Look, you really don't want to ever try and compare professions with people you know nothing about.
I swear to god, don't ever try and claim you know what my job is like or even presume to know what I do.
What's with conservative Trekkies?
- Thread starter Gary Sebben
- Start date
- Status
Look, you really don't want to ever try and compare professions with people you know nothing about.
I swear to god, don't ever try and claim you know what my job is like or even presume to know what I do.
The military is only for show until we're attacked -then we arm ourselves.
Conservatives build empires, liberals form federations.
It all depends on whom you chose to share tech with, actually.
I'm sure.
Actually, this is another point I forgot to consider. The federation is basically a European Union. Earth is a single unit and cedes mush of its power to the whole. This is way at odds with a conservative world view that demonizes possible control through cooperation with other foreign powers. USA USA USA! and all that.
On top of that, if you want to consider NOT giving our tech to other nations, the Prime Directive is in direct conflict with the US's constant arming of smaller powers to fight our enemies. The only time something like that was ever done was Private Little War and the lesson was how futile the idea of a balance of power is.
So score two more oddities.
I understand what you're saying, but it's untrue. While these three companies were making money, they could afford to give some to their workers. Toyota, even while it's not making as much now, can afford to pay their workers the same, in fact the Asian manufacturers do so. I applied to Toyota, and they pay as much, and in some cases a little more than Ford did.
None of that is what's killing the auto industry right now. If they hadn't decided to change from primarily gas guzzling SUVs and trucks so late, they wouldn't be stuck with no money to do so in a credit freeze and be begging so ineffectually to the government.
The biggest thing that the 3 are paying for is health care for it's current and retired workers. It's been talked about years before this current crisis came up, with the US health care system as expensive as it is, that the 3 would be in trouble. With the concessions that the UAW already gave, those problems aren't as harsh as they once were.
What killed them was their focus on SUVs and trucks even into a lousy market for them, since both gave more profits than the small cars. And they ignored any benefits of hybrids, which means they're far behind the others now. They're on the track to change, pulled by their ears by the market, but it's probably the worst time to be shifting.
And uh....Kirk drove an American made car.
What you say is true, but irrelevant. Just because something hasn't happened yet, doesn't mean it can't happen. And just because there is a chance of failure doesn't mean you cave in and give up. Based on some of our previous conversations, I suspect that you oppose idealism because there are aspects of a Utopia that you don't want to come to pass.but in your "possible" we have too many people exploiting systems"The limits of the possible can only be defined by going beyond them into the impossible." - Arthur C Clarke.
which creates a backlash
which divides us, yet again
Sorry my friend, what you want truly is impossible... not simply pushing the limit on possible
E
Elmo Dukat
Guest
What you say is true, but irrelevant. Just because something hasn't happened yet, doesn't mean it can't happen. And just because there is a chance of failure doesn't mean you cave in and give up. Based on some of our previous conversations, I suspect that you oppose idealism because there are aspects of a Utopia that you don't want to come to pass.but in your "possible" we have too many people exploiting systems"The limits of the possible can only be defined by going beyond them into the impossible." - Arthur C Clarke.
which creates a backlash
which divides us, yet again
Sorry my friend, what you want truly is impossible... not simply pushing the limit on possible
I think the concept of Utopia has been so tied into the ideas of communism and socialism (which have been shown to lead to fascism, force, and clamped liberties --- USSR, North Korea, China, Cuba, etc), that what many people don't realize is in fact, Utopia is an idea that transcends method. Don't get me wrong, Utopia can only exist (or be approximated) in a particular system, but Utopia doesn't have to equal communism, socialism.
For example, Galt's Gulch was a Utopian society --- created by an Objectivist/Libertarian author, whose ideals were as diametrically opposed to communism/socialism as could be. It isn't a Utopia that's been tried yet; so, in fact RJ could be correct and we just haven't yet tried the particular system from which Utopia would emerge.
I don't see Star Trek as socialism as we understand it.
What conservatives don't like about socialism is being forced by the government to give up their property. Socialism entails sharing our property for the greatest good. No rich, no poor, just equals.
But in Star Trek the idea of sharing my property so you can have some to is irrelevant, because apparently those problems have been solved. It is not as if we magically became altruists, rather technology has solved the problem of scarcity. I don't need to share my property with you because you have enough on your own. That changes everything.
Therefore, I do not see how that would be at odds with conservatism--at least as far as "socialism" is concerned.
What conservatives don't like about socialism is being forced by the government to give up their property. Socialism entails sharing our property for the greatest good. No rich, no poor, just equals.
But in Star Trek the idea of sharing my property so you can have some to is irrelevant, because apparently those problems have been solved. It is not as if we magically became altruists, rather technology has solved the problem of scarcity. I don't need to share my property with you because you have enough on your own. That changes everything.
Therefore, I do not see how that would be at odds with conservatism--at least as far as "socialism" is concerned.
Well, for one an "utopia" would be different for different people...I suspect that you oppose idealism because there are aspects of a Utopia that you don't want to come to pass.
And that's where the problems start
Exactly. Or evolved it.
Which is why a Utopia can't happen overnight. There are many old, destructive ideologies that must die out naturally in the course of social evolution.Well, for one an "utopia" would be different for different people...I suspect that you oppose idealism because there are aspects of a Utopia that you don't want to come to pass.
And that's where the problems start
There are many things which one group believes to be a positive and another a negative... and I don't think time will correct those differences.Which is why a Utopia can't happen overnight. There are many old, destructive ideologies that must die out naturally in the course of social evolution.
Well, I'm not a conservative, but even I can see that the system is exploited all the time.
Most people, at the end of the day, will get whatever they can out of the system that falls within their own personal (and often rationalized) moral code. That is human nature. And since the government cannot catch all cheaters and alot is left to people's own personal moral code and conscience, we DO have people who exploit the systems. Lots of people - exploiting lots of systems.
Examples:
The welfare system was meant to help normally hard-working but temporarily indigent families with children who found themselves in dire straits. It was NOT meant as a lifestyle that induced people to intentionally have more children, just so that they could continue to qualify for it and not ever have to do anything remotely resembling 'work' ever again.
The union system grew out of a very legitimate need and was intended to stop the exploitation of workers back in the industrial age - a noble beginning. But now, here we are, bailing out auto manufacturers whose chief expense is workers with mere high school diplomas (or less) who make more money for screwing the same nut on the same bolt a billion times a day than I do as a CPA with advanced training and degrees and highly specialized knowledge and skills.
And on the flip side of the coin at those same belly-up auto manufacturers, you have top brass who abuse the system by voting themselves huge salaries and bonuses every year, manipulating the tax system and robbing the shareholders...all for the incredible talent they display and the massive value added they provide....of bankrupting the company.
You have small business owners who exploit the tax system (and I ought to know - I used to do their taxes) every single day - building their own houses and burying the costs in their business as deductible expenses...adding vaguely stated vehicles (personal campers used to tailgate at Tennessee football games) to the business fixed asset schedule and deducting THEM...calling their children's cell phones 'business expenses'....you name it, I've seen it.
Bottom line: there are ALOT of people in this world on the take.
You can choose to live in denial if you like. But if you want to continue to believe that most people are decent and moral and not at all interested in doing everything they can think of to get 'more for me', might I suggest that you NEVER become a CPA and start doing people's taxes.
Because after doing thousands and thousands of tax returns in my life, I can tell you - most people are all about looking out for Number One. By whatever means they think they can get away with.
But that doesn't excuse taking a defeatists attitude and give up and say it can't happen.
There will come a time where the human race with have to change or face extinction. Think of it as Social (or cultural) Darwinism.
Think of a colony settling in a harsh climate where the soil is hard and lacks nutrients. The only thing that can grow there are parasitic wild flowers and weeds. They only get in the way of the crops. But the settlers must grow food.
So they slowly nurture the soil as they tend the crops. Each year it becomes easier to produce healthy stock while at the same time, the weeds find it harder to grow. Eventually, it gets to the point that, while the weeds weren't eradicated completely, only a small few remain and those that do, have little effect on the prosperity of the corn, tomatoes and beans.
Sorry, but Toyota workers in the US cost their company much less than the same labor cost per unit that the Detroit 3 have to deal with.
The analysts who came up with the 70 an hour labor cost figure put the cost of all employer-provided benefits, health insurance and pensions--and then dividied by the number of workers. Thing is, not every worker gets that. Most workers, like my dad and friends I've had at GM, get less health care coverage than others, as well as pension and benefits.
Again, what's killing the 3 is not the pay rate. It's retirees and health care benefits. The 3 have been in this country for much longer, and have more retirees. You're talking 1,000+ for Toyota vs, 500K + for GM alone. And with health care constantly rising as well as retiree age...
For instance, at the supplier I worked at, the average worker brought home 11$ an hour, but with VERY simple health care and basic insurance benefits they said we cost them over 30 an hour.
Where the pay difference really shows is the CEO pay, just for laughs. Toyota paid their CEO 903K. Ford paid Mullally 2 million. (base salary, he also got 18.5 mill in bonuses and 9 mill in stock/options last year) GM's CEO made a deal about reducing his salary to a little over 1 million, but then took home another 10+ in bonuses.
I remember years ago saying that the health care system in this country was going to bleed the big 3 dry. It did it quicker, with all the missteps they've made over the last few years as well.
And uh....there was an american car in Voyager.
It's already happening, and has been for quite some time.There are many things which one group believes to be a positive and another a negative... and I don't think time will correct those differences.Which is why a Utopia can't happen overnight. There are many old, destructive ideologies that must die out naturally in the course of social evolution.
Last edited by a moderator:
First off I find the original post pretty insulting, especially the part about us conservative trekkers being homophobic. I have also experienced much more racism and sexism from liberals than from conservatives even on the TrekBBS, altough liberals often don't know that they are racist.
That said, I don't really know why liberals always seem to think Star Trek is such a "liberal" show
Let's see:
It's a highly militaristic future where one of the finest positions you can get is to be an officer in the joint military of the UFP.
Earth has managed to spread our culture on to other planets, sure there are slight variations but in general most other planets cultures have conformed to us.
We respect people's individual rights instead of trying to have a big socialistic mass of people.
And as anyone who has seen DS9... Once push comes to show, we get rid of any political correct nonsense and actually get things done.
The liberal aspect of Trek is a fragile illusion that quickly disappears once the UFP or individual ships are in serious trouble.
That said, I don't really know why liberals always seem to think Star Trek is such a "liberal" show
Let's see:
It's a highly militaristic future where one of the finest positions you can get is to be an officer in the joint military of the UFP.
Earth has managed to spread our culture on to other planets, sure there are slight variations but in general most other planets cultures have conformed to us.
We respect people's individual rights instead of trying to have a big socialistic mass of people.
And as anyone who has seen DS9... Once push comes to show, we get rid of any political correct nonsense and actually get things done.
The liberal aspect of Trek is a fragile illusion that quickly disappears once the UFP or individual ships are in serious trouble.
Where did you get that from? -the TV-series focus on very few people -we rarely get to see any 'civilian citizens' at all.
Whut? The oldest alien 'friends' of the Earth are the Vulcans -I've never seen any of them eating a cheese burger or dancing the Waltz, playing poker, getting drunk, driving vehicles at unsafe speeds…
The newest alien acquaintances would be the Bajorans -see much Earth in their culture?
The rights of the individual are only disrespected when some people have more rights than others (say in the bank) -Socialism is about sharing the means of production not about homogenizing people.
We've been through that earlier in the thread:
That may be true, but the total cost of the employees is one of the things that is killing them
And you are right about CEO pay. Companies that have that many troubles should severely curtail what they pay their CEO's
That said, given that Ford was supposed to burst long before GM, doesn't Ford's leadership deserve some compensation for keeping the company afloat
The problem with this post... and the underlying attitude... is that it belies a total and complete lack of understanding about what "conservative" means in the political sense in the United States (and, to a large extent, in other places).
The OP's comment makes perfect sense to him, because to him being "conservative" or "right wing" or whatever means "hating everyone and being a bad guy." And how can "bad guys" like "good?"
So, let me give you a Conservative's perspective on what it means to be a Conservative.
I will use the term "liberal" here, but it's worth pointing out that "liberal" in the political sense, especially in the USA, no longer means what it should in a proper, linguistic sense, any more than "conservative" does.
Theoretically, if you used pure linguistics to evaluate these terms, "conservative" means "wants to keep things unchanged" while "liberal" means "wants to change things." But that simply doesn't work... because, for instance, that would have meant that Ronald Reagan, or Newt Gingrich, both of whom rose to office wanting to implement changes to the status quo, would have been the "liberals" while Jimmy Carter, for example, would have been the "conservative."
Obviously, the root "linguistic" definition isn't sufficient.
In the USA, the terms only make proper sense if you apply them to a specific target... hence why I use the terms "Constitutional Conservative" and "Constitutional Liberal." "Constitutional Conservatives" believe that the Constitution, as written, provides the best possible framework for our society, while "Constitutional Liberals" believe that (for whatever reason) the Constitution, as originally written, provides an obstacle to accomplishing things that they want do accomplish.
In order to understand this, you need to understand the Constitution of the United States. It is NOT, as you've probably been misinformed, the "document that gives us our rights." It's very clear, in the Declaration of Independence, that "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." That's key... the rights we have are there purely by virtue of our existence... not given to us by "the government."
The best way to understand the Constitution is to understand that it's the employee handbook we (the EMPLOYERS) force the personnel working for us within the Federal Government (our EMPLOYEES) to work under. It gives them their powers, it doesn't give us our rights. And it's a LIMITING document, not a "granting" one. It tells them... our employees... the few, enumerated things they're permitted to do which infringe on our "unalienable" rights.
The founders looked at the world in which they lived, recognized that the world was full of examples of tyranny (some more severe, some less so, but all tyrannies). And they looked at the various tools used by tyrants to establish their own rule.
The Constitution, in it's original form, is what prevents a tyrant from rising to power in the United States. Remove that and tyranny is far more likely.
The Constitution can be modified, but not by "Executive Decree" or by "Legislative action" or by "Judicial Fiat" (aka "reinterpreting the Constitution.") It can only be modified through the (intentionally difficult) process of AMENDMENT.
The founders created a system in which the "Centralized government" was small, had limited powers, and was forced to live under very specific (and non-intrusive, to us) rules.
A "Conservative" (aka a "strict constructionist") sees this as being very important. Lower taxes, smaller government, limited role of government in the lives of the ordinary man... all those are central to what makes someone a "Conservative." And all those are central to what keeps us FREE, not coincidentally.
A "Liberal" (aka a "progressive") sees this as being very limiting. They want to accomplish things which the Constitution prevents them from doing. These may be "good" things (feeding children, etc) or "bad" things (establishing personal power and authority over all of our lives) but they're all prevented from being done by the original structure of the Constitution. And so... the Constitution must be treated as "only a suggestion" or as an "outdated document" or as a "living document which may be reinterpreted to mean anything we like, even if the clear original intent was totally different."
Most liberals look at the goal... ie, "feeding children"... and ignore the means to get to that end. The problem is that the means, once in place, can be used for all sorts of ends. Many of which are NOT nearly as nice as "feeding children." Once you give absolute power to your employees, they cease to be your employees and become your RULERS.
Most conservatives look at the means, and consider "how could this be used by a bad guy to accomplish a bad end," and if it leaves that open, reject the implementation of that means even if the "end" it's supposed to be resolving is something we all can agree on (like feeding children). There are going to be other ways that the children can be fed, without opening the door to tyranny, after all, aren't there?
So... Conservatives aren't "bad guys." They are "defenders of human freedom" and "opponents of all would-be-tyrants."
And Liberals aren't "bad guys." They are "people who want to get things done, and damn the consequences."
***************
To put the lie to the various misstatements about "why Conservatives are bad"...
I am not racist.
I consider most liberal policies to be racist, honestly. I view every individual as an individual, and I reject any attempt to group people by any characteristic which isn't under their direct control.
The "group identity politics" used by the left so often truly seem to me to be OVERTLY racist. Not every black man must think or feel in a particular way, any more than every black man must inherently call his wife "mammy" or love fried chicken and watermelon. To treat a group... ANY group... as though it's homogeneous is inherently prejudiced.
I am not "homophobic."
This term is, itself, a misnomer, by the way... since "dislike" and "fear" aren't synonyms... and most people who are legitimately described as being "homophobic" are actually "homo-hostile" rather than "homo-fearful." But by using the concept of "fear" it's a way of belittling the perspective of the people you're talking about... even if it's untrue.
That said... I'm not "homo-hostile" either. As long as what you do doesn't affect me... as long as you don't make it my business, it's none of my business. Is it? What I DO object to is the overtly "in your face" aggressively hostile approach used by a SMALL MINORITY of "homosexual activist" types. I'd be just as hostile to a straight couple getting in my face and screaming "ACCEPT US! ACCEPT US NOW!" for that matter.
Ultimately, this goes back to the same idea as my first point... that "group identity" is a nonsensical in every possible way... and that includes pretending that "gay" people are, in some way, homogeneous and form one block group.
I am not an atheist.
You're correct that Roddenberry not only rejected religion but, over time, became overtly hostile to the concept. But Roddenberry isn't the only person who contributed to the show, and a number of those who did were undeniably religious. To assume that somehow Roddenberry's personal animosity towards God (and his overt intolerance towards those who didn't share his perspective) means that everything "Star Trek" must be objectionable is entirely false.
I view atheism as just another "faith-based religion." It meets every single requirement for that definition (and the fact that it denies the existence of God isn't a counterargument... after all, Taoism also holds that perspective, doesn't it?). There is no hard proof, and despite the claims to the contrary made by some (not all) atheists, it has no firmer tie to science and logic than any other belief system.
There is nothing inherently "anti-Christian" about biochemistry, or physics, or astronomy, or geology, or any other hard science, is there? The claim that you have to reject science in order to accept the existence of things beyond what we can (as of yet) prove is nonsensical, and is the same sort of thinking that would have gotten Marconi burned as a witch once upon a time, isn't it? Reality is FAR more complex than our limited grasp on it allows us to comprehend... and it's usually the most simple-minded (and non-scientifically-inclined) who end up treating science as some form of religion on its own, instead of what it is... a tool we've invented to help us understand (to a limited extent) the unimaginable complexity of the universe we live in.
Atheism is no more... and, for the record, no LESS... compatible with science than Christianity or Judaism or any other "religion" is. And no more, or less, compatible with "science fiction" for that matter.
**************
You say "Trek is pretty much all about progressive politics, with its on again, off again currency, socialized medicine, shunning of material gain, and rehab colonies."
That's not really true. "Rehab colonies" are not more "liberal" and less "conservative." Though, as "Dagger of the Mind" so clearly illustrated, even the best "rehab colony" can be perverted into a dreadful weapon if a bad person happens to be in charge... that's FUNDAMENTAL to the "Conservative" mindset.
It's no secret that most of the worst tyrannies of history have used "re-education camps" and so forth to "correct" individuals who were somehow not in alignment with society's "accepted norms." The episode "Dagger of the Mind" thus was a strong WARNING MESSAGE about how the best of intentions can lead to the worst of results... in very much that same way.
As far as "socialized medicine" goes... what evidence did you see of that, especially in TOS? The overwhelming majority of medical situations we saw were either (1) shipboard... provided by the military as part of the employment condition, or (2) emergency care after or during a crisis.
But where was there evidence shown that, say, routine medical care in the 23rd or 24th centuries was "socialized" in any way? When McCoy left Starfleet and entered "private practice" between TOS and TMP, did he charge for his work or not? If not... why not?
We see plenty of evidence of "rich people" in Star Trek... we see people "earning their pay" and buying things using "credits" (not CASH, but the same concept). Yes, Picard eventually uttered a few nonsensical platitudes about "humanity having evolved beyond" things like the desire for personal gain, but other than his words, where's the evidence? Picard also argued that Starfleet wasn't military... yet he went into battle more times than any real-world military commander ever has.
******************
As a conservative, I enjoy seeing a world where humanity has survived. A world where tyranny hasn't arisen and resulted in an enslaved human race... ie, a world where our caution and desire to restrict governmental power has SUCCEEDED. Where people are free to pursue their dreams and goals, without a dictatorial government standing in their way. Where people have the opportunity to SUCCEED in life (which also, inherently, means that they have the opportunity to NOT succeed, doesn't it?). A world where TRUE diversity (not "group think" or "identity politics") is permissable... where true freedom of expression is still allowed (meaning no "fairness doctrine" and no "hate speech laws" or "campus speech codes" or "internet censoring" or any of the other tools used to silence opposing voices would exist).
See... the "utopian world" you see in Star Trek cannot come to pass unless the concerns of Conservatives are heeded. If you eliminate the Conservative voices and only the liberal voices are allowed to be heard, only the liberal perspective drives policy decisions... well, in Trek terms, you'll learn the same lesson that Professor John Gill learned in "Patterns of Force." And... for the record... the National Socialist Worker's Party of Germany... aka the "Nazis"... were a PROGRESSIVE party, not a CONSERVATIVE one.
- Status
Similar threads
