Conservatives aren't for small govt, Dems aren't anti-business, libertarians aren't pro-freedom.

page: 1
9
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 02:44 PM
link   
Is there anyone who isn't a hypocrite these days? I was just thinking about this for a long time last night. I used to consider myself pretty libertarian. But I eventually came to the realization that the libertarian ideology- while it may be in favor of a lot of restrictions of the federal government- not many libertarian philosophers recognize natural rights. They only tend to recognize property rights. I was thinking who wasn't a hypocrite? An-caps can be included in this false paradigm as well.

Conservatives say they're for small government a lot of the time. But they want to infringe on the social rights of others that they believe to be sinful. That is they would want to attack the rights of gays and lesbians- because they don't think they're living according to the bible. And as we know with the Texas GOP platform there are those that dislike premarital sex. They basically want to regulate what's in the bedroom. So conservatives can't be considered for small government. They're only small government when it comes to economic issues. But as far as the military goes, they're hardly limited government. They want as much military as they can. And they want to use the government to help corporations.

As far as Democrats are concerned- Democrats aren't anti-business. People may think that there is more and more government intrusions on peoples lives. But people fail to realize how beneficial the regulation is to the business class. The environmental legislation will give corporations incentives to start the cap-and-trade business. The financial reform bill will prevent risk. While it may hamper down on a lot about what banks can or can't do- it intends to be in the interest of the business class. And we all know about how the health care reform is a corporate bailout of health care companies. Plus we all know that they're not anti-war, and, how they've followed Republican wars (see Woodrow Wilson, FDR JFK, LBJ, Bill Clinton as the war Presidents of the Democratic Party).

Is there anyone who isn't a hypocrite? It seems like everyone who follows a major ideology or platform always has to contradict him or herself. Is there any consistent political ideology that exists?


[edit on 3-7-2010 by Frankidealist35]




posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 02:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Frankidealist35
 



Is there anyone who isn't a hypocrite these days?

"Hippocracy is the greatest luxury," - Micheal Franti

Nice analogy!

It seems whenever one becomes locked into any single philosophy, the hypocrisy rears it's head. I believe this can be a problem with strict tradition and unwavering rigidness. Flexibility and adaptiveness serve a
healthier and more constructive purpose than a single belief/position, imo.

I am reminded of the "tyranny of the or" principal, meaning the exclusiveness of having to choose "either" "or" instead of "and", will continue to divide leave no room for paradoxes. There is no "single" correct way.

That's why I'm a fan of Robert Anton Wilson's "Maybe Logic."



Maybe Logic - Full Video
video.google.com...

Peace


[edit on 3-7-2010 by speculativeoptimist]



posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 03:00 PM
link   
I have noticed that liberals were a-ok with war, when it was Clinton bombing Serbia. On another board where I post, most posters are liberals, and got enraged when I pointed out how evil that bombing campaign was. No better than the war in Iraq.



posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 03:14 PM
link   
cheers to your hypothesis.


to expound...

it seems as though politics is driven more by 'hot-button, sound-bite' policies. ideas boiled down to 2 words or less, so that a fan-base has a simple rallying point to stick their flag into. seems we have been groomed to need our policies broken down to their lowest common denomenator.

'pro-this' 'anti-that'. hurray!

well, life isn't that simple.

yet these oversimplified, dualistic politicies have groomed an arena of "versus". a contest. a war. fight! fight! fight!

this sort of thinking is very easy to manipulate, and the conspircist in me feels that is why 'they' are doing it.

i mean, just look at the hate that is perculating in the US's politcal scene. HATE. HATE. HATE. didn't Yoda warn us where hate eventually leads to.

and none of this is leading to intelligent, political (and passionate) dialogue, which is, IMO, the true cornerstone of democracy.



it's just smoke and mirrors. smoke and mirrors and some sleight of hand to keep us either dumbfounded and impotent, or frothing at the mouth.

either way, we're idiots.





so thanks, OP for the afternoon political inspiration.



PS the republican concept of small government is indeed profoundly hypocritical.

i think their policy should read: "small government... until we disagree."


*snipping* nutz.


[edit on 3-7-2010 by mythos]

[edit on 3-7-2010 by mythos]



posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 03:18 PM
link   
reply to post by InvisibleAlbatross
 


Yeah, I've noticed that it's something more that they do when they are campaigning for re-election. They want to tell the people that it's the Republicans that are pro-war and they'll bring peace. But they pass war spending bills behind all of our backs. They are in support of the war in Afghanistan. Don't be fooled.

[edit on 3-7-2010 by Frankidealist35]



posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 03:20 PM
link   
reply to post by mythos
 


I would agree that none of this is conducive to our Democracy. I would say that people will at first take emotional instincts- whether they are for or against something. That is many Democrats may say they are anti-business because emotionally that appeals to them, or many Republicans will say they are for limited government because that appeals to them emotionally. But when they actually go about to practice their ideology- they do the exact opposite of what they say that they believe, and, they end up duping a lot of people.



posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Frankidealist35
 


Conservatives are for small government. Most of us, in fact, don't give a rip what you do with your personal life. We do not feel the need for pro government involvement in marriage, we simply don't feel the need for a special law to allow gay marriage.
Personally, I don't think it's the governments business to tell me much of anything, other than not to kill or steal. I refuse to wear a seatbelt, If I want a helmet I'll get one, but I don't want one. Stay out of my refrigerator and don't tell me what to do with my trash, provided I don't dump it in your yard. Why do libs always want to tell me what kind of car to drive. Why do they feel entitled to the money I earn, just because most of them live in their mom's basement. Why do they think they can tell me what health care plan I'm allowed to have. Why do they feel they can tell me who to hire. Why are liberals all for free speech, as long as it agrees with their point of view. Why do libs feel entitled to tell me I can't own a gun? Libs are for large government, they are anti-business, and a large portion of them couldn't spell cat if you spotted them the c and the a. That's how we got saddled with the Kenyan. Here's what's funny about your statement. I've got hundreds of clients, yet haven't a single one that voted for the Kenyan, who, in turn, has never had a real job. One of the biggest problems with liberalism, or progressivism (socialism) is, that sooner or later you run out of other peoples money to spend, and you guys damn sure don't have any.



posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Frankidealist35
 


this being a conspiracy website, i feel the question must be raised.

why the divisive policies? why the fanning of the hate flames?

is it good for media ratings to show self-rightous, red faced, tea-partiers and anarchist, leftist G20 protestors?

do we just lap up the divisions between us, hungry for some red meat and bloody teeth, so dudes like Rush & his ilk (on all sides of the spectrum) feed it to us?


or, and this is where i go down the rabbit whole, but are the specifics not important... just so long as we, as a people, learn the art of ugly division, and not the art of cooperation. then, whoever is ruling, in our disarray, we can be controlled.



in martial arts, focus is priority numero uno. don't be distracted by excessive emotions. it just ain't good kung-fu.


well, looks like they are distracting us real good.



posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Frankidealist35
 


politics = personality
Ds=altruist
Rs=predator
Ls=independent



posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by astrogolf
reply to post by Frankidealist35
 


Conservatives are for small government. Libs are for large government.



with respect... it seems you are falling into the same trap that "they" want us to.


boo liberals! yeah conservatives! if only THEY stop what they're doing then this country will be fine.

i don't think it works that way. i think it is an oversimplification of some rather intricate stuff. how could running a nation of 250 million very different people NOT be intricate.


PS... i think the cosnervative ideal of "keep your laws of my body" is a valid enough concept (more liberaterian, though, it seems).

however, i am sure, as the OP has said, this is not put into practice. here is a small list off the top of my head where this doesn't apply:

abortion rights
gay marriage / civil unions
medical marijuana
not too mention the hoard of rights our patriot act has taken from us.


PS... our military is a MASSIVE government run [ie socialist] institution. any issues with that, or are we advocating for a private military?

other socialist stuff the US does:

post office.
amtrak.
roads.
schools.



posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 03:50 PM
link   
I believe fully in natural rights.

I do agree that property rights are important, but I personally think they are but a subset of the plethora of rights we have when we are born.

I think that every person on Earth is born with natural rights.

It does not matter what citizen you are, your rights/liberties should be protected by all governments.

The government should only exist to protect the citizens from abuses of their liberties, etc etc.

The Constitution's only purpose was to tell the Gov't what it cannot do, as the people wrote it as a law that governs the governors.

The Constitution does not give you rights, every human being is born with them. The Constitution only seeks to protect those rights for abuse.

I am just repeating myself here so you get the point. I'll leave it at that.



posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 04:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Frankidealist35
 


Sounds like you have bought into the propaganda about libertarians. Libertarianism can be summed up simply as:
"your body, your property, your choice"

So people who claim to be libertarians yet do not support individuals rights (like the right to put whatever the hell you want into your own body including drugs) are not the real deal.



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 05:14 PM
link   
I find libertarian hypocrisy to be particularly interesting. Even the most hardcore "L" libertarians will admit they feel there should be some government to protect property rights, enforce contracts, etc.

The problem with this is that no one is truly free as long as there is government, in whatever form or size, telling us how and where to live our lives. If complete, total freedom is the goal, then the only consistent poliltical philosophy is anarchism.

Most people are scared of anarchy, the word itself conjuring up images of some kind of post-apocalyptic hell on Earth. Granted, if all government disappeared tomorrow, society would most likely spiral into such a scenario.

But the goal of total freedom is an ongoing process. Humanity must evolve beyond government in a peaceful way and transcend it, recognizing that what is in my best interest is also in your best interest.

That's going to take a long, long time. But we should never take our eyes off the prize--complete, total freedom. A peaceful anarchy.



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 05:34 PM
link   
The only way one can accurately characterize a Democrat or Republican is that they support the interests of the people that cut them huge campaign checks. If gay abortion doctors started lining the GOP's coffers, they would turn pro-choice and pro-gay marriage faster than you could say hypocrite. Big banks have started funding the Democrats which explains why the Democrats are only talking about meaningful financial reforms.



posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 01:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Bobbox1980
 


I used to think that- but if you actually read what libertarians say many libertarians- maybe not all- don't acknowledge natural rights. What they say is that they want freedom and they may say they want the NAP- but they mostly only believe in property rights. I've seen some libertarians defend economic slavery- something that I'd hardly consider a freedom position. Those people would still believe that people are property and should be traded on the market.



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 07:51 AM
link   
Everybody is a hypocrite.

I'm a liberal who doesn't believe in 'natural rights'. You might call that hypocritical, whereas I just call it 'sensible'.



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 07:57 AM
link   
Property rights are pretty all-encompassing and include natural rights by default.

Your body and your life is your property. Do with it what you will.

Rights dont get more natural than that.

If you're talking about things like health care and shelter and food and those types of "natural rights" you're really talking about entitlement. You arent born onto this earth with some default right to sustenance. There isnt a magic basket of health care and macaroni waiting at the end of your mothers vagina.



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 08:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
Property rights are pretty all-encompassing and include natural rights by default.

Your body and your life is your property. Do with it what you will.

Rights dont get more natural than that.

If you're talking about things like health care and shelter and food and those types of "natural rights" you're really talking about entitlement. You arent born onto this earth with some default right to sustenance. There isnt a magic basket of health care and macaroni waiting at the end of your mothers vagina.

Just like you have no natural right to life, and no right which prevents you from being raped, sold in to slavery or exploited by anybody stronger than yourself.

Rights are a legal concept, not a metaphysical one. In other words, you have the rights that the government legally bestows on you, and that's it. It is firstly your individual duty to protect your own rights (through the use of anything up to and including deadly force) and then it's the government's duty (by punishing those who do harm upon people and break the legal rights guaranteed to each and every person). You can also influence the government (in theory, anyway) through voting and making your voice heard because the government has decided you should have the legal right to criticise them and be free from punishment. This means that you can influence the government to set out the legal rights which you think are a good idea.



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 08:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by LeftWingLarry
This means that you can influence the government to set out the legal rights which you think are a good idea.


Which is a largely a futile endeavor for any minority. One can spend their entire life in pursuit of begging the government to permit them some measure of liberty which is not currently permitted and die without ever gaining an inch when up against 300 million Americans opposed to your idea.

And how does the individual protect their rights against the governments force? Nine times out of ten when this happens the individual ends up dead and the rights having been fought for demonized in the eyes of the public to further exacerbate the massive rift between the minority and 300 million others.

None of us have any right to cause harm to any other human being unless in defense of property or person. Yet the government does this perpetually using the force of millions of dependents and trillions of dollars in extorted property. It's very existence is a violation of the property rights of all of us.

[edit on 30-7-2010 by thisguyrighthere]



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 08:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

Originally posted by LeftWingLarry
This means that you can influence the government to set out the legal rights which you think are a good idea.


Which is a largely a futile endeavor for any minority. One can spend their entire life in pursuit of begging the government to permit them some measure of liberty which is not currently permitted and die without ever gaining an inch when up against 300 million Americans opposed to your idea.

And yet in America today blacks have rights. Gays have rights in some states and will continue to get them, etc.


And how does the individual protect their rights against the governments force? Nine times out of ten when this happens the individual ends up dead and the rights having been fought for demonized in the eyes of the public to further exacerbate the massive rift between the minority and 300 million others.

However they think will work for them.


None of us have any right to cause harm to any other human being unless in defense of property or person. Yet the government does this perpetually using the force of millions of dependents and trillions of dollars in extorted property. It's very existence is a violation of the property rights of all of us.

Might makes right. Unless you're already up in rebellion, whether it be armed or peaceful, then I don't think you should spend your time complaining on an internet forum. Your 'right's are there to be taken.

Then again, your government has the legal right (as laid out in The Constitution) to 'extort' (I'm guessing you mean taxes, right?) your property. Who's going to stop them and re-write your own constitution? You?





top topics
 
9
<<   2 >>

log in

join