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

[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...

 

[Smurf]

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.

Okay. I will. For anyone else who wants to you can find them here:
http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/federalist/

 

[SOS2008]

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.

Unfortunately, like the Bible, such documents are always interpreted to fit each individual's agenda.

 

[zeronem]

Unfortunately, like the Bible, such documents are always interpreted to fit each individual's agenda.

That's my point exactly. I think one of the main problems these days is that everyone is always arguing their own view in Politics. Maybe people should have more objective conversations on Politics rather then subjective conversing. It's about time everyone talk objectively about these situations. The more subjective we come about politics the more it becomes harder to define what exactly is liberalism and what is conservativism. A Professor I knew always mentioned that the terms liberal and conservative have been so overused that they have lost meaning.

 

[Townsend]

That's my point exactly. I think one of the main problems these days is that everyone is always arguing their own view in Politics. Maybe people should have more objective conversations on Politics rather then subjective conversing. It's about time everyone talk objectively about these situations. The more subjective we come about politics the more it becomes harder to define what exactly is liberalism and what is conservativism. A Professor I knew always mentioned that the terms liberal and conservative have been so overused that they have lost meaning.

Overused? They lost there meaning when the terms were used to change the public perception of the ideals for which they stood. More often then not the terms that were related to those ideals had nothing to do with the actual ideals. Liberalism for example has NOTHING to do with the democratic party...NOTHING. It was what the conservative party called themselves and what they stood for (at one time, not so much any more). Since FDR wanted to have a right wing perception on his left wing ideas he started to call his ideals liberalism...

Conservatives needed to make sure their ideals were not being confused with those of FDR and so they conceded the name and adopted conservative instead.

 

[loseyourname]

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.

Oh please, why do you have to make this a generational thing? How many generations before the current generation of youth were really that involved in politics? Have you even been to a college campus on either coast in the last fifteen years? You'll be bombarded with people asking you to get involved in some cause or other, to sign a petition, donate some money, or attend a meeting.

Personally, I don't advocate that kind of lifestyle, but I can understand where those people are coming from. Everyone needs meaningful work of some kind. I like scholarship, they like activism.

I also don't see why you need to insult the self-absorbed. Not all people are as social as others, and some just have cares that don't lie so much in the public sphere. Let them be; live and and let live. If some hermit raising sheep in southern New Zealand is happy and doesn't feel the need to change the world, more power to him. If we were all more like him, maybe the world wouldn't have so many problems to begin with.

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

It's hard to agree with that. Emotionally, sure, we're always going to be inclined to help those we identify with more than those we don't. But if we step back and take an objective look at things, it seems to me that we should help those who most need our help, regardless of how similar they are to us, or how closely related. When people learn to look beyond some line on a map and view the entire globe as their community, the world will take a huge step forward.

 

[vanesch]

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

I don't know, you're the *ism specialist

 

[vanesch]

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.

Ah, there are other reasonable people out there

 

[Smurf]

I don't know, you're the *ism specialist

Sarcasm (not sure if you got it or not). Merely because you act like a socialist one day, does not make you a socialist. It does not mean you've jumped from one ideology to another in a few seconds, it just means you arrived at the same conclusions as a socialist would in response to the given problem. As I've said before identifying with an ideology is not agreeing on a set of solutions, but agreeing on a world view. Your world view doesn't change from day to day unless your have a really bad addiction to LSD.

So, if you acted like a socialist one day, and an anarchist another day it's not because you're a moderate and don't have a world view, it's just that you're world view overlapped with socialism one day and anarchism the next. You still have a world view - one that, in all likely hood, members of a certain ideological label will agree with. You now identify with that ideology. (or you're in one of the last 2 groups and refuse to identify).

Later, if your world view changes (usually happens when you do something outside of your usual routine in life) you will find you no longer agree with that certain ideology. You may agree with capitalism, anarchism, or minarchism (You'd get along better with LYN then).

What do you think?

 

[vanesch]

As I said, by definition everybody who is going to make judgements on what things should happen has a way (an algorithm) to arrive at his judgements. You are claiming something trivial, that everybody has a way to arrive at judgements. Yes. Of course. If that's what an ideology is all about, the word looses its meaning, because EVERYTHING is an ideology. But what one usually understands about it is a kind of grand view of how much better the world would be if we just did *this*. THAT does not have to be accepted by everybody. You seem to deny the existence of that non-acceptance.

But I'll try to put all my cards on the table, and you will tell me what my ideology is. If stuff is missing, just ask me.

*) Human variability: First of all, I consider human beings as drawn out of a very large statistical sample, and there are peace-loving and violent ones, smart and stupid ones, honest and dishonest ones etc... There is part of this statistical variation which is probably environment-induced, and there is part of it that is inherent. So already I don't believe in any rule that says that behaviour of people will fundamentally change if we change the structure of society, or in any a priori equality of humans.

*) I'm moderately against violence. I think that if one can find a reasonable way to solve a problem without violence, that this should have priority. Only in last instance, one should ressort to violence. But I can take it that such problems occur, so in that case, one should use violence. I am also convinced that you cannot convince a certain part of the set of human beings to act like this, so the only thing you can do is to have superior violence available (from a state, say), to enforce this behaviour.

*) I think people act essentially in a hedonist way: seek pleasure, avoid pain. However, whatever is "pleasure" can be very very very varied. For some it is leading a luxury life, for others it is feeling good because they do good for others, still for others it is to have their name written in history etc...

*) I think it is important to organize things in such a way that most people are moderately happy.

*) I think that people should be free to act unless that gives problems with other humans. So, a priori, if something is not forbidden, it is allowed, and not the other way around.

*) I'm a believer in science, in a very broad sense (learning to know the world). I think it is the only useful thing that humans do, apart from keeping themselves moderately happy. I could go into the reasons for my belief, but it would take long.

*) I think humanity is not here to last, so whatever we do, it is of not that much importance. As such, I don't give any absolute value to "human rights" or "human life" or the like. It is just because we happen to be the dominant species on our planet right now that we think of ourselves to be superior or special. Nevertheless, taking on these rules of behaviour can lead to more happiness for most of us, so it is probably a good strategy to follow, but it has no intrinsic value apart from the strategy to bring happiness.

You tell me what ideology that is.

What are the consequences of the above ?
- clearly I advocate the existence of a state, because it limits violence between individuals.
- I didn't say anything about HOW that state should make decisions and rules, except for the fact that it should respect the a priori freedom of the individual. Whether it is a democracy, a dictatorship, a monarchy ... or whatever form doesn't A PRIORI matter. Its structure IS A PROBLEM ONE SHOULD SOLVE, and not something that one should impose a priori. The solution must come from the axiom that one should seek moderate happiness for most humans. If it is a monarchy that brings this, go for the King. If it is a republic, go for the president. If it is a highly decentralized structure, go for it. But don't forget that we also should advance science !
- I didn't say anything about HOW to organize economic activity. If just giving people property rights (and hence instore capitalism) will do, go for capitalism. If property is only owned by the state, and if that makes most people moderately happy, go for communism. And don't forget that we also should advance science.

Then HOW should we organize economy ? Well, we should consider different models, different ways of instoring rules, and have the statistical lot of different human beings act out on it (determine the predictable dynamics it will induce). After letting it evolve a bit according to its equations of motion, we should then find out whether this leads to happy people or not. The one that leads to most happiness for most people, and did produce the best advances in science, is the best method. I can already tell you that it is not going to be pure capitalism or pure communism.

So, tell me, I'm what of an *ist ?

 

[SOS2008]

Oh please, why do you have to make this a generational thing? How many generations before the current generation of youth were really that involved in politics? Have you even been to a college campus on either coast in the last fifteen years? You'll be bombarded with people asking you to get involved in some cause or other, to sign a petition, donate some money, or attend a meeting.

True there is always more activism on college campuses, but just comparing Vietnam to now--it's people like Cindy Sheehan who is seen protesting Iraq. At least people got out and voted in larger percentages last election, though the reasons of a divided nation is a sad one.

I also don't see why you need to insult the self-absorbed.

What was I thinking? You're right, being self-absorbed is a good thing to be.

It's hard to agree with that. Emotionally, sure, we're always going to be inclined to help those we identify with more than those we don't. But if we step back and take an objective look at things, it seems to me that we should help those who most need our help, regardless of how similar they are to us, or how closely related. When people learn to look beyond some line on a map and view the entire globe as their community, the world will take a huge step forward.

Please refer to posts in the taxation thread and posts in the thread on the economy and trade agreements. You can't help others if you don't take care of yourself first, and at this time we need to focus on getting our own house in order.

You realize you contradict yourself with these two points, don't you?

 

[Astronuc]

Everyone thinks in one set way.

Not necessarily. When it comes to taking a step, one must take one step. That does not mean that the next step is the same as the previous.

If one receives better or different information, one may choose a different subsequent step (or path).

The mind (or perhaps as well developed mind) adapts to a changing environment.

Politically, I would describe myself as a 'communitarian'.

 

[Smurf]

As I said, by definition everybody who is going to make judgements on what things should happen has a way (an algorithm) to arrive at his judgements. You are claiming something trivial, that everybody has a way to arrive at judgements. Yes. Of course. If that's what an ideology is all about, the word looses its meaning, because EVERYTHING is an ideology.

Exactly. You agree then. Good.

But what one usually understands about it is a kind of grand view of how much better the world would be if we just did *this*. THAT does not have to be accepted by everybody. You seem to deny the existence of that non-acceptance.

No, I merely deny that that is actually a major factor in any ideology outside of religious fundamentalists. And object to your statements and implications that (paraphrased) "ideologies are naive because they only have a few set ideas about how to fix problems and can't look at the big picture objectively"

You tell me what ideology that is.

I havn't the feintest clue. There are millions of ideologies which could be associated with those statements.

What are the consequences of the above ?
- clearly I advocate the existence of a state, because it limits violence between individuals.

Which describes 80% of the major ideologies today.
- I didn't say anything about HOW that state should make decisions and rules, except for the fact that it should respect the a priori freedom of the individual. Whether it is a democracy, a dictatorship, a monarchy ... or whatever form doesn't A PRIORI matter. Its structure IS A PROBLEM ONE SHOULD SOLVE, and not something that one should impose a priori. The solution must come from the axiom that one should seek moderate happiness for most humans. If it is a monarchy that brings this, go for the King. If it is a republic, go for the president. If it is a highly decentralized structure, go for it. But don't forget that we also should advance science !
- I didn't say anything about HOW to organize economic activity. If just giving people property rights (and hence instore capitalism) will do, go for capitalism. If property is only owned by the state, and if that makes most people moderately happy, go for communism. And don't forget that we also should advance science.[/quote]From that; I would call you a "moderate group 1" (someone who hasn't decided yet). Because you basically just said "I don't know" "I don't care" as long as the people are moderately happy and you can think about science a fair bit. That's political apathy. (however I don't think you really are that apathetic, I think you've just failed to present your political ideas - intentionally or not)

I can already tell you that it is not going to be pure capitalism or pure communism.

That's an opinion. (!) You advocate a mixed economy. Good, give me more like that and maybe I'll be able to assign you an ideology

So, tell me, I'm what of an *ist ?

Not all end with *ism. Some are *cracys, some are *ics. Who knows, I might even assign you an *omic.

 

[vanesch]

Exactly. You agree then. Good.

I said from the start, that if you were going to use ANY decision algorithm as an ideology (and everybody who uses such an algorithm, an idealist), then the point you make is trivially true. But that this is not what is usually understood by "ideology" and "idealist".

No, I merely deny that that is actually a major factor in any ideology outside of religious fundamentalists. And object to your statements and implications that (paraphrased) "ideologies are naive because they only have a few set ideas about how to fix problems and can't look at the big picture objectively"

But *that* is what is usually understood by "idealist".

I havn't the feintest clue. There are millions of ideologies which could be associated with those statements.

Yes, but they add a lot of other stuff too.

That's an opinion. (!) You advocate a mixed economy. Good, give me more like that and maybe I'll be able to assign you an ideology

No, I don't *advocate* a mixed economy. I can only, in specific cases, like ideal communism and capitalism, deduce what the *real* predictable consequences will be with *real* human beings (and not idealized ones), and see that they lead to societies which are further away from what I consider "good" (namely: reasonable happiness for most of us, and the advancement of science) than what the world is today! You can only work out consequences of a sufficiently narrow set of theories. When the class of theories gets too broad, you don't have any predictability left. I think the class "mixed economy" is too broad to be discussed in fact ; while ideal capitalism and ideal communism are precise enough.
So I know at least two idealisms that WILL NOT WORK well. However, there's a fundamental difference between communism and capitalism *in practice*: communism has to be *instored* while capitalism (the practical one, not the ideal one) *instores itself*. Practical capitalism *is a consequence* of certain rules of the game ; it has to be admitted that it is a powerful self-organizing principle. So when I don't know of any better solution, I think we can just as well let things organize themselves. So yes, I'm favorable - by lack of better knowledge of a solution - to have at least a partial form of capitalism, until we think of something better. I think that for certain problems however, it DOES NOT WORK WELL, so there we have to do something. So I consider capitalism as the "default" solution when I don't have any better idea, and which instores itself ; happily it doesn't work so badly after all in many domains.

 

[loseyourname]

What was I thinking? You're right, being self-absorbed is a good thing to be.

If you're not hurting anyone and promoting utility in your own little way, what's wrong with not being concerned with those outside your immediate domain?

You realize you contradict yourself with these two points, don't you?

I'm not sure what you mean. What two points? Taking care of yourself is fine. My point is that an American living 500 miles from me that I've never met and don't work with is no more my "self" than some kid growing up in rural China.

By the way, where I was going to school in LA, there were thousands of students marching on the federal building in Century City every other week to protest the war, organizing discussion groups up in Pasadena and planning trips to DC. This was months before the war even began. Where was Sheehan then? Just because the media ignores these kids and covers Sheehan doesn't mean she's the only one out there.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I'm not sure what you mean. What two points?

I believe that SOS was referring to the conflict between advocating for the self-centered and the idea of a global community.

I see how that reconciles though if I understand what you mean by self-absorbed.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

Why is it not okay to discuss religion, but fine for someone to start a thread for bashing a particular political philosophy?

But seeing as we ARE allowed, forget the irony behind idealist Democrats, what about the more obvious irony of retarded Republicans? I mean, the idea behind the Republic is a government of great thinkers and philosophers. America therefore elects both Bushes as its Republican leaders. \o/ Great thinkers indeed. "The de-watering process in New Orleans goes on..."

 

[loseyourname]

I believe that SOS was referring to the conflict between advocating for the self-centered and the idea of a global community.

I see how that reconciles though if I understand what you mean by self-absorbed.

Actually, the issue is resolved if you come to realize that I'm not advocating either position over the other. I'm saying that there are many different types of people crossing a wide spectrum of social involvement and there is nothing wrong with those who don't take much interest in other people. It's perfectly fine to be either a recluse or the most giving, selfless person in the world, as long as you don't harm anyone and keep the interactions you do have positive. I am making a separate argument when I say that if one is going to help another, it may as well be the other who is most in need, rather than closest to you geographically or culturally.

 

[SOS2008]

Actually, the issue is resolved if you come to realize that I'm not advocating either position over the other. I'm saying that there are many different types of people crossing a wide spectrum of social involvement and there is nothing wrong with those who don't take much interest in other people. It's perfectly fine to be either a recluse or the most giving, selfless person in the world, as long as you don't harm anyone and keep the interactions you do have positive. I am making a separate argument when I say that if one is going to help another, it may as well be the other who is most in need, rather than closest to you geographically or culturally.

I agree the media is remiss for not covering anti-war protests everywhere and all along. LYN, I see what you are saying now that you rephrased this. And I agree to some extent. I have a friend who does not vote, because she doesn't feel qualified to. I don't see her as a bad citizen, rather I feel it is sad she feels this way. And I realize many don't posess leadership characteristics, etc. Still, in comparison to other countries, Americans don't participate, even by simply watching the news every now and then. Why aren't they motivated? Because they take everything for granted. I don't think this is excusable, and it certainly is not a quality, or something to be commended.

As for helping our own, I would rather help the victims of Katrina, for example (then a child in China who will grow up to buy T-bills), because Katrina will affect our economy, which will affect you and me. This is where you live, so by nature what happens here has more affect on you.

I'm aware of the domino propaganda, and that the large investments in Iraq will result in democracy taking hold and spreading. If you think the massive expenditures are going to make the world a better place for everyone including you and your loved ones, you need only to look at our deficits, the increasing numbers of terrorists, rising prices for fuel, etc.

I'm not saying we should not be concerned with the global community, because we should, but not at the expense of our own. And it should be for the right (or real) reasons, not some political agenda of neocons or oil companies, etc.

 

[Skyhunter]

It's hard to agree with that. Emotionally, sure, we're always going to be inclined to help those we identify with more than those we don't. But if we step back and take an objective look at things, it seems to me that we should help those who most need our help, regardless of how similar they are to us, or how closely related. When people learn to look beyond some line on a map and view the entire globe as their community, the world will take a huge step forward.

That sounds like a liberal idea.

What would be a conservative plan to achieve such a goal?

 

[Skyhunter]

That sounds like a liberal idea.

What would be a conservative plan to achieve such a goal?

I am actually being serious here.

Liberals tend to be idealists, and conservatives tend to be pragmatists. If the two could work together more the world would be a much better place.

The crisis in America today is that the pragmatists with no moral restraint have usurped the Republican party and are now on the verge of securing unprecedented power.

No one wants to hear comparisons to the Third Reich but it was the last time in history that extreme right factions gained so much political power.

 

[Smurf]

However, there's a fundamental difference between communism and capitalism *in practice*: communism has to be *instored* while capitalism (the practical one, not the ideal one) *instores itself*. Practical capitalism *is a consequence* of certain rules of the game ; it has to be admitted that it is a powerful self-organizing principle. So when I don't know of any better solution, I think we can just as well let things organize themselves. So yes, I'm favorable - by lack of better knowledge of a solution - to have at least a partial form of capitalism, until we think of something better. I think that for certain problems however, it DOES NOT WORK WELL, so there we have to do something. So I consider capitalism as the "default" solution when I don't have any better idea, and which instores itself ; happily it doesn't work so badly after all in many domains.

This is an ideology. You believe that a command economy will not work and that a pure market economy will not work. Those are some of the assumptions about the world on which your ideology rests. You believe that a balance between the two is part of the solution to everything because you believe it is (in your mind) obviously working so far. This is absolutely no different from a communist believing that a command economy is part of the solution to everything because the current system is (in their mind) obviously not working and that the new one sounds better. The fact that you reserve judgement (i.e. "when I don't have any better idea") is irrelevant because the communist, if presented with an idea he likes better, will obviously change his mind too.

You have an ideology, you just don't have a name for it.

 

[Skyhunter]

This is an ideology. You believe that a command economy will not work You have an ideology, you just don't have a name for it.

Here is an interesting read Smurf. It relates to my thread on reforming the US system of suffrage.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/08/20050827-1.html

 

[loseyourname]

That sounds like a liberal idea.

What would be a conservative plan to achieve such a goal?

You know, I'm not that conservative, except when it comes to fiscal policy. The only reason I come across as such is that I try to moderate what I see as indignation rather than involvement. I know America has a long history of paranoia about its leaders and about conspiracy theories (heck, the anti-freemason party was relatively successful at one time), but this sentiment that Bush is trying to turn the US into a fascist theocracy gets a little ridiculous at times, and it obscures what could otherwise be good discussion, making impartiality all but impossible.

Oh, and my "conservative plan," if I had such a thing, would primarily be to raise children in an environment where they are exposed to many different cultures growing up. Have them read newspapers from around the world, and learn several languages. If we look at why nationalism arose in the first place, it had a lot to do with newspapers and common language, which allowed people for the first-time to feel as if they were part of a community of people whom they never met and had no direct connection to. Humans have a natural in-group/out-group impulse that is developed at a very young age and it can be turned to great use if we can only get our youth to think of the entire world as their "in-group." That even includes conservatives. They aren't irredeemably evil corporate pawns out to take over the world; they are humans just like the rest of us.

Heck, maybe part of the reason I come across as conservative is that I just feel the need to defend groups that I see as being unfairly attacked, and conservatives are the ones suffering the most attacks right now, at least on the internet.

 

[loseyourname]

Still, in comparison to other countries, Americans don't participate, even by simply watching the news every now and then. Why aren't they motivated? Because they take everything for granted. I don't think this is excusable, and it certainly is not a quality, or something to be commended.

I agree that Americans take a lot for granted, but there is a reason for this. We've been a country for at least 50 years that could largely afford to do so, at least in our daily lives. Part of the point of achieving the prosperity we have is to allow people to focus their lives on pursuing personal happiness, rather than crusading for rights or political power. Or at least that is one effect. I'm not saying that people should take things for granted, but it's going to happen, at least to the general population. It's when our leaders take things for granted that we get into serious trouble. That is what allows things like 9/11 and Katrina to happen.

Anyway, though, taking things for granted wasn't what I was trying to defend. I was only trying to defend people who are just naturally self-absorbed, who are happy being on their own for the most part, working alone and pursuing personal happiness. I know we're a social species and we tend to look down on these kinds of people, but I don't see anything wrong with them. They're just wired a little differently, and as long as they aren't actively hurting anybody, I say let them be.

Then again, I think I'm coming to see that that isn't what you meant by "self-absorbed." You seem to mean something akin to egotistic, selfish, or even anti-social. I'm just talking about people that are asocial.

As for helping our own, I would rather help the victims of Katrina, for example (then a child in China who will grow up to buy T-bills), because Katrina will affect our economy, which will affect you and me. This is where you live, so by nature what happens here has more affect on you.

You'd be amazed at how insulated I can be from these things. I live within my means and don't have great monetary aspirations. An economy that goes into a brief recession isn't going to hurt me. That said, I've got nothing against helping Katrina victims (in fact, I believe my school is taking in displaced students and another school I was at in '99 took in Charley victims), but natural disasters don't happen that often, and they mostly happen in places other than the US.

Also, you might find this kind of strange, contradictory even, but I'm not concerned with what I can personally get out of helping people precisely because I'm "self-absorbed," or at least self-sufficient. I don't feel like I need help from anybody, nor do I need a US economy five times the size of any other on earth, to be happy. Because I feel like I already have everything I need and the things I have are the kinds of things that no one can take away from me, it makes little difference to me what I'm going to get out of helping someone. The only thing I get is personal satisfaction, which I can get from helping a Chinese kid as much as an American kid.

That said, in practice, I do work for AmeriCorps teaching immigrant children to read, so the little help I am giving I am giving to Americans. As it stands, this might be a little academic.

I'm aware of the domino propaganda, and that the large investments in Iraq will result in democracy taking hold and spreading. If you think the massive expenditures are going to make the world a better place for everyone including you and your loved ones, you need only to look at our deficits, the increasing numbers of terrorists, rising prices for fuel, etc.

I'm not of advocate of helping other nations by going to war with them. I'm an advocate of developing infrastructure, spreading literacy and medical knowledge, and, all in all, actually helping them.

I'm not saying we should not be concerned with the global community, because we should, but not at the expense of our own. And it should be for the right (or real) reasons, not some political agenda of neocons or oil companies, etc.

Well, I'm also not advocating anything that an oil company or neocon would. I'm just advocating the globilization of our economy, and hopefully of our cultural identity. Unfortunately, globilization has mostly been carried out in the guise of colonialism, or more recently, in the imposition of western standards or favorable trade agreements with non-western nations. It just seems to me that globilization can work and is the way to go, but since it's been carried so poorly in many ways, people just react against it and become protectionist and isolationist, refusing to engage in any real discussion of how we can make it work. The world has become so damn bi-polar.

 

[Skyhunter]

You know, I'm not that conservative, except when it comes to fiscal policy. The only reason I come across as such is that I try to moderate what I see as indignation rather than involvement. I know America has a long history of paranoia about its leaders and about conspiracy theories (heck, the anti-freemason party was relatively successful at one time), but this sentiment that Bush is trying to turn the US into a fascist theocracy gets a little ridiculous at times, and it obscures what could otherwise be good discussion, making impartiality all but impossible.

Oh, and my "conservative plan," if I had such a thing, would primarily be to raise children in an environment where they are exposed to many different cultures growing up. Have them read newspapers from around the world, and learn several languages. If we look at why nationalism arose in the first place, it had a lot to do with newspapers and common language, which allowed people for the first-time to feel as if they were part of a community of people whom they never met and had no direct connection to. Humans have a natural in-group/out-group impulse that is developed at a very young age and it can be turned to great use if we can only get our youth to think of the entire world as their "in-group." That even includes conservatives. They aren't irredeemably evil corporate pawns out to take over the world; they are humans just like the rest of us.

Heck, maybe part of the reason I come across as conservative is that I just feel the need to defend groups that I see as being unfairly attacked, and conservatives are the ones suffering the most attacks right now, at least on the internet.

I was not implying you were a conservative. If I were going to give you a label it would be "Rational Moderate". I was just asking for you to elucidate your idea. And you did.

Thank you.

I do agree with you. I have reared my children to see the world, and all peoples in it as one.

Some of those conservative corporatist are close blood relatives, I know they are not evil in the sense that you are using the word. If someone is unaware that what they are doing is wrong, they are not evil in and of themselves, however what they are doing is evil. When the average plantation had slaves, the slaveholders were not necessarily evil, yet by today's standards they practiced an evil institution.

I blame Bush for dividing the country, and also for providing all the clubs to beat-up on conservatives.

BTW-what exactly is conservative fiscal policy?

 

[Art]

You have an ideology, you just don't have a name for it.

Smurf it seems that to save your original premise (that everybody follows an ideology) you have changed from trying to pigeonhole people into neat little predefined boxes to a new position where you have relaxed the definition of ideology to the point where there are 6.5 billion ideologies, one for everyone on the planet.

 

[Smurf]

Smurf it seems that to save your original premise (that everybody follows an ideology)you have changed from trying to pigeonhole people into neat little predefined boxes to a new position where you have relaxed the definition of ideology to the point where there are 6.5 billion ideologies, one for everyone on the planet.

Not really. I'm sure that if I learned enough about Vanesch I could find something that he would agree with (I think I may have already - but it's just a hunch), but there's not a lot you can say about a person when all you know is that they advocate a mixed economy.

 

[Townsend]

but there's not a lot you can say about a person when all you know is that they advocate a mixed economy.

I think the only thing being advocated here is what works. That means what someone wants changes with new information. There's no overall philosophy or idealistic goal to implement except to make sure that whatever it is it works better than whatever it replaced.

 

[Smurf]

I think the only thing being advocated here is what works. That means what someone wants changes with new information. There's no overall philosophy or idealistic goal to implement except to make sure that whatever it is it works better than whatever it replaced.

Yeah, that's everyone's goal. The difference between people is what we all think will work, and that all depends on our ideology.

 

[Townsend]

Yeah, that's everyone's goal. The difference between people is what we all think will work, and that all depends on our ideology.

It's much more than that Smurf...

It seems like people get sucked into ideologies like they are sucked into religions and then seem to loose all ability to think for themselves.

If one theory seems to work better than another theory then I am all for it. Even if that theory undermines whatever I have deafened in the past. And I can make the change on the drop of a dime...

What ideology is that?

 

[Smurf]

If one theory seems to work better than another theory then I am all for it. Even if that theory undermines whatever I have deafened in the past. And I can make the change on the drop of a dime...

I don't believe you. It's easy to say people get sucked into some entity, some name, like 'religion', 'ideology', ect. But you make a false distinction in saying that this does not happen to people who don't 'identify' with an ideology. People get sucked into their own beliefs no matter if someone agrees with them or not, and I highly doubt you are immune to it merely because you dreamily insist that you are totally and completely pragmatic in every way.

What ideology is that?

I don't think it's an ideology, more of an extreme perversion of individuality. But that's a matter of opinion.

 

[vanesch]

This is an ideology. You believe that a command economy will not work and that a pure market economy will not work.

It is not a matter of *belief*, it is a matter of establishing the dynamical laws of the system at hand and see where it leads us, or better, to do the experiment. The communist experiment has been done, we've seen what it gave (I know what you will reply, that it was not real "communism" ; okay but it was then an intrinsic instability of communism that lead us there because the plan from the outset WAS communism). The capitalist experiment has not really been performed, we can only see that a rather high dose of capitalism seems to work not so badly, but even the most capitalist inclined societies do have taxes (more than just needed for law and order), anti-trust laws etc... to try to limit the worst effects of it, and we even now see perverse effects of it. So clearly a purely capitalist model is also a caricature. It is not a matter of *belief*.

Those are some of the assumptions about the world on which your ideology rests. You believe that a balance between the two is part of the solution to everything because you believe it is (in your mind) obviously working so far.

No, I didn't say that. I said that all options are open, but that what we currently have is better than the soviet union, or a complete capitalist model which has never been applied nowhere but from which it is rather evident that it would lead to bigger abuses than what we have now. I *don't* find the current world just fine, but I just say that I know at least 2 ways to make it worse.
There might be something much better than "refrained capitalism mixed with some socialism", only I would like to point out 1) that I don't know what it is and 2) that I want to see very hard evidence that it will work better than what we have now before embarking on another scary ride.

You have an ideology, you just don't have a name for it.

Yes, the ideology "first show me some real good reasons to change what we have to show me that it *really* will be much better before I get interested, but if you do I'm all ears"ism I guess.

 

[vanesch]

Smurf it seems that to save your original premise (that everybody follows an ideology) you have changed from trying to pigeonhole people into neat little predefined boxes to a new position where you have relaxed the definition of ideology to the point where there are 6.5 billion ideologies, one for everyone on the planet.

Yes, that was exactly also my point. If "you have an ideology" or you are an "idealist" means: you have a way to think up solutions to a problem, or to judge proposed solutions, then the sentence "you have an ideology" becomes trivially true.

 

[Smurf]

It is not a matter of *belief*, it is a matter of establishing the dynamical laws of the system at hand and see where it leads us, or better, to do the experiment. The communist experiment has been done, we've seen what it gave (I know what you will reply, that it was not real "communism" ; okay but it was then an intrinsic instability of communism that lead us there because the plan from the outset WAS communism). The capitalist experiment has not really been performed, we can only see that a rather high dose of capitalism seems to work not so badly, but even the most capitalist inclined societies do have taxes (more than just needed for law and order), anti-trust laws etc... to try to limit the worst effects of it, and we even now see perverse effects of it. So clearly a purely capitalist model is also a caricature. It is not a matter of *belief*.

Exactly. These all make up your view of the world. You are not a blank sheet, you have beliefs and assumptions about the world that makes you view Communism and Pure Capitalism in such negative light as well as a bunch of other assumptions that make you not want to try a new system unless you know 'beyond a reasonable doubt' (paraphrasing - do you agree?) that it will work better than what we have now. THAT is an ideology. Or at least part of one.

Yes, the ideology "first show me some real good reasons to change what we have to show me that it *really* will be much better before I get interested, but if you do I'm all ears"ism I guess.

Also known as conservatism, traditionalism, or a number of other names, depending on the peculiarities.

 

[vanesch]

but there's not a lot you can say about a person when all you know is that they advocate a mixed economy.

And you even don't know *that* ! This is like saying that because someone thinks (or better, has evidence) that black is less good than grey, and white is less good than grey, that he is in favor of grey. Yes, he's in favor of grey if the other choices are black and white. But if it turns out that clear shades of blue are better, he might prefer that to grey !

But you seem to have missed the most peculiar thing in my meta-ideology. I am for the advancement of science...

 

[vanesch]

Also known as conservatism, traditionalism, or a number of other names, depending on the peculiarities.

No, conservatism wants to keep things the way they are EVEN IF YOU COME UP WITH GOOD EVIDENCE that a new idea might work better. Call me an agnostic conservative or a sceptic progressist :-) I mean: I'm simply not going to jump on just the next bandwagon of hype, if it is not clearly established that the *sorrow* you will cause by wanting to change the system will be compensated for by an improvement, and not sanctionned by a *deterioration*.
Change (revolution...) ALSO has a price. And I want to know first that I'm going to pay a price for something that's worth it.

 

[Smurf]

But you seem to have missed the most peculiar thing in my meta-ideology. I am for the advancement of science...

Don't worry I'm keeping it in mind.

 

[Smurf]

No, conservatism wants to keep things the way they are EVEN IF YOU COME UP WITH GOOD EVIDENCE that a new idea might work better.

Not so, conservatism is defined as an ideology that is in opposition to change and categorized by the rejection of "change for it's own sake". Conservatives are never in opposition to 'all change' as they all favor a certain status quo from a place in the past, some even go so far as to utopize a past 'golden age' (in this respect anarcho-primitivists can be likened to conservatism).

I think that your politico-economic views are quite aptly categorized by conservatism. You don't want change unless you know that it is good change.

Call me an agnostic conservative or a sceptic progressist :-)

I suppose those work too. I wonder though how much you'd agree with liberal conservatism. (sorry it's a stub)

 

[vanesch]

Exactly. These all make up your view of the world. You are not a blank sheet, you have beliefs and assumptions about the world that makes you view Communism and Pure Capitalism in such negative light as well as a bunch of other assumptions that make you not want to try a new system unless you know 'beyond a reasonable doubt' (paraphrasing - do you agree?) that it will work better than what we have now. THAT is an ideology.

Oh, but I do not deny my opinions to be partly *subjective*, colored by what I've lived, by what I know, by what I think I know, by past experiences. Of course. So I might take even objectively wrong positions (in that the solutions I advocate are NOT those that will best satisfy the objectives of reasonable happiness for everybody and advancement of science), but that's than simply an ERROR on my part. If you now mean that "having an ideology" means "being subjective and not being infallible" then again, what you say is trivially true.
However, I try to keep a sceptic but open mind to EVERY proposed solution, and I want to see evidence (not necessarily experimental) that it will improve things before taking it on. I might of course be (erroneously or not) be convinced that the case for certain ideologies has already been made (such as communism the way it has been done in the former USSR).

 

[Smurf]

Oh, but I do not deny my opinions to be partly *subjective*, colored by what I've lived, by what I know, by what I think I know, by past experiences. Of course. So I might take even objectively wrong positions (in that the solutions I advocate are NOT those that will best satisfy the objectives of reasonable happiness for everybody and advancement of science), but that's than simply an ERROR on my part. If you now mean that "having an ideology" means "being subjective and not being infallible" then again, what you say is trivially true.

Yeah.. I know.

However, I try to keep a sceptic but open mind to EVERY proposed solution,

And people who can not (or do not) do that are to be blamed, not the ideologies they claim to follow (I would argue that often people who are that naive don't even understand the ideology they claim to subscribe to, and so belong in group 1 moderates)