I didn’t disagree, I’m just pointing out that she’s against some forms of welfare and not others.
Oh, sure. The Progressives all have their favorite groups; after all we know many of the old Proggies loved big business and viewed cartelization as the model for economy.
Which is probably why the talking heads from both “sides” try to rail on each other as much as possible, to make each other look different, and make themselves look like the solution.
The Western world’s political scene is like Bubba’s Shrimp. “We got redneck Progressives, Christian Progressives, Yankee Progressives, Hayekian Progressives, Islamic Progressives…” You get more of the same. There are differences between these groups, just not ones that matter much to libertarians.
That is the most bizarre analogy I’ve heard in a while, but it works
Doesn’t anyone else here feel uncomfortable labeling those who disagree with you idiots? Why play they’re game of name-calling and lower yourself to their standards of intellectual integrity?
Most of this stuff comes off as stroking your own ego, and asserting your intelletualy superiority over someone because they disagree with you politically.
Most people, whether they agree with me or not, are idiots. On the other hand it’s not the case that people like Krugman or Obama are idiots, they’re more delusional and in a state of rationalization for their own interests.
Most of this stuff comes off as stroking your own ego, and asserting your intelletualy superiority over someone because they disagree with you politically.
So?
“Most people, whether they agree with me or not, are idiots.”
I figured as much.
“So?”
So it down plays your overall political argument when you take the smug ass approach that so many political pundits love using. If you play by their tone(smug ass approach) then you’re not much less of an asshole then they are.
So it down plays your overall political argument when you take the smug ass approach that so many political pundits love using.
Their smug-ass approach seems to work a lot better than libertarian pandering.
If you play by their tone(smug ass approach) then you’re not much less of an asshole then they are.
So?
Now both my neocon professors are in favor of marijuana legalization hmmmm…
Neo-Conservatism is the most abhorent mainstream ideology alive in America today. I hate them, I hope they burn in the ashes of their own wars.
It’s one thing to be a statist with the implied contradictions and opression, it’s another thing to come along, destroy the half freedom of one of the ideologies (social freedom destroyed and big buisness in bed with government) has and be nationalistic. I hope that the first time I debate with a neocon they sprout wings and breath fire so that I can slay them.
/hate rant. Sorry I’m usually reasonable but god do I hate neocons.
^That’s why I made this thread.
Hey! We both have Rousseau quotes high fives
Haha pound it!
Yea I’ve been reading this book with brief selections of political writings and the excerpt from the social contract really surprised me. I really liked this quote (because I was like oh heyy I agree with that statement! :D) and I feel as though this quote in and of itself serves to prove that Rousseau was not quite as pro democracy as my teachers have lead me believe…
Rousseau is a bit of an odd fellow; his view of the corruptibility of human nature, for instance, is confined to societal relations. His point is this: outside society, men would have immediate and intuitive access to the general will which is in complete accordance with the common good. It is only when men enters society that he forms associations with others for the propagation of the private will, i.e., some will at the expense of others.
This is why he thinks that even the majority would not constitute a proper democracy, since the majority rule would not be what he calls the common good (which as he has already noted cannot be achieved within society) but it would merely be the sum of private wills.
But he goes on later to contradict himself. Within Rousseau you can find innumerable contradictions. But so what if he contradicts himself? He’s deep; he’s large; he contains multitudes.
I dislike the mainstream left more than the NeoCon left. NeoCons aren’t as crazy.
I did find his talk about the ‘‘common will’’ amazingly mystical. I literally laughed out loud when he stated that the purpose of voting was for each individual stating what they thought the common will was
I’m pretty cool with libertarian socialists as odd as that might sound.
Especially when you tend to ignore the idea of economics systems when talk politics. There’s a lot of common ground. Foreign policy, media, civil rights, corporatism (for some to a degree).
Illusory. Because the economic paradigm is what makes it all work. The fact of capitalism is the only thing that makes the foreign policy, media and civil rights stuff relevant or coherent. As soon as leftists find out their egalitarian religion doesn’t work out they turn straight to force. Look at the New Left. They’re all establishment liberals and NeoCons now.
In the end, we need to avoid too many distinctions, because economic illiteracy is economic illiteracy, irrespective of the source,
Honestly, rather than the term Neo-Con, and Progressive we should just call them what they are, Fascist’s.