NobodySpecial said:Isn't the TP just the off-the-record wing of the RP?
Like the national front is to various conservative parties in europe, they allow R politicians to address TP meetings and basically say 'we can't publicly say we will ban foreigners/shoot hippies/outlaw democrats/...etc - but we see your point wink-wink'
When it comes to the actual election they vote republican.
No that's fine, I see how you got there. Whittle would characterize these things as bad or failed ideas, which I base on this:Gokul43201 said:I believe he refers to government programs (going by memory) as inefficient, wasteful ... something along those lines? And he clearly describes them as forcing you to hand over your money at gunpoint (again, a paraphrase from memory). Based on those two characterizations - unless I've seriously misunderstood his argument - I believe he considers them wasteful and immoral.
Heck, I consider them wasteful and immoral.
PS: If you think I've misrepresented him, I'll go have another look at the video.
mheslep said:No that's fine, I see how you got there. Whittle would characterize these things as bad or failed ideas, which I base on this:
@~4:00
"The belief .. that you can get the government to take something by force and give it to you, like the money for your health care for example, has been tried many times before* and it has failed every time. There's only one really progressive idea, and that is the idea of legally limiting the power of the government - that one generally liberal, generally progressive idea. The why in 1776. They how in 1787. We need to conserve that fundamentally liberal idea."
* UK in 60/70s, Soviet Union, China prior to the 80s, Cuba since Castro, French Revolution.
NobodySpecial said:Isn't the TP just the off-the-record wing of the RP?
Like the national front is to various conservative parties in europe, they allow R politicians to address TP meetings and basically say 'we can't publicly say we will ban foreigners/shoot hippies/outlaw democrats/...etc - but we see your point wink-wink'
When it comes to the actual election they vote republican.
Yes, ask (soon to be former Gov Fla ) Charlie Crist if he thinks the TP is just another name for the RP. :tongue:Char. Limit said:You can't actually believe this... the whole point of this thread is that the Tea Party is not purely Republican, and will support anyone who goes for large social and economic freedoms.
But when you actually poll the tea partiers, you find out that most of them believe Medicare is a worthwhile program and think it's good that it receives as much money as it does.ShawnD said:A member of the tea party might argue that the government should stay out of healthcare because their involvement is the reason that law against paying for stuff out of pocket exists in the first place.
The http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reign_of_Terror" Completely unlike the American revolution, the Jacobins deliberately destroyed many (most?) societal institutions in pursuit of "the new man".Char. Limit said:Hey, the French Revolution worked pretty well until every other nation in Europe declared war on them.
mheslep said:The http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reign_of_Terror" worked pretty well? They lopped off thousands of heads per week, including some of best of scientists of the age. Completely unlike the American revolution, the Jacobins destroyed many (most?) societal institutions in pursuit of "the new man".
mheslep said:No that's fine, I see how you got there. Whittle would characterize these things as bad or failed ideas, which I base on this:
@~4:00
"The belief .. that you can get the government to take something by force and give it to you, like the money for your health care for example, has been tried many times before* and it has failed every time. There's only one really progressive idea, and that is the idea of legally limiting the power of the government - that one generally liberal, generally progressive idea. The why in 1776. They how in 1787. We need to conserve that fundamentally liberal idea."
* UK in 60/70s, Soviet Union, China prior to the 80s, Cuba since Castro, French Revolution.
Robespiere was no more crazy than Rousseau or Lenin. He was ruthless, not crazy, as were many of the Jacobins.Char. Limit said:The Reign of Terror was late in the revolution, and just showed what happens when someone slowly becomes crazy. (Namely, the leader of the Jacobins, whose name I don't recall)
Not if you mean that the other countries caused the Terror (1793) which began one year after the revolution. And the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolutionary_Wars#1791.E2.80.931792" in 1792.EDIT: Oh, I also want to say that the Reign of Terror happened after every other nation in Europe declared war in France, so my statement still stands tall.
mheslep said:Robespiere was no more crazy than Rousseau or Lenin. He was ruthless, not crazy, as were many of the Jacobins.
Not if you mean that the other countries caused the Terror (1793) which began one year after the revolution. And the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolutionary_Wars#1791.E2.80.931792" in 1792.
Nothing like that. Whittle refers to the failure (it was near collapse) of economic output in the UK in the 60s, early 70s from socialist policies, of which the NHS was only one of the many nationalized (at the time) industries. Heck, even the Soviets stopped trading with the UK back then - couldn't get delivery.Office_Shredder said:So it's a statement of fact that the UK has failed to have government pay for healthcare?
Gokul43201 said:When someone says this is what the Tea Party stands for and not that, or that, you have to wonder how he knows, and who exactly decided that he should speak for the lot of them.
I think it's unfair to club Rousseau in with radical extremists like Robespierre and Lenin.mheslep said:Robespiere was no more crazy than Rousseau or Lenin.
That inclusion wasn't careless on my part. I do think it fair, brilliance not withstanding. Rousseau IMO was the proximate cause of both of the other two. He condemmed a society of laws in http://www.constitution.org/jjr/ineq.txt" :Gokul43201 said:I think it's unfair to club Rousseau in with radical extremists like Robespierre and Lenin.
Personally, Rousseau had a string mistresses, and fathered five children with one of them who he treated as a maid, abandoning all of the children to an abominable orphanage where they very likely died. So yes I think he gains entry to the club on grounds of ruthlessness as well, if he never actually dropped a guillotine blade or sent train loads to the gulags.Such was ... the origin of society and law, which bound new fetters on the poor, and gave new powers to the rich; which irretrievably destroyed natural liberty, eternally fixed the law of property and inequality, converted clever usurpation into unalterable right, and, for the advantage of a few ambitious individuals, subjected all mankind to perpetual labour, slavery and wretchedness.
I think of Rousseau being a cause of Robespierre's actions in about the same vein that Christianity is the proximate cause for the actions of the Westboro Baptists.mheslep said:Rousseau IMO was the proximate cause of both of the other two.
I think you've misinterpreted that passage. See for instance:He condemmed a society of laws in http://www.constitution.org/jjr/ineq.txt" :
You could very nearly be talking about Jefferson here. I don't consider these comparable to actions of Lenin or Robe'.Personally, Rousseau had a string mistresses, and fathered five children with one of them who he treated as a maid,
Again, I don't know the background for these actions, but I don't consider sending 5 of your children to a horrible orphanage, even if it was for no good reason, to be similar to slaughtering thousands of people.... abandoning all of the children to an abominable orphanage where they very likely died.
Gokul43201 said:But when you actually poll the tea partiers, you find out that most of them believe Medicare is a worthwhile program and think it's good that it receives as much money as it does.
I can't speak intelligently about your succeeding statements, nor even claim to understand the point you make in them, but I do have a problem with the above statement.WhoWee said:If you've worked for the past 30 years, paying into Medicare Part A, and your plan is to receive benefits when you retire - you might think it's a good program?
Gokul43201 said:I can't speak intelligently about your succeeding statements, nor even claim to understand the point you make in them, but I do have a problem with the above statement.
If I'm reading it correctly, it sounds to me like a person who refers to a program as robbery when s/he is being forced to pay into it, but after doing this for 30-odd years, deems it worthwhile when the time comes to partake of the spoils.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/23/tea-party-poll-elections-2012_n_787887.htmlTea party backers fashion themselves as "we the people," but polls show the Republican Party's most conservative and energized voters are hardly your average crowd.
According to an Associated Press-GfK Poll this month, 84 percent who call themselves tea party supporters don't like how President Barack Obama is handling his job – a view shared by just 35 percent of all other adults. Tea partiers are about four times likelier than others to back repealing Obama's health care overhaul and twice as likely to favor renewing tax cuts for the highest-earning Americans.
Exit polls of voters in this month's congressional elections reveal similar gulfs. Most tea party supporters – 86 percent – want less government intrusion on people and businesses, but only 35 percent of other voters said so. Tea party backers were about five times likelier to blame Obama for the country's economic ills, three times likelier to say Obama's policies will be harmful and twice as apt to see the country on the wrong track.
It seems pretty obvious to me that most people really do want huge government. Even talking about cutting medicare will get you thrown out of office.Ivan Seeking said:We all want lower taxes. We all want to reduce the debt. Most of us probably want the least government possible. We all want a thriving economy and good jobs. These goals are not exclusive to the right or the extreme right, but that is what the tp would have you believe. The problem comes in implementing steps to achieve these goals without making things worse.
No I don't think so. 1) Jefferson apparently provided, at least basically, for Sally Hemmings and offspring; he did not throw them in the river. 2) Jefferson's moral blind spot for slavery certainly did not extend to the point of Rousseau's across the board hedonism that he applied to everyone including, as this episode shows, to those closest to him.Gokul43201 said:...You could very nearly be talking about Jefferson here.
A difference in opportunity, not in mindset, especially given his writings that go along with it.I don't consider these comparable to actions of Lenin or Robe'.
Again, I don't know the background for these actions, but I don't consider sending 5 of your children to a horrible orphanage, even if it was for no good reason, to be similar to slaughtering thousands of people.
Paul came in second in five or six states and third in five or six more.ShawnD said:During the 2008 election, Ron Paul ... Did he win the nomination? Not even close.
Make that 50% and you'd be close. Throw in military spending, which is also essentially impossible to touch, and you're at about 70% of the Fed budget.ShawnD said:Most people really do support things like social security, medicaid, and medicare. Together those 3 programs make up something like 40% of the entire US federal budget...
Nevertheless, I think the "not even close" description is still pretty accurate.mheslep said:Paul came in second in five or six states and third in five or six more.
The United States in Europe have to free the state from all the unnecessary tasks and burdens with which it has been loaded in the last one hundred years, which have distracted it from its two main tasks, the maintenance of the rule of law and foreign policy.
http://tv.nationalreview.com/uncommonknowledge/Gokul43201 said:That was interesting - thanks for the link. Any idea where to find the remaining 4 parts?
I'm having a hard time interpreting that passage myself. :grumpy:Gokul43201 said:I think you've misinterpreted that passage. See for instance:
I should have wished then that no one within the State should be able to say he was above the law; and that no one without should be able to dictate so that the State should be obliged to recognise his authority. For, be the constitution of a government what it may, if there be within its jurisdiction a single man who is not subject to the law, all the rest are necessarily at his discretion.
ShawnD said:It seems pretty obvious to me that most people really do want huge government. Even talking about cutting medicare will get you thrown out of office.
During the 2008 election, Ron Paul was up on stage talking about how his ultimate goal was to slash pretty much every government program and deregulate as much as possible. He wanted to end foreign entanglements, stop nation building, eliminate the welfare state, and start with the biggest wastes of money first. He sounded sensible when he said programs like homeless shelters should only be slashed after the bigger and more wasteful projects are slashed. Did he win the nomination? Not even close. He was beaten by republican candidates who flat out said they supported nation building and foreign entanglements like Iraq.
Gokul43201 said:Ron Paul may not have looked attractive to the Republican electorate in 2008, but now, he's got to be pretty close to their ideal representative.
My statement was specifically based on the observation that right now, Republicans don't seem care very much about foreign policy, at least relative to issues like the economy and health care. But like I implied above, this could very well be a short term fluctuation brought on by the unemployment rate, the tea party influence, and the stimulus and health-care bills. Give it a little time, and the average Republican will probably go back to worrying more about fighting the bad guys. In any case, I think the relevant electorate would much prefer to have Paul be their lifelong representative in the House, where foreign policy is probably not quite as important as local economic and social issues.CAC1001 said:I don't think he appeals to the Republican electorate though due to his foreign policy, which is very isolationist.
Maybe, but it's close. Romney and Huckabee are neck-and-neck with Palin in recent polls, but like you said, there may be some influence of the "will not win a general election" feeling that might be lowering Palin's numbers.I think Sarah Palin is about as close to the ideal the Republicans want, but most are afraid she would not be able to win the General election.
It's possible. But to clarify my point, I wasn't singling out Ron Paul as being closest to the ideal Republican so much as pointing out that he is probably seen a lot more favorably in today's political climate (where deficit cutting is a huge deal) than in the climate of 2008 (when it was a lot less important).There are some other, lesser-known Republicans I think that also very much are the Republican ideal, such as Mitch Daniels and Tim Pawlenty.
CAC1001 said:Wanting those things is not the same as wanting a huge government. There is a difference between being for sound social safety nets and an excessive social-welfare state. If programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security are reformed properly, then they will take up much less of the budget I think.
Why not? A social contract, as the term is commonly used, is not an actual contract that all parties entered into voluntarily.Gokul43201 said:I'll try an explanation, but will not get into hummingbirds (humans can't form a social contract with hummingbirds, etc.).
That's why I used hummingbirds as a counter-example, because they are exempt from the law, yet they do not "automatically usurp authority" over us. Maybe mentally retarded people would have been a better counter-example, since they are also exempt from the law.My understanding is that Rousseau (beyond just advocating for equal treatment under the law) makes the claim that is roughly along these lines: were there to be any people made exempt from the rule of law, such people would automatically usurp authority over the rest.
But while a human being can understand it, and protest it, a hummingbird can do neither.Al68 said:Why not? A social contract, as the term is commonly used, is not an actual contract that all parties entered into voluntarily.
I come to interpret Rousseau, not to praise him.But regardless, someone being exempt from the law means the "rest" don't have authority over him. It doesn't logically follow that he would have authority over the "rest".