Another Reason California Is Tanking

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mesotech

What is wrong with socialism? Nothing, for a socialist nation. However, the United States is a Republic, and to change that would mean it would no longer be the United States in anything other than name.

As for the Affirmative Action issues mentioned above, I am of the opinion that everyone starts life equally, and they either get better or worse from there.

---

Socialism is an economic system and Republicanism is a political system. Therefore, you can have a republic that is socialist. There you go, problem solved.

As for your latter point, eh I think that born equal is something that is a metaphysical point rather than a practical one. Each person has equal worth, but to suggest that someone who is born to a single mother who dropped out of high school has the same chance at success in life as a kid who goes to a recognized school, has two college educated parents and a family income exceeding 250,000 dollars a year is ignoring reality.

Two factors explain the vast majority of the income you can expect to make: maternal education and socioeconomic status.

What I think you are doing is looking at a few cases where people in abject poverty pulled themselves out and convincing yourself that that reflects the majority of people.

Or maybe you're not and you're an objectivist. If that's the case, then that's probably the end of the discussion.

Sadly, this thread has demonstrated the classic modus operandi of low-information talk-radio trained voters.

1) Anyone who has an opposing viewpoint is wrong or stupid.

2) When cogent, thoughtful and informed arguments are offered they are rebutted with talking points.

3) Educated people are the enemy. ( My personal favorite. )

4) When faced with a truth, call names and personally attack other person.

Bill, I would like to know YOUR OWN THOUGHTS about the issues, not read regurgitations of EIB propaganda. It's healthy to have debate on issues and opposing viewpoints, that in fact, is what makes our democracy work. But for it to work, each citizen needs to be able to contribute. Don't tell me what someone else says, tell me what you think and why you think it. That's all I ask. Fair enough?

As for education - there is a gap between educated and non-educated people. What you miss, at least it seem so in your arguments, is that the first objective of a university education (and most colleges) is not to gain knowledge, but to train the students to become critical thinkers. After a successful university education, a graduate is going to view the world differently - that was the whole point of the exercise! So, if someone paid the current $150,000 price tag for a decent university education, and always agreed with everything a person of lesser education said, then I'd question the value of that education.

Sorry if that seems cold, but that's reality. I got educated and got to fly jets, the guys who barely made it through high school became cooks. Anybody can learn to fly, it's easy and it's fun. But the reason the pilots have degrees is to ensure they are trained to process information, analyze it and make sound decisions that sometimes have grave consequences.

So when educated people put forth arguments, it's not about spouting facts, it's about concepts, theory and insight. Go back and re-read this thread. Contrast and compare the stylistic differences between the people on either side of the argument. Tell us what you see. Really. I want to know your observations. Why do you believe the things you do? What concepts and observations are you basing your opinion on? Is that fair?


The purpose of good debate isn't to say who's right and who's wrong, it's to get ideas out and discuss them.
Cool?




By the way meso, we do live in a democratic republic. "Republic" refers to fact that we have no monarch. "Democracy" refers to its principles and methods. There socialist republics, fascist republics, and others. And, one might argue that it is not a republic, but a federation. At least from a Jeffersonian perspective, we are more a federation than republic. Hence the term: "Federal Government". I guess since we have no Monarchy, we would technically be called a Federated Republic(?).

And now a word from our sponsor.


http://guitarsandaudio.com/extras/sh..._oxycontin.jpg

+1 fripperton! :laugh

I think perhaps the hardest part of a discussion like this is remembering that everyone involved is a human being with convictions probably as strong as your own. And if your convictions feel so RIGHT and utterly TRUE, why would anyone else feel differently about their own?

We've all done a really good job of laying our biases out on the table. In science, once those are discovered, you acknowledge them and find ways to minimize them while working towards a point of agreement with the evidence at hand. You don't capitalize on those biases until no one wants to speak to you anymore. That tends to be good politics, though.

I found myself getting entirely weary of this debate simply because it started to smack of politics as usual--we are trained to ignore problems and simply go after the viewpoints of those who disagree with us.

Meanwhile, the playing field is NOT level, and getting less level as time goes on, fueled by the fact that any mention of real issues is met by accusations of socialism, fascism, poor social conscience, too much/not enough education, etc. I've been all over the world, and I'd agree with the statement that no one is EVER standing at the entrances to slums with guns saying "you can't succeed." But they might as well be.

The way our society is structured gives privileges to certain TYPES of people over other types. When the founding fathers wrote the constitution, they meant the first amendment only to cover voting citizens, which at that time was only white, educated, land-owning males. As our national perspective expanded, this grew to include former slaves, women, non-land owners, non-educated people, etc. In each case, the "privilege for these people is not constitutional" argument was made. In the case of slaves and women, constitutional amendments were required to end the arguments.

The idea that being able to vote suddenly makes the country equal is just as fallacious as saying that electing Obama suddenly ended racism--it was a step forward, but note that there was still a perceived need for the Civil Rights Movement. The Civil Rights Act was controversial at the time, but today most people consider it a GOOD thing. This was the use of legislation to level the playing field.

What people are railing against when it comes to quotas is a similar but distinct idea. I mean, that is, if they really existed the way they're being talked about (which they don't, for the most part). Meanwhile, the Equal Rights Amendment was NOT passed, despite the seeming agreement that all people should be considered equal. So: if we believe that, what's the harm in proclaiming it?

Answer: we don't ACTUALLY believe people should be equal. We believe that people should be given an equal start. And we've arrived full-circle. People are NOT given an equal start. Regardless of the existence or prevalence of class-mobility, people are not treated equally from the get-go, and that is and will continue be a problem and a source of conflict in our society. Ignorance of this fact is the hallmark of a sheltered mind or a good politician.

Gandhi and Aristotle have both been quoted as saying (paraphrasing, of course): "the measure of a civilization lies in the way it treats its most vulnerable citizens" That being said, how are we doing, as a nation?

Thanks for you eloquent post Czar.

Bill, since we now have your attention - let me explain something to you.

The hard righties, the Rush's, Beck's, Savage's and the Republicans they speak for are not promoting democracy. What they propose is the very definition of fascism.

Calm down everyone - let's look at this like intelligent adults...

Now, I'm not calling anyone here a fascist, but since it seems to OK to call people of my school of thought liberals or socialists, I figure if we are going to start defining people - we should start with the definition.

Does that seem logical and fair?

OK, then let's start with the definition of fascism:

Wiki definition

While interpretations may vary, the link above is one that I think most political scientists can agree on and considered objective.

So, the very definition of "Hard Right" is indeed, fascism.

And the time honored way of promoting fascism is to identify an enemy. Like ... socialists! And they tend to play to the fears and emotions of the old and less enlightened. We have all seen the historical results of the rise of fascism, and while your mileage may vary, that's not the America I want to see in the future.

So while many old-school conservatives such as myself, who are now considered progressives don't want to see us become a far-left nation, we are much more afraid of neo-con extremism. Take a doctrine that at the very least contains elements of fascist doctrine - and then add in a good dose of religious self-righteousness and you have a toxic mix. Now, unemployed, gays, minorities, non-Christians, etc, are all the source of your ills. Sound familiar?

OSA:

First off, we probably agree a lot more than we disagree, but I'd like to highlight that there is an assumption in your reasoning that the entire political spectrum exists on a 2-dimensional continuum of left versus right. Does that make a whole lot of sense considering how many issues are faced by a given individual/municipality/nation at a given time?

My answer is clearly: No. And while I agree with your analysis of the fascist-leaning tendencies of the far-right AND the socialist-leaning tendencies of the far-left (note I place no value on either, as they are not relevant to what I am saying), I'd question whether the language is even accurate at all, given that fascism, socialism, and political science have all had a lot of time to evolve since the coining of those terms.

I hear a lot of people say "Democracy is the best system of government SO FAR," when confronted with the choice between our system, fascism, and socialism. This is a false choice, and not only because our system of government/our economy have evolved themselves since the days of John Locke and Adam Smith. The unfortunate consequence of our limited language regarding government is that the language with which we describe and discuss government has thusly been limited as well. So we have a left and a right, two major parties, pro-life and pro-choice, and no wiggle room in-between. And non-partisan efforts almost always fail, not due to corrupt intentions, but because we don't WANT them to succeed.

I think the time has come to ask ourselves not who is right, but rather, why are we all WRONG? Is there a way to discuss politics without simply reacting to a central thesis, but rather bootstrap the discussion from the needs of our nation? Some would say that going back to the constitution does this, but I say that this simply takes us 200 years in the WRONG DIRECTION. Despite the success of General Relativity, time will always move forward for us 3-dimensional beings. So let's move forward.

OSA, The germans under Hitler formed the national socialists party, and their first act was to nationalize the health care system. The party voted in law after law, which was not supported by the people of the nation. Seems the current administration is following those plans exactly. Who again is the fascist?

Bill, so did the British directly after WWII. What's your point?

also:
Godwin's Law

Mods, sew this one shut. we're done.