|
|
On June 19 2012 09:34 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2012 09:27 Tewks44 wrote:On June 19 2012 09:17 sam!zdat wrote:On June 19 2012 09:15 Tewks44 wrote:On June 19 2012 09:10 sam!zdat wrote:On June 19 2012 03:17 smarty pants wrote:On June 18 2012 15:51 sam!zdat wrote:
Shouldn't this be the goal of civilization? Civilization =/= government. Not to mention I would disagree either way. Isn't the point of government to make a better civilization? That's a kind of naive interpretation Do me the benefit of assuming my position is more complex than this. I think it is a question that is worth thinking about, however. edit: Liberalism is secretly utopian. consider how. Alright, fair enough. I think that a properly functioning government should allow outlets for individuals to create a better civilization. However, I do not think this should be the goal of a government. And I don't know exactly why you think LIberalism is secretly utopian. Are you suggesting this because Liberals tend to favor heavier spending on public programs, and a utopian society can be created through public programs? I think it's a noble notion that Liberals are secretly striving to create a utopian civilization, and the republicans are foolishly hindering the progress of these liberal policies which will ultimately create a utopia, but do you really believe the world is that simple? edit: and if you think Liberals are striving to create a Utopia, do you really think they would do so secretly? It's not that we (conservatives/republicans) intend to block the creation of a utopia. Rather, we genuinely believe that the policies that liberals promote will lead to ruin, despite whatever good intentions that liberals have.
That's exactly my point. I was posing a question to the poster I quoted who said liberals are secretly trying to create a utopia
|
Could be argued that conservatives/republicans are creating a dystopia in their pursuit of their own "utopia".
|
On June 19 2012 09:42 Adila wrote:
Could be argued that conservatives/republicans are creating a dystopia in their pursuit of their own "utopia".
well yes, but you could really make this argument against any kind of political entity that you dislike.
Overall, I feel like republicans have some good ideas, and liberals have some good ideas, and the rest is just hot air being spewed back and forth to make the ideas the other side comes up with to seem like the most terrible non-sense ever that will bring the world to an end and completely cripple any kind of prosperity. That's why so many political discussions turn into a huge shit show. Because you have people on both sides who are told by their "leaders" that if you join their political club, you'll have the best ideas in the world and you will be a fighter for a Utopia, while the opposing party is trying to stop you with their foolish and utterly incorrect policies. It's the reason I can't stand politics. It's a fervent allegiance to a "club" disguised as civil discourse.
|
On June 19 2012 09:42 Adila wrote:
Could be argued that conservatives/republicans are creating a dystopia in their pursuit of their own "utopia".
Well first of all, the idea of a utopia or a dystopia is very subjective. One person's utopia is very much another's dystopia, and the exact physical definition of those words is probably different for nearly every person out there.
Now if you're trying to argue that Liberal positions > Conservative positions, then you should probably expand on your point, with you know, actually reasoning and arguements. Simply saying "could be argued that ________" is pointless, because you could use that statement to assert anything.
|
Sorry, I was using "liberal" in its correct sense, not the degenerate American one. Both democrats and republicans are liberals, republicans are more liberal than democrats.
Democrats are more "progressive" than republicans, not more "liberal."
edit: So my question was about how laissez-faire is a secretly utopian ideology.
edit edit: This misuse of language is #1 on the list for rectification of names.
|
On June 19 2012 05:41 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2012 05:31 BluePanther wrote:On June 18 2012 09:42 sunprince wrote:On June 17 2012 15:21 Froadac wrote:On June 17 2012 14:40 smarty pants wrote:On June 17 2012 14:34 Feartheguru wrote:
Is someone really arguing environmental regulations are more of an intrusion into people's lives than banning gay marriage?
Why are you people trying to reason with him. Well, more people could be affected by the former than the latter, so I suppose that would be more of an intrusion into other people's lives. Generally that is the argument used. Banning gay marriage protects the rights of those that don't like it, environmental regulations intrude upon everyone's right to do whatever they want to the environment, but do not DIRECTLY intrude on the rights of individuals. (I don't agree, this is how it is generally argued) People who argue this have a fundamental misunderstanding of what "rights" are (or, more likely, are conveniently ignoring rationality in favor of their beliefs). There is no right to not be offended (whether by gay marriage or anything else), and damaging the environment infringes upon the rights of others who share that environment. Simply put, you have a right to do anything you want as long as it does not infringe upon the rights of others (e.g. it does not impose a real harm or negative externality on others). Since gay marriage does not impose a real harm or negative externality on others, the government cannot legitimately ban it; inversely, since damage to the environment does impose negative externalities, the government must regulate it. This is so wrong, I don't even know where to begin... Oh please, by all means begin. I could use some BluePanther outrage right now. 
Really not interested in going there, just pointing out he's completely wrong about government being unable to ban things "without externalities".
|
On June 19 2012 10:01 sam!zdat wrote:
Sorry, I was using "liberal" in its correct sense, not the degenerate American one. Both democrats and republicans are liberals, republicans are more liberal than democrats.
Democrats are more "progressive" than republicans, not more "liberal."
edit: So my question was about how laissez-faire is a secretly utopian ideology.
edit edit: This misuse of language is #1 on the list for rectification of names.
you're testing my googling skills when you use big words like "laissez-faire" 
but from a quick wiki read up it seems that this ideology is essentially economic libertarianism, based around the Austrian school of economics. That's an interesting assertion that it's secretly utopian, but I'm always wary of ideologies that claim to be Utopian. Also, why do you keep saying it's secretly utopian, instead of just saying its utopian. Why do you think they would want to keep their Utopian aspirations a secret?
|
On June 19 2012 09:42 Adila wrote:
Could be argued that conservatives/republicans are creating a dystopia in their pursuit of their own "utopia".
Here's the problem with what you're saying: generally speaking, conservatives aren't trying to create a utopia. In fact, one of the key ways in which we differ from liberals is that we openly and readily acknowledge both that the world is neither perfect nor fair, and that there is no governmental system that can (or should try to) make it so. Happiness can't be guaranteed. Only the right to pursue happiness can be. As such, we're generally willing to accept greater risk of harm as a consequence of greater freedom. This is the root of the general laissez-faire attitude of conservatives towards the role of government.
Liberals, on the other hand, tend to believe that there is a government-imposed solution for everything. This is the root of the emerging nanny state that does things like regulate what we eat (New York) and ban footballs at beaches (LA).
|
On June 19 2012 09:34 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2012 09:27 Tewks44 wrote:On June 19 2012 09:17 sam!zdat wrote:On June 19 2012 09:15 Tewks44 wrote:On June 19 2012 09:10 sam!zdat wrote:On June 19 2012 03:17 smarty pants wrote:On June 18 2012 15:51 sam!zdat wrote:
Shouldn't this be the goal of civilization? Civilization =/= government. Not to mention I would disagree either way. Isn't the point of government to make a better civilization? That's a kind of naive interpretation Do me the benefit of assuming my position is more complex than this. I think it is a question that is worth thinking about, however. edit: Liberalism is secretly utopian. consider how. Alright, fair enough. I think that a properly functioning government should allow outlets for individuals to create a better civilization. However, I do not think this should be the goal of a government. And I don't know exactly why you think LIberalism is secretly utopian. Are you suggesting this because Liberals tend to favor heavier spending on public programs, and a utopian society can be created through public programs? I think it's a noble notion that Liberals are secretly striving to create a utopian civilization, and the republicans are foolishly hindering the progress of these liberal policies which will ultimately create a utopia, but do you really believe the world is that simple? edit: and if you think Liberals are striving to create a Utopia, do you really think they would do so secretly? It's not that we (conservatives/republicans) intend to block the creation of a utopia. Rather, we genuinely believe that the policies that liberals promote will lead to ruin, despite whatever good intentions that liberals have.
how? i am actually curious as to what the thought processes is that the liberal ideas would lead to ruin? the ones that are in place right now are have a actually chance of happening, not the crazy fringe ones. We just disagree on what polices would work and i would like to know your ideas on what is so bad about the liberal ones
|
On June 19 2012 10:10 Tewks44 wrote:
Why do you think they would want to keep their Utopian aspirations a secret?
Because the idea is that if you don't do anything, the "magic hand" will come in and make everybody richer and happier. (+ Show Spoiler +). So if you say you are making a better world you jinx the magic.
It is secretly utopian because it is a utopianism of process, rather than a utopianism of closure. It is a reaction to the modernist project and the utopias of closure (fixity) in which we were going to make a better world by having a bunch of rules and planning everything out beforehand (e.g. Thomas More). It replaces this with a utopianism of process, by which we are going to have the infinite and unbounded flow of capital that will do all these great things without anybody having to be anything other than completely self-interested (this is why liberals and religion have historically clashed, although contemporary American politics is more complex. At the least it explains why separation of church and state was such an important plank in the early liberal platform).
This is a hack-job precis of David Harvey's book "Spaces of Hope," which I cannot recommend highly enough.
The imperative of our contemporary moment is to create a new utopianism which is a synthesis of these two separate (and antagonistic) utopianisms of process and closure.
|
On June 19 2012 10:19 Deathmanbob wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2012 09:34 xDaunt wrote:On June 19 2012 09:27 Tewks44 wrote:On June 19 2012 09:17 sam!zdat wrote:On June 19 2012 09:15 Tewks44 wrote:On June 19 2012 09:10 sam!zdat wrote:On June 19 2012 03:17 smarty pants wrote:On June 18 2012 15:51 sam!zdat wrote:
Shouldn't this be the goal of civilization? Civilization =/= government. Not to mention I would disagree either way. Isn't the point of government to make a better civilization? That's a kind of naive interpretation Do me the benefit of assuming my position is more complex than this. I think it is a question that is worth thinking about, however. edit: Liberalism is secretly utopian. consider how. Alright, fair enough. I think that a properly functioning government should allow outlets for individuals to create a better civilization. However, I do not think this should be the goal of a government. And I don't know exactly why you think LIberalism is secretly utopian. Are you suggesting this because Liberals tend to favor heavier spending on public programs, and a utopian society can be created through public programs? I think it's a noble notion that Liberals are secretly striving to create a utopian civilization, and the republicans are foolishly hindering the progress of these liberal policies which will ultimately create a utopia, but do you really believe the world is that simple? edit: and if you think Liberals are striving to create a Utopia, do you really think they would do so secretly? It's not that we (conservatives/republicans) intend to block the creation of a utopia. Rather, we genuinely believe that the policies that liberals promote will lead to ruin, despite whatever good intentions that liberals have. how? i am actually curious as to what the thought processes is that the liberal ideas would lead to ruin? the ones that are in place right now are have a actually chance of happening, not the crazy fringe ones. We just disagree on what polices would work and i would like to know your ideas on what is so bad about the liberal ones
Because a lot of American progressive politics are just wasteful, short-sighted populism. There's truth to what the right says, although they make their own mistakes as well.
|
On June 19 2012 10:15 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2012 09:42 Adila wrote:
Could be argued that conservatives/republicans are creating a dystopia in their pursuit of their own "utopia". Here's the problem with what you're saying: generally speaking, conservatives aren't trying to create a utopia. In fact, one of the key ways in which we differ from liberals is that we openly and readily acknowledge both that the world is neither perfect nor fair, and that there is no governmental system that can (or should try to) make it so. Happiness can't be guaranteed. Only the right to pursue happiness can be. As such, we're generally willing to accept greater risk of harm as a consequence of greater freedom. This is the root of the general laissez-faire attitude of conservatives towards the role of government.
Here's an example. The utopianism takes the form of an emphasis on "rights" (as in the "right to pursue happiness") and "freedom." Utopia for a liberal is about total "freedom" - see the emphasis on process?
They "acknowledge that the world is not fair" as a way to avoid having to MAKE things fair (whatever "fair" would be, and that's another issue). This is a necessary premise for the emphasis on "freedom" to make sense (and is why the utopianism has to be covert).
For a liberal, utopia is a place where everybody is equally free to exploit everyone else, to the best of their abilities (abilities which, of course, have nothing to do with inherited wealth or social capital, etc.).
edit: you can see this way of thinking at work in in all the american political cliches: "level playing field," etc.
|
On June 19 2012 10:15 xDaunt wrote:
Liberals, on the other hand, tend to believe that there is a government-imposed solution for everything.
No, that's you strawmanning the hell out of the liberals' view of government, as usual. What liberals believe is not that government can solve everything, but that in many cases government intervention can protect and improve the living conditions of individuals and their access to what will enable them to fulfill their potential.
|
On June 19 2012 10:15 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2012 09:42 Adila wrote:
Could be argued that conservatives/republicans are creating a dystopia in their pursuit of their own "utopia". Here's the problem with what you're saying: generally speaking, conservatives aren't trying to create a utopia. In fact, one of the key ways in which we differ from liberals is that we openly and readily acknowledge both that the world is neither perfect nor fair, and that there is no governmental system that can (or should try to) make it so. Happiness can't be guaranteed. Only the right to pursue happiness can be. As such, we're generally willing to accept greater risk of harm as a consequence of greater freedom. This is the root of the general laissez-faire attitude of conservatives towards the role of government. Liberals, on the other hand, tend to believe that there is a government-imposed solution for everything. This is the root of the emerging nanny state that does things like regulate what we eat (New York) and ban footballs at beaches (LA).
Hmmm ... I would argue that there are certain portions of the Libertarian and Republican party that truly are idealistic. That their utopia consists of a free, deregulated market, and given more opportunity and less restrictions, this would create a more prosperous society which would somehow normalize into a meritocracy.
Their fantasy is that the world is fair; that all opportunity is created equal, and that everyone is a fair judge of progress or has shared values.
Hell, in a world where everyone starts off exactly the same and has the same values, maybe libertarianism works.
Note: not saying all Republicans believe this, but I do think some do. There is such a thing as people that are born with so much good fortune that they don't consider how they've benefitted from it.
I think Romney truly believes if you just work super-duper hard, you can be a multi-million-billionaire private equity investor, too!
|
On June 19 2012 09:15 Tewks44 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2012 09:10 sam!zdat wrote:On June 19 2012 03:17 smarty pants wrote:On June 18 2012 15:51 sam!zdat wrote:
Shouldn't this be the goal of civilization? Civilization =/= government. Not to mention I would disagree either way. Isn't the point of government to make a better civilization? That's a kind of naive interpretation of the point of a government in my opinion, although the point of government is an interesting topic to discuss. In my opinion a government should exist to provide infrastructure, establish laws, and enforce laws. There are also issues like welfare, and public programs, but I don't necessarily think this should be the purpose of government to provide these services.
Well, you can cut even further into the core of governance :
The government should exist to assure that infrastructure and order is provided by establishing laws, ensure execution of those laws and that the laws are followed through in judicially acceptable way.
Providing infrastructure does not necesssarily have to be done by government. If a government is good enough at making a legal framework, it can outsource the job to private companies.
Also: Be aware that legislating, enforcing and judging power has to stay separate if you want to avoid internal conflicts of interest.
Now you can start to discuss all the issues you want to add to the "order"-part of the government. Is environment a possible future problem for the order in the country and is significant enough to demand actions? Is gay marriage a disruption of the ideal family and is that enough to be a problem for the order? Is abortion a murder, and thus a problem for the order of the country, or is it simply removal of a foreign body? Etc. Etc.
If you are cutting government to the bone, all of those issues are unneccessary.
Military is again a question of "order" but mostly a question of the degree ot which you think it is necessary to defend your people from other countries. Few would feel safe if all military gets rolled back for the country you live in.
Social programs and medical care is a different issue and is a question of if you see it as necessary "infrastructure". There is something to be said about providing the economy with a back-up ressource and keeping people productive to ensure that human-power is not the limiting factor for private companies.
|
On June 19 2012 10:49 Defacer wrote:
There is such a thing as people that are born with so much good fortune that they don't consider how they've benefitted from it.
There is definitely such a thing. I went to a high school full of them.
|
On June 19 2012 10:49 Defacer wrote:
Hell, in a world where everyone starts off exactly the same and has the same values, maybe libertarianism works.
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of libertarianism.
The libertarian viewpoint is that things "work" even if there is no equality of outcome. You're assuming that equality of outcome is a "working" philosophy, but we libertarian-leaning folks consider that anathema. Libertarians consider equality before the law extremely important to equality (e.g. libertarians vehemently oppose Jim Crow-type laws), but things like affirmative action are harmful because they violate people's rights to mutually agreeable transactions.
Because of this, libertarians don't consider the world to be a utopian meritocracy; we simply don't think it needs to be.
|
On June 19 2012 11:17 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2012 10:49 Defacer wrote:
Hell, in a world where everyone starts off exactly the same and has the same values, maybe libertarianism works. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of libertarianism. The libertarian viewpoint is that things "work" even if there is no equality of outcome. You're assuming that equality of outcome is a "working" philosophy, but we libertarian-leaning folks consider that anathema. Libertarians consider equality before the law extremely important to equality (e.g. libertarians vehemently oppose Jim Crow-type laws), but things like affirmative action are harmful because they violate people's rights to mutually agreeable transactions. Because of this, libertarians don't consider the world to be a utopian meritocracy; we simply don't think it needs to be.
Survival of the fittest, then?
|
On June 19 2012 11:22 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2012 11:17 sunprince wrote:On June 19 2012 10:49 Defacer wrote:
Hell, in a world where everyone starts off exactly the same and has the same values, maybe libertarianism works. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of libertarianism. The libertarian viewpoint is that things "work" even if there is no equality of outcome. You're assuming that equality of outcome is a "working" philosophy, but we libertarian-leaning folks consider that anathema. Libertarians consider equality before the law extremely important to equality (e.g. libertarians vehemently oppose Jim Crow-type laws), but things like affirmative action are harmful because they violate people's rights to mutually agreeable transactions. Because of this, libertarians don't consider the world to be a utopian meritocracy; we simply don't think it needs to be. Survival of the fittest, then?
Mostly just a willfully oblivious attitude towards injustice.
|
On June 19 2012 11:28 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2012 11:22 Defacer wrote:On June 19 2012 11:17 sunprince wrote:On June 19 2012 10:49 Defacer wrote:
Hell, in a world where everyone starts off exactly the same and has the same values, maybe libertarianism works. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of libertarianism. The libertarian viewpoint is that things "work" even if there is no equality of outcome. You're assuming that equality of outcome is a "working" philosophy, but we libertarian-leaning folks consider that anathema. Libertarians consider equality before the law extremely important to equality (e.g. libertarians vehemently oppose Jim Crow-type laws), but things like affirmative action are harmful because they violate people's rights to mutually agreeable transactions. Because of this, libertarians don't consider the world to be a utopian meritocracy; we simply don't think it needs to be. Survival of the fittest, then? Mostly just a willfully oblivious attitude towards injustice.
No, because libertarians have a fundamentally different view of justice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
