It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Conservative "Meritocracy" Paradise As It Recently Existed

page: 11
74
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 25 2015 @ 01:45 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

I truly hope that isn't the best reply that you could think up. One should consider enumerating what or where my point is lacking rather than a "hit and run" comment such as yours that offers nothing.

edit on 25-5-2015 by timequake because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-5-2015 by timequake because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 25 2015 @ 01:53 PM
link   
a reply to: pthena

True enough. So called "liberals" are not the only ones to misunderstand her. There are many who would waive her banner, and even call themselves libertarian who have no idea what it really means. Nonetheless, the point was not about them, but about those who would criticize what they do not really understand.


edit on 25-5-2015 by timequake because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2015 @ 02:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Metallicus

Where?
In your head.

No one is free.
You gotta eat.
You gotta poop.
You gotta drink.
............pee.
............breathe in.
............breathe out.

You are encumbered by being alive.
Time for you to adjust to the overwhelming fact that you will never become unfettered.
Now quit being whiny and learn to adapt.
The rest of the world will appreciate it.
Your need for complete independence is.............unobtainable.
You could always just suicide to resolve this conundrum. Yet there are alternatives, some may be suitable for you. Good luck finding it.
Libertarians are sociopaths either by nature and/or nurture but unredeemable as paragons of ANY virtue. All I hear is the chant of, "Me!, ME!, Oh, and MEEEEE!!!!"
Three Y/Os emulate them as figures of merit.



posted on May, 25 2015 @ 02:47 PM
link   
a reply to: largo

So one's need for sustenance obviates one's ability to be free? One does not need to impose upon another in obtaining the necessities of life, nor does one need to be infringed upon. To be honest, I am not entirely sure that you even understand the concept. It is not a conundrum, but it is in fact the point: that one should be free to do or obtain the necessities, it is not about being free from them.

To present libertarians as sociopaths is hyperbole at best, but more likely represents an ignorance as to what it means. It isn't about thinking of only oneself to the exclusion of other, but that one should not unduly impose or make claims against another's person or property. It has nothing to do with lacking a conscience.



posted on May, 25 2015 @ 03:59 PM
link   
a reply to: largo

who is pissing out of our dangling participle, your neighbor? when you get a boo-boo, does the guy down the street say OUCH! ? when you die, does your gravestone have someone else's name on it? when you're hungry does someone else's stomach growl instead?



posted on May, 25 2015 @ 04:04 PM
link   
a reply to: timequake

i know, they're using mafia like force to rob people at gun point and if you say they are misbehaving, YOU are the psychopath. you can't make this stuff up.

up is down.
good is bad.
etc.


edit on 25-5-2015 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2015 @ 04:14 PM
link   
a reply to: timequake


Nonetheless, the point was not about them, but about those who would criticize what they do not really understand.

There is a fundamental disconnect in American politics when it comes to what is being proposed and what the consequences would be.

The easiest example for me to illustrate is from Obama's first run for President. I listened to his speeches and realized that he wasn't proposing anything concrete, they were only cheerleading exercises, with the exception of war. He specifically stated his goal of escalating Afghan conflict into Pakistan. So he was no peace candidate.

Yet, pro-peace voters voted for him. Disconnect.

In the same way, politicians get up talking about eliminating entitlements, for the good of the country, and Social Security recipients vote for them. Disconnect.

Disconnect all around. I think people have forgotten how to look things up in dictionaries, and have no clue when it comes to analyzing speeches. But I don't think the OP has those problems.

ETA

Military pensions and VA benefits fall into the category of entitlements also.
edit on 25-5-2015 by pthena because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2015 @ 04:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Hefficide

That reminds me of something I read about some state's "cost cutting" measure. They closed down a lot of mental health facilities and turned everyone out. So, here are a lot of newly homeless people with mental health problems who can't get the help they need. It's disgusting.



posted on May, 25 2015 @ 04:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Skid Mark


They closed down a lot of mental health facilities and turned everyone out. So, here are a lot of newly homeless people with mental health problems who can't get the help they need. It's disgusting.

And it is EXACTLY what happened under Reagan. They 'cut the mentally ill loose' and expected the communities to take care of them - those mentally ill people were cast out into the general population, with no sort of after-care or support.....
and the community got NO TRAINING at all......

these people were evicted with no meds, no supervision, no one to check on them from time to time.....
it was a disaster.

We're still dealing with it now - with the homeless, and behavioral disordered, and kids coming from environments that produce such dysfunction........
those people need care. They need attention, and nurturing.

How is an uneducated, unprepared community supposed to deal with that????
They can't. And now it is 2015. Because now.


edit on 5/25/2015 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2015 @ 04:31 PM
link   
a reply to: pthena

and, according to largo, that makes you a sociopath cause what you're saying is decidedly libertarian. obviously, when people realize politicians are just gaming the voters, the voters start to discuss it and from that arises ideas like libertarianism. why is that illogical or sociopathic?



posted on May, 25 2015 @ 04:44 PM
link   
a reply to: undo


according to largo

I don't remember taking largo's post as something I wanted to respond to.

Timequake's post had valid observations that I wanted to expand upon and give examples for.

Ayn Rand and Robert Heinlein were authors that I greatly respected. I love their fiction writing.

But they are not eligible to run for office ( unless the rules have changed radically ).

I've been out of the political loop for quite some time. I don't know who is claiming to be ideological heirs. So I can't make any comments about them. And I don't know who is being called sociopath.



posted on May, 25 2015 @ 04:54 PM
link   
a reply to: pthena

i was just commenting on his commentary, and presenting the question to you to see what your position was on it. he said




Libertarians are sociopaths either by nature and/or nurture but unredeemable as paragons of ANY virtue. All I hear is the chant of, "Me!, ME!, Oh, and MEEEEE!!!!"


i disagree with his position, as it suggests everything is just fine, and of course, it's not just fine.



posted on May, 25 2015 @ 05:04 PM
link   
Whenever the word 'liberal' comes up in any form, it's a good thing to know what type of governance is being discussed. Here is a helpful little bit of information to keep things clear. There's a chasm between the thinking of these three:


Libertarian Preamble


As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others.

We believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships, and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity be realized.

Consequently, we defend each person's right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest, and welcome the diversity that freedom brings. The world we seek to build is one where individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any authoritarian power.




Liberal Parties (et al)


believing that government should be active in supporting social and political change : relating to or supporting political liberalism

Liberal : of or belonging to the liberal political party in countries like Canada and the United Kingdom

: not opposed to new ideas or ways of behaving that are not traditional or widely accepted


Neoliberalism


An approach to economics and social studies in which control of economic factors is shifted from the public sector to the private sector. Drawing upon principles of neoclassical economics, neoliberalism suggests that governments reduce deficit spending, limit subsidies, reform tax law to broaden the tax base, remove fixed exchange rates, open up markets to trade by limiting protectionism, privatize state-run businesses, allow private property and back deregulation.




edit on 25/5/15 by masqua because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2015 @ 05:15 PM
link   
a reply to: undo



Libertarians are sociopaths either by nature and/or nurture but unredeemable as paragons of ANY virtue. All I hear is the chant of, "Me!, ME!, Oh, and MEEEEE!!!!" 

That doesn't strike me as correct. Individuals should be considered individually.



it suggests everything is just fine, and of course, it's not just fine.

If it suggests that. I don't particularly consider everything is fine.

I might as well comment on the video you posted, Good is Evil :
The video takes some effort to say "The leaders invented morality", which I disagree with. Ethics, virtues, justice, predate the government that exists.

The flaw in the current system is that people continue to elect characters who clearly have demonstrated violations of the virtues of honesty, equity, and honor. Seems that the people themselves are giving politicians a pass on ethical standards.

The grossest violation in my thinking is that politicians do not legislate for their constituents but rather for special interests. This goes for so called liberals or conservatives. But this all came up on the first page of this thread. Brought up by the OP.



posted on May, 25 2015 @ 05:56 PM
link   
a reply to: pthena

agreed. reminds me a bit of a video series i was watching, regarding the state of egypt around 200 BC. all the officials were being bribed.



posted on May, 25 2015 @ 06:06 PM
link   
a reply to: masqua

So when we look at Neoliberalism, by the very definition you list, we see not an ideology, but rather a strategy, what should generally be considered an agenda. I usually put my own shorthand to that:

1) Privatize everything.
2) Deregulate everything.

What this amounts to is an ideology that would sound like, "If a profit cannot be made by an activity, that activity should not be undertaken." Public education? Useless unless some for profit corporation gets the contract. Social Services? Useless unless some for profit corporation gets the contract. Public transportation? Useless unless some for profit gets the contract. Disaster response? Useless unless for profit.

And once all these for profits are in place, zero oversight allowed. No group of people, be they elected or not will be allowed to infringe upon the policies and practices put in place to insure maximum profit.

That was easy for me to explain. As for the other two, when it comes to practice, balancing the two will look different from time to time and from issue to issue.

ETA

Wait a minute! That's what this thread is really about, isn't it? It's a conspiracy that crosses party lines. Conspiracy to further an agenda that separates people from oversight of those things which effect our daily lives. Crying out loud! You cracked the whole thing with a simple definition.
edit on 25-5-2015 by pthena because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2015 @ 06:49 PM
link   
a reply to: pthena

I'd say it makes a difference to know what to call it.

When prisons are built for profitting the prison, that's Neoliberalism.
When Free Trade Deals are signed, the corporate world profits and citizen wages bottom out, that's Neoliberalism.
When unions are disenfranchised, taking power away from workers and allowing companies to roll back things like pension plans and health care, that's Neoliberalism too.

Neoliberalism is to Liberalism as the Everglades are to Death Valley.

imho



posted on May, 25 2015 @ 08:52 PM
link   
a reply to: masqua



I feel a bit foolish responding, but, I'm doing so just to let you know that I read your post.

Don't feel obliged to respond back. However, if you do have more naming to add, that's cool.
edit on 25-5-2015 by pthena because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2015 @ 06:28 AM
link   
a reply to: pthena

How about this one?

When profits outweigh the basic positive aspects of human nature; such as empathy, kindness and caring for the condition of others, then that is also Neoliberalism.

To boil it down, the concept is; "I got mine, you don't, neener, neener, neener".



posted on May, 26 2015 @ 09:55 AM
link   
I think that the point that the op was trying to make was that the perfect utopia that many of the conservative right seem to be trying to create was already in exeistance not that long ago....and well, it was only utopian for a select few on the top and quite miserable for the rest...
so miserable that it forced the gov't to step in and well create all those nice benefit programs that the conservatives are trying so hard to kill off.

My question would be this, if that system had worked so great to begin with, why did the gov't have to step in when it had practically free reign? the food stamp programs would have never come into existence if the people were charitable enough to feed the hungry. the labor laws would have never came into existence if the employers were treating their employees justly. and the social security would never have been needed if the danged banking system and wall street hadn't had gone nuts and started betting on anything and everything and lost the people's deposits in a rigged poker game leaving them with pennies on the dollar for their deposits!




top topics



 
74
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join