Topics for Debate: Political Philosophies

[ouroboros]

Are you sure?

Lincoln bent the hell out of US and Constitutional laws to do get what he wanted, setting some bad precedents along the way that still haunt our political system.

Among other virtues, Jeffrey Rogers Hummel's book EMANCIPATING SLAVES, ENSLAVING FREE MEN is incisive about many of Lincoln's draconian actions, while still basically advocating the Union's cause.

 

[ouroboros]

wherein which to the political parties violate their own philosophies

The biggest two known to me are:

(1) conservatives complaining about big government, except when it creates some program they want, like the recent attempt at a coal subsidy,

(2) liberals whinging about the violence and fascism of the Right, and then showing overt or covert support for Antifa.

 

[The Incredible Hulk]

The biggest two known to me are:

(1) conservatives complaining about big government, except when it creates some program they want, like the recent attempt at a coal subsidy,

(2) liberals whinging about the violence and fascism of the Right, and then showing overt or covert support for Antifa.

Ah, Antifa, short for "anti-facism," which we as a country partook in two World Wars to combat, but who has been made into yet another conservative boogeyman when protesting "Nazi's" were met with violence on occasion.

Anti-facism used to be an American philosophy, at least it was until the GOP sold it's soul to it's darkest self interests for the sake of trying to remain relevant and in power.

 

[MaceB]

Ah, Antifa, short for "anti-facism," which we as a country partook in two World Wars to combat, but who has been made into yet another conservative boogeyman when protesting "Nazi's" were met with violence on occasion.

Anti-facism used to be an American philosophy, at least it was until the GOP sold it's soul to it's darkest self interests for the sake of trying to remain relevant and in power.

This is what conservatives do. Remember ACORN? The so-called liberal decimation of our democratic principles? Planned Parenthood, purportedly pushing for the dismemberment of fetuses for scientific research? I do.

Antifa is a bunch of people who show up against fascist groups. Their belief is that you can't deal with violent fascist groups (like white pride folks) through non-violent means. I don't agree with their philosophy... to me, nonviolent resistance (ghandi style) is the way to go. Still, conservatives like to make them into a big straw man, like they always do.

 

[ouroboros]

This is what conservatives do. Remember ACORN? The so-called liberal decimation of our democratic principles? Planned Parenthood, purportedly pushing for the dismemberment of fetuses for scientific research? I do.

Antifa is a bunch of people who show up against fascist groups. Their belief is that you can't deal with violent fascist groups (like white pride folks) through non-violent means. I don't agree with their philosophy... to me, nonviolent resistance (ghandi style) is the way to go. Still, conservatives like to make them into a big straw man, like they always do.

It's the idea of violent opposition to fascism-- at least in situations that aren't governed by the rules of wartime-- that I consider opposed to Classic Liberalism.

 

[MaceB]

It's the idea of violent opposition to fascism-- at least in situations that aren't governed by the rules of wartime-- that I consider opposed to Classic Liberalism.

It's a crime, yes. And they must be charged according to our laws. But I know the difference between an imperfect friend and an enemy. Antifa is a small group of people who do the wrong thing for the right reasons... nothing to get worked up about.

 

[chaseter]

Sometimes I wonder if every form of government is doomed to fail. People that are interested in politics are naturally critical. We look at trends and human nature. This makes us form "categories" of people and generalize how they act, accurately or not. This is true of people inside and outside of the government. The problem is, like I said, these categories aren't always accurate. Take into account that the people in power are often separated from the people on the ground and a rapidly changing situation in that society, and conflict arrives.

I think this is especially true in countries that have had a stable continuation of that form of government for generations. The people in power get complacent and overconfident in the system.

Every form of government is doomed to fail because of one element: The Human Element. Humans are naturally greedy, jingoistic, and tribalistic. We all want the most for ourselves, will defend our lives with force, and like to separate ourselves into groups.

As for what form of government I prefer, it’s a large mix. Free market principles with government oversight. That’s broad yes but there’s no way to detail it all. The private sector and the public sector have to co exist. The government should only be used to monitor the private sector and provide services to the people. The government today is so bloated and ineffective and has become corrupted by corporations (money).

Personally, I’m largely conservative with a few libertarian and liberal ideas sprinkled in. I call myself independent because I do not agree with the DNC or GOP as a whole. They have co-authored the ruin of America by allowing the fringe to dictate policy. I never thought Trump would get elected or that media today would constantly shove extreme social narratives down everyone’s throats to appease such a small %. It’s tyranny of the minority. We have Nazis running around and people applauding abortion. It’s crazy times.

 

[ComicBookNerd]

Every form of government is doomed to fail because of one element: The Human Element. Humans are naturally greedy, jingoistic, and tribalistic. We all want the most for ourselves, will defend our lives with force, and like to separate ourselves into groups.

As for what form of government I prefer, it’s a large mix. Free market principles with government oversight. That’s broad yes but there’s no way to detail it all. The private sector and the public sector have to co exist. The government should only be used to monitor the private sector and provide services to the people. The government today is so bloated and ineffective and has become corrupted by corporations (money).

Personally, I’m largely conservative with a few libertarian and liberal ideas sprinkled in. I call myself independent because I do not agree with the DNC or GOP as a whole. They have co-authored the ruin of America by allowing the fringe to dictate policy. I never thought Trump would get elected or that media today would constantly shove extreme social narratives down everyone’s throats to appease such a small %. It’s tyranny of the minority. We have Nazis running around and people applauding abortion. It’s crazy times.

And 9, 9rings were gifted to the race of men, who above all else, desire power.

 

[ouroboros]

It's a crime, yes. And they must be charged according to our laws. But I know the difference between an imperfect friend and an enemy. Antifa is a small group of people who do the wrong thing for the right reasons... nothing to get worked up about.

Antifa, while it's a small and geographically restricted movement, is something I view as a symptom of larger issues in modern liberalism-- though I'm informed by one source that a lot of modern liberals don't like that label, feeling it's been tainted by big-business liberals like the Clintons (not my example). "Progressives" was the term this source favored, and since that term hearkens back to at least the 20th century, this just proves that the more things change, etc.

Remember, in my post I was complaining of liberals being hypocrites by criticizing supposed violent tendencies in the Right while showing "overt or covert support" for movements like Antifa. Most liberals/progressives won't use direct violence, any more than most conservatives will. But the admiration of force as a way to solve problems used to be much more confined to conservative rhetoric, like Ronald Reagan claiming that once he'd seen RAMBO, "I'll know what to do next time" or words to that effect.

I'd mention the assaults on Confederate statues as a more prevalent example of liberal/progressive violence, but it's a point that one can't argue in these parts.

 

[MaceB]

The use of violence versus nonviolence in pursuit of progressive causes is a debate as old as Ghandi, as I figure it. As a progressive, what do you do in the face of Fascism? You really have 3 choices: cooperate, passively resist, or violently resist. Out of those three, there's one wrong choice, one poor choice, and one ideal choice.... that might hurt like hell.

I suppose it is a bit hypocritical to be condoning violent resistance. It's certainly not what I want. It's an example of doing the wrong thing for the right reasons. I guess what I'm saying is that in the war for public opinion, people do make compromises. I'm pretty sure that Abraham Lincoln wanted African Americans to get the vote.. but in public, he wouldn't say that. He'd probably chastise anyone who did. Was that hypocritical of him? I suppose. But it was the right thing to do nonetheless.

Do I support ANTIFA? Nope... I'd say that they should go to jail when they are seen in public, being violent. You have to face the consequences of your mission, like any soldier would. But I do understand that if they weren't there, it would have to be other folks provoking the Fascists in other ways. We have to fight Fascism literally every time we see it - one way or another. And ANTIFA is a small band of miscreants, I try to keep that in perspective. They may not be my friends... but they aren't my enemy.

 

[Aximili86]

Pretty much. When you're at "the ends justifies the means", you've kind of lost any high ground immediately.

 

[ouroboros]

Is the practice of the boycott an example of "passively resisting" or "violently resisting?"

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

*Edit

 

[ouroboros]

Let me reframe my quip as a question.

In the long run, hasn't the practice of the boycott -- even when mustered on the behalf of unworthy causes, like that of the Philadelphia Two-- proven much more effective against the establishment than physical violence?

 

[MaceB]

Let me reframe my quip as a question.

In the long run, hasn't the practice of the boycott -- even when mustered on the behalf of unworthy causes, like that of the Philadelphia Two-- proven much more effective against the establishment than physical violence?

Definitely. Boycotts are basically the essence of passive resistance. Ghandi, for example, made his own clothes, which hurt the British clothing manufacturers.
Making salt in the sea and refusing to buy salt from the British was the same idea.

Hurt them in their wallets, operate with integrity, refuse to throw a punch... that's far better than violent protest any day.

It's also the harder path. It's easy and satisfying to break stuff. It's hard to fight others by sacrificing your own wants and needs... but that's the best way to do it. It does require a lot of patience though.

 

[Aximili86]

These are millennial campus-kids though. Patience, discipline? Naaah, screw that.

 

[MaceB]

These are millennial campus-kids though. Patience, discipline? Naaah, screw that.

Pretty much. True civil disobedience is hard, because you have to think of it like being a soldier. You're there to sacrifice yourself for the cause. When the Occupy Wallstreet movement happened... I didn't really expect much. But when I saw them leaving because it was too cold, I knew they had lost. If they had wanted to win, they should have laid down and died there... and then the country would see how important this was, and their sacrifice may have meant something.

That's asking a lot... more than I'm willing to give...but true civil disobedience isn't about marching for an hour or canvassing on the weekends. You've got to put your body on the line, and even though you're not willing to punch back, you've got to be willing to take the blows just like a soldier on the battlefield. In fact, that's why you're there. To instigate your opponent into responding.

 

[Aximili86]

Occupy was pretty much professional agitators. You've seen some of those bleed into other protest movements since, but that seemed to be the big egregious one. Battle Of Seattle guys, the usual suspects.

 

[MaceB]

Occupy was pretty much professional agitators. You've seen some of those bleed into other protest movements since, but that seemed to be the big egregious one. Battle Of Seattle guys, the usual suspects.

No they weren't. They were actual people trying to make a difference on an issue that mattered very much to them. Let's not slander them with gossip.

 

[Aximili86]

Nah, the grubby bastards laying waste to public parks (aren't these supposed to be the same earth-mother greenpeace 'screw the corporate polluters' types?) and raping each other in a few instances sort of dug their own hole as far as wider perception, nothing anyone can add to that now.

 

[MaceB]

Jesus, no. Grubby bastards? Greenpeace? You insult them and mock their cause because of 4-5 bad apples? They didn't lay waste to the public park at all...I'm pretty sure the park is still there safe and sound... They set up tents there in which they were kicked out during a snow storm. And I'm sorry that you don't think our country being for sale is worth a park getting some trash on it.
You're actually minimizing the entire Occupy Wallstreet movement because of less than a handful of rape accusations? What about the 98% who were there for what they believed in? The cause of the Occupy Wall Street movement was spot on. If anything, they did't do nearly as much as they should have. They were too cautious and they should have pushed even harder. The 4-5 rape accusations across several states and the supposed trash they left behind is hardly the big takeaway... or at least it shouldn't be.

 

[Aximili86]

Dude. Look up the footage & pictures from major US cities after these people left. Some other poor dude's gotta clean up after them - yeah, lookin' out for the little guy, college kids! Way to go. Same ignorant bull***** as the smashing of store windows during Seattle and the Orange *****e inauguration. They don't even grasp the hilarity of what they're putting out there.

And the rapes were significant in number enough for women-only tenting areas being set up, so yeah, seems a significant problem.

In a broader sense, what the did damn "movement" achieve? Basically nothing. Mass media attention, sit-outs in public spaces for a week, everyone goes home and waits for the next social-media buzz-movement. Bankers keep on bankin'.

 

[MaceB]

Do you know of more than 4-5 accusations? And even if there was litter... they were kicked out in many circumstances not allowing for clean up time... and our government being for sale isn't worth it? A few days worth of trash? You're using a HANDFUL of accusations to delegitimize the entire cause and thousands of good actors, and that is hugely inappropriate.

It didn't achieve anything. Like I said, they didn't go hard enough. They thought protesting was the same as civil disobedience, and they were wrong. They should have been willing to litter their dead bodies in those parks. Go on hunger strikes. Stay out in the cold. Set themselves aflame. If they were willing to die like soldier for their cause, then it might have had more impact.

On the one hand, your criticizing the movement for not being polite enough to the law; on the other hand, you are arguing that they were too polite to the law. weird.

 

[Aximili86]

They were "kicked out" for sitting in a public space for 2 weeks on end or whatever it was. You have a right to assemble, you don't have a right to shut down public spaces indeterminately.

Same as the BLM stuff. Assemble, go for it, that's your prerogative. You don't get to sit 200 people on a highway during morning commute though.

 

[MaceB]

They were "kicked out" for sitting in a public space for 2 weeks on end or whatever it was. You have a right to assemble, you don't have a right to shut down public spaces indeterminately.

Civil disobedience is not about obeying the law. In fact, it's specifically about breaking the law in a peaceful way.

Same as the BLM stuff. Assemble, go for it, that's your prerogative. You don't get to sit 200 people on a highway during morning commute though.

I'm sure that officers said that in Selma too.