Please Dems, not Hillary!

[magerette]

@magerette: Today, magerette, today. The funding cuts I referred to are happening now, not when Iraq started. The armor problems didn't happen at the very beginning of the war, either..

My misunderstanding, then.

I'll jump off your case and let the people with more active memory cells have at ya--probably a relief for all since having me on your side in a debate is like Bush endorsing McCain.

 

[mudsling3]

The whole thing is a setup, get to know CFR. why would Mccain openly stated that troops be in Iraq for 100 years? The truth is that we won't be out of Iraq with President Obama or Hillary anytime sooner than 2013, they both refused to sign that agreement.

In the worst case, I will write in Ron Paul name as a protest vote. Why pick the lesser of 2 evils?

 

[dteowner]

Well, at least we *used to* ... but there is a difference between a budget funding loads and loads of Humvees and such and the previous one that has created some of the fundamental research that fuels the technology that all of us here depend on daily.

Thing is, though, people don't understand the connection between military research and civilian applications any more than they do NASA's research. Programs of that nature regularly get labelled corporate welfare or some such.

 

[Prime Junta]

In the worst case, I will write in Ron Paul name as a protest vote. Why pick the lesser of 2 evils?

I agree, Paul would be a greater evil than either of those two.

That said, politics *is* about picking the lesser evil. In fact, it's downright worrying if you don't feel that way about your candidate -- it's a warning sign of a cult of personality in the making.

 

[Prime Junta]

Thing is, though, people don't understand the connection between military research and civilian applications any more than they do NASA's research. Programs of that nature regularly get labelled corporate welfare or some such.

I hate to admit it, but you're right on this score. Much basic research has happened and is happening under the "military" heading -- it gave us high-tensile steels, composites, microwave ovens, wireless telecommunication, encryption, and, of course... computers and the Internet.

The main point is that the market doesn't produce enough basic research. The USA does it under the "military" rubric; other countries do it directly. I believe the latter way is more efficient and has significantly fewer downsides, but there's no question that the former way delivers the goods too.

 

[mudsling3]

I agree, Paul would be a greater evil than either of those two.

That said, politics *is* about picking the lesser evil. In fact, it's downright worrying if you don't feel that way about your candidate -- it's a warning sign of a cult of personality in the making.

Consider your belief in social and econ policy, I am not surprised "cult of personality", which US news article did you rip it off? The dividing line is individualism vs collectivism. To believe in an entity - government that would reponsibly spend others' money without accountibily? Your conviction is troubling.

Check out here for a bit of personality
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpFu_bYkomc&eurl=http://www.dailypaul.com/

 

[Prime Junta]

Consider your belief in social and econ policy, I am not surprised "cult of personality", which US news article did you rip it off?

I made it up all by my little self, but it's nice to hear someone else has their head on straight too.

The dividing line is individualism vs collectivism.

Individualism and collectivism aren't a dichotomy; they're two ends of a continuum.

To believe in an entity - government that would reponsibly spend others' money without accountibily? Your conviction is troubling.

It would be, if that were my conviction. It isn't, though, since I most emphatically do not believe that a government would spend others' money responsibility without accountability.

 

[txa1265]

"cult of personality", which US news article did you rip it off?

Vernon Reid would have something to say about that

 

[mudsling3]

PJ, I got no problem that you want to deposit your dough to a chronic sniffer

I thought this is a good summery
Individual vs. Collectivism

THE CREED OF FREEDOM by G E Griffin

INTRINSIC NATURE OF RIGHTS
I believe that only individuals have rights, not the collective group; that these rights are intrinsic to each individual, not granted by the state; for if the state has the power to grant them, it also has the power to deny them, and that is incompatible with personal liberty.
I believe that a just government derives its power solely from the governed. Therefore, the state must never presume to do anything beyond what individual citizens also have the right to do. Otherwise, the state is a power unto itself and becomes the master instead of the servant of society.

SUPREMACY OF THE INDIVIDUAL
I believe that one of the greatest threats to freedom is to allow any group, no matter its numeric superiority, to deny the rights of the minority; and that one of the primary functions of just government is to protect each individual from the greed and passion of the majority.

FREEDOM OF CHOICE
I believe that desirable social and economic objectives are better achieved by voluntary action than by coercion of law. I believe that social tranquility and brotherhood are better achieved by tolerance, persuasion, and the power of good example than by coercion of law. I believe that those in need are better served by charity, which is the giving of one's own money, than by welfare, which is the giving of other people's money through coercion of law.

EQUALITY UNDER LAW
I believe that all citizens should be equal under law, regardless of their national origin, race, religion, gender, education, economic status, life style, or political opinion. Likewise, no class should be given preferential treatment, regardless of the merit or popularity of its cause. To favor one class over another is not equality under law.

PROPER ROLE OF GOVERNMENT
I believe that the proper role of government is negative, not positive; defensive, not aggressive. It is to protect, not to provide; for if the state is granted the power to provide for some, it must also be able to take from others, and once that power is granted, there are those who will seek it for their advantage. It always leads to legalized plunder and loss of freedom. If government is powerful enough to give us everything we want, it is also powerful enough to take from us everything we have. Therefore, the proper function of government is to protect the lives, liberty, and property of its citizens; nothing more. That government is best which governs least.

 

[Prime Junta]

PJ, I got no problem that you want to deposit your dough to a chronic sniffer

I thought this is a good summery
Individual vs. Collectivism

That's not a summary. It's a profession of faith.

It also has some fundamental contradictions; for example, if the government does not have the (legal) monopoly of the use of force, how can it perform its function of protecting its citizens? If it does not have the power to levy taxes or duties, how can it fund its function of protecting its citizens?

IOW, it all sounds very nice until you think about it a bit further.

Which, obviously, does not mean that the only alternative is totalitarian coercion ruled by a brutal dictator -- or the tyranny of the majority.

 

[zahratustra]

Mr. Griffin credo is as unrealistic as Marx's "The Communist Manifesto" (they just sit on the opposite ends of the scale). Neither of them survives close examination. The only advantage of Griffit's work is that it's shorter than Marx's so the contradictions are much easier to spot

 

[Prime Junta]

There is a big difference, though. Marx's text contains some extremely accurate analysis, and he only gets it seriously wrong when he ventures into virgin territory -- and not always even then.

In 1848, nobody had yet figured out a way to make industrial capitalism work in a way that would not result in mass poverty and misery. Marx's proposed solution didn't work, but the reasons why it didn't work were anything but obvious at the time. Let's not forget that it took about a hundred years before the world came up with one that did work!

Griffin, on the other hand, is writing today and he ignores obvious problems that are and have been very well known for a long time.

That's why Marx is taught in philosophy classes while Griffin is a virtually unknown hack.

Edit: I just looked him up. He's funny. He also believes he's discovered where Noah's Ark lies, and that apricot seeds cure cancer. Yay!

 

[txa1265]

It has been many years for me, but I thought the problem with Marx wasn't his ideas as much as the fact that the people who chose to implement them did so in absolutely the wrong type of economic situation.

... I bet there are Apricot seed 'dietary supplements' popping up all over the place now ...

 

[zahratustra]

Mea culpa PJ. I let parachronism to creep in for the sake of easy comparison! My only excuse is that I have wrote it before I had my second coffee
And yes! Griffin is a funny guy all right! [irony]Quite a "Renaissance Man"[/irony]
Reminds me of Brig. Gen. Jack D. Ripper from "Doctor Strangelove"

 

[Prime Junta]

It has been many years for me, but I thought the problem with Marx wasn't his ideas as much as the fact that the people who chose to implement them did so in absolutely the wrong type of economic situation.

As much as I admire the man (and I do)... it was also his ideas, not just the execution, nor the time and place.

The only genuinely believable Communist fantasy I've come across is Iain M. Banks's -- and he predicates a technology so advanced that it's possible to produce just about anything without much more effort than specifying what it is. With *that* kind of productivity, money and the state do become unnecessary.

However, as long as "labor" -- i.e., anything that needs doing but nobody would do without compensation -- is needed to produce stuff or services, this isn't workable; the incentives don't add up.

In a nutshell, Marx's analysis and insights into the realities and structures of 19th century capitalism were absolutely brilliant, as was much of his philosophy of history, but his prognostication and political program was just brilliant enough to attract a great many very smart and dedicated people, but not so brilliant it would have been actually workable. Therein lies the tragedy.

 

[magerette]

A little Hillary humor that brightened my morning:

Hillary Says She 'Misspoke' About Wrestling Bin Laden

..."I may have misspoke about what went on that particular day," Sen. Clinton said today. "But it was a very busy time for me, what with having that knife-fight with Kim Jong-Il and all."

Reporters peppered Sen. Clinton's new press spokesman with questions about another purported exploit of hers, in which the senator claimed that she and a ragtag team of blue-collar drillers deflected an asteroid on a collision course with the Earth.

"Everything Hillary Clinton says is true," said her new spokesman, the author James Frey.

 

[JemyM]

We need a general thread regarding political philosophy.

 

[magerette]

Most of the ones we already have seem to go there anyway, but you could always start one.

 

[txa1265]

Most of the ones we already have seem to go there anyway, but you could always start one.

Which will of course veer off into chocolate appreciation ... mmm ... chocolate ...

 

[narpet]

Which will of course veer off into chocolate appreciation ... mmm ... chocolate ...

:lol: That was great... I love it... :lol: