Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 26
  1. #1
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,482
    Post Thanks / Like

    The Question of Patriotism as it Relates to Diversity

    Another work in progress


    The Question of Patriotism as it Relates to Diversity

    What is patriotism? What does it mean to be a patriot? If one was to examine these questions objectivity we would get an answer that is pleasant and conforming enough to satisfy most people. According to Dictionary.com, patriotism is

    defined as the act of loving, supporting, and defending ones country with enthusiasm and devotion. While this answer may be one that makes someone feel good on the inside, it generally fails to address a necessary and very relevant series of

    sub-questions: What if the county is wrong and does not deserve its people’s love and devotion? Does being a patriot mean elevating the state above the individual or does it mean to guard the individual, which is the smallest minority there is in

    society, against the oppressive powers of the state? When these catechisms are critically evaluated, we are inexorably led to question whether or not the official and commonly accepted definition of patriotism is a valid one. This essay will;

    explore patriotism as it relates to diversity, attempt to redefine the word patriot into one that more accurately reflect its true meaning in United States specifically, and explain the importance of respecting and defending diversity as a defining

    factor of the America identity.



    September 11th, 2001 was a day that for those who experienced it, will ever forget it. Terrorist attacking the United States of America and killing over 3,000 innocent people led to a national uprising that, among other things, led to a

    renewed sense of apparent patriotism in the country. Americans felt a collective need to seek revenge on behalf of those needlessly killed by bringing justice to those that were responsible for the violence and death inflected upon us, we were

    united by that need. Throughout history, politicians have used times like these as a means to push otherwise illegal or unpopular agendas and manipulate the feelings of citizens to advance their political or ideological goals, as Rahm Emanuel, an

    American politician and the current mayor of New York, once said, “ Never let a crisis go to waste”. In the wake of 9/11, several executive orders were handed down, bills pushed through Congress, and actions taken that just a few months

    earlier might not have had a chance to be accepted into law due to varying degrees of controversy. The Patriot Act is one of these laws that were enacted by piggy-backing the theme of patriotism which was foremost in the American psyche

    at the time.


    On October 26th, 2001 President George W. Bush pushed through Congress a bill that allowed the government unprecedented and far reaching powers that have never been seen before in American history. These powers permitted the

    warrantless search and wiretapping of American citizens, as well as, the arrest and indefinite detention of the same. In many cases, those that opposed this massive invasion into the rights of citizens were decried as being “unpatriotic” or “un-

    American” scoundrels that were deserving of contempt. While these individual’s love for their country were being questioned, it would have been better to question whether the Patriot Act was a good piece of legislation to being with that

    accurately reflected our American values of diversity, tolerance, and respect. If not, then we would have to ask ourselves if it would be patriotic to support this measure at all.

    All too often, individuals get too emotionally involved in concepts or ideas and no longer give certain actions proper consideration before supporting them. Therefore, is it truly “unpatriotic” to question and stand opposed to doctrines or

    government actions pushed upon us under the guise of “patriotism” if they are not in keeping with the values we hold dear? One of the major problem with the Patriot Act and other bills that are pushed under this false pretense of patriotism is

    that they tend to unfairly target specific groups of people. This, essentially, becomes a sort of government sponsored racism which does far more harm than good and serves to divide and separate us whether than protect us. After 9/11 it was

    an easy thing to cast blame at any racial or religious group not familiar to us and assign hatred and blame towards them for the events that transpired. The undertone associated with this mentality was that of patriotism thus pushing the

    premise that a love for one’s country is seemingly linked to hatred for the countries alleged enemies, whether they be real or imagined.


    Politician’s cries of patriotism can over-shadow the necessary diligence for respect and tolerance of the diversity within our nation as demonstrated when examining Cynthia Weber’s book “I am an American”. We clearly see the importance of

    diversity in America and how calls for patriotism can be disguised as racism or nationalism. Considering that, it is always important to be critical of any sort of public outcry that is labeled as “patriotic” or anything of the sort and examine the

    undertones and suggestions associated with it to make sure that it is in keeping with the morality and values held within ourselves as a nation. Otherwise, we risk isolating and singling out particular cultures or ethnicities and losing the very

    thing that defines us as a country. While this type of anti-American behavior is perhaps most commonly demonstrated on the individual level, it is most dangerous when it has a state sponsored, and thus oppressive, element to it.

    Representative Ron Paul from Texas’ 14th Congressional District once defined patriotism as, “that effort to resist oppressive state powers” and that it most certainly was not, “obedience to the state”. Representative Paul concluded by saying,

    “But whether the resistance against government tyrants is nonviolent or physically violent, the effort to overthrow state oppression qualifies as true patriotism.” This is a superior definition for the word because it simply more accurately reflect

    our mentality as a nation. The original American patriots during the American Revolution rose in opposition to the tyrannical rule of King George and fought for independence. These patriots saw it as a necessary step to take in order to ensure

    that the values and morals of the people were not infringed on by the state. While Representative Paul’s definition was more accurate than the one offered in the dictionary, Mrs. Weber would argue that true patriotism involves protection and

    respect for the diversity of the country as well. She would argue that unless we love, support, and defend all; we love, support, and defend none. That being said, we as a nation should oppose by any means necessary any law,

    edict, or order handed down to us that violates our universal morals and values and targets any specific group or sect of our people unnecessarily or irresponsibly .


    In conclusion, to be American,in a sense, is to be diverse. It is that diversity that makes us strong and it helps support our country as being the best and freest one on the planet. Therefore, to be a patriot, in the truest sense, is to

    respect that diversity and forever guard it against the oppressive internal and external factors that exist both on the individual and state level. Respecting diversity among all of our people is absolutely an essential and irrevocable aspect of our

    society, as we must forever remember; the smallest minority in the world in the individual. We must never confuse patriotism with tyranny and allow short sighted safety, as represented by the Patriot Act of 2001, to exist at the expense of our

    liberty or freedom. For as Benjamin Franklin once said, “They who can give up essential freedom to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”












    Works Cited
    "Dictionary.com." patriotism. N.p., n.d. Web. 19 Jun 2012
    .
    Franklin, Benjamin. Memoirs of The Life of Benjamin Franklin. London: J. Parson’s, 1793. Print

    Li, Q., and M. Brewer. “What does it mean to be an American? Patriotism, Nationalism,
    and the American Identity after 9/11.” International Society for Political Psychology.,
    2004. 727-739. JSTOR. Web. 18 Jun 2012. .

    Paul, Ron. Speech on the House Floor about Patriotism. United States House of
    Representatives, Washington, D.C., 22 May 2007
    United States. Cong. H.O.R. US Patriot Act of 2001. 107th Cong. H.R. 3162. Washington: GPO,
    2001. Print

    Weber, Cynthia. I am an American. Bristol, UK: intellect, 2011. Print

    Zeleny, Jeff. "Obama Weighs Quick Undoing of Bush Policy." The New York Times. N.p., n.d.
    Web. 20 Jun 2012. .
    I will no longer be replying to any post from a Liberal going forward. I will continue, as normal, to discuss topics and engage in intellectual exchanges with non-leftist

  2. #2
    LongliveLOGIC
    Guest

    Re: The Question of Patriotism as it Relates to Diversity

    Ok! On my own idea of patriotism. Its the most desirable attitude of a hero. And btw, heroism on other hand is soooo far different for patriotism. If you do something good in behalf of justice, does it make you patriotic? My answer is yess! But doing something for the sake of peace, makes you a hero, right? Being patriotic however is ussually self-proclaimed by people who thinks theyve done something good for what they fight for. But however. Are they sure of what theyre fighting for is correct? I mean a person can be patriotic in a way that he has don something good for his country, citizen, or family. As what your definition says, the act of loving, supporting, and defending ones country with enthusiasm and devotion.. Defending, loving and supporting is done by fighting for what you stand for.


    Remeber this soldiers qoute?

    WAR DOES NOT DETERMINE WHO IS RIGHT, IT ONLY DETERMINES WHO IS LEFT


    A patriot is born after winning something for his country, wether in a wrong or right side, history disregards the motive of the country for fighting but recognizes the victorious one. Thats a fact! So wether the patriot is in the wrong or right side! He is still accountable for making the change for his country
    (sorry for the bad english) )

  3. #3
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    138
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Question of Patriotism as it Relates to Diversity

    Quote Originally Posted by LongliveLOGIC View Post
    Ok! On my own idea of patriotism. Its the most desirable attitude of a hero. And btw, heroism on other hand is soooo far different for patriotism. If you do something good in behalf of justice, does it make you patriotic? My answer is yess! But doing something for the sake of peace, makes you a hero, right? Being patriotic however is ussually self-proclaimed by people who thinks theyve done something good for what they fight for. But however. Are they sure of what theyre fighting for is correct? I mean a person can be patriotic in a way that he has don something good for his country, citizen, or family. As what your definition says, the act of loving, supporting, and defending ones country with enthusiasm and devotion.. Defending, loving and supporting is done by fighting for what you stand for.


    Remeber this soldiers qoute?

    WAR DOES NOT DETERMINE WHO IS RIGHT, IT ONLY DETERMINES WHO IS LEFT


    A patriot is born after winning something for his country, wether in a wrong or right side, history disregards the motive of the country for fighting but recognizes the victorious one. Thats a fact! So wether the patriot is in the wrong or right side! He is still. accountable for making the change for his country
    (sorry for the bad english) )
    Laird Wilcox has a wealth of experience on this knotty but important problem. It is something we must quickly get to grips withif we are to save the best of the worlds societies. Intolerance and extremism can quickly get the upper hand and set us back five hundred years

  4. #4
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,482
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Question of Patriotism as it Relates to Diversity

    My best work and I got 2 comments. Lol. Hopefully my new debate site of choice will garner me more than 2 responses. Smh
    I will no longer be replying to any post from a Liberal going forward. I will continue, as normal, to discuss topics and engage in intellectual exchanges with non-leftist

  5. #5
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,229
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Question of Patriotism as it Relates to Diversity

    It does have some seriously funky line breaks (says the man with seriously funky spelling).

    Many like to use patriotism as a rhetorical cudgel, wrapping themselves in it while decrying anyone opposed to them is not a patriot or is a traitor.

    I think at a minimum, patriotism is a passion for one's country and its political life. The ones who are not patriots are either deeply opposed to the nation in some fashion, or simply hold a deep apathy about it. I've met some of both in my time.

    I think it's not really a binary thing, you can be very patriotic or only mildly patriotic. Some I'd say teeter into the insanely patriotic camp.

    My own patriotism is probably what you would call medium to light. I do love my country and identify strongly as an American. I am proud and privilaged to be a citizen. I participate in politics, though not deeply. I would fight for the country, though only if I felt it was truly threatened, not just looking for leverage over seas. I don't hate other countries or think they are terrible just because they are not America. I've got plenty of criticism for my countries history and it's current state of politics, but I believe in the system we have for checking power and feel that the cycle will turn again in a direction I think is more just and good for the nation.

    I don't wrap myself in the flag, but I like and respect the flag. I'd never burn it, I would use it as a symbol opposing some great injustice by our own government if I felt it was required. I also don't feel much animosity for people who are not patriots, though if they get in my face about it, I may have some words for them.

    I think the most important thing to identify with respect to Patriotism is that it takes different forms for differnet people, they may even feel eachoter are traitors for what they do in the name of their own patriotism. A bit like religion, I can disagree but I won't question their passion and belief unless they question mine first.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  6. #6
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,482
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Question of Patriotism as it Relates to Diversity

    It was an essay I wrote elsewhere and copied and pasted here. Can't edit it now =(
    I will no longer be replying to any post from a Liberal going forward. I will continue, as normal, to discuss topics and engage in intellectual exchanges with non-leftist

  7. #7
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    72
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Question of Patriotism as it Relates to Diversity

    Quote Originally Posted by Someguy View Post

    Otherwise, we risk isolating and singling out particular cultures or ethnicities and losing the very thing that defines us as a country. While this type of anti-American behavior is perhaps most commonly demonstrated on the individual level, it is most dangerous when it has a state sponsored, and thus oppressive, element to it.

    Representative Ron Paul from Texas’ 14th Congressional District once defined patriotism as, “that effort to resist oppressive state powers” and that it most certainly was not, “obedience to the state”. Representative Paul concluded by saying,

    “But whether the resistance against government tyrants is nonviolent or physically violent, the effort to overthrow state oppression qualifies as true patriotism.” This is a superior definition for the word because it simply more accurately reflect

    our mentality as a nation. The original American patriots during the American Revolution rose in opposition to the tyrannical rule of King George and fought for independence. These patriots saw it as a necessary step to take in order to ensure

    that the values and morals of the people were not infringed on by the state.
    I strongly disagree. This is not a definition of patriotism it is more another act of propaganda under the disguise of flag waving. Just a dishonest means of acting against any ideas you are against by merely waving a flag instead of offering good reason.

    The luxury of hindsight demonstrates that your american revolution was completely unnecessary. That in fact it was more about a few greedy business men willing to plunge an entire country into war just so that they could gain control and manipulate taxes to suite themselves. A practice america's elite businesses still carry out today. But of course offering such an alternative view will no doubt be met with a wall of patriotic indignation rather than any solid argument. Just as that priest ron paul will deny that businesses do manipulate taxes to suite themselves.


    While Representative Paul’s definition was more accurate than the one offered in the dictionary, Mrs. Weber would argue that true patriotism involves protection and

    respect for the diversity of the country as well. She would argue that unless we love, support, and defend all; we love, support, and defend none. That being said, we as a nation should oppose by any means necessary any law,

    edict, or order handed down to us that violates our universal morals and values and targets any specific group or sect of our people unnecessarily or irresponsibly .
    What universal morals? Which values? Your words are easily manipulated to mean anything and quite deliberately so. This ron paul you have mentioned is a libertarian so therefore the words unnecessarily or irresponsibly are words defined by an agenda that is simply nothing more than fascism rapped in an american flag.

  8. #8
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,229
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Question of Patriotism as it Relates to Diversity

    Quote Originally Posted by SoylentGreen View Post
    What universal morals? Which values? Your words are easily manipulated to mean anything and quite deliberately so. This ron paul you have mentioned is a libertarian so therefore the words unnecessarily or irresponsibly are words defined by an agenda that is simply nothing more than fascism rapped in an american flag.
    Libertarian and Fascist ideals are pretty far apart I think. Fascists are all about nationalism and unity as where libertarians are about individual autonomy and loose confederation. About the only point of interest I can see is a love of the uber man, an exceptionalist ideal.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  9. Likes Squatch347 liked this post
  10. #9
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,482
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Question of Patriotism as it Relates to Diversity

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Libertarian and Fascist ideals are pretty far apart I think. Fascists are all about nationalism and unity as where libertarians are about individual autonomy and loose confederation. About the only point of interest I can see is a love of the uber man, an exceptionalist ideal.
    It was such a ridiculous comparison that I didn't even bother responding to it. It was a typical liberal rant; call it whatever mean sounding names you can think of and hope it sticks. I don't bother responding to liberals anymore at all.

    ---------- Post added at 06:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:16 PM ----------

    It doesn't even look like he read or comprehended the article. He just looked for something vague and applied a buzz word to it. Not worth your effort to even acknowledge it
    I will no longer be replying to any post from a Liberal going forward. I will continue, as normal, to discuss topics and engage in intellectual exchanges with non-leftist

  11. #10
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    72
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Question of Patriotism as it Relates to Diversity

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Libertarian and Fascist ideals are pretty far apart I think. Fascists are all about nationalism and unity as where libertarians are about individual autonomy and loose confederation. About the only point of interest I can see is a love of the uber man, an exceptionalist ideal.
    Fascism is a bit more complicated than just that. The similarity is that both wish for an elite group to be in charge and receive all benefits at the cost to many. The similarity is that where laizzes faire has been tried in south america it did become a fascist state controlled by the military and bringing death and imprisonment to thousands.

    The only real difference is that a fascist will at least call their ideas fascist while the libertarian will rap himself in a flag and sing about patriotism and it being the american way instead.

  12. #11
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,482
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Question of Patriotism as it Relates to Diversity

    Quote Originally Posted by SoylentGreen View Post
    Fascism is a bit more complicated than just that. The similarity is that both wish for an elite group to be in charge and receive all benefits at the cost to many. The similarity is that where laizzes faire has been tried in south america it did become a fascist state controlled by the military and bringing death and imprisonment to thousands.

    The only real difference is that a fascist will at least call their ideas fascist while the libertarian will rap himself in a flag and sing about patriotism and it being the american way instead.
    Your ignorance of Libertarianism is painful
    I will no longer be replying to any post from a Liberal going forward. I will continue, as normal, to discuss topics and engage in intellectual exchanges with non-leftist

  13. #12
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,229
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Question of Patriotism as it Relates to Diversity

    Quote Originally Posted by Someguy View Post
    It was a typical liberal rant; call it whatever mean sounding names you can think of and hope it sticks. I don't bother responding to liberals anymore at all.
    Not sure how to tell you this Someguy, but your OP in this thread is a typical liberal rant. You are arguing that patriotism is not the same as blind loyalty and that diversity and inclusiveness are key American values. That is a core liberal message.

    And you do respond to liberals, I'm a liberal and so are most of the people you argue against. Blanket dismissals are not very productive or inviting of dialog and debate which is why we all come here.

    I never ceases to amaze me that folks come to a debate board to argue, then complain that the people they argue against hold views they can't comport with. Of course they do! Otherwise they wouldn't be here arguing with you. It's what you came here for ostensibly.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  14. #13
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,482
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Question of Patriotism as it Relates to Diversity

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Not sure how to tell you this Someguy, but your OP in this thread is a typical liberal rant. You are arguing that patriotism is not the same as blind loyalty and that diversity and inclusiveness are key American values. That is a core liberal message.

    And you do respond to liberals, I'm a liberal and so are most of the people you argue against. Blanket dismissals are not very productive or inviting of dialog and debate which is why we all come here.

    I never ceases to amaze me that folks come to a debate board to argue, then complain that the people they argue against hold views they can't comport with. Of course they do! Otherwise they wouldn't be here arguing with you. It's what you came here for ostensibly.
    I don't find the argument that blind loyalty to a country and patriotism is essentially a Conservative position very persuasive.

    There is a difference between having a constructive, healthy, intelligent debate between opposition ideas and positions and spouting ignorant, unsubstantiated, ideological dribble. One deserves consideration and contemplation, the other deserves being ignored or ridiculed

    ---------- Post added at 12:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:24 PM ----------

    And I wouldn't insult you by calling you a Liberal. You come off as more of a left-leaning independent. I've never found you to be consumed by left ideology
    I will no longer be replying to any post from a Liberal going forward. I will continue, as normal, to discuss topics and engage in intellectual exchanges with non-leftist

  15. #14
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    72
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Question of Patriotism as it Relates to Diversity

    Quote Originally Posted by Someguy View Post

    [/COLOR]It doesn't even look like he read or comprehended the article. He just looked for something vague and applied a buzz word to it. Not worth your effort to even acknowledge it
    Rubbish! There was nothing difficult about the point i was making. But let me reiterate. you said:
    This is a superior definition for the word because it simply more accurately reflect

    our mentality as a nation. The original American patriots during the American Revolution rose in opposition to the tyrannical rule of King George and fought for independence. These patriots saw it as a necessary step to take in order to ensure

    that the values and morals of the people were not infringed on by the state.
    This is actually called an arguable statement. You may not recognise that fact being obviously so entrenched in the arrogance of a fixed position.

    Your original american patriots acted out of self interest in wanting to control and manipulate their own taxes. Americans continue to praise an act that with hindsight was completely unnecessary and a waste of lives.

    You are as usual for a libertarian taking a bit of history and manipulating it to create a hatred for governments. Again, completely unnecessary.

    The values and morals of libertarians are worse than that of american christians. But like your christians it is of no use simply just pointing out a particular bad example of morality because i will get back the usual excuse of , "not my religion "claim. I have to wait until you announce one before i can tackle it. But just for example let's try one such as libertarians can argue against the idea that altruism exists. One of the most commonest misapprehensions of libertarians. Another would be this incessant need to rap your intentions with flag waving as if to imply that a person is not being a true american if they do not drink your cool-aid.

    And that is the trouble with libertarianism, it is filled with the lack of understanding. It uses propaganda such as this false claim of true patriotism for nothing more than to promote it's own agenda of building mistrust against governments.

    You and i will never agree i have no doubt. Even further as far as i am concerned libertarianism is the worse idea since electing trump. But do not confuse me for one of your liberals. I care only a little less for the american left than i do for the right. You are probably right to start now with what will be inevitably be our final position. But this is a debate sight and it is greatly rude and demonstrates that you have in fact become entrenched to simply just assume the position ( pun intended) of defeat.
    i offer no guarantee that emotional responses will not appear at some stage. But probably not until you demonstrate even greater efforts of arrogance of simply just taking on an entrenched position. And then, when and even if, i do reach your stage of being bored with the repetition of your excuses, then i will ignore you and allow you to go on ignoring anything that contradicts your opinion.

    ---------- Post added at 06:31 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:27 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Someguy View Post
    Your ignorance of Libertarianism is painful
    I agree only in that i am ignorant of whatever twist of a version of libertarianism it is you have. Of libertarianism in general i am well acquainted and find nothing amusing in it. Like your false propagandising of an unnecessary war to promote an ideology and disguising it as patriotism.

    ---------- Post added at 06:38 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:31 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Someguy View Post
    I don't find the argument that blind loyalty to a country and patriotism is essentially a Conservative position very persuasive.
    Straw man, no one made that claim, only that your example of it was questionable.

    There is a difference between having a constructive, healthy, intelligent debate between opposition ideas and positions and spouting ignorant, unsubstantiated, ideological dribble. One deserves consideration and contemplation, the other deserves being ignored or ridiculed.
    Absolutely true but this is a debate site and i am quite willing to give you the opportunity to reach such a position of doing nothing more than saying dribbling nonsense rather than just assume the case.

    Do you have a problem with the concept of hindsight? Is this perhaps why you do not understand that your position of true patriotism resting on an act is questionable by such means?

  16. #15
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,229
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Question of Patriotism as it Relates to Diversity

    Quote Originally Posted by SoylentGreen View Post
    Fascism is a bit more complicated than just that. The similarity is that both wish for an elite group to be in charge and receive all benefits at the cost to many. The similarity is that where laizzes faire has been tried in south america it did become a fascist state controlled by the military and bringing death and imprisonment to thousands.

    The only real difference is that a fascist will at least call their ideas fascist while the libertarian will rap himself in a flag and sing about patriotism and it being the American way instead.
    Nope. I'm not saying that individuals don't do that, I'm saying that is not the core of the political ideology. Fascist ideology is nearly the opposite of libertariansim.

    The core tenant of liberalism is the idea that each human being is sovereign and has natural rights that entitle them to autonomy and liberty. In short its the "don't tell me what to do" ideology. It has both left wing and right wing branches. On the right they want a free market ideology where not only do you have personal autonomy you also have autonomy over your personal property. On the left you have a socialist ideology that says private property is in essense a form of control and tyrany so all property should be owned collectively to avoid that problem.

    What you are trying to point a finger at is the pragmatic flaw of the right wing version of libertarianism. That is, when markets are unrestricted cabals and individuals with natural advantages or simply greater ambition can gain monopolistic control of resources that become an effective means of social control over other people, which in turn can quickly devolve into political control and the end of any kind of true libertarian state.

    Of course the left wing has its issues as well. In a socialist environment you have collective control of property. Human nature tells us that our work and industry as well as our tastes and desires in reguards to property are often an integral part of our identity. When that is strictly controled by some authority then we have lost some of that liberty which we were hoping to achieve.

    I am a Libertarian in principle. That means I value individual liberty as a core ideal. That said, unlike those who actively campaign for libertarian policies, I recognize there is a deep conflit/flaw in libertarianism, that is that we are social creatures and living in a society requires compromise and sometimes even capitulation in order to maintain relative peace and cooperation, both of which are essential to living a good life unless you want to live off in the woods by yourself.

    Western democracies are in a constant struggle between these two ideals. On the right, people are defending political and financial autonomy. On the left people are trying to prevent deep marginalization my market forces and give economic autonomy to those who can't or won't sucesfully compete. People intrinsicly understand both of these dangers, monopoly of private property, and the dangers of an authoritarian state. So they battle back and forth as the pendulum swings one way or the other.

    Fascism
    The terrible beauty of Fascism is it doesn't have these problems with liberty. It firmly recognizes that humans are social animals and it seeks to create a society that forces them to cooperate for a shared purpose and goal. It uses propaganda to get some people to voluntarily choose participation and foce to crush any who choose not to participate. It doesn't fear conflict in socieity, it just seeks to win any such conflict. It would like for people to choose its methods but if they don't it has no idological compunctions about forcing it. And this simplicity and unity and purity is its political and idological appeal.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  17. #16
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    72
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Question of Patriotism as it Relates to Diversity

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Nope. I'm not saying that individuals don't do that, I'm saying that is not the core of the political ideology. Fascist ideology is nearly the opposite of libertariansim.
    It is not the core of either philosophy that creates any similarity. It is the superficial exterior examples such as someguys display of arrogance and misuse of history to push his propaganda where the similarities are. Fascism as you point out relies on emotional barbs rather than reasoned argument just as someguys appeal to the emotions with his rant of patriotism and the kind of emotional black mail in calling on things like american morality and culture to back his arguments. Libertarianism is not literally fascism as fascism is in itself another philosophy entirely. But they share enough in similarity, intent, and end result to make a comparison.

    The core tenant of liberalism is the idea that each human being is sovereign and has natural rights that entitle them to autonomy and liberty. In short its the "don't tell me what to do" ideology. It has both left wing and right wing branches. On the right they want a free market ideology where not only do you have personal autonomy you also have autonomy over your personal property. On the left you have a socialist ideology that says private property is in essense a form of control and tyrany so all property should be owned collectively to avoid that problem.

    What you are trying to point a finger at is the pragmatic flaw of the right wing version of libertarianism. That is, when markets are unrestricted cabals and individuals with natural advantages or simply greater ambition can gain monopolistic control of resources that become an effective means of social control over other people, which in turn can quickly devolve into political control and the end of any kind of true libertarian state.

    Of course the left wing has its issues as well. In a socialist environment you have collective control of property. Human nature tells us that our work and industry as well as our tastes and desires in reguards to property are often an integral part of our identity. When that is strictly controled by some authority then we have lost some of that liberty which we were hoping to achieve.

    I am a Libertarian in principle. That means I value individual liberty as a core ideal. That said, unlike those who actively campaign for libertarian policies, I recognize there is a deep conflit/flaw in libertarianism, that is that we are social creatures and living in a society requires compromise and sometimes even capitulation in order to maintain relative peace and cooperation, both of which are essential to living a good life unless you want to live off in the woods by yourself.

    Western democracies are in a constant struggle between these two ideals. On the right, people are defending political and financial autonomy. On the left people are trying to prevent deep marginalization my market forces and give economic autonomy to those who can't or won't sucesfully compete. People intrinsicly understand both of these dangers, monopoly of private property, and the dangers of an authoritarian state. So they battle back and forth as the pendulum swings one way or the other.
    There are a number of things in this statement of yours. Firstly, i admire the way you managed to say that this is all about the same bird just different wings concept without actually saying it, sneaky, i like it. Really do not agree with it.
    This analogy only works in america where there is little difference between left and right. Again, as someguy points out americans are more concerned with being seen as having proper american cultural thoughts than any real concern for politics.

    I strongly disagree with libertarian left wing politics that maintain a state controlled monopoly, or as you said in bold, twice.
    I would argue that america has undergone a very strong anti communist propaganda in its history and that it still influences your thinking about socialism today, the kind of state controlled single party centralised government such as russia had. It is a bit ironic that just as you ask me to accept that there are two wings to libertarianism so i ask you to consider that there is another type of socialism. What you speak of as left wing libertarianism is the kind of thinking that develops from believing countries like russia or north korea are examples of communism. They are not, they are examples of dictatorships. If you can consider that there are two differing styles of libertarianism then is it a far stretch to say that there is also two types of socialism?

    Lastly, my main complaint here is that americans typically either go too far or not enough. Your libertarian right is extreme and your left is a half arsed effort. Your not describing left wing libertarianism, this is left wing libertarianism
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism
    Past and present political philosophies and movements commonly described as libertarian socialist include anarchism (especially anarchist communism, anarchist collectivism, anarcho-syndicalism, etc...

    They propose that this economic system be executed in a manner that attempts to maximize the liberty of individuals and minimize concentration of power or authority (libertarianism).
    Just as you value liberty so does socialism.

  18. #17
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,229
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Question of Patriotism as it Relates to Diversity

    Quote Originally Posted by SoylentGreen View Post
    It is not the core of either philosophy that creates any similarity...
    Glad we agree on that. So we have some common ground, but still disagree in the degree to which Fascism departs from libertarianism. Still, need you around when I have to debate that Fascism is not communism. American conservatives like to make that argument pretty often.

    Firstly, i admire the way you managed to say that this is all about the same bird just different wings concept without actually saying it, sneaky, i like it.
    I'm not trying to be sneaky, but I'm glad you liked it. It mostly came from doing some research on the origins of libertarianism as a term. Its roots are in anarcho socialist literature but grew into the anarcho capitalist ideology as well. It still lives on in both of these forms. Only in writing it did it strike me how American politics is a struggle between these two libertarian ideas.
    Really do not agree with it.
    Great, that gives us something to debate about.

    This analogy only works in America where there is little difference between left and right. Again, as someguy points out Americans are more concerned with being seen as having proper american cultural thoughts than any real concern for politics.
    Well, I am an American, so is Someguy so we will have a very American perspective on things, it's hard not to. No doubt you have a perspective of wherever it is you grew up. British perhaps, or one of the commonwealth countries? Your english is strong and you seem to have a bit of a chip on the sholder for the American revolution.

    Anyhow, Americans do have a real concern for politics. Depending on the American you get varying degrees of world wide political literacy. Anyhow, just stick to what you think the specific issues are and we should be good, I can't argue with generalities like that.

    I strongly disagree with libertarian left wing politics that maintain a state controlled monopoly, or as you said in bold, twice.

    I would argue that america has undergone a very strong anti communist propaganda in its history and that it still influences your thinking about socialism today, the kind of state controlled single party centralised government such as russia had. It is a bit ironic that just as you ask me to accept that there are two wings to libertarianism so i ask you to consider that there is another type of socialism. What you speak of as left wing libertarianism is the kind of thinking that develops from believing countries like russia or north korea are examples of communism. They are not, they are examples of dictatorships. If you can consider that there are two differing styles of libertarianism then is it a far stretch to say that there is also two types of socialism?
    THere are nearly inumerable types of socialism. Libertarian socialism, closely realated to anarcho socialism is one of them and the one we are most interested in. Russia (was) and North Korea is a communist nation, so is china, Cuba and no doubt quite a few others. Lots more practice one or more forms of socialsim or socialist inspired policies. Just because you don't like the way Russia did it or North Korea does it now, doesn't mean they aren't part of that spectrum. Its like muslims who say the radicals aren't really muslims or chistians who say mormans aren't really christians and so forth, we call it the "no true scotsman" fallacy.

    Certainly those (Russia, NK, China) are not left-libertarian versions of socialism. But that doesn't mean that left socialism doesn't involve any kind of government control. Merely suggesting that people can't own capital is a pretty significant means of control. Ensuring certain kinds of social equality also invovle control. Any kind of production monopoly, state or otherwise is a type of control. Collective decision making and collective ownership will always result in a loss of individual autonomy in some respect. While the goal is an egalitarian one, it none the less comes at a cost in terms of absolute liberty.

    And as I noted, so does market capitalism, it just has a rather different set of liberties that are impacted and for rather different reasons.

    Lastly, my main complaint here is that americans typically either go too far or not enough. Your libertarian right is extreme and your left is a half arsed effort. Your not describing left wing libertarianism, this is left wing libertarianism
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism
    ANd that is exactly what I was reading in my research so yes, I know. Consider that perhaps you are making the mistake of presuming my views based on where I live and your own steryotypes of Americans.

    Just as you value liberty so does socialism.
    Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Socialism as you say is a wide range of ideas. But it absolutely does impact liberty reguardless.

    Lets say I want to damn a river and build a power plant, then trade that power to others in the area. Can I do that under a libertarian-socialist regime without having to ask the collective state's permission?
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  19. #18
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    72
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Question of Patriotism as it Relates to Diversity

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Glad we agree on that. So we have some common ground, but still disagree in the degree to which Fascism departs from libertarianism. Still, need you around when I have to debate that Fascism is not communism. American conservatives like to make that argument pretty often.
    No prob, but will you have my back when i argue that socialism is not communism or that anarchism does not mean no government or that nihilism is not a belief in nothing?

    I'm not trying to be sneaky, but I'm glad you liked it. It mostly came from doing some research on the origins of libertarianism as a term. Its roots are in anarcho socialist literature but grew into the anarcho capitalist ideology as well. It still lives on in both of these forms. Only in writing it did it strike me how American politics is a struggle between these two libertarian ideas.
    American politics perhaps. And there is good reason for that. As I said in a bit of a snide way that americans are more concerned with image than politics. Such a great concern for things such as someguy points to, patriotism, the so called american way, or culture, liberty and flag waving.



    Well, I am an American, so is Someguy so we will have a very American perspective on things, it's hard not to. No doubt you have a perspective of wherever it is you grew up. British perhaps, or one of the commonwealth countries? Your english is strong and you seem to have a bit of a chip on the sholder for the American revolution.
    New zealand, sorry wasn't trying to hide that. And no not a chip about the revolution. But one about the dishonest use of propaganda being disguised as a true act of patriotism.


    Anyhow, Americans do have a real concern for politics.
    Really!!! You have trump as a president and you can still say that?

    Depending on the American you get varying degrees of world wide political literacy. Anyhow, just stick to what you think the specific issues are and we should be good, I can't argue with generalities like that.
    I would question that statement. Americas image is that of a xenophobic, inward looking isolationist style country. You actually voted to build a friggin wall. Demanded a president who wants to close down world wide involvement in politics and trade.
    No, america is such a big country with so many internal events going on that america need not and chooses not to be aware of world wide politics. Sorry about the genaralising.




    THere are nearly inumerable types of socialism. Libertarian socialism, closely realated to anarcho socialism is one of them and the one we are most interested in. Russia (was) and North Korea is a communist nation, so is china, Cuba and no doubt quite a few others. Lots more practice one or more forms of socialsim or socialist inspired policies. Just because you don't like the way Russia did it or North Korea does it now, doesn't mean they aren't part of that spectrum. Its like muslims who say the radicals aren't really muslims or chistians who say mormans aren't really christians and so forth, we call it the "no true scotsman" fallacy.
    No that is called more of just a superficial look at what is rather than what should be. You have described the structure of a philosophy while ignoring content and intent. Granted that the origin of of each started with the title at least of communism but devolved straight away into a dictatorship of an elite branch rather than any philosophy of proletarian rule. Much like america started with a democracy claiming a capitalist based philosophy which quickly devolved into an oligarchy. Cuba did as well as it could so i did not include its name.


    Certainly those (Russia, NK, China) are not left-libertarian versions of socialism. But that doesn't mean that left socialism doesn't involve any kind of government control. Merely suggesting that people can't own capital is a pretty significant means of control. Ensuring certain kinds of social equality also invovle control. Any kind of production monopoly, state or otherwise is a type of control. Collective decision making and collective ownership will always result in a loss of individual autonomy in some respect. While the goal is an egalitarian one, it none the less comes at a cost in terms of absolute liberty.
    Unless you are promoting some weird no government at all philosophy then so what. Basic 101 philosophy here. The question now is which way to go from this point.
    And again i did not include china as their whole history and cultural influence does not make an easy comparison.
    And as I noted, so does market capitalism, it just has a rather different set of liberties that are impacted and for rather different reasons.
    They all face the same problem which is basically, humans.


    ANd that is exactly what I was reading in my research so yes, I know. Consider that perhaps you are making the mistake of presuming my views based on where I live and your own steryotypes of Americans.
    True, but another word for it is called fishing. By responding to the original OP i thought i had caught a fish, turned out to be a thrown away boot. So i try again.


    Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Socialism as you say is a wide range of ideas. But it absolutely does impact liberty reguardless.
    And if it is possible to add to that a voting system that is not corrupt or a form of governance that is not built on conflict then possibly there is a working ground for a political system that attempts to minimalise that. Pity america does not have any of that.

    Lets say I want to damn a river and build a power plant, then trade that power to others in the area. Can I do that under a libertarian-socialist regime without having to ask the collective state's permission
    Are you planning on doing all by yourself or will this include another layer of social structure. If so, then regardless of the political system a social form of conformity must exist.

    The real question here is that dam going to require a pipeline through someone else beliefs that you do not share. And will you as a business man use your power and money to achieve that pipeleine even if means calling in other men with guns and the intention to use them.

    Once you involve even one other person in a decision then it becomes political in some way. Have you never been married?

  20. #19
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,229
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Question of Patriotism as it Relates to Diversity

    Quote Originally Posted by SoylentGreen View Post
    No prob, but will you have my back when i argue that socialism is not communism or that anarchism does not mean no government or that nihilism is not a belief in nothing?
    Probably, only time will tell. Socialims and Communism are related but not the same. Anarchism doesn't mean no government always, but sometimes it can. I don't know much about nihilism but it never soudned too appealing so I havn't looked into it. (will do so shortly out of curiosity)

    American politics perhaps. And there is good reason for that. As I said in a bit of a snide way that americans are more concerned with image than politics. Such a great concern for things such as someguy points to, patriotism, the so called american way, or culture, liberty and flag waving.
    That is your take as someone who is not an American. I can tell you it's more than just image to a good many americans, its their cultural ideology and heritage. It's a save bet that when you make generalizations about a culture you aren't a part of you are going to be a fair bit wrong.

    New zealand, sorry wasn't trying to hide that.
    Didn't think you were hiding it, no sweat. I'm pleased to have guessed correctly. Also, really want to come visit that country some day.

    Really!!! You have trump as a president and you can still say that?
    Yep. Trumps election was something of a backlash against establishment politics in the US. Some truly beleive in him, others just want to "stick it to the man" and "shake up the system". Stupid since he kind of is "the man" and one of the beneficiaries of "the system" but I only said they cared, not that they were sophisticated.

    No, america is such a big country with so many internal events going on that america need not and chooses not to be aware of world wide politics. Sorry about the genaralising.
    We talk about foreign events pretty often, though only the sort of earth shattering ones. Wars, major political changes, diplomatic stand offs with major rivals or allies, natural disasters and so on. Mind you we ahve what you might call classes of experts. Business people tend to be plugged in for the sake of business, political elites for the sake of politics, and then you have folks like me who are always curious to learn more stuff. There are other americans who don't care and don't know jack, but I imagine there are people like that in most nations.

    And thanks for the apology, I had a whole rant for you to shame you about your steryotypes but I shelved it on reading this.

    No that is called more of just a superficial look at what is rather than what should be. You have described the structure of a philosophy while ignoring content and intent. Granted that the origin of of each started with the title at least of communism but devolved straight away into a dictatorship of an elite branch rather than any philosophy of proletarian rule.
    Were you not earlier saying that free market libertarianism just inevitably leads to authoritrian regimes? Can you consider that communism seems to inevitabley also lead to authoritarian rule whatever the philisophical underpining aspirations may be? Any time there is a forcible attempt to order society, it requires both a means and a will to establish control. We'd both agree that the ideals of communism are not embodied in China or Cuba, and we might also agree that right-libertarian ideals are not embodied in countries professing to follow them.

    But we have the no-trues scotsman thing again. The idea that anyone not matching a theoretical viewpoint is no good as an example of that viewpoint in polticial reality. That may well speak to the inatainability of that theoretical ideal more than whether or not they are honest attempts to realize it.

    Much like america started with a democracy claiming a capitalist based philosophy which quickly devolved into an oligarchy.
    I don't recall capitalism being mentioned in the declaration of indipendence or the constitution on which the US was based and founded. In reality the philosophies under which the US was founded were Classcial Liberalism as imagined by the Eglishman John Locke and Classical Republicanism which has its roots in Greek philosophy of government. Capitalism, as we understand it today didn't exist whem america was founded. What you had instead was Merchantilism and American poltical philosophy didn't much adress it. Ameira at the time was a largely agracultural society. It wasn't until much later that issues of todays capitalism and then socialism and communism became political fodder in American politics. Summary: You need to study American history some more before you wade in on the subject.

    And as to Oligarchy. Well I think you can make the case that it started as one and continues to be one to this day. Democracy naturally elevates charismatic and/or capable leaders into possitions of power, and market economies do likewise in terms of possitions of wealth. And we all know wealth is a form of power. But... who exactly the Oligarchs are in america shifts around pretty frequently. There is some measure of class mobility in America and peole do routinely go from the disenfranchised to the possition of being among the Oligarchs.

    Furthermore, one of the fascits of the American poltical system thanks to John Loche and his advocates, is that the structure of government sets limits on what the Oligarchs can actually do. As a result many Americans live pretty unfettered lives, myself included. I can't remember the last time I felt the govcernment had much impact on my life beyond tax bills. That's not true for everyone mind you, but for many Americans it is.

    Unless you are promoting some weird no government at all philosophy then so what. Basic 101 philosophy here. The question now is which way to go from this point.
    And again i did not include china as their whole history and cultural influence does not make an easy comparison.

    They all face the same problem which is basically, humans.
    Sure. People are always the problem you know. But, alas, we are all humans hand we are essentially social creatures so we struggle trying to find the best fit solution to our challenge.
    As I've said to some others, I would be a Libertarian idealist if people were all libertarian idealsists. Its a great way to live, free from people telling you what to do and in harmoneous cooperation for the betterment onf one another as well as ourselves. But, people are often greedy and selfish and looking for ways to take advantages here and there, sometimes small, but often quite big. We are also emotional and fallable and prone to mistakes. So, we have to have rules to try and keep folks from making life miserable for one another. And someone has to enforce the rules.

    And if it is possible to add to that a voting system that is not corrupt or a form of governance that is not built on conflict then possibly there is a working ground for a political system that attempts to minimalise that. Pity america does not have any of that.
    Not sure I really understnad that. We do voting, its mostly not corrupt and mostly not about conflict (well not physical conflict). Ya, it requires governance, for without it, those who didn't want to abide by the result of the vote could simply ignore it and thus undermine the group decision. Our system of voting, for the most part, is pretty good. What the American voters do with it... well that is sometimes problematic. But that is simply one of the costs of demcoracy. Lucky for us, the same safeguards that can hold Oligachs in check, can also hold the public in check.

    Are you planning on doing all by yourself or will this include another layer of social structure. If so, then regardless of the political system a social form of conformity must exist.
    Let us say, for the sake of argument, that I have 6 other compatriots who will help me with the project but we will not reveal any other details of our arrangement amongst ourselves citing it as a private concern of our own.

    The real question here is that dam going to require a pipeline through someone else beliefs that you do not share.
    Can you be more specific? What form does this metaphorical pipeline take, who's beliefs am I putting it throught and what are these beliefs?

    And will you as a business man use your power and money to achieve that pipeleine even if means calling in other men with guns and the intention to use them.
    Hold up. You are putting the cart ahead of the horse here. I asked if I had to get permsission for making my dam and selling the power it generates. Do I need permission or not?

    Once you involve even one other person in a decision then it becomes political in some way. Have you never been married?
    I have been married for 15 years. Do I need to get permsssion to build my dam or not? You can explain yourself and ask all the questions you like, but answer mine first if you respect honest dialog.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  21. #20
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    72
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Question of Patriotism as it Relates to Diversity

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Probably, only time will tell. Socialims and Communism are related but not the same. Anarchism doesn't mean no government always, but sometimes it can. I don't know much about nihilism but it never soudned too appealing so I havn't looked into it. (will do so shortly out of curiosity)
    Socialism and communism are related in the same sense that a grandfather is related to a grandchild, one does not directly come from the other but they share an ancestry. I know of no anarchist philosophy that does not include a method of governance. Anarchy on the other hand is just a state of non governance. And as for nihilism good luck on finding any philosophy on the subject that is not usually written by someone opposing it. The only supporting arguments are not actually philosophy per se. But it does survive in literature. In fact it is interesting that americans do not know much about nihilism as your society underwent a nihilist revolution in the early twentieth century. Some of the best nihilist writers are americans, kerouac, steinbeck hemingway to name a few. And a group of those writers were at the core of your social revolution. You have heard of the beatnik generation? Some great writers came from that generation and much of their writing questions what society values. And in many ways support the idea that value has no real meaning.
    An example of nihilist poetry. It's not philosophy but it still has meaning.
    https://www.britannica.com/topic/Howl-poem-by-Ginsberg
    That is your take as someone who is not an American. I can tell you it's more than just image to a good many americans, its their cultural ideology and heritage. It's a save bet that when you make generalizations about a culture you aren't a part of you are going to be a fair bit wrong.
    It would be an even more safe bet that when talking about an entire countries cultural ideology and heritage that you will be talking in generalisations. Unless of course you want to admit it absolutely necessary to link to the department of statistics and get exact confirmation on the statistical figures. Personally i think the argument is getting a bit anal with that kind of thing, but if you insist?
    Didn't think you were hiding it, no sweat. I'm pleased to have guessed correctly. Also, really want to come visit that country some day.
    Always welcome, bring lots of money We're a tourist country. I too would really like to see america.
    Yep. Trumps election was something of a backlash against establishment politics in the US. Some truly beleive in him, others just want to "stick it to the man" and "shake up the system". Stupid since he kind of is "the man" and one of the beneficiaries of "the system" but I only said they cared, not that they were sophisticated.
    I can throw this " your not an american " thing at you. Your not the rest of the world and have no idea just how weird it is to see something that can be so funny as well as being appalling and horrible.
    We talk about foreign events pretty often, though only the sort of earth shattering ones. Wars, major political changes, diplomatic stand offs with major rivals or allies, natural disasters and so on. Mind you we ahve what you might call classes of experts. Business people tend to be plugged in for the sake of business, political elites for the sake of politics, and then you have folks like me who are always curious to learn more stuff. There are other americans who don't care and don't know jack, but I imagine there are people like that in most nations.
    That does not quite explain the isolationist tendencies. A lack of passport ownership in america. And america for all its hypocritical talk of peace has been involved in every war around the world since the creation of america. Either by selling arms or armies. So yes, your interests in all those things are very profitable for your country as a whole. No problem selling guns, just don't want to visit the places you sell them to.
    And thanks for the apology, I had a whole rant for you to shame you about your steryotypes but I shelved it on reading this.
    If we get into a specific debate I will be more specific. But at the moment i am treating this more as a conversation than a debate.
    Were you not earlier saying that free market libertarianism just inevitably leads to authoritrian regimes? Can you consider that communism seems to inevitabley also lead to authoritarian rule whatever the philisophical underpining aspirations may be? Any time there is a forcible attempt to order society, it requires both a means and a will to establish control. We'd both agree that the ideals of communism are not embodied in China or Cuba, and we might also agree that right-libertarian ideals are not embodied in countries professing to follow them.
    But we have the no-trues scotsman thing again. The idea that anyone not matching a theoretical viewpoint is no good as an example of that viewpoint in polticial reality. That may well speak to the inatainability of that theoretical ideal more than whether or not they are honest attempts to realize it.
    No, what i said was a free market laissez-faire economy did lead to a dictatorship. As far a i know no country ever succeeded in creating a communist state.
    Russia is not a communist state because it never actually became one. At least not in the philosophical sense and a dictatorship merely labeling itself communism is not actually communism. After the overthrow of the russian aristocracy the communist first turned on their allies and killed off or imprisoned the anarchists and the nihilists. They then turned on themselves. First taking out the smaller voices such as trotsky with methods such as an ice pick in the back of the head until there were only two parties left. Both the bolsheviks and the mensheviks agreed that the proletariat were not ready to take their place in running the country. And for what it is worth they were right. A thousand years of having someones foot on your neck does that to what were basically peasants. Where they differed was that the mensheviks thought that at least people such as trade unionists should be given political power while the bolsheviks wanted all political power to remain in the one party under lenins control. The bolsheviks won and in the moment they did so ended any prospect of the communist ideal of a dictatorship of the proletariat and instead got a dictatorship.
    And please do not call this a generalisation. It is a synopsis.
    I don't recall capitalism being mentioned in the declaration of indipendence or the constitution on which the US was based and founded. In reality the philosophies under which the US was founded were Classcial Liberalism as imagined by the Eglishman John Locke and Classical Republicanism which has its roots in Greek philosophy of government. Capitalism, as we understand it today didn't exist whem america was founded. What you had instead was Merchantilism and American poltical philosophy didn't much adress it. Ameira at the time was a largely agracultural society. It wasn't until much later that issues of todays capitalism and then socialism and communism became political fodder in American politics. Summary: You need to study American history some more before you wade in on the subject.
    I said a capitalist based society which of course was a mercantile economy of england. You can accuse me of not being specific but not of not understanding your history. The base history you are giving me does not change my statement that the government that was created after that revolution lasted not that long before devolving. Nor does the communist becoming fodder for you create much if an issue as it apparently it was not needed as the devolving happened anyway.
    Please also note that i did begin that sentence with the words " Much like". Meaning, that although there is a similarity there is also a difference. Where as communism has never happened that which you described, did.
    And as to Oligarchy. Well I think you can make the case that it started as one and continues to be one to this day. Democracy naturally elevates charismatic and/or capable leaders into possitions of power, and market economies do likewise in terms of possitions of wealth. And we all know wealth is a form of power. But... who exactly the Oligarchs are in america shifts around pretty frequently. There is some measure of class mobility in America and peole do routinely go from the disenfranchised to the possition of being among the Oligarchs.
    Correct me if i am wrong but are you saying that as long as any poor american man can look his child in the eye and say, " One day you too can be a despot and control the lives of all you see at a whim." That's a good thing, is it ?????
    Furthermore, one of the fascits of the American poltical system thanks to John Loche and his advocates, is that the structure of government sets limits on what the Oligarchs can actually do. As a result many Americans live pretty unfettered lives, myself included. I can't remember the last time I felt the govcernment had much impact on my life beyond tax bills. That's not true for everyone mind you, but for many Americans it is.
    So again, the morality here is that if the child manages to sneak a biscuit without the parents knowing or even after the parents saying that they should not, no harm, no foul then?
    Sure. People are always the problem you know. But, alas, we are all humans hand we are essentially social creatures so we struggle trying to find the best fit solution to our challenge.
    As I've said to some others, I would be a Libertarian idealist if people were all libertarian idealsists. Its a great way to live, free from people telling you what to do and in harmoneous cooperation for the betterment onf one another as well as ourselves. But, people are often greedy and selfish and looking for ways to take advantages here and there, sometimes small, but often quite big. We are also emotional and fallable and prone to mistakes. So, we have to have rules to try and keep folks from making life miserable for one another. And someone has to enforce the rules.
    More marxist materialist myself in that lean more to engels view of a triad, thesis, antithesis, synthesis. Conflict by such means create change which is necessary for a society to grow. In harmoneous cooperation there can be no conflict by definition. So while you may cooperate freely on ideas there is nothing there to spark new ideas. Without growth a society dies.
    Not sure I really understnad that. We do voting, its mostly not corrupt and mostly not about conflict (well not physical conflict). Ya, it requires governance, for without it, those who didn't want to abide by the result of the vote could simply ignore it and thus undermine the group decision. Our system of voting, for the most part, is pretty good. What the American voters do with it... well that is sometimes problematic. But that is simply one of the costs of demcoracy. Lucky for us, the same safeguards that can hold Oligachs in check, can also hold the public in check.
    Mostly not corrupt. That's like a little bit pregnant.
    It is the system not the mechanics that is questionable. The first question being can a two party system FPP voting system really be said to actually represent nearly 320 million people?
    Let us say, for the sake of argument, that I have 6 other compatriots who will help me with the project but we will not reveal any other details of our arrangement amongst ourselves citing it as a private concern of our own.
    You mean exactly how america treated the tppa and why the deal fell apart. yes, i understand, do continue the analogy.
    Can you be more specific? What form does this metaphorical pipeline take, who's beliefs am I putting it throught and what are these beliefs?
    Just as a metaphor it doesn't work for you? Can i too ask for more specific information or is it just you who can play the analogy?
    Hold up. You are putting the cart ahead of the horse here. I asked if I had to get permsission for making my dam and selling the power it generates. Do I need permission or not?
    Where do you think mutual cooperation comes from in a libertarian society. The discussion really should be around the facts that actually effect those involved. Not imagining some tree hugging communal asking how you might " feel" about it. Nor should some outside force that has no direct concern in the matter be involved unless asked to. In such a situation no direct law could cover the variables involved. In most western societies such things can be handled through courts and such court systems can still exist in even a libertarian socialist society.
    I have been married for 15 years. Do I need to get permsssion to build my dam or not?
    answered.

 

 
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Patriotism
    By Gherkin in forum Formal Discussion
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: November 1st, 2011, 03:04 PM
  2. Patriotism
    By eliotitus in forum Philosophical Debates
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: August 25th, 2008, 08:30 AM
  3. Diversity Requirements
    By chadn737 in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: September 20th, 2005, 01:20 PM
  4. Lack of Diversity
    By EscraymCroix in forum General Debate
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: January 9th, 2005, 09:17 AM
  5. patriotism
    By mask in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: April 6th, 2004, 11:41 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •