AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@ican711nm,

Sounds like Obama is a better Constitutionalist than you.

See how easy that is? You just say someone is something, and then walk away! Your MO is way to easy to emulate ican.

Your posts are pretty vacant. You're just bitter you lost the election and you're stomping your feet like a two year old. Grow up and stop being lazy.

It doesn't mean anything to me that you don't approve of Obama's plans because your ego is so threatened by his ideas being successful. Come back when you've developed critical thinking skills and some objectivity.

T
K
O

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

Constitutionalism precludes socialism and fascism. So a system that strictly adheres to constitutionalism, cannot be socialist or fascist.

T
K

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

I do not see it as a constitutional prerogative of the Federal government to run or fund the schools or police departments or fire departments and think that would be a very dangerous concept to adopt. It is already violating intent of the Constitution for the Federal government to provide any funding for these things and thereby assume federal control over them.

There may be something, but I have yet to see anything be run more efficiently, effectively, or economically once the federal government becomes involved in it . This in addition to putting more of our individual freedoms at risk.

Excellent!

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Cooperative ventures agreed to by the people for their direct benefit is not socialism. Police and fire protection is not socialism. Such services are financed by citizens who vote the taxes and bond initiatives that support them and, at such time as it might be deemed appropriate due to declining population or whatever, can vote to discontinue funding. The citizens do this because it is more efficient, effective, and economical to train some citizens for these roles rather than have all citizens train themselves to function in these roles. The school are in the same category so long as they are operated and funded at the local level. Again the people vote to fund the schools via bonds and property taxes.

I do not see it as a constitutional prerogative of the Federal government to run or fund the schools or police departments or fire departments and think that would be a very dangerous concept to adopt. It is already violating intent of the Constitution for the Federal government to provide any funding for these things and thereby assume federal control over them.

There may be something, but I have yet to see anything be run more efficiently, effectively, or economically once the federal government becomes involved in it . At least anything that local governments and/or the private sector can do. This in addition to putting more of our individual freedoms at risk.

Sorry Fox, you're wrong. I understand how your argument doesn't benefit from these things being socialistic in nature, but you are trying to deny (unsuccessfully) that they are.

This reminds me of Baseball. We love it. So did the Japanese near WWII. But you see, Imperial Japan didn't like the USA, and Baseball was an American thing, so how could they resolve liking something that came from the USA? They did what you attempt to do here, non-dimensionalize something to change it's origin. The Japanese still played baseball, but they called it: Yakyu.

You don't like that VA hospitals, police, firefighters, and public schools are based on socialistic principals, but to deny it is intellectually bankrupt. You've been making poor intellectual investments lately, can you really afford this kind of embarrassment?

T
K
O

0 Replies

@Diest TKO,

Diest TKO wrote:

Sounds to me like you do not understand what are socialism, fascism, and constitutionalism. Or maybe your problem is addiction to sophism.

Quote:

http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=sophism&x=23&y=8
Main Entry: soph·ism
...
Function: noun
...
1 : an argument that is correct in form or appearance but is actually invalid; especially : an argument used for deception, disputation, or the display of intellectual brilliance <employ a sophism> -- compare SKEPTICISM
2 : specious reasoning : SOPHISTRY 1
3 : SOPHISTRY 4

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

Several definitions of socialism as a government or ideological principle:

so·cial·ism (ssh-lzm)
n.
1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2003. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
socialism
Noun
a political and economic theory or system in which the means of production, distribution, and exchange are owned by the community collectively, usually through the state
socialist nadj
Collins Essential English Dictionary 2nd Edition 2006 © HarperCollins Publishers 2004, 2006

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
socialism
1. a theory or system of social organization advocating placing the ownership and control of capital, land, and means of production in the community as a whole. Cf. utopian socialism.
2. the procedures and practices based upon this theory.
3. Marxist theory. the first stage in the transition from capitalism to communism, marked by imperfect realizations of collectivist principles. " socialist, n., adj. " socialistic, adj.
See also: Politics
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a theory of government based upon the ownership and control of capital, land, and means of production by the community as a whole.
See also: Government
-Ologies & -Isms. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.

ThesaurusLegend: Synonyms Related Words Antonyms
Noun 1. socialism - a political theory advocating state ownership of industry
ideology, political orientation, political theory - an orientation that characterizes the thinking of a group or nation

Fabianism - socialism to be established by gradual reforms within the law

guild socialism - a form of socialist theory advocating state ownership of industry but managements by guilds of workers

utopian socialism - socialism achieved by voluntary sacrifice

2. socialism - an economic system based on state ownership of capital
socialist economy

communism - a form of socialism that abolishes private ownership

International - any of several international socialist organizations
national socialism, Naziism, Nazism - a form of socialism featuring racism and expansionism and obedience to a strong leader

managed economy - a non-market economy in which government intervention is important in allocating goods and resources and determining prices

capitalism, capitalist economy - an economic system based on private ownership of capital
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/socialism

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

It's very interesting to see that Foxie can posts several definitions for "socialism" but still doesn't know its meaning. ROFL

0 Replies

Fox, I didn't get a chance to reply to an earlier discussion point we were having: but, are you now sufficiently convinced that it is not envy of others' successes which drives my political positions?

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@JamesMorrison,

JamesMorrison wrote:

Advocate wrote
Quote:
:"I now understand why conservatives always come down on the wrong side of every issue. They were born that way."

Interesting, but as I have noted before I myself was born and raised a Democrat. However, my professional education steeped in the hard sciences, mathematics, and real world experiences awarded me the gift of skeptisim. This a skepticism that rejects theories that don't work when viewed honestly and objectively, if the data doesn't fit you must quit. Correct and unbiased data are absolutely essential for correct conclusions and subsequent successful problem resolution. Given all the above I feel MACeans (not Republicans) have got it right Re a strong and properous America. Republicans are the only party that comes fairly close to those principles. After all it has been said that we live in a Jeffersonian like polity using a Hamiltonian economy.
JM

Me too - born and raised a Democrat and registered to vote for the first time in a place where they didn't even ask but just automatically stamped your registration DEMOCRAT. Smile

(I suppose they would have changed the party affiliation if anybody asked, but so far as I know, nobody ever did.)

But I was young, liberal, and caught up in the visionary excitement of the 60's along with so many others. I wanted to use journalism as my vehicle to change the world to be a better place. Certainly better than the world my parents' generation knew.

But it didn't take very long being a taxpayer, being married with kids, and facing real responsibilities and obligations plus coming face to face with real life problems to begin changing my perspective. JFK helped being far more MACean than any other ideology and I adored him. But my faith and trust in government began to erode during the Johnson and Nixon administrations and the trainwreck of the Carter administration plus the then evident excessiveness, restrictions, and failures of socialism. The vision, common sense, and courage of Ronald Reagan turned me forever into a MACean conservative.

And I think MACean thinking will be the salvation and preservation of this nation as we know it.

That study Advocate posted is interesting to me since one of my avocations is dabbling in stuff like that, but the study on the face of it is not really credible for anything other than a case study. As the disclaimer said, it was far too small a sampling from too narrow a demographic and the criteria used far too vague to draw any serious conclusions from it.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote

Quote:

:"There may be something, but I have yet to see anything be run more efficiently, effectively, or economically once the federal government becomes involved in it . At least anything that local governments and/or the private sector can do. This in addition to putting more of our individual freedoms at risk"

This the ultimate danger, as you know. The very freedoms that liberals accuse conservatives of wanting to take away are more at risk with liberal admins than conservative. The 90% tax on AIGers is just the tip of the ice berg. For years I had wondered why liberals wanted to tax and spend our money. In researching a piece I did about eliminating Social Security in favor of private accounts I came across a statement by FDR that enlightened me, paraphrasing FDR as he signed the legislation: "There, once this gets established they will never be able to repeal these benefits!" Don't Heroine dealers use the same tactic to initiate new users? Given the success of FDR the Dems finally saw a way of obtaining ultimate power without the use of their own money--they use ours to hook citizens on entitlements.

JM

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Fox, I didn't get a chance to reply to an earlier discussion point we were having: but, are you now sufficiently convinced that it is not envy of others' successes which drives my political positions?

Cycloptichorn

I have no reason not to believe that you believe what you say, Cyclop, and of course I cannot look into your heart and soul.

But every post you make regarding the rich, how you see them, and what you think is appropriate for the government to do to them points to class envy.

What you and/or others say are things like: they (the rich) are greedy; they are selfish; they got where they are dishonorably or due to corporate welfare; they are paid more than they are worth; nobody is worth that much money; they care more about stuff than they do about people; they should pay at a higher rate because they make more; it is their duty to give up some of what they have on behalf of others; it is good and right to take away from the rich and distribute to the unrich, etc.

Such comments are said by those who share feelings of class envy though I don't rule out the possibility that there couild be other motives. I've just known too many people, some who are very dear friends of mine, who hold a deep seated if poorly defined contempt for the rich and feel satisfaction when the rich 'get theirs.'

Those who promote class envy generally want the government to punish or sock it to the rich for their affluence and see a moral justification for that. And they don't want to hear, look at, or discuss how such 'punishment' will invariably hurt the poor. The motive to take the rich down a peg or two is more important than considering any consequences of that.

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Fox, I didn't get a chance to reply to an earlier discussion point we were having: but, are you now sufficiently convinced that it is not envy of others' successes which drives my political positions?

Cycloptichorn

I have no reason not to believe that you believe what you say, Cyclop, and of course I cannot look into your heart and soul.

But every post you make regarding the rich, how you see them, and what you think is appropriate for the government to do to them points to class envy.

What you and/or others say are things like: they (the rich) are greedy; they are selfish; they got where they are dishonorably or due to corporate welfare; they are paid more than they are worth; nobody is worth that much money; they care more about stuff than they do about people; they should pay at a higher rate because they make more; it is their duty to give up some of what they have on behalf of others; it is good and right to take away from the rich and distribute to the unrich, etc.

Such comments are said by those who share feelings of class envy though I don't rule out the possibility that there couild be other motives. I've just known too many people, some who are very dear friends of mine, who hold a deep seated if poorly defined contempt for the rich and feel satisfaction when the rich 'get theirs.'

Those who promote class envy generally want the government to punish or sock it to the rich for their affluence and see a moral justification for that. And they don't want to hear, look at, or discuss how such 'punishment' will invariably hurt the poor. The motive to take the rich down a peg or two is more important than considering any consequences of that.

Well, I think most of that is an exaggeration of what I or others have said in the past; and some of the things you list in your third paragraph have some truth to them.

I disagree that taking actions the affect the bottom line of the rich will hurt the poor. There is not much historical precedence for this and the corollary - that helping the rich helps the poor - surely has not been shown to be true.

Btw, I have been voting all your posts up in an attempt to stop looking at zeroes next to each of your posts. I understand how the rating system works, but I don't vote people down (with rare exceptions) and I don't like when others do that either.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

It has nothing to do with "class envy." It has to do with the fairness doctrine; when American productivity was growing, they did not reap the rewards of producing more while the CEOs and officers increased their wages and benefits to new heights. What you conservatives continue to advocate for is tax cuts for the wealthy while our government continues to increase our deficit; that will be transferred to our children and grandchildren. You conservatives call it "transferring wealth to the poor." How misguided you people are!

When those already making enough wages to have a good lifestyle as their wages and benefits continues to increase when the average worker pay remains stagnant based on inflation, you have misconstrued what fairness is all about. It has nothing to do with class envy. Most of those who made those big bucks were the worst managers of our commerce; as we can see now, many of the biggest companies have gone bankrupt or are in the process of going bankrupt. In addition to all this, you want our children and grandchildren to pay for current government expenditures - including two wars that Bush started win no end game in site.

You people are pathetic.

0 Replies

James Madison, the father of our Constitution, said, in a January1794 speech in the House of Representatives, "The government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government."

Tennessee Representative Col. Davy Crockett, "We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity, but as members of Congress, we have no right to appropriate a dollar of the public money.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Well thank you for the thumbs up. The voting down doesn't bother me though as I'm pretty sure it comes from the same people who seem to be incapable of posting in any way other than in an ad hominem or insulting manner. It is major childish to vote people down not because they are insulting or ad hominem but purely because you don't like them or disagree with their opinion, but that goes with the territory I guess.

For now I won't post my illustrations yet again for why you cannot 'sock it to' the rich without hurting the poor, but if you had read them, I think they show a very good case for that. I don't think I have at all exaggerated the contempt for the rich that has been expressed in this and other threads.

It is the rich who provide most of the funding for hospital wings, museum exhibits, the arts, endowments for scholarship funds, sponsor Little League teams, underwrite YMCA memberships for kids, and other social and cultural enhancement in their communities. It is the rich who invest in business to promote growth, provide venture capital for new entreprenours, provide the bulk of savings that provides a base from which others can borrow. And it is the rich who own and operate most business and industry and provide almost all the jobs for the less rich in the private sector.

As explained in that Williams essay however, the rich don't become rich for the benefit of others. Very few of any income level work for the benefit of others. We all are looking to our own interests. The baker does not devote his working life to baking bread because you need bread, but he does it because you will buy bread. The butcher does not spend his day cutting meat because you need meat, but he does it because you will buy his steaks, chops, and hamburger. You don't go to work every day because it benefits somebody else. You do it to earn the money that you need to live. Each is looking to his/her own interests.

But each of us without consciously intending to contributes to the prosperity of the whole by simply looking to our own interests. And the rich do that on a much broader scale than those of us among the unrich are able to do. Make it attractive for the rich to better benefit others by looking to their own interests, and many will benefit. Make it more difficult for the rich and they will not willingly give it up but will change their behavior so that can still look to their own interests. But in the process many of the resources they had been providing for the unrich will vanish.

Obama's scheme to fund half his healthcare plans by taxing the rich more is a pipe dream. He will realize a tiny fraction of the amount he thinks he will get from the rich because the rich will simply shelter or divert more of their income to avoid the taxes. And that will hurt the unrich who will then pay less in taxes and could even wipe out or eliminate what extra the rich pay. We have seen this phenomenon every time it has been tried.

It is a huge price to pay in an attempt to 'spread the wealth.'

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

No ican. Sophism, would be coming into this thread and pretending to have some sort of elevated academic stance by using dictionary terms or quoting the constitution while completely failing to have any substance behind your allegations or ideas.

You pretend a sophisticated argument.
You pretend to know the constitution and it's workings.
You do so by trying to wow a reader with a show of references that don't even support your ideas.

e.g. - Your reasoning to impeach Obama is a bunch of citations form the constitution which in no way support impeachment, but the fact that you cite the constitution is meant to wow a reader and give the idea that your argument is in any way based on sound legal theory.

You sir, not I are littering A2K with sophistry.

T
K
O

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Quote:

The baker does not devote his working life to baking bread because you need bread, but he does it because you will buy bread.

Oh, I don't know. I think that the baker bakes bread in part b/c people need bread to eat, and not just b/c of the tangible gains it gives him. I certainly work at my job not only b/c of my salary I get, but the work itself is satisfying and helps others further their educational goals. I certainly could be making more money elsewhere, without a doubt; but I like being a part of that. I think you go a little too far here, claiming that self-interest is the only reason people do things.

Quote:

Obama's scheme to fund half his healthcare plans by taxing the rich more is a pipe dream. He will realize a tiny fraction of the amount he thinks he will get from the rich because the rich will simply shelter or divert more of their income to avoid the taxes.

False argument; you can raise taxes on people and get them to pay higher taxes. History has shown that under levels of higher taxation, the rich paid a higher percentage in taxes than they did before.

If they try and avoid or shelter it, we'll just close down the shelters and loopholes one by one. The fact that people will try and circumvent a law is a poor argument against passing a law in the first place.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

I wasn't talking about enjoyment of the work or enjoying the pleasure or benefits that it provides others. I was talking about why we do the work. Very few people would do it willingly day in and day out if it did not serve their own interests.

But neverthless, we have always disagreed on the issue of MACean principles versus social liberalism and will probably continue to do so in the near future anyway. I have very strong doubts whether Obama can convince the Congressional Democrats to commit the political suicide and that may save us from from some of the worst of his ideas. If not, let's plan to meet in four years and compare notes on which of us was right. I'll even spot you a bit since I have the advantage of history on my side.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

I wasn't talking about enjoyment of the work or enjoying the pleasure or benefits that it provides others. I was talking about why we do the work. Very few people would do it willingly day in and day out if it did not serve their own interests.

But neverthless, we have always disagreed on the issue of MACean principles versus social liberalism and will probably continue to do so in the near future anyway. I have very strong doubts whether Obama can convince the Congressional Democrats to commit the political suicide and that may save us from from some of the worst of his ideas. If not, let's plan to meet in four years and compare notes on which of us was right. I'll even spot you a bit since I have the advantage of history on my side.

Which plans do you think are 'political suicide?' Certainly not his health care plans, they are supported by pretty good margins of the public.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

We'll see. I think when the people find out what it will cost them, Obama won't be enjoying anywhere nearly as much support for his healthcare plan.

3 Replies

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know