What vison for America do you have?

Subscribe to the Rightardia feed: feeds.feedburner.com/blogspot/IGiu

Netcraft rank: 8665  

 http://toolbar.netcraft.com/site_report?url=http://rightardia.blogspot.com

Steve Kangas' Short FAQ: liberlism and libertarianism

Libertarians believe in little or no government, with individuals possessing strong or even sovereign property rights, along with the freedom to trade property as they wish on the free market.

By contrast, liberals promote extensive government support of the free market and the taxation of property. Yet these are not the only reasons why liberals object to libertarianism.

First, anarchy has historically led to violence, survival of the fittest, and eventual concentrations of power.

Second, there are no working examples of libertarianism in history, so the system remains untested in modern times, and probably for good reason.

Third, such a system would make landlords and business owners the dictators over their property, upon which tenants must live and workers must labor.

Fourth, the voluntary contracts that would supposedly protect tenants and workers presupposes that there is no such thing as market failure or contract failure, in face of widespread evidence that there is.


Only two per cent of Americans consider themselves to be libertarian. Many of these people are on the lunatic fringe and want to ban IRS.


Some libertarians advocate no government and others a minimal government. 

There are also the anarcho-capitalists which holds that government can be completely abolished because private companies working for profit should provide the court systems, military, and police forces. To see how ludicrous this idea is, see the Socialist Free Purity Pledge: http://rightardia.blogspot.com/2010/07/hillbilly-report-socailist-free-purity.html


There is even a left wing version. Noam Chomsky propose libertarian socialism
which promotes the idea that liberty is best achieved through large-scale decentralization to empower workers, with the result of eliminating both government and private capitalist organizations, which they view as coercive.


Rightardia looks at libertarianism as hopelessly Utopian. As Steve Kangas has pointed out, there are no working examples of libertarianism in history.

Sources: 

Steve Kangas short FAQ
Wikipedia

Subscribe to the Rightardia feed: feeds.feedburner.com/blogspot/IGiu

Netcraft rank 9779 

http://toolbar.netcraft.com/site_report?url=http://rightardia.blogspot.com

Steve Kangas short FAQ: How does liberalism differ from socialism?

How does liberalism differ from socialism?

There are important and fundamental differences between socialism and liberalism. When critics attempt to slander liberals by calling them "socialists," liberals should immediately challenge them to define the difference between liberalism and socialism. If they cannot, or continue to claim that they are the same, liberals should then chide them for being novices in political science, unable to define even the most basic terms of the debate.

Socialism means that workers, not private owners, would own and control the means of production: factories, farmland, machinery, and so on. In democratic elections, workers would vote for 1) their supervisors, 2) their representatives to a local and national council of their industry or service, and 3) their representatives to a central congress representing all the industries and services. 

Socialism has been proposed in many forms, ranging from republics to direct democracies, from centralized state bureaucracies to free market anarchy. Political scientists do not view the "socialism" nominally practiced by the Soviet Union as true socialism -- this was, essentially, a dictatorship over workers by a ruling elite.

By comparison, liberals believe that private owners should own and control the means of production, formulate company policy, and have the right to select their own management team. Liberals would prevent them from abusing their powers through checks and balances like strong labor unions and democratic government. 

The political system associated with capitalism is called fascism. The political system associated with socialism is called communism. World War 2 and its aftermath proved that nether political system worked.

Subscribe to the Rightardia feed: feeds.feedburner.com/blogspot/IGiu

Netcraft rank: 10672
http://toolbar.netcraft.com/site_report?url=http://rightardia.blogspot.com

What Mao Zedong said about liberalism

Conservatives like to suggest that communism, socialism and liberalism are the same thing. According to Wikipedia:

Communism is a sociopolitical structure that aims for a classless and stateless society with the communal ownership of property.

Socialism is an economic and political theory based on public or common ownership and cooperative management of the means of production and allocation of resources.

Liberalism (from the Latin liberalis, "of freedom" is the belief in the importance of liberty and equality. Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but most liberals support such fundamental ideas as constitutions, liberal democracy, free and fair elections, human rights, capitalism, free trade, and the separation of church and state.

Most social scientists consider communism to be a political system while socialism is an economic system. Capitalism is to fascism is what socialism is to communism. In the real world, most country's have mixed economic systems that have both elements of capitalism and socialism.

Of interest, liberal ideas actually developed before conservative ideas. 

Is liberalism like socialism and communism? The great Chinese leader, Mao Zedong, didn't think so. 

革命的集体组织中的自由主义是十分有害的。它是一种腐蚀剂，使团结涣散，关系松懈，工作消极，意见分歧。它使革命队伍失掉严密的组织和纪律，政策不能贯彻到底，党的组织和党所领导的群众发生隔离。这是一种严重的恶劣倾向。

Liberalism is extremely harmful in a revolutionary collective. It is a corrosive which eats away unity, undermines cohesion, causes apathy and creates dissension.

It robs the revolutionary ranks of compact organization and strict discipline, prevents policies from being carried through and alienates the Party organizations from the masses which the Party leads. It is an extremely bad tendency.Combat Liberalism" (7 September 1937), later quoted in Quotations from Chairman Mao Zedong (The Little Red Book) (1964), Ch. 24.

. . . It (liberalism) robs the revolutionary ranks of compact organization and strict discipline, prevents policies from being carried through and alienates the Party organizations from the masses which the Party leads. It is an extremely bad tendency.

Liberalism stems from petty-bourgeois selfishness, it places personal interests first and the interests of the revolution second, and this gives rise to ideological, political and organizational liberalism.

People who are liberals look upon the principles of Marxism as abstract dogma. They approve of Marxism, but are not prepared to practice it or to practice it in full; they are not prepared to replace their liberalism by Marxism. 

These people have their Marxism, but they have their liberalism as well--they talk Marxism but practice liberalism; they apply Marxism to others but liberalism to themselves. They keep both kinds of goods in stock and find a use for each. This is how the minds of certain people work. Combat Liberalism, 1937

Subscribe to the Rightardia feed: feeds.feedburner.com/blogspot/IGiu

Netcraft rank: 14896  

http://toolbar.netcraft.com/site_report?url=http://rightardia.blogspot.com

Usenet: Some thoughts on philosophy and major US political parties

On 07/05/2010 12:03 PM, Mark Sebree wrote:

I was thinking recently about the way what the US political parties tend to try to present themselves as being opposite of one another on many issues, as well as the adjectives that they are often attached to themselves.

If Democrat is the opposite of Republican:

Democrats are often viewed as being liberal and progressives.

Liberal is defined as (by Dictionary.com)

1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
2. noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.
4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
5. favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression
6. free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant
7. open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.

Progressive is defined as: 1. favoring or advocating progress, change, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are, esp. in political matters
1. making progress toward better conditions; employing or advocating more enlightened or liberal ideas, new or experimental methods, etc.
2. characterized by such progress, or by continuous improvement.
3. going forward or onward; passing successively from one member of a series to the next; proceeding step by step.

These are seen or should be seen by most people as being positive traits.

Opposed to the Democrats are the Republicans, who are generally viewed as being conservative. Conservative is defined as:

1. disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.
2.  Traditional in style or manner; avoiding novelty or showiness

However, since they supposedly the opposite of Democrats, that means that they are also the opposite of being progressive. Which means that they are regressive.

Regressive is defined as:
1. regressing or tending to regress; retrogressive.
2. obtained from or characterized by backward reasoning.
3. Tending to return or revert.
4. Characterized by regression or a tendency to regress.

So, rather than moving forward like the Democrats, Republicans want to move backwards, and return to the days of bigotry, discrimination, and oppression of women, blacks, latinos, homosexuals, non-Christians, and just about everyone else that does not kowtow to their dictates.

In summary, given that the major US political parties like to be seen as opposites, their "labels" become very telling.

Democrats are liberal and progressive. Republicans are conservative and regressive.

Which groups would you rather be associated with? Those that move forward and try to better the world, or those that try to move backward to a less developed and less free world?

--Mark Sebree

Regressive, counter-revolutionary and reactionary are all words that describe conservative political ideas.


Republican tax ideas are, in fact, regressive. Flat taxes and fair taxes are regressive. The only taxes the GOP complains about are the progressive ones: Income Tax and the Estate Tax.


The Republican philosophy is, indeed, regressive.  Their political tactics are reactionary: attacking every piece of Democratic legislation coming out of the House and Senate.

source:

Path: news.usenetmonster.com!spoolset.readnews.com!nx02.iad01.newshosting.com!newshosting.com!69.16.185.11.MISMATCH!npeer01.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!postnews.google.com!u26g2000yqu.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: Mark Sebree <sebree@infionline.net>
Newsgroups: alt.abortion,alt.politics
Subject: Some thoughts on philosophy and major US political parties

Subscribe to the Rightardia feed: feeds.feedburner.com/blogspot/IGiu

Netcraft rank: 15638 http://toolbar.netcraft.com/site_report?url=http://rightardia.blogspot.com

Libertarian doctors don't need to be board certified

 Subscribe to the Rightardia feed: feeds.feedburner.com/blogspot/IGiu 

Netcraft rank: 13506 http://toolbar.netcraft.com/site_report?url=http://rightardia.blogspot.com

Liberals and atheists are smarter

"General intelligence, the ability to think and reason, endowed our ancestors with advantages in solving evolutionarily novel problems for which they did not have innate solutions," says Satoshi Kanazawa, an evolutionary psychologist at the London School of Economics and Political Science.

Data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health) support Kanazawa's hypothesis. Young adults who subjectively identify themselves as "very liberal" have an average IQ of 106 during adolescence while those who identify themselves as "very conservative" have an average IQ of 95 during adolescence.

Similarly, religion is a byproduct of humans' tendency to perceive agency and intention as causes of events, to see "the hands of God" at work behind otherwise natural phenomena.

"Humans are evolutionarily designed to be paranoid, and they believe in God because they are paranoid," says Kanazawa. This innate bias toward paranoia served humans well when self-preservation and protection of their families and clans depended on extreme vigilance to all potential dangers. "So, more intelligent children are more likely to grow up to go against their natural evolutionary tendency to believe in God, and they become atheists."

Young adults who identify themselves as "not at all religious" have an average IQ of 103 during adolescence, while those who identify themselves as "very religious" have an average IQ of 97 during adolescence.

In addition, humans have always been mildly polygynous in evolutionary history. Men in polygynous marriages were not expected to be sexually exclusive to one mate, whereas men in monogamous marriages were.

In sharp contrast, whether they are in a monogamous or polygynous marriage, women were always expected to be sexually exclusive to one mate. So being sexually exclusive is evolutionarily novel for men, but not for women.

And the theory predicts that more intelligent men are more likely to value sexual exclusivity than less intelligent men, but general intelligence makes no difference for women's value on sexual exclusivity. Kanazawa's analysis of Add Health data supports these sex-specific predictions as well.

Rightardia comment: Other studies have shown that conservatives are more fearful about the world than liberals. in addition, Lawrence Kohlberg did a lot of research on conventional and post-conventional thought. 

Post-conventional or liberal people have almost always attended college and develop liberal thought  in their mid-thirties or later. Although such post-conventional thinkers can understand lower level conventional or conservative thinking, conventional thinkers have a much harder time understanding liberal ideas.

The health care debate heightened the differences of thinking between conservatives and liberals. Conservatives were prone to gross exaggeration and incendiary language. 

The Tea Partiers seemed to the least astute group of conservatives. The Tea Partiers feared health care changes which should have made them less fearful. Clearly IQ and education had something to do with the extreme perceptions Tea Partiers has toward universal health care and change in general.

See the complete article at http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100224132655.htm

Subscribe to the Rightardia feed: feeds.feedburner.com/blogspot/IGiu

Netcraft rank: 7465 http://toolbar.netcraft.com/site_report?url=http://rightardia.blogspot.com

Steve Kangas FAQ on liberalism: Is the US a democracy?

Myth: The U.S. is not a democracy.

Fact: The U.S. is a representative democracy in every branch of government.

Summary

The U.S. is a democracy -- just not a direct one. Every branch of our government -- executive, legislative, judicial, monetary -- ultimately derives its power from majority rule or approval. By making our democracy indirect instead of direct, the Founders prevented unrestrained mob rule, allowing a more reasonable pace of majority rule, and greater room for compromise.



Argument

Conservatives continually point out that America is not a democracy, but a constitutional republic. This is a quibble over definitions, because a constitutional republic is a type of democracy. Democracy comes in two forms: direct and republican. In a direct democracy, the people vote directly on proposed laws, and government (to the extent that it exists) serves only to put their laws into action. By contrast, a republic is a representative democracy, where laws are passed not by the people, but their elected representatives. Adding the term "constitutional" to the word "republic" is frivolous, since all nations have constitutions.

Why, then, do conservatives insist on this distinction? There are two reasons, both of them trivial. One is to embarrass those who make casual use of the term "democracy." Another is that conservatives are so hostile to democracy that they seek to deny its very name.

But a democracy we are. No matter which branch of government you look into, you'll find the fingerprints of democracy everywhere:

Congress: the people vote on their Senators and Representatives, who then vote on their laws.

The White House: the people vote on a slate of electors, who then vote for the president.

Supreme Court: nine justices vote on the constitutionality of laws.

Supreme Court justices: an elected president nominates a Supreme Court justice, who must pass a vote of confidence from the people's elected Senators.

Constitutional amendments: the people's elected representatives vote on the amendments, which must pass by a supermajority of elected state legislatures.

Cabinet appointees: an elected president nominates cabinet officials, who must pass a vote of confidence from the people's elected Senators.

The Federal Reserve: a board of Federal Reserve governors votes on monetary policy.

The Federal Reserve Board: an elected president nominates members to the Federal Reserve Board, who must pass a vote of confidence from the people's elected Senators.

Notice that a spectrum of democracy exists within these examples. On the more direct end lies the House of Representatives, which elects legislators from relatively small districts every two years. On the more republican end lies the Senate, which elects legislators from much larger states every six years. The extreme in republicanism is the Supreme Court, where the people's representatives elect justices to lifetime tenure.

Also notice that there is no such thing as a 100 percent direct democracy, since voters would be overwhelmed with the requirements of voting on the nuts and bolts of every government operation. Inevitably, democracy requires some degree of delegated authority. Still, the Founders feared more direct forms of democracy, since they believed -- with historical justification -- that they increased the volitility of mob rule, reduced the chances of compromise, allowed more uninformed legislation to pass, and were usually short-lived. Thus, they insisted on a more republican form of government. However, they also knew the danger of going too far in the opposite direction. Too republican, and representatives become impervious to the will of the people. The challenge in designing a democracy is to find the right balance between direct democracy and republicanism.

Ultimately, all democracies -- including republics -- operate at the consent of the majority. By making our democracy more indirect than direct, the Founders did not stop majority rule; they merely slowed it down somewhat. We could fine tune our position on this spectrum either way, of course, but we would have to go miles in the direction of republicanism before we were no longer a democracy.
 
source: http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-democracy.htm

Get 30 days of free traffic analysis simply by going to Web-Stat: http://www.web-stat.com/?id=2955

Contact Rightardia: eelder1@gmail.com

Subscribe to the Rightardia feed: http://feeds2.feedburner.com/blogspot/Onjs