Federation vs. US principles

[Mr Darcy]

You know, I'm beginning to think that you're not really Surak

And I was certain that there really was a fictional character from a fictional planet living among us.

 

[iguana_tonante]

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

Here is a good place to start. Left-wing politics. Right-wing politics. As you can see, your position that left-wing stands for Totalitarianism an right-wing stands for Anarchy is unsupported.

And...what makes your argument correct?

The fact that I see the foundation of the USA in its historical context and not as a mythological event with eschatological overtones.

Anecdotes...or experience?

Anecdotes. It would just show that kids were relatively safe in your own neighbourhood. The reasons might be several. Lower population density. Lesser mobility of the criminal elements. Morality doesn't need to play a role.

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".

Then show me a place which has the same status of Singapore as relatively drug-free and doesn't employ the same level of control on the population.

On that note...I am curious as to how you would define "authoritarian rule, strict police control, and limitations of civil rights".

I cited the Freedom in the World report and The Economist's Democracy Index. Here the relevant criteria:

1. A competitive, multiparty political system;
2. Universal adult suffrage for all citizens (with exceptions for restrictions that states may legitimately place on citizens as sanctions for criminal offenses);
3. Regularly contested elections conducted in conditions of ballot secrecy, reasonable ballot security, and the absence of massive voter fraud that yields results that are unrepresentative of the public will;
4. Significant public access of major political parties to the electorate through the media and through generally open political campaigning.

1. Whether national elections are free and fair;
2. The security of voters;
3. The influence of foreign powers on government;
4. The capability of the civil servants to implement policies.

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?

And if you really believe that your political opinions are strictly derived by logic and necessity and completely free from groupthink reasoning and emotional appeals, I'm afraid you are not only incorrect, but it betrays a very naive approach to politics and society in general.

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.

I'm not sure why you are being obstinate. I repeat: if you can't agree that all political observations are ultimately subjective, why there are so many different positions? People don't hold different positions whether 2+2 equals 4 or not.

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.

Too bad you can't be bothered to continue this discussion about politics in a civil and respectful manner. A rather poor presentation given your fictional identity.

 

[Vurok]

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

This betrays a shocking, though deliberate, misrepresentation of history equal to the suggestion that the Founding Fathers intended for America to be a Christian nation.

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.

Read Rand
As a consequence of his existence, an individual has the inherent right to his own life. It follows that he has the right to the product of his own labour.

Additionally, just because Leftism is inherently illogical, full of internal contradictions does not mean that I hold that conservatism to be any more logical. Just because A is C and B is not A, it does not follow that B is not C.
I am not a conservative, I saw through the logical contradictions in that philosophy long ago.

The entire gamut of Leftist philosophy from anarchism to to communism, socialist, social democracy to liberalism is based not on logic or rational principles, but on emotion.

"The Congress shall have power To lay and collect Taxes ..."

Firstly, that is not a moral argument.
Secondly, you did not provide the whole quotation -

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States"

The Constitution does not give the government the right to tax and spend according to the whims of the day, but was intended to ensure that the US can be defended and its debts honoured.

An absurd statement, but one that I would have agreed with 6 or 7 years ago, back when I thought that cigarettes and alcohol should be banned.

I do not believe drugs should be banned. The fact that I find something immoral does not mean it should be illegal.

Because if you put me in a room with 19 other people, I'm statistically most likely to be the smartest guy there, and I wanted to go to college rather than be forced to drop out of secondary eduction like my parents.

So what? Because you want something, it must be given to to? That makes it legitimate for the government to steal money from someone who earned it, to give it to you? That is not an argument, it is a tantrum.

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.

Long-term marijuana use can cause mental illness.
However, that does not mean it should be illegal. It should be up to the individual if they want to risk frying their own brains.

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.

The Left/Right axis is insufficient to be point of irrelevance. Any "spectrum" that would place Marx and Bakunin together and Mussolini alongside the CATO institute is a joke.

And if you really believe that your political opinions are strictly derived by logic and necessity and completely free from groupthink reasoning and emotional appeals, I'm afraid you are not only incorrect, but it betrays a very naive approach to politics and society in general.

You can derive political opinions through logic, though it is more common to begin from a position of emotion and groupthink and to use logic to test your own philosophy. That was the process I used to move from teenage communism, then liberalism, to a conservatism in my early twenties, to a libertarian and finally to Objectivism.

I am very pleased you have said this though, it displays maturity, awareness and great potential. Most people refuse to accept that they are ruled by emotion and groupthink (few even know what that is, so kudos to you). However, please do not just give up and accept this as inevitable, it is not - test the logic of your opinion, see where it creates contradictions and change your views accordingly. Make sure you check the premises that you operate under aswell.

 

[iguana_tonante]

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

This betrays a shocking, though deliberate, misrepresentation of history equal to the suggestion that the Founding Fathers intended for America to be a Christian nation.

It was a deliberate and somewhat over-the-top argument, yes. I brought it up as a counterpoint to Surak's claim that left-leaning people are not "blessed" with the same "explorative gene" as the "brave explorers" that founded the US, implying that they were, somehow, right-leaning. The political landscape of the times was, obviously, very different from today.

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.

Read Rand

I would rather subject myself to genital crushing.

As a consequence of his existence, an individual has the inherent right to his own life. It follows that he has the right to the product of his own labour.

And if he lives in a society, he takes on the right of partaking in the community resource pool, and the duty to contribute to it.

The entire gamut of Leftist philosophy from anarchism to to communism, socialist, social democracy to liberalism is based not on logic or rational principles, but on emotion.

As any political philosophy, it is based on both. I am a fan of Vulcans as any other Star Trek geek, but humans use both reason and emotion to determine the best course of action.

So what? Because you want something, it must be given to to? That makes it legitimate for the government to steal money from someone who earned it, to give it to you? That is not an argument, it is a tantrum.

It seems like you are arguing that "all taxation is theft".

Long-term marijuana use can cause mental illness.

Watching "Reefer Madness" again, I see.

The Left/Right axis is insufficient to be point of irrelevance. Any "spectrum" that would place Marx and Bakunin together and Mussolini alongside the CATO institute is a joke.

I completely agree. That's why I tried to explain the two-axis political spectrum to Rush.

You can derive political opinions through logic, though it is more common to begin from a position of emotion and groupthink and to use logic to test your own philosophy. That was the process I used to move from teenage communism, then liberalism, to a conservatism in my early twenties, to a libertarian and finally to Objectivism.

As I said, people need both logic and emotion to deal with reality. I would argue that emotion is, ultimately, biological logic. Compassion, while may be detrimental to the individual in the short term, is ultimately an evolutionary advantageous trait.

Randian objectivism might have a higher degree of internal logic than mainstream liberalism and conservatism, but this is achieved at the expenses of being much far removed from practical implementation, to the point of being virtually an philosophical exercise without any possibility of actualization. Just like any other purely theoretical political philosophy, e.g. Anarchy or Communism, Objectivism is unable to cope with the reality of living, and as such it lacks any usefulness in a political discourse.

 

[sonak]

Not only does Randian Objectivism have less internal logic than conservatism or liberalism, it is not taken seriously by real philosophers or political scientists. However, for college students who like to think of themselves as superheroes and want a rhetorical figleaf for the simple argument of "I've got mine" and want to be destructively selfish without the guilt it is great and powerful stuff.

"No society that took her precepts seriously could succeed or flourish." This from a CONSERVATIVE writer of.... I think National Review, but am not 100% sure.

 

[TheGodBen]

What is more logical than to give a man the freedom to succeed?

I agree, that's the sort of society I advocate.

You see, the thing about a social welfare system is that it frees up social mobility, it makes it easier for someone born into a working class family to move their way up toward the middle classes and even the upper classes, and vice versa. Before my country could afford a proper social welfare system, if you were born poor you were likely to stay poor, regardless of ability. Now, due to child benefits and free third-level education, that's not as likely.

It eliminates uncountable layers of government, deception, greed and graft.

And brings with it uncountable layers of private enterprise's 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.

I, TheGodBen, can see that you're living in a world of black and white absolutism. Being on the political left does not make one a communist any more than being on the political right makes one decide to blow up government buildings in Oklahoma.

Of course this will only cause dissent and another war. Apply yourself and think it through Ben. It's only logical.

What war?

My country is perfectly at peace with being a mixed economy. In fact, right now there's a greater possibility of violence against the government for taking away benefits rather than trying to create more. And they do have to take away benefits because lack of banking regulation allowed the banks to do stupid shit and brought the economy to its knees... but that's an argument for another day.

I do not believe drugs should be banned. The fact that I find something immoral does not mean it should be illegal.

But why do you consider soft drug use to be immoral? Do you also consider drinking alcohol to be immoral?

So what? Because you want something, it must be given to to?

No, it should be given to me because I deserve it. Because I went to school and I did the work and I was smart and capable and didn't spend my teenage years drinking in a field like some of my friends. I earned my place in university. But my family wasn't rich, my parents were forced to leave school early and work crappy jobs, and when I was 7 my father was forced to retire because of a hereditary illness. My family wouldn't have been able to afford for me to go to university, but they didn't need to, because university education here is free. I'm glad that I live in a country that supported me based on my ability and not on how much my parents are able to pay.

(By the way, both my siblings wanted to go to university too, but they didn't have the grades for the courses they wanted so they didn't get a place. That's the way it should be.)

That makes it legitimate for the government to steal money from someone who earned it, to give it to you? That is not an argument, it is a tantrum.

I'm sorry to inform you of this, but the government isn't stealing your money, that's the price you pay for living in a society. If you want to move into the wilderness, live in a hut and grow your own food, I believe that you should be allowed to do that. But if you want to live in a society with schools, roads, law-enforcement and countless other services, that comes with a price. Either pay it or leave, but don't pretend that the government is somehow stealing your money.

 

[Rush Limborg]

Too bad you can't be bothered to continue this discussion about politics in a civil and respectful manner. A rather poor presentation given your fictional identity.

Hmm...

I would rather subject myself to genital crushing.

And...what makes your argument correct?

The fact that I see the foundation of the USA in its historical context and not as a mythological event with eschatological overtones.

Watching "Reefer Madness" again, I see.

And if you really believe that your political opinions are strictly derived by logic and necessity and completely free from groupthink reasoning and emotional appeals, I'm afraid you are not only incorrect, but it betrays a very naive approach to politics and society in general.

Okay...I understand you may...somewhat disagree with the Right-wingers here, but...(A) to hold us to a higher standard than yourself is self-contradictory and illogical (see the collective works of Al Franken)...and (B) I find it amusing that you would lecture us on not being reasonable and civil--and then bait us at every opportunity. One might call it "Orwellian".

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

Here is a good place to start. Left-wing politics. Right-wing politics. As you can see, your position that left-wing stands for Totalitarianism an right-wing stands for Anarchy is unsupported.

Again, this is the European scale I'd referred to in the beginning of this debate. Observe:

The terms Left and Rightwere coined during the French Revolution, referring to the seating arrangement in parliament; those who sat on the left generally supported the radical changes of the revolution, including the creation of a republic and secularization

It's worth noting that the French Revolution was a miserable faliure, because they had proclaimed a faulty concept of rights--the rights of society, rather than the rights of the individual as proclaimed by the Founders.

And:

The terms Right and Left were coined during the French Revolution, referring to seating arrangements in parliament; those who sat on the right supported preserving the institutions of the Ancien Régime (the monarchy, the aristocracy and the established church).

But I find amusing this paragraph here:

Today it is primarily used to refer to political groups that have a historical connection with the traditional Right, including conservatives, reactionaries, monarchists, aristocrats and theocrats. The term is also used to describe those who support free market capitalism, and those who support some forms of nationalism.

No self-respecting Conservative would link himself with monarchism, or theocracy. Conservatism and free-market capitalism do NOT have a "historical connection" with monarchists, aristocrats, and theocrats.

Anecdotes. It would just show that kids were relatively safe in your own neighbourhood. The reasons might be several. Lower population density. Lesser mobility of the criminal elements. Morality doesn't need to play a role.

It wasn't just "our own neighborhood." Every single member of the Greatest Generation I have asked about these matters have concurred. Now...their children were the Baby Boomers. There was a great population upsurge with them--and they were the ones who were considered safe to send out.

Then show me a place which has the same status of Singapore as relatively drug-free and doesn't employ the same level of control on the population.

Good sir...would you kindly source your claims that Singapore is an "almost fascist" society?

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

I'm not sure why you are being obstinate. I repeat: if you can't agree that all political observations are ultimately subjective, why there are so many different positions? People don't hold different positions whether 2+2 equals 4 or not.

iguana_tonante...the very fact that you are debating me, and the rest of us, proves that you do not believe that all politics is subjective. To paraphrase Aristotle, I can prove the Law of Non-Contradiction right now: all you have to do is open your mouth and say something.

Every time you contradict what I say, and assert that your point of view is more valid, you therefore imply that your POV is more logical, and more true--because truth, by its very nature, is exclusive. "A" cannot equal "non-A".

Indeed, your constant assertions that Conservatism is based on groupthink, wheras Liberalism/"Progressivism" is based on actual historical knowledge, proves, again, that you do not believe that all politics are subjective.

It was a deliberate and somewhat over-the-top argument, yes. I brought it up as a counterpoint to Surak's claim that left-leaning people are not "blessed" with the same "explorative gene" as the "brave explorers" that founded the US, implying that they were, somehow, right-leaning. The political landscape of the times was, obviously, very different from today.

Ah. The Al Franken Method:

You can rest assured that every fact in this book is correct. Either that, or it's a joke. If you think you've found something that rings untrue, you've probably just missed a hilarious joke, and should blame yourselves rather than me or TeamFranken.

His book is filled with "jokes", BTW.

And if he lives in a society, he takes on the right of partaking in the community resource pool, and the duty to contribute to it.

Not at all. As Samuel Adams said of this notion of a "community resource pool":

The utopian schemes of leveling, and a community of goods, are as visionary and impractical as those which vest all property in the Crown. They are arbitrary, despotic, and in our government, unconstitutional.

Continuing:

It seems like you are arguing that "all taxation is theft".

Not specifically. There are specific kinds of programs the Constitution allows the Federal Government to partake in--programs which inherently benefit everyone, namely, national defense, "postal roads" (interstate and U.S. road systems), postal services, patents and copyrights, and so on.

But to use these tax dollars to go beyond these enumerated powers and duties...to pay for programs that favor one group over another--that is theft. It is re-distribution. Even George Bernard Shaw, "Progressive" playwright and speaker, did not mince words when describing the current system as "robbing Peter to pay Paul".

You can derive political opinions through logic, though it is more common to begin from a position of emotion and groupthink and to use logic to test your own philosophy. That was the process I used to move from teenage communism, then liberalism, to a conservatism in my early twenties, to a libertarian and finally to Objectivism.

As I said, people need both logic and emotion to deal with reality. I would argue that emotion is, ultimately, biological logic. Compassion, while may be detrimental to the individual in the short term, is ultimately an evolutionary advantageous trait.

Randian objectivism might have a higher degree of internal logic than mainstream liberalism and conservatism, but this is achieved at the expenses of being much far removed from practical implementation, to the point of being virtually an philosophical exercise without any possibility of actualization. Just like any other purely theoretical political philosophy, e.g. Anarchy or Communism, Objectivism is unable to cope with the reality of living, and as such it lacks any usefulness in a political discourse.

So what your are saying is that, in weeding out internal logical contradictions...Objectivism therefore is impractical?

Are you suggesting that logical consistancy is impractical and logical inconsistency is practical?

I think you're taking a lot of things for granted. If a philosophy is not logically consistant with itself...then why should it be taken seriously?

 

[Cepstrum]

I understand this thread has become a political debate. We all have our beliefs about which political system or philosophy is optimal give the current state of affairs. I do, too.


But I prefer to think of 24th century Earth and the UFP governments as not fitting into a box of one of the systems we're familiar with today, whether it's socialism, Marxism, capitalism, corporatism, a flavor of anarcho-something, statism, social-classical liberal-conservative democracy, libertarianism, fascism, totalitarianism (see Mr. Wong's site), a type of republican federalism, a type of confederacy, or even an environmental-theocratic hybrid!


As with the FTL travel, transporters, and replicators, or even the impossibly-confusing currency/monetary/free enterprise system (which writers like Ron Moore have complained about because of its seeming contradictions but nonetheless dance around it in respect of Roddenberry's wishes), I prefer to think of it as a wholly new, incomprehensible (to us 21st century types) system that somehow works, is equitable, and favored by almost all citizens.

Sure, it makes little sense, but neither do many of the technologies. And it's very hard to swallow that humans will, within a few hundred years, live on an Earth that's largely free of crime, apparently requires no monetary or reward system to get people to work hard, and in which people suddenly stop envying those who are more wealthy or have more possessions or "the rich".

So far no socio-economic-political system has succeeded or even really claimed to be able to fundamentally change human nature. Even in purely socialistic systems there will *still* be dissidents, malcontents, or people envious of others. No system is likely to produce a society in which greed and competition just evaporates, even if it's extremely equitable. (And the capitalists et al. will argue that such a system is unworkable.)


So, I'm sorry I can't/won't add any political arguments to this discussion or even reveal my own opinions. I just like pretending that it somehow works, despite the inconsistencies and disconnect between political realities of today.

Finally: what's most funny about this debate is that I'd imagine such differences would continue, yet by the 24th century we're expected to believe most all humanity has somehow come to an agreeable consensus (aside from Eddington and his Maquis friends)!

And that's one thing I like about Trek. There are plenty of sci-fi shows with political intrigue, realistic governments, mass dissidents, etc. Even the new Star Wars prequels are filled with disagreements about government and the workings of a flawed political system (that was eventually overthrown by the bad guys). But isn't this quasi-magical government of future Earth a key distinction of Trek from the myriad dystopian, big-brother or chaotic systems that are so prevalent in other sci-fi?



Please excuse the interruption. You're free to resume your interesting political debates.

 

[Vurok]

It was a deliberate and somewhat over-the-top argument, yes. I brought it up as a counterpoint to Surak's claim that left-leaning people are not "blessed" with the same "explorative gene" as the "brave explorers" that founded the US, implying that they were, somehow, right-leaning. The political landscape of the times was, obviously, very different from today.

Ok, just checking

And if he lives in a society, he takes on the right of partaking in the community resource pool, and the duty to contribute to it.

No, he has the right to offer his own resources to another person in exchange for his. Otherwise he is taking the product of another man's labour.

As any political philosophy, it is based on both. I am a fan of Vulcans as any other Star Trek geek, but humans use both reason and emotion to determine the best course of action.

Emotions do not help you determine the best course of action, they get in the way. I am not saying that in an ironic, sci-fi geek kind of way, I mean it sincerely.

It seems like you are arguing that "all taxation is theft".

Of course, because it is.

Watching "Reefer Madness" again, I see.

No, just referring to recent medical evidence.
I cite this as hastiuly googled example, I have not read it in depth.
http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/mentalhealthinfo/problems/alcoholanddrugs/cannabis.aspx

As I said, people need both logic and emotion to deal with reality. I would argue that emotion is, ultimately, biological logic. Compassion, while may be detrimental to the individual in the short term, is ultimately an evolutionary advantageous trait.

Emotion, as you astutely realise, is a pre-rational evolutionary mechanism for driving us towards positive behaviour (that which benefits us). We are now capable of thought, recognising what is in our long-term rational self-interest.

Randian objectivism might have a higher degree of internal logic than mainstream liberalism and conservatism, but this is achieved at the expenses of being much far removed from practical implementation, to the point of being virtually an philosophical exercise without any possibility of actualization. Just like any other purely theoretical political philosophy, e.g. Anarchy or Communism, Objectivism is unable to cope with the reality of living, and as such it lacks any usefulness in a political discourse.

Anarchism (both socialist and capitalist variants) and communism are rife with internal contradictions and denial of reality, as such they will never cope with reality. Objectivism is based on reality, it is the only philosophy I know of that does not have its head in the clouds - liberalism dreams of a magical future, conservatism dreams of a mythical past.

the only reason Objectivism cannot be 'practically implemented' - at present - is because the general public is driven by emotion and groupthink, rather than thought. This is why we have episodic economic and political crises. I hope that one day humanity will have matured to a point at which individual rights are genuinely taken seriously.

 

[Vurok]

It's worth noting that the French Revolution was a miserable faliure, because they had proclaimed a faulty concept of rights--the rights of society, rather than the rights of the individual as proclaimed by the Founders.

Indeed.

Indeed, your constant assertions that Conservatism is based on groupthink, wheras Liberalism/"Progressivism" is based on actual historical knowledge, proves, again, that you do not believe that all politics are subjective.

Maybe I was mistaken, but I read what iguana stated (at least in this thread) as meaning that all political opinion is based on groupthink and emotion - including his/her own.

 

[PKTrekGirl]

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.

Too bad you can't be bothered to continue this discussion about politics in a civil and respectful manner. A rather poor presentation given your fictional identity.

1. iguana_tonante, it appears that I am Surak is choosing to discontinue the discussion. In that case, I see no need to try and 'get in the last word', okay? He is new to the board and I'd just assume he discontinue the discussion, rather than get himself in further trouble out here in the Trek forums. I'm sure you will have plenty of opportunity to continue this discourse in TNZ, where the rules are more lax.

Thanks.

2. I am Surak, please do not hit 'notify mod' on posts which are not friendly reminder/warning worthy. With the exception of this one line, iguana_tonante's post was perfectly civil, and even this line did not contain warnable slurs against character like the post you were friendlied for earlier. Nowhere does he ever imply, for example, that you are 'delusional' or a 'whiner' - BOTH of which you implied about him in your earlier post.

I also resent your implication in your notify mod that if I don't warn iguana_tonate, that I am somehow proving myself to be lacking in objectivity in this matter. Well, I assure you that I am perfectly objective in this matter. I, for one, think both the right AND the left in this country are doing a piss-poor job, and would be perfectly happy to throw the whole LOT of them out of office and start from scratch. I hate 'em all equally and believe that the endless partisan bickering has done WAY more to destroy this country than has either side's actual political views.

My moderator comments are based solely on the behavior I see going on in this thread (and the tone of the notify mod) - NOT on any sort of desire to give one 'side' an advantage in this discussion by applying the rules arbitrarily. Because the thing is that I HAVE no horse in this race.

If you don't want to get friendlied in future, then don't imply that other posters are 'delusional' or 'whiners', or whatever else you are inclined to name-call at them, simply because they do not agree with YOU. That was really the crux of the moderator issue for me.

Thanks.


Now, I really want all of you guys go play nice, or I will have to lock down this thread. This forum USED to be a place where political discussions could proceed in a civilized manner. PLEASE keep it that way. And if you feel yourself incapable of doing that, then go post in TNZ.

 

[neozeks]

Whoa, this has gone waaay off topic...

It's worth noting that the French Revolution was a miserable faliure, because they had proclaimed a faulty concept of rights--the rights of society, rather than the rights of the individual as proclaimed by the Founders.

Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen?
I think the fact the Revolution failed (in the short term, in the long term it's ideas certainly haven't failed) has more to do with civil war, internal discord, legacies of feudalism (as opposed to the US being capitalistic from practically the very start), constant foreign military intervention and wars etc.

No self-respecting Conservative would link himself with monarchism, or theocracy.

What about the Christian Right?

Not specifically. There are specific kinds of programs the Constitution allows the Federal Government to partake in--programs which inherently benefit everyone, namely, national defense, "postal roads" (interstate and U.S. road systems), postal services, patents and copyrights, and so on.

A healthy, educated and well-off populace doesn't benefit everyone?

 

[DevilEyes]

And if he lives in a society, he takes on the right of partaking in the community resource pool, and the duty to contribute to it.

No, he has the right to offer his own resources to another person in exchange for his. Otherwise he is taking the product of another man's labour.

Yes, he or she has the right to offer his/her own resources to the society/other people in exchange for the benefits.

It's not his/hers fault if the society/other people doesn't/don't want to or cannot find the way to employ those resources. "Oh so you're unemployed and have no family to support you or inheritance to fall back on. Well then you may as well drop dead for all we care"?

It seems like you are arguing that "all taxation is theft".

Of course, because it is.

Oh right. Because all poor people deserve to be poor. Because all the billionaires and millionaires are really naturally that better, smarter, and have worked that much harder than those who barely have enough to live on/don't even have that much.

I'm pretty sure that's not even physically possible. Not to mention that it's a big fat lie and you know it.

Heck, even if you had actually worked a million times harder than the average person to earn your billions, why would it hurt you so much to give away a portion of that in order for someone else not to starve and to have medical help, an education and a chance in life? Why would that be such a tragedy?

 

[Pemmer Harge]

... and 'non inteference in the internal affairs of other planets' ?

.
As I understand the story, the non-interference policy was based upon the United States "interference" in South Vietnam. Apparently North Vietnam's interference in South Vietnam didn't bother Gene Roddenberry in the least.

Gene Roddenberry wasn't North Vietnamese. We hold our own leaders to account and those of other nations only in the most exceptional circumstances.

Anyway, I'm not American, but I've never liked the idea of a country having "principles". It seems to imply that everyone living there has to believe in those principles or be "unpatriotic", which is obviously rubbish. The notion, in particular, that support for capitalism is an American principle strikes me as very suspicious. Wouldn't it be convenient for the powerful to encourage such an idea?

 

[Vurok]

Yes, he or she has the right to offer his/her own resources to the society/other people in exchange for the benefits.

Correct.

It's not his/hers fault if the society/other people doesn't/don't want to or cannot find the way to employ those resources. "Oh so you're unemployed and have no family to support you or inheritance to fall back on. Well then you may as well drop dead for all we care"?

This is not an argument, this is just an appeal to emotion.

If you have nothing to offer other individuals, you can retrain. Incompetence does not justify theft.

You seem to care that people do not drop dead. I am sure you would be kind and compassionate enough to contribute to a charity that looked after them.

Because all poor people deserve to be poor. Because all the billionaires and millionaires are really naturally that better, smarter, and have worked that much harder than those who barely have enough to live on/don't even have that much.

If someone is successful, it is their right to pass the wealth they created on to their descendants who may or may not be utterly feckless. Your appeal to emotion is irrelevant.

I'm pretty sure that's not even physically possible. Not to mention that it's a big fat lie and you know it.

I don't know it because I have no idea what you mean... what is not physically possible?

Heck, even if you had actually worked a million times harder than the average person to earn your billions, why would it hurt you so much to give away a portion of that in order for someone else not to starve and to have medical help, an education and a chance in life? Why would that be such a tragedy?

Give away? No, I am sure it would not hurt. You are not talking about giving some away, you are talking about the state seizing it. I am sure that many rich people would be happy to give away their money to give people access to healthcare or education... in fact many already do. Either way, it is their choice to give away their money or not - you have no right to take it from them by force.

 

[Vurok]

The notion, in particular, that support for capitalism is an American principle strikes me as very suspicious. Wouldn't it be convenient for the powerful to encourage such an idea?

It is convenient for the powerful to discourage capitalism, the greatest system of social mobility known to man. The aristocracy tried to prevent capitalism because it threatened their position in society - they could not longer oppress society, they had to compete on terms of ability not just privilege.

 

[JarodRussell]

Capitalism and democracy go kinda hand in hand.

 

[DevilEyes]

Yes, he or she has the right to offer his/her own resources to the society/other people in exchange for the benefits.

Correct.

It's not his/hers fault if the society/other people doesn't/don't want to or cannot find the way to employ those resources. "Oh so you're unemployed and have no family to support you or inheritance to fall back on. Well then you may as well drop dead for all we care"?

This is not an argument, this is just an appeal to emotion.

Yes, it is an argument. And it's an appeal to common sense.

If you have nothing to offer other individuals, you can retrain. Incompetence does not justify theft.

Have you seen unemployment rates over the world? You are seriously claiming that every unemployed person is unemployed because they are incompetent?

Your arguments don't hold water simply because they have nothing to do with the real world. I think it would do you good to stop spouting conservative slogans and try to find out a bit more about the world you live in instead.

In that real world, there are lots of people who are very competent and eager to work but just can't find one. And there are lots and lots and lots of people who are competent and working VERY HARD and who only have just as much money to make a living, or barely as much. And there are lots of extremely rich and powerful people who have earned their money not by working hard, but by being ruthless and using dishonest means. For instance, you can sure that most (or rather, all) Eastern European tycoons have gained what they have through something that can only be termed as THEFT. But now they're supposed to be considered legitimate "businessmen" and pillars of the new capitalist society.

You seem to care that people do not drop dead. I am sure you would be kind and compassionate enough to contribute to a charity that looked after them.

Charity? Ensuring the well-being of its citizens is something that a society as a whole must ensure, rather than rely on "some nice people" to do the job.

If someone is successful, it is their right to pass the wealth they created on to their descendants who may or may not be utterly feckless.

And how does that make their descendants superior to people who didn't have parents who left them a great inheritance?

We're not talking about communist revolutions, we're not talking about the state taking people's homes from them like or forcing them to become manual laborers or anything like that. We're just talking about giving just a portion of one's big property to the society, to ensure the well-being of the fellow citizens.

Please learn the distinction between the welfare state and communism.

Your appeal to emotion is irrelevant.

My appeal to common sense is very relevant.

I'm pretty sure that's not even physically possible. Not to mention that it's a big fat lie and you know it.

I don't know it because I have no idea what you mean... what is not physically possible?

To be a million times smarter, or to have worked million times harder than an average person? Isn't that what you're claiming, if you're a billionaire or a multimillionaire, and you claim that you deserve to be just as rich compared to many others?

Heck, even if you had actually worked a million times harder than the average person to earn your billions, why would it hurt you so much to give away a portion of that in order for someone else not to starve and to have medical help, an education and a chance in life? Why would that be such a tragedy?

Give away? No, I am sure it would not hurt. You are not talking about giving some away, you are talking about the state seizing it. I am sure that many rich people would be happy to give away their money to give people access to healthcare or education... in fact many already do. Either way, it is their choice to give away their money or not - you have no right to take it from them by force.

If they're responsible citizens, nobody has to force them to give their due to the society which has made it possible for them to be where they are and have what they have.

Of course, they could always choose to live on their own somewhere in the jungle, without any contact with the society, if that's what they want. But somehow it seems that most of them prefer to live in that society and use their money to enjoy in the status, power and influence in that same society. If that's what they want, then they have to give that society its due.

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

DevilEyes...

Just a point to consider. Not all conservatives, by far, think that the poor don't deserve compassion or help. Personally, I think the government is massively incompetent when it comes to trying to help, and I think that if people had to actually step up and take responsibility on their own, without government help, that they could do it better than the government ever could. However well-intentioned some government officials are when they pass laws and create help programs (and I really think that some of them mean the absolute best), they often create bureaucratic monstrosities that make situations worse instead of better, or create dependency without ever really helping people to get OUT of it.

I think organizations and people "closer to the ground," who REALLY know what the problems are, and who are not part of government bureaucracy and politics, are in a better position to help.

That said, the one area where I think large-scale government involvement is VERY appropriate is to ensure that all children get an education suited to their abilities. That does not mean all children need to go to college (contrary to what people think), but I DO think that trade school or whatever the best kind of education there is to prepare you for something that fits your skills is appropriate. I may have been very academically-oriented myself, and did well in those kinds of studies, but if you ever asked me to build or repair anything, I can guarantee you I would be a danger to myself and others. I could try, but I really do not have the skills or the aptitudes for that.

I also think that when someone's skills become unsuitable for the market (let's say you work in an industry that is phased out because of new technology), help with continuing education, including child care where necessary, is important.

And don't forget financial education. That is woefully de-emphasized in our schools, and has got to be MUCH better than what it is. People need to really be able to understand the pros and cons of financial decisions that they could make, and also be able to tell if someone's trying to rip them off.

But the idea behind this is that by making sure everyone receives a quality education, you can then be more sure that whatever comes after that is because of the decisions people make, not because of a systemic failure.

Now people DO make decisions that get them in trouble. Still, I think it is a moral duty to help those people in SOME way. I just a) think bureaucracies make it even worse aside from some general regulatory matters, and b) that FORCING charity isn't a good idea, because that's its own form of coercion (especially when you are made to support something that is so incredibly inefficient and often unhelpful to those it should be serving). But to refuse to help in ANY way? I don't think a good person refuses to help.

And a good person also does not FORCE others to do what they want them to do.

 

[Vurok]

Yes, it is an argument. And it's an appeal to common sense.

It is an appeal to emotion, but appealing to common sense is no better.
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#bandwagon

Have you seen unemployment rates over the world? You are seriously claiming that every unemployed person is unemployed because they are incompetent?

Not at present, the present unemployment rate is the result of damaging government intervention in the economy.

Your arguments don't hold water simply because they have nothing to do with the real world. I think it would do you good to stop spouting conservative slogans and try to find out a bit more about the world you live in instead.

What is the 'real world' please enlighten me.

In that real world, there are lots of people who are very competent and eager to work but just can't find one.

You have to extend your analysis, why is there no work...?

And there are lots and lots and lots of people who are competent and working VERY HARD and who only have just as much money to make a living, or barely as much.

So what? Again this is not relevant.

And there are lots of extremely rich and powerful people who have earned their money not by working hard, but by being ruthless and using dishonest means.

There is nothing wrong with being ruthless. However, dishonesty is contrary to capitalism, it is fraud and is illegal.

For instance, you can sure that most (or rather, all) Eastern European tycoons have gained what they have through something that can only be termed as THEFT. But now they're supposed to be considered legitimate "businessmen" and pillars of the new capitalist society.

No, because they did not achieve their wealth in a capitalist society, they took their wealth by theft or fraud - ergo, illegitimately. However, they now have it, unless you can prove that it was gained illegitimately, you can not take it from them. If it can be proven that it was theft or fraud, they should be prosecuted and stripped of all their ill-gotten assets.

Check your premises. Why do you think I would support some dishonest crook just because he is rich...? That does not compute with me. Nothing I said would indicate that.

Charity? Ensuring the well-being of its citizens is something that a society as a whole must ensure, rather than rely on "some nice people" to do the job.

Why?
And how does this justify theft?

And how does that make their descendants superior to people who didn't have parents who left them a great inheritance?

No. Can you find me any statement of mine that suggest that they are?

We're not talking about communist revolutions, we're not talking about the state taking people's homes from them like or forcing them to become manual laborers or anything like that. We're just talking about giving just a portion of one's big property to the society, to ensure the well-being of the fellow citizens.

So if I come to your home and take the money from your wallet, you would be happy if I told you "At least I didn't take your stereo and TV." I think not.

No matter how small the theft is, nothing gives the state the right to take it.

To be a million times smarter, or to have worked million times harder than an average person? Isn't that what you're claiming, if you're a billionaire or a multimillionaire, and you claim that you deserve to be just as rich compared to many others?

It is nothing to do with working hard. If you create something that people value and want to exchange for money, you have earned the money and no-one has the right to take it from you. It does not matter how hard you worked.

If you work very hard and produce something that no-one values and no-one will buy, you don't deserve anything.
If you are lazy, but manage to create something of value (highly unlikely) that people are willing to pay for, you deserve it, good for you.

If they're responsible citizens, nobody has to force them to give their due to the society which has made it possible for them to be where they are and have what they have.

Perhaps. You have still not given a single argument as to why the state has the right to seize that wealth.

Of course, they could always choose to live on their own somewhere in the jungle, without any contact with the society, if that's what they want. But somehow it seems that most of them prefer to live in that society and use their money to enjoy in the status, power and influence in that same society. If that's what they want, then they have to give that society its due.

Why should you have to live in exile to avoid people stealing your money?
And please refrain from using the word 'giving' - taxation is not 'giving' it is the state 'taking.' If someone wants to give, voluntarily, that is their business.

Furthermore, what is society 'due'?
If the rich person who works to earn their money does not deserve it, what has 'society' done to deserve the money?