I'd say that the contemporary liberal desires to see material benefits for the masses (a good intention I'd say, although misguided), only they have misidentified the proper means to that end and the actual cause of the ills currently facing society. They too may have an intention for freedom, only their definition of freedom is wrong. They identify freedom with material benefits for the masses. Of course it's true that freedom can lead to such benefits, but the liberal erroneously concludes that because such benefits have taken place in the past they should seek to directly gain those benefits through state (I.E. by violating actual freedom) rather than indirectly gaining them through the actual liberalization of society (I.E. by reducing political power and restraints).
But the conservative's definition of freedom is not real freedom either. It's rhetorical. Despite any good intentions, the actual end is less freedom, and mass-murder to boot. They too have conflated the ends that have resulted from freedom in the past with the state. They too advocate usage of the state in the name of reaching the ends of freedom. They too seek to directly gain freedom through government intervention, rather than indirectly through the reduction of political power and restraints. They seem to think that freedom derives from soldiers, with notions such as "people died so you could critisize our president!". They likewise see the state as a means to their ends, and as far as I am concerned one's desired ends are rather irrelevant, as the true question at hand is a matter of what means one advocates towards their desired ends (political and coercive or voluntary?).
Both use an incorrect definition of freedom and both advocate political means toward their ends.
Please. Public support for an active war (excluding foreign occupation) tires much easier than its support for the welfare state. It's consequences are far easier to perceive.
I don't see how that addresses anything stated in my post that you were responding to.
In either case, the state defies public opinion in various ways all the time, so I don't see how this matters much. Public opinion doesn't necessarily gaurantee political change. States don't just give up their military apparatus willingly. And the real question at hand here isn't ending one particular war so much as dismantling the war apparatus itself, which I don't see as necessarily being any easier of a task than dismantling welfare. Indeed, the warfare and police state apparatus is much more fundamental of a state service than welfare. It is something that pretty much everyone universally accepts as being necessary, liberals and conservatives alike. The public is more likely to support something comparatively minor like the legalization of drugs or prostitution than they ever are to accept the idea of privatizing the military industry or the police or the courts.
edward_1313: Brainpolice: thecapitalist: BrainPolice, I don't think that we're going to agree. In a democratic system, it's easier to cut back militaries than it is to cut back social-welfare systems. Once the voters become hooked, it becomes nearly impossible (logistically and electorally) to dismantle the welfare state, while the money spent on wars is "government money" that should be spent on welfare! I don't see any reason why it should be easier to dismantle the warfare state. It involves just as much government meddling, central planning and bereaucracy. Furthermore, I don't consider the imperial warfare state not to be a social welfare system in and of itself. It's just one that happens to benefit different groups or interests (wether that be the generals, soldiers, select corporations, foreign dictators, government bereaucrats, etc.). Why should it be any easier to ween these interest groups off of their welfare than the domestic peasantry? And are they somehow more deserving of it?Please. Public support for an active war (excluding foreign occupation) tires much easier than its support for the welfare state. It's consequences are far easier to perceive.
Brainpolice: thecapitalist: BrainPolice, I don't think that we're going to agree. In a democratic system, it's easier to cut back militaries than it is to cut back social-welfare systems. Once the voters become hooked, it becomes nearly impossible (logistically and electorally) to dismantle the welfare state, while the money spent on wars is "government money" that should be spent on welfare! I don't see any reason why it should be easier to dismantle the warfare state. It involves just as much government meddling, central planning and bereaucracy. Furthermore, I don't consider the imperial warfare state not to be a social welfare system in and of itself. It's just one that happens to benefit different groups or interests (wether that be the generals, soldiers, select corporations, foreign dictators, government bereaucrats, etc.). Why should it be any easier to ween these interest groups off of their welfare than the domestic peasantry? And are they somehow more deserving of it?
thecapitalist: BrainPolice, I don't think that we're going to agree. In a democratic system, it's easier to cut back militaries than it is to cut back social-welfare systems. Once the voters become hooked, it becomes nearly impossible (logistically and electorally) to dismantle the welfare state, while the money spent on wars is "government money" that should be spent on welfare!
BrainPolice, I don't think that we're going to agree.
In a democratic system, it's easier to cut back militaries than it is to cut back social-welfare systems. Once the voters become hooked, it becomes nearly impossible (logistically and electorally) to dismantle the welfare state, while the money spent on wars is "government money" that should be spent on welfare!
I don't see any reason why it should be easier to dismantle the warfare state. It involves just as much government meddling, central planning and bereaucracy. Furthermore, I don't consider the imperial warfare state not to be a social welfare system in and of itself. It's just one that happens to benefit different groups or interests (wether that be the generals, soldiers, select corporations, foreign dictators, government bereaucrats, etc.). Why should it be any easier to ween these interest groups off of their welfare than the domestic peasantry? And are they somehow more deserving of it?
Yeah, I really don't see where he's coming from. Militaries are often cut back, but welfare-states never go away.
I don't know understand his reasons for trying to claim some sort of equivelancy; it's just not there. Like I said, once voters get hooked on the welfare-state, it becomes nearly impossible (logistically and electorally) to dismantle it... which is why it has yet to happen. Voters quickly tire of wars, though (look how quickly public support for the Iraq war has evaporated), and it's easy to tell voters "the money the government is spending on the Iraq war is money that could be spent spent on your healthcare!".
When the leftists rob the achievers and give it to the masses, the masses will vote to keep them in power. When rightists rob the achievers to spend on bombs and bullets, the masses may feel a burst patriotism, but will inevitably eventually decide they would rather the money be spent on them.
Even if every soldier in war would vote for politicians that would keep the war going, it wouldn't be enough to make even a dent electorally.Plus, many soldiers actually won't vote for those politicians (Ron Paul had a ton of military support), and they probably have 3-4 family members who will vote to bring them home, especially once the war begins to drag on.
[Edited for clarity, but it's still a mess.]
Don't allow leftists to play games with definitions! Some of the libertarian-leaning leftists at this forum will try to redefine "left-wing" back to its original defition (Third Estate, limited government, free-markets, laissez-faire reforms, etc.). Fine! We non-leftists can't stop them from using their own personal definitions; they can use whatever labels they want to describe any concept they want.However, they have the audacity to then use their personal definition of "left-wing" (remember, the original definition, which is no longer valid) to prove that modern leftists are more libertarian than modern rightists! They will say that libertarianism is "inherently leftist" (again, using the original, no longer valid definition), and use that to insist that we should prefer and side with modern leftists over modern rightists.
Question their motives.
The public would accept doing away with welfare long before they would ever even fathom the notion of actually completely privatizing the production of defense itself. The production of defense is one of the first things that a state monopolizes. It is a fundamental feature of states, not a mere special program that can be easily done away with while the institution mostly stays intact. The state monopolization of defense is something that has existed long before contemporary welfare states were anything more than a dream of a few false philanthropists. We're talking about the very existance of state militaries here, not just one isolated example of their usage. This is something that is nearly universally accepted as a necessary "public good". People would think you're even more out of your mind if you suggested dong away with the military then if you suggested doing away with welfare. The military is not an easy thing to dismantle.
Brainpolice:The public would accept doing away with welfare long before they would ever even fathom the notion of actually completely privatizing the production of defense itself. The production of defense is one of the first things that a state monopolizes. It is a fundamental feature of states, not a mere special program that can be easily done away with while the institution mostly stays intact. The state monopolization of defense is something that has existed long before contemporary welfare states were anything more than a dream of a few false philanthropists. We're talking about the very existance of state militaries here, not just one isolated example of their usage. This is something that is nearly universally accepted as a necessary "public good". People would think you're even more out of your mind if you suggested dong away with the military then if you suggested doing away with welfare. The military is not an easy thing to dismantle.
I absolutely agree that delivering the final blow to the military will be much harder than delivering the final blow to the welfare-state, but I don't think we're anywhere close to that even being an issue.
[Still, much of Europe has come pretty close to have no military, while no country in the world has managed dismantle their social-welfare systems.]
Well the debate isn't really about politicians being involved in libertarianism. It's about the ideologies and political positions of "leftists" and "rightists" and how they compare to libertarianism or how compatible they are with it. I try to adopt a more or less neutral or plumb-line stance similar to what Block takes in his paper on libertarianism and culture. Libertarianism is its own unique animal, not just another brand of conservatism. Neither the left or right can reasonably claim a monopoly on it.
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
My arguments don't support neocon policies at all, and I've repeatedly said that they are harmful and dangerous. Why would you say that?
You also say that I've provided no support for my side; Well I, along with the posters who were agreeing and disagreeing with my reasoning, beg to differ. I've said in nearly every post that left-wing policies create perpetual voters (unlike right-wing policies) and are more difficult logistically and electorally difficult to reverse.
Now that you've accused me of being a closet-neocon, may I do the same to you? Are you a closet-leftist who actually sees socialism in a kind light?
Although I do not see the neocon side as good at all, I do believe that it is better than the leftist side. Most neocons would agree with Reagan's statements that the most terfifying words are "Hi I am from the government and I am here to help you", while the leftists would strongly disagree. The leftists would see the most terrifying words as "Privatize it" instead. At least the neocons fall back to arguments for limited government while the leftists are constantly falling back to arguments for government expansion. The way I see it both are dead-wrong, however IMO the rightists are not as far gone as the leftists, and maybe just maybe over time, they will begin to come towards libertarianism. I dont ever see this happening with the leftists.
...And nobody has ever taught you how to live out on the street, But now you're gonna have to get used to it...
mr_anonymous: Although I do not see the neocon side as good at all, I do believe that it is better than the leftist side. Most neocons would agree with Reagan's statements that the most terfifying words are "Hi I am from the government and I am here to help you", while the leftists would strongly disagree. The leftists would see the most terrifying words as "Privatize it" instead. At least the neocons fall back to arguments for limited government while the leftists are constantly falling back to arguments for government expansion. The way I see it both are dead-wrong, however IMO the rightists are not as far gone as the leftists, and maybe just maybe over time, they will begin to come towards libertarianism. I dont ever see this happening with the leftists.
But as I have pointed out ad nauseum, these differences you point out are merely rhetorical rather than substantive. It matters not one bit if a neocon falls back on "limited government" rhetoric when the actual substance of their position is nothing of the sort. The right merely tends to be dishonest in their rhetoric. While the leftist tends to openly trumpet their devotion to government, the rightist hides behind limited government rhetoric while supporting more or less just as strong of a government as the leftist.
This is why I hate people like Ronald Reagan. They functioned to actually hijack the libertarian movement by using its rhetoric and implementing expansionist policies and then the effects of those policies are forever tainted in the public eye, as they are then conflated with and blamed on "limited government" and "the free market" and such things. This, in turn, fuels the leftist's distain of those things and hence decreases oppurtunity for them to come over to libertarianism.
The contemporary right has done more to discredit ideas such as "the free market" and "limited government" than anyone else because they put foreward the status quo as if it were those things, or at least help perpetuate such an illusion. Of course, all government is limited in some sense by definition, thank god.
Brainpolice: But as I have pointed out ad nauseum, these differences you point out are merely rhetorical rather than substantive. It matters not one bit if a neocon falls back on "limited government" rhetoric when the actual substance of their position is nothing of the sort. The right merely tends to be dishonest in their rhetoric. While the leftist tends to openly trumpet their devotion to government, the rightist hides behind limited government rhetoric while supporting more or less just as strong of a government as the leftist. This is why I hate people like Ronald Reagan. They functioned to actually hijack the libertarian movement by using its rhetoric and implementing expansionist policies and then the effects of those policies are forever tainted in the public eye, as they are then conflated with and blamed on "limited government" and "the free market" and such things. This, in turn, fuels the leftist's distain of those things and hence decreases oppurtunity for them to come over to libertarianism. The contemporary right has done more to discredit ideas such as "the free market" and "limited government" than anyone else because they put foreward the status quo as if it were those things, or at least help perpetuate such an illusion. Of course, all government is limited in some sense by definition, thank god.
First, I doubt Reagan, or those like Reagan, are the reason leftists despise capitalism and limited government. They're going to impute bad consequences to the free market regardless of whether those promoting it are "pure" in their intentions or not.
Second,I think it's a big mistake to simply rely upon the substance of the outcomes of those views held by conservatives versus leftists in order to interpret their admirability, or, what I think is more pertinent, convertability. You seem to to think that conservatives are more evil because they fein free market principles while championing big government behind the scenes. Although true for some "fiscal" conservatives, I would not say so for the majority. Many truly think their beliefs are consistent with free-market principles and while they may be in error, I find it far more encouraging than those who despise the free market.
Your dogmatic approach in considering both parties equally distasteful and misguided is perhaps logically consistent, but it abstracts from a number of important aspects which are pertinent to the expansion and success of libertarian principles. A shift in ideology across a population is a slow process and it does not happen through people suddenly converting to views dramatically different from their own. It takes intermediaries like Friedman, or even Reagan, to slowly "popularize" and familiarize larger and larger numbers of people to ideas previously foreign to them. I know this is something you may disagree with but I think that indicates a certain lack of insight into how ideas become mainstreamed (which is important for society if it is to shift directions).
I don't think that Republicans have discredited limited government at all, they've discredited themselves. Everyone (including Republican voters) acknowledge that government has grown too much under Republican leadership.
Since many of you have something against the right-wing, I'll try this approach:
When faced with two statist candidates, we should oppose more strongly the candidate whose policies create perpetual voters.
Ego: I've said in nearly every post that left-wing policies create perpetual voters (unlike right-wing policies)
and are more difficult logistically and electorally difficult to reverse.
Juan: Ego: I've said in nearly every post that left-wing policies create perpetual voters (unlike right-wing policies) Yes, you said that. Problem is, it's not true. Both factions create and/or rely on entrenched interests. Both factions are equally difficult to deal with. and are more difficult logistically and electorally difficult to reverse. Democracy is one of the causes of the problem, it can never be the solution. If the theory of limited government was true, then wealth redistribution would be stopped by the judiciary. Of course, it is not. Now that you've accused me of being a closet-neocon, may I do the same to you? Are you a closet-leftist who actually sees socialism in a kind light? I like socialists as much as I like neocons. Does that answer your questions ?
Which program that you consider "rightist" generates as many perpetual voters as welfare, social security, and progressive tax brackets?