Why Does It Scare Me?

[Sentama Lin]

Sounds like Libertarianism (essentially, allow only enough government to ensure a working society).

My government view is actually like that, more or less, as well, though with the addendum that procedures be made to ensure that everyone has the equal chance to succeed (meaning antitrust laws, equal rights and freedoms for everyone, and a way to enforce said laws to make sure everyone does have those rights and freedoms) and there are ways to protect the ones that cannot be protected (there's probably a term for that). But, my view of what government should be changes with the tide sometimes, and even I can't set one view down on paper.  

[lazycommie]

Sentama Lin

Sounds like Libertarianism (essentially, allow only enough government to ensure a working society).

My government view is actually like that, more or less, as well, though with the addendum that procedures be made to ensure that everyone has the equal chance to succeed (meaning antitrust laws, equal rights and freedoms for everyone, and a way to enforce said laws to make sure everyone does have those rights and freedoms) and there are ways to protect the ones that cannot be protected (there's probably a term for that). But, my view of what government should be changes with the tide sometimes, and even I can't set one view down on paper.

It's a close cousin thereof. The difference being that I only recognize government as essential because it is part of the human condition.

By "equal chance", do you mean "forced equality"(which amounts to theft from the haves and giving it to the have nots), or being on an "equal playing field", i.e. you have an equal chance, but if you screw up it's your own damn fault?  

[Sentama Lin]

I don't know. Some days it's making sure that -- should wealth somehow become unfairly gotten -- it should be distributed. Other days, I just want everyone to have a level playing ground. It would depend what one meant explicitly however since that statement is way too generalised. Level playing ground is hard to define.

Take someone who has no power or resources and someone who does have power and resources. The no-power individual has an idea first and wants to sell it to make himself succeed, but the other person "discovered" it from the no-power guy and decides to sell it at the detriment of the no-power guy. I'd want a government that would protect that person who had no power but made that idea first because it was his.  

[lazycommie]

Sentama Lin

I don't know. Some days it's making sure that -- should wealth somehow become unfairly gotten -- it should be distributed. Other days, I just want everyone to have a level playing ground. It would depend what one meant explicitly however since that statement is way too generalised. Level playing ground is hard to define.

Take someone who has no power or resources and someone who does have power and resources. The no-power individual has an idea first and wants to sell it to make himself succeed, but the other person "discovered" it from the no-power guy and decides to sell it at the detriment of the no-power guy. I'd want a government that would protect that person who had no power but made that idea first because it was his.

No-power guy should have patented the idea or sold it to power guy.

The problem with wealth redistribution is that it requires taking from someone else to give to the other person. Do that enough, and the country falls apart because the people who end up working for no or reduced gain stop working as it becomes futile to. So now you've got a whole bunch of people on government teat and nobody doing anything. Country falls.  

[Sentama Lin]

No power guy should benefit by selling idea to the guy with power, thus benefitting both people in the end. However, that is rarely the case in real life practical examples. People with no power get used and abused all the time even when there should be equal footing. In addition, the redistribution of wealth and welfare would work if and only if all people working in that society understand that they are no longer working just for themselves but for the greater collective good of everyone in the society. That's not the case, however. Ethical selfishness rarely exists either. People are just plain selfish, and that's why it doesn't work. But... we've very much derailed the topic about Proposition 8 and how, thanks to it, people can justify removing rights and freedoms from a minority because the majority thinks so.

You know one thing that bothers me slightly about it? That even though they most likely will let it pass, they'll still honour the marriages they have committed to same-gendered couples. While I don't want their benefits revoked, the fact that they say that "only man-woman marriages will be honoured in California," yet they allow these couples to keep their rights is, in my eyes, hypocrisy.  

[lazycommie]

Sentama Lin

No power guy should benefit by selling idea to the guy with power, thus benefitting both people in the end. However, that is rarely the case in real life practical examples. People with no power get used and abused all the time even when there should be equal footing. In addition, the redistribution of wealth and welfare would work if and only if all people working in that society understand that they are no longer working just for themselves but for the greater collective good of everyone in the society. That's not the case, however. Ethical selfishness rarely exists either. People are just plain selfish, and that's why it doesn't work. But... we've very much derailed the topic about Proposition 8 and how, thanks to it, people can justify removing rights and freedoms from a minority because the majority thinks so.

You know one thing that bothers me slightly about it? That even though they most likely will let it pass, they'll still honour the marriages they have committed to same-gendered couples. While I don't want their benefits revoked, the fact that they say that "only man-woman marriages will be honoured in California," yet they allow these couples to keep their rights is, in my eyes, hypocrisy.

What you basically wind up proposing is Marxism. Good in theory, but fails utterly in practice due to the fact that people don't work for "the good of the whole", nor is "the good of the whole" really sufficient motivation for anything IRL.

I don't get why anyone is getting benefits from marrying anyone ingeneral!


Also, it's California, don't expect sense from them.  

[Sentama Lin]

I'm well aware of my political ideologies, thank you very much (not to be disrespectful, but you're... a bit too condescending). I've already explained why a Marxist society wouldn't work. that said, I'd like it to work, but even if it did work I don't think I'd be happy in it because much of the individual would be lost.

But seriously... either give gays their rights or don't; don't do this whole "It's wrong now, but we choose not to repeal what we gave." Thing.  

[Shram]

Sentama Lin

I'm well aware of my political ideologies, thank you very much (not to be disrespectful, but you're... a bit too condescending). I've already explained why a Marxist society wouldn't work. that said, I'd like it to work, but even if it did work I don't think I'd be happy in it because much of the individual would be lost.

But seriously... either give gays their rights or don't; don't do this whole "It's wrong now, but we choose not to repeal what we gave." Thing.

I am an old ATG member =]



Well there is a theory where Marxism can work but we can't force it, we need to "evolve" into a Marxist society.

Click here to PM Me regarding ATG.
I am not a Mod but I am a regular and will always answer if you ask =]

 

[Sentama Lin]

Isn't that how Marx himself defined the progression into Marxist Communism -- that is the middle (bourgeois) class, furious with the corruption of the upper wealthy aristocrats and the government, revolt, fight, and eventually create a society where the collective work together? It's why I wouldn't feel comfortable in a forced Communism because it does take that revolution (first) and it requres everyone to be in that mindset. So far, the United States is not in that mindset and cannot foster Marxist Communism.  

[Shram]

Sentama Lin

Isn't that how Marx himself defined the progression into Marxist Communism -- that is the middle (bourgeois) class, furious with the corruption of the upper wealthy aristocrats and the government, revolt, fight, and eventually create a society where the collective work together? It's why I wouldn't feel comfortable in a forced Communism because it does take that revolution (first) and it requres everyone to be in that mindset. So far, the United States is not in that mindset and cannot foster Marxist Communism.

I am an old ATG member =]



The US can barely live with its democratic measures...
Might be better to go back to western style life with cowboys and crap -.-

Click here to PM Me regarding ATG.
I am not a Mod but I am a regular and will always answer if you ask =]

 

[lazycommie]

Shram

Sentama Lin

Isn't that how Marx himself defined the progression into Marxist Communism -- that is the middle (bourgeois) class, furious with the corruption of the upper wealthy aristocrats and the government, revolt, fight, and eventually create a society where the collective work together? It's why I wouldn't feel comfortable in a forced Communism because it does take that revolution (first) and it requres everyone to be in that mindset. So far, the United States is not in that mindset and cannot foster Marxist Communism.

I am an old ATG member =]



The US can barely live with its democratic measures...
Might be better to go back to western style life with cowboys and crap -.-

Click here to PM Me regarding ATG.
I am not a Mod but I am a regular and will always answer if you ask =]

Something interesting about that, actually. Back in the "old west"(real old west, not hollywood BS), violence was actually very rare in towns. IIRC, the rate of violent crime back then was something like 1 per 100,000 over the course of 45 years. Now, there are a lot of factors involved there, population density(low), armament of the people, effective law enforcement, minimal government, etc.  

[lazycommie]

Sentama Lin

I'm well aware of my political ideologies, thank you very much (not to be disrespectful, but you're... a bit too condescending). I've already explained why a Marxist society wouldn't work. that said, I'd like it to work, but even if it did work I don't think I'd be happy in it because much of the individual would be lost.

But seriously... either give gays their rights or don't; don't do this whole "It's wrong now, but we choose not to repeal what we gave." Thing.

I apologize for sounding condescending, it's not my intent to.

"from each based on his ability, to each based upon his need". Basic core of marxism. Doesn't work for exactly the reasons you stated. People lose the individual, and then it breaks apart.  

[Shram]

lazycommie

Shram

Sentama Lin

Isn't that how Marx himself defined the progression into Marxist Communism -- that is the middle (bourgeois) class, furious with the corruption of the upper wealthy aristocrats and the government, revolt, fight, and eventually create a society where the collective work together? It's why I wouldn't feel comfortable in a forced Communism because it does take that revolution (first) and it requres everyone to be in that mindset. So far, the United States is not in that mindset and cannot foster Marxist Communism.

I am an old ATG member =]



The US can barely live with its democratic measures...
Might be better to go back to western style life with cowboys and crap -.-

Click here to PM Me regarding ATG.
I am not a Mod but I am a regular and will always answer if you ask =]

Something interesting about that, actually. Back in the "old west"(real old west, not hollywood BS), violence was actually very rare in towns. IIRC, the rate of violent crime back then was something like 1 per 100,000 over the course of 45 years. Now, there are a lot of factors involved there, population density(low), armament of the people, effective law enforcement, minimal government, etc.

I am an old ATG member =]


With practically everyone having a pistol and every town having a sheriff and a deputy the likely hood of violent behaviour would drop.
any single man doing something violent could be shot on the spot.

Click here to PM Me regarding ATG.
I am not a Mod but I am a regular and will always answer if you ask =]

 

[lazycommie]

Shram

lazycommie

Shram

Sentama Lin

Isn't that how Marx himself defined the progression into Marxist Communism -- that is the middle (bourgeois) class, furious with the corruption of the upper wealthy aristocrats and the government, revolt, fight, and eventually create a society where the collective work together? It's why I wouldn't feel comfortable in a forced Communism because it does take that revolution (first) and it requres everyone to be in that mindset. So far, the United States is not in that mindset and cannot foster Marxist Communism.

I am an old ATG member =]



The US can barely live with its democratic measures...
Might be better to go back to western style life with cowboys and crap -.-

Click here to PM Me regarding ATG.
I am not a Mod but I am a regular and will always answer if you ask =]

Something interesting about that, actually. Back in the "old west"(real old west, not hollywood BS), violence was actually very rare in towns. IIRC, the rate of violent crime back then was something like 1 per 100,000 over the course of 45 years. Now, there are a lot of factors involved there, population density(low), armament of the people, effective law enforcement, minimal government, etc.

I am an old ATG member =]


With practically everyone having a pistol and every town having a sheriff and a deputy the likely hood of violent behaviour would drop.
any single man doing something violent could be shot on the spot.

Click here to PM Me regarding ATG.
I am not a Mod but I am a regular and will always answer if you ask =]

Exactly. Between the populace and a duly elected and efficient police, you solve much of the problems.  

[Shram]

lazycommie

Shram

lazycommie

Shram

Sentama Lin

Isn't that how Marx himself defined the progression into Marxist Communism -- that is the middle (bourgeois) class, furious with the corruption of the upper wealthy aristocrats and the government, revolt, fight, and eventually create a society where the collective work together? It's why I wouldn't feel comfortable in a forced Communism because it does take that revolution (first) and it requres everyone to be in that mindset. So far, the United States is not in that mindset and cannot foster Marxist Communism.

I am an old ATG member =]



The US can barely live with its democratic measures...
Might be better to go back to western style life with cowboys and crap -.-

Click here to PM Me regarding ATG.
I am not a Mod but I am a regular and will always answer if you ask =]

Something interesting about that, actually. Back in the "old west"(real old west, not hollywood BS), violence was actually very rare in towns. IIRC, the rate of violent crime back then was something like 1 per 100,000 over the course of 45 years. Now, there are a lot of factors involved there, population density(low), armament of the people, effective law enforcement, minimal government, etc.

I am an old ATG member =]


With practically everyone having a pistol and every town having a sheriff and a deputy the likely hood of violent behaviour would drop.
any single man doing something violent could be shot on the spot.

Click here to PM Me regarding ATG.
I am not a Mod but I am a regular and will always answer if you ask =]

Exactly. Between the populace and a duly elected and efficient police, you solve much of the problems.

I am an old ATG member =]



True but the risk's were higher at the time to, after all you could have a bunch of criminals make their own city with their own rules.
Unlucky for any rich person stumbling into/near the city.

Click here to PM Me regarding ATG.
I am not a Mod but I am a regular and will always answer if you ask =]