just because you oppose something does not make you a leftist.
But in a nutshell that is really what progressives do. Oppose, whine, protest and everything done on somebody else's dime.
So I am not amazed that you would confuse the freedom fighters of the American Revolution with the millions of leftists who yack endlessly about their feelgood policies while suckling on the government's teat. The difference is of course that after the American Revolution one got nothing tangible. Just the right to fail or succeed. Whereas in your socialist utopia the demand for other people's money never ends - until everybody is as poor as the next guy and a slave to the government while a small group of party officials gets to live it up.
I assume the Iguana is not self employed?

 

[iguana_tonante]

This is silly. You are just redefining Left and Right to suit your own purpose. The political Left is not Totalitarian, and the political Right is not Anarchist. How do you explain the existence of both Corporate Totalitarianism (i.e. Fascism) and Anarcho-Communism? You should really expand your understanding of government and society.Your political landscape is skewed beyond belief.

On the contrary. Corporate Totalitarianism, as you label it, is not true capitalism, but totalitarianism in capitalim's clothing--just as "Anarcho-Communism" is simply the Far Left using anarchy as a temporary means to an end.

This doesn't make any sense. You are going for a "no true Scotsman" fallacy to justify your untenable position.

"All Leftist people are Totalitarian."
"That's not true: I'm a Leftist and actually Libertarian."
"Well, all true Leftists are Totalitarian."

You are changing your definition to suit your argument.

It is you who has a political landscape skewed beyond belief.

Try again when your position is in line with almost all political discourse on the planet, instead of being in line with one tiny fringe of one political party of one country. You may have better luck arguing that everybody should measure velocity in furlong per fortnight.

I would agree, if by "progressive" (small "p") you mean true progress. But by that definition, I would argue that those on the Right of today are those who are truly "progressive".

You may argue that. Doesn't make it correct, tho.

I'm not the one stating my political opinion as a logical fact.

Indeed.

Call me back when you are actually interested in honest discussion instead of cheap shots.

So you admit that your political obervations are not logic, but opinion?

My point, and I'm sure you are aware of it, is that all political observations are opinion, far removed from any pretence of formal logic or intrinsic necessity. If you can't agree to that, I don't think any further discussion would be productive.

So, something is better, something is worse, and everything is state of flux. Wow, what a insightful discovery about society.

Thank you.

I see sarcasm escapes you.

I never saw Happy Days. I simply recall conversations with my grandparents, and others who had lived during that periods.

Refute, please?

Anecdotes not an argument make.

Capitalism and Corporatism are not the same thing. Corporitism is "wealthy financiers and corporate sharks" using their friends in the government, through favors and so on, to control the market. That is not "Economic Freedom", but the opposite. In Corporatism, the government is involved, propping up the "big guys", so that power is shared amongst them.

Corporatism as a political philosophy is the merger of state and corporate power. I am talking about interests of corporations. No involvement of government is needed.

Singapore has an authoritarian government, a strict police control, and serious limitations in civil and political rights. It lacks, however, the merging of state and corporate power. As I said, not fully fascist, but surely "almost-fascist".

Again, Singapore is #2 on the Index of Economic Freedom. Economic Freedom and "almost-fascism" (i.e. Corporatism) are incompatible.

I suppose I should say it again: Singapore possesses 3 of the 4 four elements of a fascist government: authoritarian rule, strict police control, limitations of civil rights. If you can't call it "almost-fascist", I don't know what will. You are getting hung of that vague definition of "almost-fascist" because you can't refute that the only way to get rid of drugs issues is to employ the same level of authoritarian government of Singapore, and even that is doubtful given the comparative size of a single city-state with the entire US. I'm sure interested in your counterargument to that.

 

[TheGodBen]

Ahh - the delusional mindset of the progressive elitist. Just because you oppose something does not make you a leftist.
But in a nutshell that is really what progressives do. Oppose, whine, protest and everything done on somebody else's dime.
So I am not amazed that you would confuse the freedom fighters of the American Revolution with the millions of leftists who yack endlessly about their feelgood policies while suckling on the government's teat. The difference is of course that after the American Revolution one got nothing tangible. Just the right to fail or succeed. Whereas in your socialist utopia the demand for other people's money never ends - until everybody is as poor as the next guy and a slave to the government while a small group of party officials gets to live it up.
I assume the Iguana is not self employed?

You know, I'm beginning to think that you're not really Surak, because for all his puritanical views, at the end of the day he was a logical individual. However, your absurd belief that everyone on the left of the political spectrum is a communist is rather laughable.

 

[I am Surak]

You know, I'm beginning to think that you're not really Surak, because for all his puritanical views, at the end of the day he was a logical individual. However, your absurd belief that everyone on the left of the political spectrum is a communist is rather laughable.

What is more logical than to give a man the freedom to succeed? It eliminates uncountable layers of government, deception, greed and graft.
Socialism and the redistribution of wealth is the core of all leftist ideology. I - Surak - do not care what you call it as the message is always the same. Take the freedom of thought, the freedom of speech, the freedom to fail and the freedom to succeed from everybody and replace it with an all ruling entity. Of course this will only cause dissent and another war. Apply yourself and think it through Ben. It's only logical.

 

[Rush Limborg]

This is silly. You are just redefining Left and Right to suit your own purpose. The political Left is not Totalitarian, and the political Right is not Anarchist. How do you explain the existence of both Corporate Totalitarianism (i.e. Fascism) and Anarcho-Communism? You should really expand your understanding of government and society.Your political landscape is skewed beyond belief.

On the contrary. Corporate Totalitarianism, as you label it, is not true capitalism, but totalitarianism in capitalim's clothing--just as "Anarcho-Communism" is simply the Far Left using anarchy as a temporary means to an end.

This doesn't make any sense. You are going for a "no true Scotsman" fallacy to justify your untenable position.

"All Leftist people are Totalitarian."
"That's not true: I'm a Leftist and actually Libertarian."
"Well, all true Leftists are Totalitarian."

You are changing your definition to suit your argument.

Let me ask you...how do you define "Left" and "Right"?

You may argue that. Doesn't make it correct, tho.

And...what makes your argument correct?

Call me back when you are actually interested in honest discussion instead of cheap shots.

Such as...

Try again when your position is in line with almost all political discourse on the planet, instead of being in line with one tiny fringe of one political party of one country. You may have better luck arguing that everybody should measure velocity in furlong per fortnight.

I see sarcasm escapes you.

First rule of disabling sarcastic humor: comply literally.

Anecdotes not an argument make.

Anecdotes...or experience?

Corporatism as a political philosophy is the merger of state and corporate power. I am talking about interests of corporations. No involvement of government is needed.

Indeed?

Singapore has an authoritarian government, a strict police control, and serious limitations in civil and political rights. It lacks, however, the merging of state and corporate power. As I said, not fully fascist, but surely "almost-fascist".

Again, Singapore is #2 on the Index of Economic Freedom. Economic Freedom and "almost-fascism" (i.e. Corporatism) are incompatible.

I suppose I should say it again: Singapore possesses 3 of the 4 four elements of a fascist government: authoritarian rule, strict police control, limitations of civil rights. If you can't call it "almost-fascist", I don't know what will. You are getting hung of that vague definition of "almost-fascist"

Then don't give me a vague definition.

because you can't refute that the only way to get rid of drugs issues is to employ the same level of authoritarian government of Singapore, and even that is doubtful given the comparative size of a single city-state with the entire US. I'm sure interested in your counterargument to that.

I'm sure you are. All right...here we go

You are assuming an either/or fallacy--that either we must not bother to put a stop to drug crime, or we must engage in what you refer to as "authoritarian rule, strict police control, and limitations of civil rights".

On that note...I am curious as to how you would define "authoritarian rule, strict police control, and limitations of civil rights". To be frank...as I have noted, if your definitions are the same as mine, that would be incompatible with economic freedom.

My point, and I'm sure you are aware of it, is that all political observations are opinion, far removed from any pretence of formal logic or intrinsic necessity.

Well it all depends on how one's opinions are derived...doens't it?

If you can't agree to that, I don't think any further discussion would be productive.

Are you agreeing to disagree, then? Very well, I accept.

 

[PKTrekGirl]

Sorry to break it for you - SURAK - but America's Founding Fathers were leftists in their time. Maybe you logic is uncertain when your political ideology is concerned.

Ahh - the delusional mindset of the progressive elitist. Just because you oppose something does not make you a leftist.
But in a nutshell that is really what progressives do. Oppose, whine, protest and everything done on somebody else's dime.
So I am not amazed that you would confuse the freedom fighters of the American Revolution with the millions of leftists who yack endlessly about their feelgood policies while suckling on the government's teat. The difference is of course that after the American Revolution one got nothing tangible. Just the right to fail or succeed. Whereas in your socialist utopia the demand for other people's money never ends - until everybody is as poor as the next guy and a slave to the government while a small group of party officials gets to live it up.
I assume the Iguana is not self employed?

I am Surak, might I remind you that we are NOT in TNZ here. Please dial back the hostilities toward those who do not agree with your political viewpoints, or next time you will have a warning for trolling.

And this goes for everyone posting in this thread. This forum has a long history of supporting political discussion as the themes of DS9 lend themselves to these sorts of discussions. However, I want everyone to remember that all political conversations taking place in the DS9 forum MUST take place in a polite and respectful manner. And the above posturing does not meet that standard.

If you can't post in a polite and respectful manner, then in future confine your political discussions to TNZ.

Thanks.

 

[I am Surak]

Thank You for saving me from myself PKTrekGirl. I set the Phasegun pointed at the Iguana from "stun" to "ignore" in hope that he will do the same.