At least we have the Daily Show to make fun of both sides.
Well, thank you all for your input.
Hate to tell you but, as someone who do does consider themselves mostly conservative. I think the daily show is very biased against conservatives. I can get into why if you really want to later.
On your first point of people getting paid a dollar because there were no minimum wage laws. Could you please point out a candidate (other than Ron Paul) that says we should get rid of them? At very least we should get rid of minimum wage for the under 18's to increase their implacability, their early job work skills, their work ethic, and to help US businesses hire cheaper labor to compete overseas.
On the regulation issue I doubt most people realize how much regulation is produced in a year. In the first month of the new (Republican Congress) it was enough to fill up several wheel barrels. (Several hundred thousand pages.) I can post the link is you'd like. What exactly would big oil do if they were deregulated? There are several million regulations pertaining to oil, which ones would be a disaster to remove?
By the way states will be there to put the own regulations on them if they so choose and states also will implement minimum wage laws (and do currently). The fed doesn't have to do it. I can always move to a new state. Not so much a new country.
As for the medical issues I'd have to watch the debate as I still have not seen it. But, here are my beliefs. Everyone under 18 should get free medical care in terms of a tax break/handout in the amount of an average child's healthcare cost. If the parents don't get healthcare for their child they don't get the money. No one should be left to die. We should pay for someones healthcare if they don't have it. However, once they get out I would charge them for every dime that was spent on them and they would have to pay it with anything they have left over from food, elect., housing, and necessities.
If anyone has anymore questions or wishes to debate feel free. I enjoy a debate, and every now and then someone changes my views.
Edit: Anyone that wishes the best for others and is curious of others views has my deepest respect whether you agree with me or think my views would lead us to destruction.
First off let me say that i am not very politically incline, i am only 13, but my mom is a very right, i think. What she has told me is that people live off of our taxes like welfare. Your example, the medical insurance one, i think that if he can't pay for it, then the people won't help. Because I know if he does get the treatment ,even though he can't afford it, they will just get the money from our taxes, the money that is supposed to be spent on the government. Also, i don't want people using the money that my parents worked their a**** off for people's personal issues.
I know that my understanding of this is probably wrong, but , for being 13, i think i worded it right. And i know im going to get a whole bunch of s*** most likely, again im only 13
********. Anyone can get interested in politics. I did when I was 12.
And, don't confuse left-wingers with authoritarians.
Big difference between a left-winger and an authoritarian, it just seems the majority of left-wingers seem to be authoritarian.
Huh? That made absolutely no sense at all. Left-wingers ARE authoritarians, save certain strands of anarchism (when strictly referring to statist authoritarianism otherwise they fall into the same dilemma). Would you mind actually explaining the "big difference" between a Left-winger and an authoritarian?
Huh? That made absolutely no sense at all. Left-wingers ARE authoritarians, save certain strands of anarchism (when strictly referring to statist authoritarianism otherwise they fall into the same dilemma). Would you mind actually explaining the "big difference" between a Left-winger and an authoritarian?
Authoritarianism is a seperate entity from left and right. The only major government extension that is natural in leftism is welfarism (which for our purposes is the only economic aspect of leftism relevant due to western culture).
Now, welfarism doesn't neccessitate involvment, but rather offers various services. You aren't forced to be part of the programs, and because of this you aren't forced to abide by whatever rules would apply to those who do. Because it's not something forced upon you. It's the same reason you can't say the volunteer military is drafted. You might be forced to pay taxes, but that's true for all the ism's and saying a state is authoritarian because of taxes is the epitome of first world ignorance.
Similarly, it's more of a delusion that rightism is anti-authortarian then it is a reality.
...too oversimplify it, Leftist Authoritarianism exists as "Communism", but Rightist Authoritarianism exists as "Facism". Likewise, you can have the leftist antiauthoritarian anarchist (or even anarchosocialist, which is an even more complex thing), and you can have a righist antiauthoritarian libertarian.
In the united states, what you typically have is righists who think they are libertarian, are portrayed as facists by leftists, but are moderates in their field. If you flip the terms there, you'll get the situation for leftists. That's why you'll never have a rightist abolish all of the government programs due to the instability that would be caused if you did, and you'll never have a leftist who puts in place a hyper-scandanavian welfarism in place.
Authoritarianism is a seperate entity from left and right.
Did I argue otherwise? Try reading my post again, I was pointing out that authoritarianism does indeed exist in the Left just as it does exist in the Right. Authoritarianism is not explicitly "separate' from the Left and the Right, it is integrated into both of them through political ideologies which utilize the state.
The only major government extension that is natural in leftism is welfarism (which for our purposes is the only economic aspect of leftism relevant due to western culture).
Now, welfarism doesn't neccessitate involvment, but rather offers various services. You aren't forced to be part of the programs, and because of this you aren't forced to abide by whatever rules would apply to those who do. Because it's not something forced upon you. It's the same reason you can't say the volunteer military is drafted. You might be forced to pay taxes, but that's true for all the ism's and saying a state is authoritarian because of taxes is the epitome of first world ignorance.
What does this have to do with anything in my post? Enforced welfare is not in and of itself authoritarianism, but the existence of the state is. Now, do show me where I had claimed that the state is authoritarian because of taxes. The state is not authoritarian because it utilizes a tax system but it is so because of its very nature as a tool for the suppression and oppression of the masses which is imposed by a strict minority known as the ruling elite and their bourgeois buddies in a bourgeois society (goes the other way in the DotP). Critiques of the state and its authoritarian nature range from its inherent oppressive nature of class hegemony over society to non-grassroots and non-participatory governing body. Anyway, that had absolutely nothing to do with my previous post, I still do not know why you posted that.
Similarly, it's more of a delusion that rightism is anti-authortarian then it is a reality.
Did I even state such a pathetic and reactionary claim at all? Did you even read my post? If so then what does this have anything to do at all with my post? The Right does not hold a strict monopoly on anti-authoritarianism, that requires only basic common sense.
...too oversimplify it, Leftist Authoritarianism exists as "Communism",
False, Communism is not inherently statist.
but Rightist Authoritarianism exists as "Facism".
Every statist ideology is authoritarian, Fascism is not the only one that is authoritarian in the Right if that's what you think. Authoritarianism does not mean the mythical "totalitarianism".
Likewise, you can have the leftist antiauthoritarian anarchist (or even anarchosocialist, which is an even more complex thing), and you can have a righist antiauthoritarian libertarian.
Was that not what I had stated in my previous post when I said "Left-wingers ARE authoritarians, save certain strands of anarchism (when strictly referring to statist authoritarianism otherwise they fall into the same dilemma)."?
In the united states, what you typically have is righists who think they are libertarian, are portrayed as facists by leftists, but are moderates in their field. If you flip the terms there, you'll get the situation for leftists.
Huh? Libertarians are not labeled as fascists by the Left, what an absurd claim. Libertarians are instead criticized for upholding a Capitalist market economy with all of its lovely qualities and its Utopian daydreaming nature, but not for being "fascistic" in any way.
That's why you'll never have a rightist abolish all of the government programs due to the instability that would be caused if you did, and you'll never have a leftist who puts in place a hyper-scandanavian welfarism in place.
See Kautskyism, Social Democracy, Menshevism and Lenin's critique and reply to them in "The State and Revolution". Applies here perfectly. Revolutionary Leftists and Marxists do not attempt to transition the state using democracy but by the violent means of a revolution as a consequence of class struggle. That is a similar argument used by us against the Social Reformers and their so-called "class collaboration". Again that has nothing to do with my previous post.
in the end it is all just a circle. the extreme sides of left and right are virtually the same.
Not really. The far right end would be no government at all. The far left would be government control of everything. I don't think I need to remind you that those are opposites.
Before reading the below, understand this: I am NOT a 'republican' or 'right-winger'.
However, in the past I have actually agreed with some republicans, over democrats, a few times.
The problem with both parties is that they tend to have certain values that they emphasize, and ideals they want... yet they ignore everything else to grasp those values and ideals.
Things like smaller government, means they want to take away government influence on companies, which in turn 'opens up the free market' ... but to only monopolies who then become mega monopolies. The small business man loses out and loses everything.
Likewise, more government comes at the cost that the "winner" of something is not always clearly the winner. A monopoly who truly has the best product may not in fact gain the largest share they should because of the laws in place... perhaps too much "red tape" they have to go through to go from 'small business' to 'big business'.... perhaps too much government dependency... perhaps too much control on what their product can do and how they can advertise.
The problems with both parties are very large. Neither is acceptable, yet they are both accepted.
Typically, I actually lean much more towards democrats for the two-party system.
Basically the Republicans want a "Dog-eat-dog" world. It's sad there are people like that out there, but it's true.
Likewise, the Democrats hide behind a "friendly" atmosphere, when they are truly not much better.
What all politics comes down to is one principle: "Look out for #1". That's all they care about, that is all they will ever care about.
People who see this problem in politics don't typically involve themselves in politics... That is mostly why the voter-turnout in the U.S. is so very low.
Before reading the below, understand this: I am NOT a 'republican' or 'right-winger'.
However, in the past I have actually agreed with some republicans, over democrats, a few times.
The problem with both parties is that they tend to have certain values that they emphasize, and ideals they want... yet they ignore everything else to grasp those values and ideals.
Things like smaller government, means they want to take away government influence on companies, which in turn 'opens up the free market' ... but to only monopolies who then become mega monopolies. The small business man loses out and loses everything.
Likewise, more government comes at the cost that the "winner" of something is not always clearly the winner. A monopoly who truly has the best product may not in fact gain the largest share they should because of the laws in place... perhaps too much "red tape" they have to go through to go from 'small business' to 'big business'.... perhaps too much government dependency... perhaps too much control on what their product can do and how they can advertise.
The problems with both parties are very large. Neither is acceptable, yet they are both accepted.
Typically, I actually lean much more towards democrats for the two-party system.
Basically the Republicans want a "Dog-eat-dog" world. It's sad there are people like that out there, but it's true.
Likewise, the Democrats hide behind a "friendly" atmosphere, when they are truly not much better.
What all politics comes down to is one principle: "Look out for #1". That's all they care about, that is all they will ever care about.
People who see this problem in politics don't typically involve themselves in politics... That is mostly why the voter-turnout in the U.S. is so very low.
I fail to see how opening up the market creates monopolies in and of itself, could you elaborate? There are rules against monopolies anyway and I don't see any republicans other than Ron Paul maybe (who wont win and i'm not sure if even hes for taking away the rule.) who want to take away that rule.
Not really. The far right end would be no government at all. The far left would be government control of everything. I don't think I need to remind you that those are opposites.
What an utter fallacy. The Far-Right can entail a government just as the Far-Left can be non-statist. Ever heard of Anarchism and in particular Anarcho-Socialism? The Far-Right would entail Nazism, Fascism (yes, they're not Leftist contrary to your claims) AND Anarcho-Capitalism, the Far-Left in its most extreme form would include something similar to the DPRK, Stalinism, and Anarchism. What differs between these extremist tendencies is the matter and means of enforcement and the severeity or existence of the state. Anarcho-Socialism and Anarcho-Capitalism have no state, but are still extremist forms of their respective wing. Fascism (take Pinochet for instance), Nazism, Stalinism, and the DPRK are also extremist forms of their respective wing but entail a state and strict means of enforcement. There is a reason why many people prefer a scale such as that of the political compass.
What an utter fallacy. The Far-Right can entail a government just as the Far-Left can be non-statist. Ever heard of Anarchism and in particular Anarcho-Socialism? The Far-Right would entail Nazism, Fascism (yes, they're not Leftist contrary to your claims) AND Anarcho-Capitalism, the Far-Left in its most extreme form would include something similar to the DPRK, Stalinism, and Anarchism. What differs between these extremist tendencies is the matter and means of enforcement and the severeity or existence of the state. Anarcho-Socialism and Anarcho-Capitalism have no state, but are still extremist forms of their respective wing. Fascism (take Pinochet for instance), Nazism, Stalinism, and the DPRK are also extremist forms of their respective wing but entail a state and strict means of enforcement. There is a reason why many people prefer a scale such as that of the political compass.
Anarchy would mean there is not government to support it. Anarchy wouldn't work anyway because there always would have to be a government of some kind. Do I need to send you wikipedia links now?
"Anarchy (from Greek: ἀναρχίᾱ anarchíā, "without ruler") may refer to any of several political states, and has been variously defined by sources. Most often, the term "anarchy" describes the simple absence of publicly recognized government or enforced political authority.[1][2] When used in this sense, anarchy may[3] or may not[4] imply political disorder or lawlessness within a society. In another sense, anarchy may not refer to a complete lack of authority or political organization, but instead refer to a social state characterized by libertarianism, or a lack of a state or ruler.[4]"
If Anarcho-Socialism is enforced by a commune or what have you it would entail extreme government control with many rules and regulations. If people choose to live by it voluntarily (not possible) it would still be the far right end of the equation.
I think people confuse voluntary communism and government forced. I am all for people that want to set up their own commune. However, once it is enforced in any kind of way by any kind of leadership it is then government enforced.
As for jacobdb. What corporations are not bound to the law? I'd really like to hear this.
Anarchy would mean there is not government to support it. Anarchy wouldn't work anyway because there always would have to be a government of some kind. Do I need to send you wikipedia links now?
"Anarchy (from Greek: ἀναρχίᾱ anarchíā, "without ruler") may refer to any of several political states, and has been variously defined by sources. Most often, the term "anarchy" describes the simple absence of publicly recognized government or enforced political authority.[1][2] When used in this sense, anarchy may[3] or may not[4] imply political disorder or lawlessness within a society. In another sense, anarchy may not refer to a complete lack of authority or political organization, but instead refer to a social state characterized by libertarianism, or a lack of a state or ruler.[4]"
Even more fallacies and misconceptions! First and foremost, there is a difference between a state and government. A state is a body of official hierarchical power that imposes itself upon society, a government is any form of management of society through various means be it through the use of a state or grassroots direct democracy. Anarchy requires no state to function, but does indeed require popular decision-making and workers' self-management as a form of government to manage their own society; that is to say, a means of organization is necessary. Secondly, before even sending any link, try to read it and understand it beforehand. Read the bolded part again. Government is necessary, a state is not. Start reading up on history or even on class antagonisms and the state by Marx, Engels, and Lenin.
If Anarcho-Socialism is enforced by a commune or what have you it would entail extreme government control with many rules and regulations. If people choose to live by it voluntarily (not possible) it would still be the far right end of the equation.
Again, you still do not seem to understand the bare basics of what a commune is. As I had said in my other post that was directed to you: "Oh, I see, you're speaking of communes? Hah, no, they enforce laws through popular vote and management, they are not statist nor official bodies in any way (such as councils or committees) but a general collective term we apply to towns, cities, etc. that are acting in a communist system. Please know the difference between a government (as in generally all kinds of "rule" and "enforcement") and a state (an official body exercising rule and authority in a nation). "
A commune is not a state. With that simply statement, your whole argument is made irrelevant. Anarcho-Socialism is not enforced by a statist entity but by the people through self-management and grassroots organization utilizing direct democracy. Now here is where Anarcho-Socialism is split into multiple tendencies: the matter of the revolution. Organizationalist Anarcho-Communists (whom I was one of back in my Anarchist days) believe in popular and proletarian suppression and repression of the bourgeoisie, reactionaries, and counter-revolutionaries as a necessary phase along with implementing a form of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat minus a state. That is to say, proletarian class hegemony over the bourgeoisie and the reactionary counter-revolutionaries. Other tendencies of Anarcho-Socialism are non-revolutionaries; they deny a revolution and instead believe in more Utopian and pacifistic means to achieve their society without the use of enforcement. Anarcho-Socialism is not enforced by a statist or non-popular entity apparatus but through popular decision-making performed by the very individuals who live there, but here again there are those who oppose direct democracy and I leave them to their Utopian daydreams. I have a question, do you even know what the Far-Right and Far-Left even mean to begin with? Absurdly and strangely enough, you seem to think that the former is Anarchism while the latter is "totalitarianism".
I think people confuse voluntary communism and government forced. I am all for people that want to set up their own commune. However, once it is enforced in any kind of way by any kind of leadership it is then government enforced.
"Voluntary communism" and "set up their own commune"... Nice one, come back when you have started reading up on revolutions and communism itself. Such fallacies do not deserve a proper reply. Now "how" it is enforced makes much more of a difference than you seem to think, a popular enforcement of the commune and the people themselves differs vastly than an enforcement performed by a handful of "representatives" in a bourgeois parliament where the people have no say in anything that they decide on. In communist society, there is no leadership nor a state at all. Please do not reply with the same nonsense again.
Even more fallacies and misconceptions! First and foremost, there is a difference between a state and government. A state is a body of official hierarchical power that imposes itself upon society, a government is any form of management of society through various means be it through the use of a state or grassroots direct democracy. Anarchy requires no state to function, but does indeed require popular decision-making and workers' self-management as a form of government to manage their own society; that is to say, a means of organization is necessary. Secondly, before even sending any link, try to read it and understand it beforehand. Read the bolded part again.
Again, you still do not seem to understand the bare basics of what a commune is. As I had said in my other post that was directed to you: "Oh, I see, you're speaking of communes? Hah, no, they enforce laws through popular vote and management, they are not statist nor official bodies in any way (such as councils or committees) but a general collective term we apply to towns, cities, etc. that are acting in a communist system. Please know the difference between a government (as in generally all kinds of "rule" and "enforcement") and a state (an official body exercising rule and authority in a nation). "
A commune is not a state. With that simply statement, your whole argument is made irrelevant. Anarcho-Socialism is not enforced by a statist entity but by the people through self-management and grassroots organization utilizing direct democracy. Now here is where Anarcho-Socialism is split into multiple tendencies: the matter of the revolution. Organizationalist Anarcho-Communists (whom I was one of back in my Anarchist days) believe in popular and proletarian suppression and repression of the bourgeoisie, reactionaries, and counter-revolutionaries as a necessary phase along with implementing a form of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat minus a state. That is to say, proletarian class hegemony over the bourgeoisie and the reactionary counter-revolutionaries. Other tendencies of Anarcho-Socialism are non-revolutionaries; they deny a revolution and instead believe in more Utopian and pacifistic means to achieve their society without the use of enforcement. Anarcho-Socialism is not enforced by a statist or non-popular entity apparatus but through popular decision-making performed by the very individuals who live there, but here again there are those who oppose direct democracy and I leave them to their Utopian daydreams. I have a question, do you even know what the Far-Right and Far-Left even mean to begin with? Absurdly and strangely enough, you seem to think that the former is Anarchism while the latter is "totalitarianism".
"Voluntary communism" and "set up their own commune"... Nice one, come back when you have started reading up on revolutions and communism itself. Such fallacies do not deserve a proper reply. Now "how" it is enforced makes much more of a difference than you seem to think, a popular enforcement of the commune and the people themselves differs vastly than an enforcement performed by a handful of "representatives" in a bourgeois parliament where the people have no say in anything that they decide on. In communist society, there is no leadership nor a state at all. Please do not reply with the same nonsense again.
Definition of a government- the political direction and control exercised over the actions of the members, citizens, or inhabitants of Communities, societies, and states; direction of the affairs of a state, community, etc.; political administration:
Check out the bolded
It does not matter if the government has 5 people in it. Its still a government if the intention is set up for being able to control what happens in peoples lives. It doesn't matter if they enforce it through popular vote or not. Once they do something against someones will its government enforcement.
But, please find me a definition that includes a size limit. Or for some reason excuses communes for being a government.
Definition of a government- the political direction and control exercised over the actions of the members, citizens, or inhabitants of Communities, societies, and states; direction of the affairs of a state, community, etc.; political administration:
Check out the bolded
*facepalm*
Did I deny the necessity or the existence of government in an anarchist or communist society? No. Did I say that government (i.e. management and organization) would be necessary in an anarchist or communist society? Absolutely. I ask you again, are you even reading my posts at all? The part which you bolded proves nothing that contradicts my claims, but on a more important note the second part should have struck you when you quoted it: "direction of the affairs of a state, community, etc."
It does not matter if the government has 5 people in it. Its still a government if the intention is set up for being able to control what happens in peoples lives. It doesn't matter if they enforce it through popular vote or not. Once they do something against someones will its government enforcement.
Government (not the state) cannot have people "in it" when I am speaking of government as in the organization and management of society and not a statist apparatus. That is, the process and not the entity. Now again, I request that you learn to differentiate between state and government (I explained the difference in my previous post).
But, please find me a definition that includes a size limit. Or for some reason excuses communes for being a government.
What are you on about? Did I even speak of government including a size limit? No. A government does not solely, strictly, or exclusively refer to a state but any means of management and organization. Still, surprisingly, after multiple posts you have not understood what a commune is. Again: "As I had said in my other post that was directed to you: 'Oh, I see, you're speaking of communes? Hah, no, they enforce laws through popular vote and management, they are not statist nor official bodies in any way (such as councils or committees) but a general collective term we apply to towns, cities, etc. that are acting in a communist system. Please know the difference between a government (as in generally all kinds of "rule" and "enforcement") and a state (an official body exercising rule and authority in a nation).' A commune is not a state. With that simply statement, your whole argument is made irrelevant. Anarcho-Socialism is not enforced by a statist entity but by the people through self-management and grassroots organization utilizing direct democracy."
Do me a favor and start READING my posts before replying with baseless nonsense.
I fail to see how opening up the market creates monopolies in and of itself, could you elaborate? There are rules against monopolies anyway and I don't see any republicans other than Ron Paul maybe (who wont win and i'm not sure if even hes for taking away the rule.) who want to take away that rule.
It's just as I said... if you wish to remove government influence over the market, it will create monopolies.
Sure, maybe there are laws in place right now to prevent monopolies (ignoring how effective or ineffective they might be), but those are only in place because of OPPOSING views.
If republicans "ruled the world" or so picturesque view you might have, then they would eventually remove all federal government influence on corporations... eventually causing monopolies powerful enough to be governments, or even nation-states, themselves.
The Republicans running now may not state they will take away that rule... they might not even believe in taking away that rule... but if they were given enough time and power they would most certainly remove it.
But if given the choice, their platform, which is the Republican platform, specifically states that it should be removed because all federal government should be removed.
As well, if given the choice to remove that rule when they most likely have stocks and power in the monopolies themselves? Of course they would... they are politicians.
They don't need to tell you what their plans are, they just need to tell you stuff you want to hear until you elect them... then they can do whatever the crap they want until the re-election comes up in 4 years.
tl;dr version:
The Republican platform wants to remove the federal government entirely, giving large companies the power to create mega-monopolies capable of becoming and/or owning states or governments themselves.
The laws set in place now for countering monopolies, could easily be removed, and it is within the republican views that it should be removed.
Hate to tell you but, as someone who do does consider themselves mostly conservative. I think the daily show is very biased against conservatives.
I am afraid I would disagree with you there. The Daily Show is a comedy show, and a largely political one at that. The Right (I do not wish to offend with the following comment) is incredibly easy to make fun of, because that is where most of the stupidity and incompetence resides. I am talking about people like Michelle Bachmann, Sarah Palin, Eric Cantor, and the like. Make no mistake, though, the Daily Show will criticize both sides. President Obama was on the show, and Jon told him he was unhappy with how things were being done. He does not hesitate to point out flaws with either side.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Intelligence is not one and the same with knowledge.
*facepalm*
Did I deny the necessity or the existence of government in an anarchist or communist society? No. Did I say that government (i.e. management and organization) would be necessary in an anarchist or communist society? Absolutely. I ask you again, are you even reading my posts at all? The part which you bolded proves nothing that contradicts my claims, but on a more important note the second part should have struck you when you quoted it: "direction of the affairs of a state, community, etc."
Government (not the state) cannot have people "in it" when I am speaking of government as in the organization and management of society and not a statist apparatus. That is, the process and not the entity. Now again, I request that you learn to differentiate between state and government (I explained the difference in my previous post).
What are you on about? Did I even speak of government including a size limit? No. A government does not solely, strictly, or exclusively refer to a state but any means of management and organization. Still, surprisingly, after multiple posts you have not understood what a commune is. Again: "As I had said in my other post that was directed to you: 'Oh, I see, you're speaking of communes? Hah, no, they enforce laws through popular vote and management, they are not statist nor official bodies in any way (such as councils or committees) but a general collective term we apply to towns, cities, etc. that are acting in a communist system. Please know the difference between a government (as in generally all kinds of "rule" and "enforcement") and a state (an official body exercising rule and authority in a nation).' A commune is not a state. With that simply statement, your whole argument is made irrelevant. Anarcho-Socialism is not enforced by a statist entity but by the people through self-management and grassroots organization utilizing direct democracy."
Do me a favor and start READING my posts before replying with baseless nonsense.
Your running yourself around in circles. I said anarchy is the absence of government and therefore the ultimate far right. If there is government in an anarchy its not anarchy. Individuals would have full power of what they do and no one could say otherwise.
Jacodb. Just saying its fairly obvious does not make it true. I asked for proof. You did not provide any. Christians say its fairly obvious that god exists. Your views on society are obviously self evident too.
CosmicSpore- What republican candidate (other than Ron Paul) wants to dismantle the government? Also proof that getting rid of laws (other than the monopoly ones that even most republicans agree with would create more monopolies? Or is it once again "self evident".
Wolf just because they make fun of republicans 75% of the time and democrats 25% the time doesn't make it balanced. And saying the Republicans are easier to make fun of so its balanced its ridiculousness. That in itself means the show is unbalanced. That would be like me airing a show and having 75% of the talk being about how good republicans are and 25% how good dems are because I believe that's how it actually is. That doesn't make it balanced.
The point is to be funny, and an easy way to do that is by making fun of people. Jon is not biased toward right or left, he is balanced towards reality. And a lot of Republican candidates seem to be in a different one.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Intelligence is not one and the same with knowledge.
Your running yourself around in circles. I said anarchy is the absence of government and therefore the ultimate far right. Individuals would have full power of what they do and no one could say otherwise.
Omfg...
Anarchism is NOT the absence of government, it is the absence of a STATE or any such governing body. THAT is NOT exclusive to the Right where did you even get such a claim from? The ignorance is making me **** bricks. Communism does not pertain a state, nor do all the strands of Anarcho-Socialism (Anarcho-Communism, Anarcho-Syndicalism, Anarchist Collectivism, Mutualism, etc. etc.) are any of these then, following your logic, Rightist, or as you put it "ultimate far right"? **** no. For the fourth and last time, the Far-Right does NOT mean Anarchism and the Far-Left does NOT mean statism, read my god damned posts that explained this multiple times before. Shockingly, from this whole debate you have not understood anything.
If there is government in an anarchy its not anarchy.
...
Government (management and organization) is NOT a statist entity but the means and process of governing and managing society. Anarchism has a form of government (popular rule and workers' organization and self-management) but has no state. Read that again.
Individuals would have full power of what they do and no one could say otherwise.
I just- I... ****. Let me ask you this before I strangle someone: have you ever read ANYTHING on Anarchism, Leftism, or even communism at all? The individual cannot have full power when he does not have the ability to do so (capital in this case) nor does he have any privileges such as in a Capitalist society that allow him to monger power. That same individual is limited by the commune, he cannot control it just as he cannot rule it. An individual cannot chop down a forest without first consulting the people that such an action affects, i.e., the commune before even considering such an action. Your arguments fail beyond belief to a degree that I'm going ape ****. You do not even understand the basics or the meanings of the terms and ideologies which you are speaking of and yet you are still arguing using easily refutable nonsense.
Hate to tell you but, as someone who do does consider themselves mostly conservative. I think the daily show is very biased against conservatives. I can get into why if you really want to later.
On your first point of people getting paid a dollar because there were no minimum wage laws. Could you please point out a candidate (other than Ron Paul) that says we should get rid of them? At very least we should get rid of minimum wage for the under 18's to increase their implacability, their early job work skills, their work ethic, and to help US businesses hire cheaper labor to compete overseas.
On the regulation issue I doubt most people realize how much regulation is produced in a year. In the first month of the new (Republican Congress) it was enough to fill up several wheel barrels. (Several hundred thousand pages.) I can post the link is you'd like. What exactly would big oil do if they were deregulated? There are several million regulations pertaining to oil, which ones would be a disaster to remove?
By the way states will be there to put the own regulations on them if they so choose and states also will implement minimum wage laws (and do currently). The fed doesn't have to do it. I can always move to a new state. Not so much a new country.
As for the medical issues I'd have to watch the debate as I still have not seen it. But, here are my beliefs. Everyone under 18 should get free medical care in terms of a tax break/handout in the amount of an average child's healthcare cost. If the parents don't get healthcare for their child they don't get the money. No one should be left to die. We should pay for someones healthcare if they don't have it. However, once they get out I would charge them for every dime that was spent on them and they would have to pay it with anything they have left over from food, elect., housing, and necessities.
If anyone has anymore questions or wishes to debate feel free. I enjoy a debate, and every now and then someone changes my views.
Edit: Anyone that wishes the best for others and is curious of others views has my deepest respect whether you agree with me or think my views would lead us to destruction.
Not really all that different from big corporations controlling everything.
And, don't confuse left-wingers with authoritarians.
Big difference between a left-winger and an authoritarian, it just seems the majority of left-wingers seem to be authoritarian.
Damn you forum only allowing two lines in the signature.
- Thank you slimes.
********. Anyone can get interested in politics. I did when I was 12.
Huh? That made absolutely no sense at all. Left-wingers ARE authoritarians, save certain strands of anarchism (when strictly referring to statist authoritarianism otherwise they fall into the same dilemma). Would you mind actually explaining the "big difference" between a Left-winger and an authoritarian?
Authoritarianism is a seperate entity from left and right. The only major government extension that is natural in leftism is welfarism (which for our purposes is the only economic aspect of leftism relevant due to western culture).
Now, welfarism doesn't neccessitate involvment, but rather offers various services. You aren't forced to be part of the programs, and because of this you aren't forced to abide by whatever rules would apply to those who do. Because it's not something forced upon you. It's the same reason you can't say the volunteer military is drafted. You might be forced to pay taxes, but that's true for all the ism's and saying a state is authoritarian because of taxes is the epitome of first world ignorance.
Similarly, it's more of a delusion that rightism is anti-authortarian then it is a reality.
...too oversimplify it, Leftist Authoritarianism exists as "Communism", but Rightist Authoritarianism exists as "Facism". Likewise, you can have the leftist antiauthoritarian anarchist (or even anarchosocialist, which is an even more complex thing), and you can have a righist antiauthoritarian libertarian.
In the united states, what you typically have is righists who think they are libertarian, are portrayed as facists by leftists, but are moderates in their field. If you flip the terms there, you'll get the situation for leftists. That's why you'll never have a rightist abolish all of the government programs due to the instability that would be caused if you did, and you'll never have a leftist who puts in place a hyper-scandanavian welfarism in place.
Did I argue otherwise? Try reading my post again, I was pointing out that authoritarianism does indeed exist in the Left just as it does exist in the Right. Authoritarianism is not explicitly "separate' from the Left and the Right, it is integrated into both of them through political ideologies which utilize the state.
What does this have to do with anything in my post? Enforced welfare is not in and of itself authoritarianism, but the existence of the state is. Now, do show me where I had claimed that the state is authoritarian because of taxes. The state is not authoritarian because it utilizes a tax system but it is so because of its very nature as a tool for the suppression and oppression of the masses which is imposed by a strict minority known as the ruling elite and their bourgeois buddies in a bourgeois society (goes the other way in the DotP). Critiques of the state and its authoritarian nature range from its inherent oppressive nature of class hegemony over society to non-grassroots and non-participatory governing body. Anyway, that had absolutely nothing to do with my previous post, I still do not know why you posted that.
Did I even state such a pathetic and reactionary claim at all? Did you even read my post? If so then what does this have anything to do at all with my post? The Right does not hold a strict monopoly on anti-authoritarianism, that requires only basic common sense.
False, Communism is not inherently statist.
Every statist ideology is authoritarian, Fascism is not the only one that is authoritarian in the Right if that's what you think. Authoritarianism does not mean the mythical "totalitarianism".
Was that not what I had stated in my previous post when I said "Left-wingers ARE authoritarians, save certain strands of anarchism (when strictly referring to statist authoritarianism otherwise they fall into the same dilemma)."?
Huh? Libertarians are not labeled as fascists by the Left, what an absurd claim. Libertarians are instead criticized for upholding a Capitalist market economy with all of its lovely qualities and its Utopian daydreaming nature, but not for being "fascistic" in any way.
See Kautskyism, Social Democracy, Menshevism and Lenin's critique and reply to them in "The State and Revolution". Applies here perfectly. Revolutionary Leftists and Marxists do not attempt to transition the state using democracy but by the violent means of a revolution as a consequence of class struggle. That is a similar argument used by us against the Social Reformers and their so-called "class collaboration". Again that has nothing to do with my previous post.
Not really. The far right end would be no government at all. The far left would be government control of everything. I don't think I need to remind you that those are opposites.
However, in the past I have actually agreed with some republicans, over democrats, a few times.
The problem with both parties is that they tend to have certain values that they emphasize, and ideals they want... yet they ignore everything else to grasp those values and ideals.
Things like smaller government, means they want to take away government influence on companies, which in turn 'opens up the free market' ... but to only monopolies who then become mega monopolies. The small business man loses out and loses everything.
Likewise, more government comes at the cost that the "winner" of something is not always clearly the winner. A monopoly who truly has the best product may not in fact gain the largest share they should because of the laws in place... perhaps too much "red tape" they have to go through to go from 'small business' to 'big business'.... perhaps too much government dependency... perhaps too much control on what their product can do and how they can advertise.
The problems with both parties are very large. Neither is acceptable, yet they are both accepted.
Typically, I actually lean much more towards democrats for the two-party system.
Basically the Republicans want a "Dog-eat-dog" world. It's sad there are people like that out there, but it's true.
Likewise, the Democrats hide behind a "friendly" atmosphere, when they are truly not much better.
What all politics comes down to is one principle: "Look out for #1". That's all they care about, that is all they will ever care about.
People who see this problem in politics don't typically involve themselves in politics... That is mostly why the voter-turnout in the U.S. is so very low.
I fail to see how opening up the market creates monopolies in and of itself, could you elaborate? There are rules against monopolies anyway and I don't see any republicans other than Ron Paul maybe (who wont win and i'm not sure if even hes for taking away the rule.) who want to take away that rule.
What an utter fallacy. The Far-Right can entail a government just as the Far-Left can be non-statist. Ever heard of Anarchism and in particular Anarcho-Socialism? The Far-Right would entail Nazism, Fascism (yes, they're not Leftist contrary to your claims) AND Anarcho-Capitalism, the Far-Left in its most extreme form would include something similar to the DPRK, Stalinism, and Anarchism. What differs between these extremist tendencies is the matter and means of enforcement and the severeity or existence of the state. Anarcho-Socialism and Anarcho-Capitalism have no state, but are still extremist forms of their respective wing. Fascism (take Pinochet for instance), Nazism, Stalinism, and the DPRK are also extremist forms of their respective wing but entail a state and strict means of enforcement. There is a reason why many people prefer a scale such as that of the political compass.
Anarchy would mean there is not government to support it. Anarchy wouldn't work anyway because there always would have to be a government of some kind. Do I need to send you wikipedia links now?
"Anarchy (from Greek: ἀναρχίᾱ anarchíā, "without ruler") may refer to any of several political states, and has been variously defined by sources. Most often, the term "anarchy" describes the simple absence of publicly recognized government or enforced political authority.[1][2] When used in this sense, anarchy may[3] or may not[4] imply political disorder or lawlessness within a society. In another sense, anarchy may not refer to a complete lack of authority or political organization, but instead refer to a social state characterized by libertarianism, or a lack of a state or ruler.[4]"
If Anarcho-Socialism is enforced by a commune or what have you it would entail extreme government control with many rules and regulations. If people choose to live by it voluntarily (not possible) it would still be the far right end of the equation.
I think people confuse voluntary communism and government forced. I am all for people that want to set up their own commune. However, once it is enforced in any kind of way by any kind of leadership it is then government enforced.
As for jacobdb. What corporations are not bound to the law? I'd really like to hear this.
Even more fallacies and misconceptions! First and foremost, there is a difference between a state and government. A state is a body of official hierarchical power that imposes itself upon society, a government is any form of management of society through various means be it through the use of a state or grassroots direct democracy. Anarchy requires no state to function, but does indeed require popular decision-making and workers' self-management as a form of government to manage their own society; that is to say, a means of organization is necessary. Secondly, before even sending any link, try to read it and understand it beforehand. Read the bolded part again. Government is necessary, a state is not. Start reading up on history or even on class antagonisms and the state by Marx, Engels, and Lenin.
Again, you still do not seem to understand the bare basics of what a commune is. As I had said in my other post that was directed to you: "Oh, I see, you're speaking of communes? Hah, no, they enforce laws through popular vote and management, they are not statist nor official bodies in any way (such as councils or committees) but a general collective term we apply to towns, cities, etc. that are acting in a communist system. Please know the difference between a government (as in generally all kinds of "rule" and "enforcement") and a state (an official body exercising rule and authority in a nation). "
A commune is not a state. With that simply statement, your whole argument is made irrelevant. Anarcho-Socialism is not enforced by a statist entity but by the people through self-management and grassroots organization utilizing direct democracy. Now here is where Anarcho-Socialism is split into multiple tendencies: the matter of the revolution. Organizationalist Anarcho-Communists (whom I was one of back in my Anarchist days) believe in popular and proletarian suppression and repression of the bourgeoisie, reactionaries, and counter-revolutionaries as a necessary phase along with implementing a form of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat minus a state. That is to say, proletarian class hegemony over the bourgeoisie and the reactionary counter-revolutionaries. Other tendencies of Anarcho-Socialism are non-revolutionaries; they deny a revolution and instead believe in more Utopian and pacifistic means to achieve their society without the use of enforcement. Anarcho-Socialism is not enforced by a statist or non-popular entity apparatus but through popular decision-making performed by the very individuals who live there, but here again there are those who oppose direct democracy and I leave them to their Utopian daydreams. I have a question, do you even know what the Far-Right and Far-Left even mean to begin with? Absurdly and strangely enough, you seem to think that the former is Anarchism while the latter is "totalitarianism".
"Voluntary communism" and "set up their own commune"... Nice one, come back when you have started reading up on revolutions and communism itself. Such fallacies do not deserve a proper reply. Now "how" it is enforced makes much more of a difference than you seem to think, a popular enforcement of the commune and the people themselves differs vastly than an enforcement performed by a handful of "representatives" in a bourgeois parliament where the people have no say in anything that they decide on. In communist society, there is no leadership nor a state at all. Please do not reply with the same nonsense again.
Definition of a government- the political direction and control exercised over the actions of the members, citizens, or inhabitants of Communities, societies, and states; direction of the affairs of a state, community, etc.; political administration:
Check out the bolded
It does not matter if the government has 5 people in it. Its still a government if the intention is set up for being able to control what happens in peoples lives. It doesn't matter if they enforce it through popular vote or not. Once they do something against someones will its government enforcement.
But, please find me a definition that includes a size limit. Or for some reason excuses communes for being a government.
*facepalm*
Did I deny the necessity or the existence of government in an anarchist or communist society? No. Did I say that government (i.e. management and organization) would be necessary in an anarchist or communist society? Absolutely. I ask you again, are you even reading my posts at all? The part which you bolded proves nothing that contradicts my claims, but on a more important note the second part should have struck you when you quoted it: "direction of the affairs of a state, community, etc."
Government (not the state) cannot have people "in it" when I am speaking of government as in the organization and management of society and not a statist apparatus. That is, the process and not the entity. Now again, I request that you learn to differentiate between state and government (I explained the difference in my previous post).
What are you on about? Did I even speak of government including a size limit? No. A government does not solely, strictly, or exclusively refer to a state but any means of management and organization. Still, surprisingly, after multiple posts you have not understood what a commune is. Again: "As I had said in my other post that was directed to you: 'Oh, I see, you're speaking of communes? Hah, no, they enforce laws through popular vote and management, they are not statist nor official bodies in any way (such as councils or committees) but a general collective term we apply to towns, cities, etc. that are acting in a communist system. Please know the difference between a government (as in generally all kinds of "rule" and "enforcement") and a state (an official body exercising rule and authority in a nation).' A commune is not a state. With that simply statement, your whole argument is made irrelevant. Anarcho-Socialism is not enforced by a statist entity but by the people through self-management and grassroots organization utilizing direct democracy."
Do me a favor and start READING my posts before replying with baseless nonsense.
It's just as I said... if you wish to remove government influence over the market, it will create monopolies.
Sure, maybe there are laws in place right now to prevent monopolies (ignoring how effective or ineffective they might be), but those are only in place because of OPPOSING views.
If republicans "ruled the world" or so picturesque view you might have, then they would eventually remove all federal government influence on corporations... eventually causing monopolies powerful enough to be governments, or even nation-states, themselves.
The Republicans running now may not state they will take away that rule... they might not even believe in taking away that rule... but if they were given enough time and power they would most certainly remove it.
But if given the choice, their platform, which is the Republican platform, specifically states that it should be removed because all federal government should be removed.
As well, if given the choice to remove that rule when they most likely have stocks and power in the monopolies themselves? Of course they would... they are politicians.
They don't need to tell you what their plans are, they just need to tell you stuff you want to hear until you elect them... then they can do whatever the crap they want until the re-election comes up in 4 years.
tl;dr version:
The Republican platform wants to remove the federal government entirely, giving large companies the power to create mega-monopolies capable of becoming and/or owning states or governments themselves.
The laws set in place now for countering monopolies, could easily be removed, and it is within the republican views that it should be removed.
tl;dr tl;dr v2.0:
Politics are corrupt, yo.
I am afraid I would disagree with you there. The Daily Show is a comedy show, and a largely political one at that. The Right (I do not wish to offend with the following comment) is incredibly easy to make fun of, because that is where most of the stupidity and incompetence resides. I am talking about people like Michelle Bachmann, Sarah Palin, Eric Cantor, and the like. Make no mistake, though, the Daily Show will criticize both sides. President Obama was on the show, and Jon told him he was unhappy with how things were being done. He does not hesitate to point out flaws with either side.
Your running yourself around in circles. I said anarchy is the absence of government and therefore the ultimate far right. If there is government in an anarchy its not anarchy. Individuals would have full power of what they do and no one could say otherwise.
Jacodb. Just saying its fairly obvious does not make it true. I asked for proof. You did not provide any. Christians say its fairly obvious that god exists. Your views on society are obviously self evident too.
CosmicSpore- What republican candidate (other than Ron Paul) wants to dismantle the government? Also proof that getting rid of laws (other than the monopoly ones that even most republicans agree with would create more monopolies? Or is it once again "self evident".
Wolf just because they make fun of republicans 75% of the time and democrats 25% the time doesn't make it balanced. And saying the Republicans are easier to make fun of so its balanced its ridiculousness. That in itself means the show is unbalanced. That would be like me airing a show and having 75% of the talk being about how good republicans are and 25% how good dems are because I believe that's how it actually is. That doesn't make it balanced.
Omfg...
Anarchism is NOT the absence of government, it is the absence of a STATE or any such governing body. THAT is NOT exclusive to the Right where did you even get such a claim from? The ignorance is making me **** bricks. Communism does not pertain a state, nor do all the strands of Anarcho-Socialism (Anarcho-Communism, Anarcho-Syndicalism, Anarchist Collectivism, Mutualism, etc. etc.) are any of these then, following your logic, Rightist, or as you put it "ultimate far right"? **** no. For the fourth and last time, the Far-Right does NOT mean Anarchism and the Far-Left does NOT mean statism, read my god damned posts that explained this multiple times before. Shockingly, from this whole debate you have not understood anything.
...
Government (management and organization) is NOT a statist entity but the means and process of governing and managing society. Anarchism has a form of government (popular rule and workers' organization and self-management) but has no state. Read that again.
I just- I... ****. Let me ask you this before I strangle someone: have you ever read ANYTHING on Anarchism, Leftism, or even communism at all? The individual cannot have full power when he does not have the ability to do so (capital in this case) nor does he have any privileges such as in a Capitalist society that allow him to monger power. That same individual is limited by the commune, he cannot control it just as he cannot rule it. An individual cannot chop down a forest without first consulting the people that such an action affects, i.e., the commune before even considering such an action. Your arguments fail beyond belief to a degree that I'm going ape ****. You do not even understand the basics or the meanings of the terms and ideologies which you are speaking of and yet you are still arguing using easily refutable nonsense.