News So, you consider yourself a Democrat, do you?

[loseyourname]

I don't think that matters. It's about ideology, not political activism.

In the real world, sure, but on an internet forum, all that matters to how people view you politically is what you do and don't complain about. Well, I guess we can be directly polled on idealogical beliefs, but threads of those kind generally degrade to people either complaining or not complaining about something as well; this just seems to be the nature of political discussion forums.

In short, I just think that a place like this can give the wrong idea of a person. For instance, I think that Skyhunter and SOS are way more conservative than they come across, and Russ is way more liberal than he comes across. The reason being that people simple come across as liberal when they complain more and come across as conservative when they complain less. Note: I don't mean to imply that this is generally applicable; I'm speaking specifically of the context we are now in with the current American regime (let's face it - discussions of American politics are about all we get here) being conservative. In the Clinton years, this would likely have been reversed.

 

[one_raven]

You know, normally I would pull a Manchot and pick apart small details of your post, One Raven, as there are a lot of ambiguous statements and arguable opinions expressed. Nonetheless, I actually agree wholeheartedly with what I perceived as the general spirit of your post, although I'm not going to single out the democratic party as you seem to be doing.

Actually, I don't mind the nit-pickyness at all.
This is part of what I one day hope to be a completed book, and the more detailed the criticism can get (if you feel so inclined) the better it would be for me.

About your outloook, I honestly wish I could agree with you. It would make life much easier on me.

 

[one_raven]

This is not at all likely though, and you and vanesch, and townsend, and 99% of self described "Moderates"* (or whatever you want to call yourselves) are not that unique. If you were I'm sure you'd have written a book about it by now and would have your own ideology (with a name of your choosing)loosely followed by a bunch of poli sci undergrads. But I don't think you have. I think that if you all researched a number of ideologies more in-depth, you would find one that catches your eye. You'll probably learn a lot at the same time. (either that, or you have *other* reasons)

1.) That's a hell of a collection of assumptions to make about somebody who you know VERY LITTLE about his polititcal views.
2.) Not everyone who has an original idea is a revolutionary, nor have they been published. I think elitist viewpoints like that really sell people short.

This, as I pointed out, is part of a book I have been working on. Is it not a *truly* original idea until a publisher deems it such?

 

[russ_watters]

In the real world, sure, but on an internet forum, all that matters to how people view you politically is what you do and don't complain about. Well, I guess we can be directly polled on idealogical beliefs, but threads of those kind generally degrade to people either complaining or not complaining about something as well; this just seems to be the nature of political discussion forums.

In short, I just think that a place like this can give the wrong idea of a person. For instance, I think that Skyhunter and SOS are way more conservative than they come across, and Russ is way more liberal than he comes across. The reason being that people simple come across as liberal when they complain more and come across as conservative when they complain less. Note: I don't mean to imply that this is generally applicable; I'm speaking specifically of the context we are now in with the current American regime (let's face it - discussions of American politics are about all we get here) being conservative. In the Clinton years, this would likely have been reversed.

I agree with your theory, with one caveat: throughout recent history (the past 40 years or so), it has always been liberals doing the most complaining (in real life, as well as the internet forums). Even when Clinton was President, the hippies were out in force, protesting things like the IMF. Republicans don't have activist (or terrorist) groups equivalent to Greenpeace, ELF, or all those random hippies on many college campuses.

Internet conspiracy theories are heavily dominated by the left - even the one good Clinton conspiracy theory (that he'd use FEMA to sieze dictatorial power after the Y2K crisis ) had a liberal bend.

Complaining seems to be a fundamental aspect of the ideology - and it is linked to excessive idealism.

 

[vanesch]

I think that if you all researched a number of ideologies more in-depth, you would find one that catches your eye. You'll probably learn a lot at the same time. (either that, or you have *other* reasons)

Could it occur to you that there are people (like me, and a lot of others), that simply DON'T feel attracted to any particular simple set of rules of what OUGHT TO BE, and that we also don't have any ALTERNATIVE rule we secretly would like to have. Could you conceive that there are people who like to eat sausage, but don't think that everything should be sausage, and eat salad, but don't think that you shoul eat salad every day, and who find every nutcase wanting to have everybody eat sausage or salad a nuisance, and that you can't reasonably expect them to answer the question: "yes, but YOU, what food would you want to eat every day then ?" except for the answer you do not seem to accept, which is: "I don't know, I'll decide every day what I'd like to eat, it depends on what my mood will be".

Am I conformist ? Yes. I think that no matter how you want to change the world, you'll make a mess of it when you start with some ideology. So just as well stick to the current one. Am I pragmatist ? Yes. I don't think one should stick to a certain solution of a problem for ideological reasons if it is plain obvious that another one is better. Do I read up on the latest semantic struggle concerning the ideology that's the new hype ? No, because I know in advance that we will get again a grandiose view of how our current world is rotten and how nice it would be if we all just did *this*. What do I find interesting in some ideologies ? To consider them as dynamical systems and try to find "their equations of motion", as a game: what will be predictable consequences of certain sets of initial conditions.

What's my ideology then, if I have to have one ? I want to be reasonably happy, and even that is not a very high priority.

EDIT: I forgot to say: my highest priority is to make sure that the collection of scientific knowledge collected by humankind will not be lost when the ants will come to power.

 

[Smurf]

I agree with your theory, with one caveat: throughout recent history (the past 40 years or so), it has always been liberals doing the most complaining (in real life, as well as the internet forums). Even when Clinton was President, the hippies were out in force, protesting things like the IMF. Republicans don't have activist (or terrorist) groups equivalent to Greenpeace, ELF, or all those random hippies on many college campuses.

Internet conspiracy theories are heavily dominated by the left - even the one good Clinton conspiracy theory (that he'd use FEMA to sieze dictatorial power after the Y2K crisis ) had a liberal bend.

Complaining seems to be a fundamental aspect of the ideology - and it is linked to excessive idealism.

I was about to say the same thing under clinton liberals would still have been complaining. (I hypothesize because I was very young and uninterested in politics when he was in power - so I didn't pay attention)

However I, like LYN, don't think this is about liberalism, it's about the fact that, by comparison to anywhere else on the planet, Clinton simply wasn't all that liberal, just in comparison to reagan and bush, which are really extreme-right by comparison to most of the west.

This speaks more about the inherent conservatism of America in general than it does about Liberals. Let's face it, America has never been all that liberal. If you were to look at Canada I think you'll find that the people to right of the Administration are doing most of the complaining. God.. how many times have I seen stephen harper *****ing about privatising healthcare? I've lost count, really! Does this mean that all Conservatives complain? No, it means Canada has a more liberal majority and smaller but still sizable conservative minority. The opposite of the US.

 

[russ_watters]

However I, like LYN, don't think this is about liberalism, it's about the fact that, by comparison to anywhere else on the planet, Clinton simply wasn't all that liberal, just in comparison to reagan and bush, which are really extreme-right by comparison to most of the west.

No, Clinton wasn't that liberal, but he was a little left of center, so if anything there should have been slightly more conservatives than liberals out protesting in those days.

This speaks more about the inherent conservatism of America in general than it does about Liberals. Let's face it, America has never been all that liberal.

America was quite liberal in the '60s.

 

[Smurf]

1.) That's a hell of a collection of assumptions to make about somebody who you know VERY LITTLE about his polititcal views.

I wasn't speaking about anyone. I was speaking about basic human psychology (or sociology, depending on how you look at it), which you obviously don't agree with. My answer for that reaction is that you do not want to and so refuse to identify yourself with an ideology, this does not make you unique, it makes you individualist. (which, unlike some, I would not call an ideology)

2.) Not everyone who has an original idea is a revolutionary, nor have they been published. I think elitist viewpoints like that really sell people short.

Am I being elitest? Simply stating that a human being is merely a member of a much larger (6.5 billion times larger) group, and stating that trying to separate themselves from such is foolhardy? I don't think that's elitest, I think that's collectivist.

This, as I pointed out, is part of a book I have been working on. Is it not a *truly* original idea until a publisher deems it such?

Of course not. Tell you what, when you publish your book, I'll read it and tell you which ideology you belong to. (excepting the small chance that you come up with an actually new idea. - in which case I'll congradulate you)

 

[vanesch]

1. The body of ideas reflecting the social needs and aspirations of an individual, group, class, or culture.
2. A set of doctrines or beliefs that form the basis of a political, economic, or other system.

We're talking about 2. here, no ?

The fact that a person identifies with an ideology does not make him different than a person that has equally many beliefs and assumptions about society but merely refuses to identify with an ideology, for any reason.

Could you explain what you mean ? You mean, everybody adheres to an ideology, but some are so honest about it that they say so, and others don't ?

Incorrect Over-Simplification. Free markets are only advocated as solutions to economic issues, and not always either. Capitalists, for example, have never advocated the privatisation of (i.e. the free trade of) armed forces, police forces, or any other issues of national or federal defence and concern.

It depends. Some hard-core capitalists do, but you're right: capitalists recognize the need of a state function in order to avoid individual violence and enforce the rule: property rights.

Simply incorrect. Different communists will advocate different systems on which to arrive at a decision. The main ideology (i.e. idea) behind communism is communal ownership, and equality.

Would communists (real ones of course) accept the solution to the problem: "how do we make the best car" is: well, by having different private initiatives make cars, and have them compete on the market ?
If part of the solution to a particular problem is: give private ownership to people and let them be different, then the solution to our problem will be better, would communists consider that ?

Incorrect. Anarchists only recognize one "kind" (characteristic) of state structure, and that is hierachy of power. They do advocate the abolishment of such hierarchy, but do not herald it as the solution to everything.

You can't be a bit pregnant, so you can't have a bit of hierarchy. If you advocate the abolishment of hierarchy you cannot do anything else but herald it as the solution to everything, because if it isn't there, it isn't there.

Any given system will inherently consider many responses to any difficult problem, but will usually end up with 1 or 2 which those of the dominant ideology will approve of according to their beliefs. Again, these solutions will vary depending on the solution. A capitalist might, for example, advocate the lowering of trade tarriffs on principle, but make exception to food produce and advocate high tariffs on foreign import to encourage national farming, because he considers it of national importance.

That's not a real capitalist, sorry. A capitalist (a real, ideological one) advocates the free market for everything except law and order. What you have above is someone who is more pragmatic, like I (and Townsend) advocate.

I don't think you'll find a single ideology that advocates fixing a problem before looking at it.

In fact, I have not yet seen a single ideology that advocates looking at the problem before fixing the class of acceptable solutions that are to be envisioned.

More rubbish. Everyone tries to find the best solution. The only difference between ideologies is that their ideas on how to do it and what a solution actually is, differ greatly. God, I'm repeating myself now.

Then how do communists and capitalists define differently what is the solution to "making the best car" ?

This solution is often advocated by democratic socialists, actually. However, I suspect they're reasons were thought out a lot more than yours were. You probably just mentioned it because it contrasts ever so slightly to those you mentioned before.

Well, it might surprise you but the social-democrat vision is indeed what I often find acceptable if they don't resort to typical "distribute cookies" mentality. And the funny thing is: social democrats get the critique (rightly so) that they DON'T HAVE AN IDEOLOGY. They were historically left-wing (and still have left-wing grassroots), they lean more and more towards capitalism with some social corrections, and have a hard time distinguishing themselves on any point from other parties. Usually the exit of social-democrat voters turn fascist. At least in 2 countries where I've witnessed this: in Belgium, the city of Antwerp was the social-democrat bulwark, and is now around 40% or so fascist, and the north of France was typically socialist (= social-democrat in france) and now turns massively Le Pen. This somehow shows that there's no deep ideology fixed to them.
The main problem with social-democrat PARTIES is that they have a historical link to the worker's unions, which is a bunch of self-serving hypocrits.

 

[Smurf]

No, Clinton wasn't that liberal, but he was a little left of center, so if anything there should have been slightly more conservatives than liberals out protesting in those days.

Where exactly is the center? Does being left-wing automatically mean he was a liberal? Liberalism is an ideology, Left-wing is a mainstream attempt at branding political ideas into a 2-D scale for easy-bake-culture-wars.

America was quite liberal in the '60s.

Well, my political history of the US doesn't really go back that far. I'll ask you this though, are you sure the administration was liberal, and that the conservatives weren't complaining? I think that branding the administration liberal or conservative is confusing, it's a matter of degree really (this is, of course, using the popular idea that they're in opposition). If the administration is more liberal than the people are, the conservatives will be heard complaining. If the administration is more conservative than the people are, the liberals will be heard complaining. If they are both the same, there won't be much (or will be equally as much) complaining on both sides.

I think that the more conservative population in the US in the 60s was still quite low, left-ism really took off in the 50s with rock and roll. Kids grow up listening to Jerry Lee Lewis, Chuck Berry and the like, 10 years later they're not going to be christian fundamentalists, they're going to be free-loving hippies arn't they?

What do you think?

 

[Smurf]

Could it occur to you that there are people (like me, and a lot of others), that simply DON'T feel attracted to any particular simple set of rules of what OUGHT TO BE, and that we also don't have any ALTERNATIVE rule we secretly would like to have.

Yes, I meant them to form the main population of group 1 (Those that simply havn't decided what they believe in.). If you don't agree with anything you've heard so far, and you can't think of your ideas, then you havn't decided yet. You might never.

"I don't know, I'll decide every day what I'd like to eat, it depends on what my mood will be".

That, I would say, is a ridiculous analogy. It also doesn't make any sense. You can't be socialist one day and anarchist the next.

Am I conformist ? Yes. I think that no matter how you want to change the world, you'll make a mess of it when you start with some ideology.

I don't see what that has to do with conformity.

Am I pragmatist ? Yes. I don't think one should stick to a certain solution of a problem for ideological reasons if it is plain obvious that another one is better.

I don't think anyone would.

What's my ideology then, if I have to have one ?

I don't know. Like raven said, I hardly know you. My current impression is that you're a jeffersonian, but I could be dead wrong. I expect I probably am.

 

[Evo]

Could it occur to you that there are people (like me, and a lot of others), that simply DON'T feel attracted to any particular simple set of rules of what OUGHT TO BE, and that we also don't have any ALTERNATIVE rule we secretly would like to have. Could you conceive that there are people who like to eat sausage, but don't think that everything should be sausage, and eat salad, but don't think that you shoul eat salad every day, and who find every nutcase wanting to have everybody eat sausage or salad a nuisance, and that you can't reasonably expect them to answer the question: "yes, but YOU, what food would you want to eat every day then ?" except for the answer you do not seem to accept, which is: "I don't know, I'll decide every day what I'd like to eat, it depends on what my mood will be".

Am I conformist ? Yes. I think that no matter how you want to change the world, you'll make a mess of it when you start with some ideology. So just as well stick to the current one. Am I pragmatist ? Yes. I don't think one should stick to a certain solution of a problem for ideological reasons if it is plain obvious that another one is better. Do I read up on the latest semantic struggle concerning the ideology that's the new hype ? No, because I know in advance that we will get again a grandiose view of how our current world is rotten and how nice it would be if we all just did *this*. What do I find interesting in some ideologies ? To consider them as dynamical systems and try to find "their equations of motion", as a game: what will be predictable consequences of certain sets of initial conditions.

What's my ideology then, if I have to have one ? I want to be reasonably happy, and even that is not a very high priority.

EDIT: I forgot to say: my highest priority is to make sure that the collection of scientific knowledge collected by humankind will not be lost when the ants will come to power.

:!) :!) :!) Finally someone on an even keel that can think on their own. Bravo!

 

[vanesch]

Yes, I meant them to form the main population of group 1 (Those that simply havn't decided what they believe in.). If you don't agree with anything you've heard so far, and you can't think of your ideas, then you havn't decided yet. You might never.

What if the idea I stick to is to never have such a fixation of ideas ?

That, I would say, is a ridiculous analogy. It also doesn't make any sense. You can't be socialist one day and anarchist the next.

Why not ? That's the main point. If "acting like a socialist" would seem to me to be the best thing to do on monday, and "acting like an anarchist" on friday, because the problem I'm confronted with and my mood is different, why not ? This is exactly "my ideology" :-)

My current impression is that you're a jeffersonian, but I could be dead wrong. I expect I probably am.

Is that serious ? Should I go to the doctor now ?

 

[Smurf]

We're talking about 2. here, no ?

Either or, they both work as far as I can see.

Could you explain what you mean ? You mean, everybody adheres to an ideology, but some are so honest about it that they say so, and others don't ?

No, no, no. I mean, everybody has beliefs. Everyone has a set of assumptions and ideas on which they judge the world. Many people will read a book on Social Democracy, or Communism, or Anarchism, and will identify with that ideology. Meaning, they will find a word which they find describes, more or less accurately, they're set of beliefs about the world. This person has found their ideology. Ideologies can change, I used to be a capitalist. This means that my ideas about the world have changed, and so I no longer agreed with capitalist ideas, so I was forced to change. Currently I identify myself with Anarchism. This means that my beliefs are shared by a number of anarchists. I have never read a book about anarchism, my beliefs are my own, however, they just happen to agree with a number of other people's beliefs, these people and myself call outselves anarchists.

It depends. Some hard-core capitalists do, but you're right: capitalists recognize the need of a state function in order to avoid individual violence and enforce the rule: property rights.

Indeed my point was to show that solutions can vary according to capitalism, as I will show again with communism:

Would communists (real ones of course) accept the solution to the problem: "how do we make the best car" is: well, by having different private initiatives make cars, and have them compete on the market ?
If part of the solution to a particular problem is: give private ownership to people and let them be different, then the solution to our problem will be better, would communists consider that ?

As long as the workers collectivly own the produce of their labour, it is a communist solution. (correct me if I'm wrong alexandra) Centralized government and economy is not really an aspect of communism, a free market is acceptable. I have heard many communists advocate complete abolishion of government as an eventual goal. Indeed, anarchists are not that different in many respect (which is why me and alexandra get along so well), I could almost be one myself.

You can't be a bit pregnant, so you can't have a bit of hierarchy. If you advocate the abolishment of hierarchy you cannot do anything else but herald it as the solution to everything, because if it isn't there, it isn't there.

I also think getting rid of balony is important. However, this doesn't necessarily mean I think getting rid of balony will solve everything, it just means I think it's part of the process. (I actually do, I'm a vegetarian - balony is eeeeevvviiillll)

That's not a real capitalist, sorry. A capitalist (a real, ideological one) advocates the free market for everything except law and order. What you have above is someone who is more pragmatic, like I (and Townsend) advocate.

Okay, I guess it's all about what makes a 'capitalist'. I think what it comes down to is "Would a person who calls himself a capitalist - advocate such a response", because who are we to tell a person what they do or do not believe? In the end, I think we would find that some capitalists would, and some would not. (Perhapse you think they should have different names, perhapse you're right, it's all about definitions I guess)

In fact, I have not yet seen a single ideology that advocates looking at the problem before fixing the class of acceptable solutions that are to be envisioned.

I think it's considered common sense. They don't really feel a need to say "We will look at a problem, figure out what it is, and then solve it."

Then how do communists and capitalists define differently what is the solution to "making the best car" ?

Communists don't really consider making 'the best cars' a major concern. Capitalists obviously think that by offering monetary rewards for better performance they will make the best cars (although this isn't really capitalism - so much as a business application within capitalism). The communist reponse would probably be that best performance comes when workers have solidarity over their produce and labour... Why do you ask?

Well, it might surprise you but the social-democrat vision is indeed what I often find acceptable if they don't resort to typical "distribute cookies" mentality.

I think most people find social-democrat visions to be acceptable, just because it seems so much easier.

And the funny thing is: social democrats get the critique (rightly so) that they DON'T HAVE AN IDEOLOGY.

That's more because the term social-democrat is really a party-name. I probably shouldn't have used it as an ideology. I think the main ideology behind such parties is Libertarian, but it probably varies a lot from party to party and country to country. Social democracy has been rather watered down, even more so than terms like Communism and Socialism.

They were historically left-wing (and still have left-wing grassroots), they lean more and more towards capitalism with some social corrections, and have a hard time distinguishing themselves on any point from other parties. Usually the exit of social-democrat voters turn fascist. At least in 2 countries where I've witnessed this: in Belgium, the city of Antwerp was the social-democrat bulwark, and is now around 40% or so fascist, and the north of France was typically socialist (= social-democrat in france) and now turns massively Le Pen. This somehow shows that there's no deep ideology fixed to them.

I agree.

The main problem with social-democrat PARTIES is that they have a historical link to the worker's unions, which is a bunch of self-serving hypocrits.

 

[Smurf]

Why not ? That's the main point. If "acting like a socialist" would seem to me to be the best thing to do on monday, and "acting like an anarchist" on friday, because the problem I'm confronted with and my mood is different, why not ? This is exactly "my ideology" :-)

Well, congratulations then? What are you going to call it? Unpredictabilitism? Changerism?

 

[SOS2008]

Here's an example: I became a member of my HOA, along with a couple of other residents who agreed to join too. We found that the property management co. had been lying about almost everything, and that we were flat broke and in need of much work to maintain infrastructure. It's a good thing people got involved and volunteered hours of time and effort, because things only seemed to be going along okay.

If you want a republic with a democratic way of life (i.e., by the people, for the people) that means citizen participation. If you don't want to be bothered, than feel free to move to a dictatorship, monarchy or some such country. The self absorbed characteristic of the spoiled and lazy--often younger generations is pathetic if you ask me. Now I'm not feeling so bad about leaving a polluted, over populated, war-mongering world to you.

And BTW, there is nothing wrong with helping others, but you should help your own first. Talk about unpatriotic.

 

[Smurf]

And BTW, there is nothing wrong with helping others, but you should help your own first. Talk about unpatriotic.

Talk about being descriminatory.

 

[SOS2008]

Talk about being descriminatory.

How so? Are you saying you would let your own family go hungry while you feed your neighbors?

 

[Evo]

Well, congratulations then? What are you going to call it? Unpredictabilitism? Changerism?

Some people don't care to label themselves, or be part of a group that thinks in one set way. Some people prefer to take a balanced look at each individual problem and solve it in the best possible way. I don't see any value in being on any particular side and throwing rocks and stones at another group to make myself feel better about my own beliefs. I see way too much of it.

 

[Smurf]

How so? Are you saying you would let your own family go hungry while you feed your neighbors?

I'm just saying there's no reason why I shouldn't.

 

[Smurf]

Some people don't care to label themselves, or be part of a group that thinks in one set way. Some people prefer to take a balanced look at each individual problem and solve it in the best possible way. I don't see any value in being on any particular side and throwing rocks and stones at another group to make myself feel better about my own beliefs. I see way too much of it.

Nonsense. Everyone thinks in one set way. It is the nature of the human mind. Merely refusing to fall under a label does not make a person any more capable of taking a balanced look at a problem and creating a solution. Unless you can make an argument that your view of the world is personal and unique, I see no reason why you are any different from a person who does identify with your so-called 'label'. (a piece of terminology used millions of times from the individuality movement which originally gave it it's negative connotation)

 

[Archon]

Nonsense. Everyone thinks in one set way. It is the nature of the human mind. Merely refusing to fall under a label does not make a person any more capable of taking a balanced look at a problem and creating a solution. Unless you can make an argument that your view of the world is personal and unique, I see no reason why you are any different from a person who does identify with your so-called 'label'. (a piece of terminology used millions of times from the individuality movement which originally gave it it's negative connotation)

I have a problem with the words "one set way." It seems to me that there's a difference between saying that the solution to all problems is antibiotics, and saying that the solution to some problems is antibiotics and other problems, (like war, or crop shortages, etc) other things. The first is thinking in "one set way," while the second is refusing to apply the same set of beliefs (antibioticism ) to all problems you encounter. If you don't base all of the solutions (to problems relevant to your ideology) that you pursue on a single set of beliefs, then you aren't really a true follower of that single ideology. Hence, you can't accurately be called an antibioticist if you don't proclaim that antibiotics are the solution to all illnesses.

 

[Townsend]

Nonsense. Everyone thinks in one set way. It is the nature of the human mind. Merely refusing to fall under a label does not make a person any more capable of taking a balanced look at a problem and creating a solution. Unless you can make an argument that your view of the world is personal and unique, I see no reason why you are any different from a person who does identify with your so-called 'label'. (a piece of terminology used millions of times from the individuality movement which originally gave it it's negative connotation)

So a baby thinks in one set way and he/she cannot change that one set way? So we are all born thinking the way we think and we cannot change? In case you didn't notice that is precisely what you're saying Smurf...

In fact...that post is complete non-sense in every possible way. How on Earth does anyone come up with an original idea if they can only think in one set way? How is it that the political parties of today no longer stand for the things they stood for when they started out, or even from fifty year ago if people are only capable of thinking in one set way?

There is so many holes in what you're saying I just don't see how you can not see them...

 

[edward]

Nonsense. Everyone thinks in one set way. It is the nature of the human mind. Merely refusing to fall under a label does not make a person any more capable of taking a balanced look at a problem and creating a solution. Unless you can make an argument that your view of the world is personal and unique, I see no reason why you are any different from a person who does identify with your so-called 'label'. (a piece of terminology used millions of times from the individuality movement which originally gave it it's negative connotation)

I would find it extremely difficult to look at a problem in a thorough and balanced manner if I was already predisposed to solving it in a predetermined (one set way) manner.

 

[zeronem]

I'de recommend all of you read James Madison's, "The Federalist, No. 10" and "The Federalist, No. 51" other wise known as the Federlist Papers. I think a lot of the issues being conflicted upon in this thread are addressed on James Madison's Genius Papers.

 

[Smurf]

I would find it extremely difficult to look at a problem in a thorough and balanced manner if I was already predisposed to solving it in a predetermined (one set way) manner.

I'm sure most people would

 

[edward]

I'm sure most people would

A lot of people have become sheeple.

 

[Smurf]

So a baby thinks in one set way and he/she cannot change that one set way?

I have never said anything of that sort.

So we are all born thinking the way we think and we cannot change?

I have never said anything of that sort

In case you didn't notice that is precisely what you're saying Smurf...

I never said anything of that sort. You will not find, anywhere in the last 3 pages, have I ever said that someone can not and does not change. In fact, if you look back you will find a specific example of my self in which I describe that I changed into an anarchist. I think if you look back over my post records you will find I'm far leaning onto the nurture side of the nature vs. nurture debate. Again, I have no said anything of that sort, you are making ice cream out of pizza.

There is so many holes in what you're saying I just don't see how you can not see them...

Frankly I don't see how you do see them.

 

[Smurf]

A lot of people have become sheeple.

People always have been.

 

[Townsend]

I'de recommend all of you read James Madison's, "The Federalist, No. 10" and "The Federalist, No. 51" other wise known as the Federlist Papers. I think a lot of the issues being conflicted upon in this thread are addressed on James Madison's Genius Papers.

I have read those papers...he wrote those papers to support the ratification of the constitution. Madison was the architect of the constitution and he saw a need to protect individual liberty from faction. To that end he succeeded however what he missed, and later he even changed his position on, was the need for a balance between liberty and democracy.

It is what makes up the difference between republicans and democrats. You see contrary to their title liberals are in favor the voice of the people. Doing what is for the collective good. The name liberal is non-sense from FDR New Deal...conservatives are those who favor (at least at one time) the protection of personal liberty...

The republican party started by Thomas Jefferson was actually the start of the democratic party. Weird how names swap around so much huh?

Any how...a democrat today is not what a democrat used to be and the same is true for republicans...

democrats today are a much more socialist than they were just 100 years ago and I believe that was Regan's main plate form...that we wanted to undo a lot of the socialist programs that came from the New Deal...(help me out if I am getting any of this wrong...)

Anyhow...In my opinion those papers don't readily address these topics. Not that they're a bad read or anything...