Sorry, what part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act authorized the government to make medical decisions like that? I can’t find it. Page numbers, section numbers, anything?
Do you have even the vaguest idea what a lame and dishonest reponse this is? You know as well as I know and everybody else knows that the current bill is a foot in the door, with single-payer being the ultimate goal. Congresspeople have said it, liberal activists have said it, and more than a few Dopers have either said it or acknowledged it in passing. You aren’t fooling a single person by pointing to the bill as it currently stands and insinuating that its present form is the end of the story.
This is the very essence of the slippery slope fallacy.
Anyway, stop your hijack. No one wants you making another thread the Starving Artist show, we’re doing fine here without your attention whoring and hijacks, thanks.
Edit: I mean, if you want to make your own thread, great, I’ll come in and bash you. But leave us with this one. Didn’t you already get your ass kicked in that “beautiful young mom sentenced to death panels!” or whatever bullshit thread you wrote on this subject a while back?
Lemme tell you a little anecdote about how government goes about getting unpopular legislation passed. I had occasion many years ago to attend a seminar on road safety. During this seminar one of the speakers proudly described how state legislators were moving toward laws instituting seat belt use for everyone. He described how polls showed that while the public was pretty much split on the issue, those who opposed it had a slight advantage percentagewise. So the decision was made to put the issue on the ballot, but to exempt pickup trucks. This would therefore result in the bill being passed because pickup drivers, not being bound by the new law would be more inclined to vote for it, would enable the law to pass, and then once it had been in place for a while the authorities could go back and make it applicable to pickup truck drivers because then everybody else, having to wear seatbelts themselves, would happily vote to force the drivers of pickup trucks to have to wear them too.
Now this isn’t to say that I disapprove of seat belts laws because I certainly don’t, but it does illustrate in a small way how government uses patience, guile and baby steps to bring about legislation that it knows the people don’t want in the first place.
And the current bill is the first step toward single-payer health care.
And you know it.
And on preview…
No, it’s the very essense of how government seeks to get its own way despite the will of the people.
Hey, you’re the one who decided to interject conservative concerns about government takeover of health care and death panels into the discussion. Whatever hijack may be occurring is not my doing. (Besides, it’s not a hijack anyway. The topic is what is wrong with conservatives. I’m merely showing that conservative concerns about government health care are not unfounded.)
In other words, stuff you don’t want exposed is being brought up now, so you want to hide behind phony accusations of hijacking to avoid it.
Not that I recall. What I remember from that thread were a whole lot of equivocations and excuses, combined with the well-known eagerness of the board’s liberals to act as though whatever argument they put forth, no matter how specious, settles the issue and results in their opponent getting his “ass kicked”. It is to laugh.
I just now realized I’m responding to your post in the wrong order. My bad. Also gotta break this monster into two parts.
I think this is unfortunately true. I’m here to learn. If someone presents a good argument, supported by evidence, I become more sympathetic to their side. When I argue, I hope to influence other people in the same way.
If you feel that it’s impossible to do, why are you here?
What is it that I’m not listening to?
Yeah, I didn’t make any implicit accusation or wonder where the conservatives were.
I generally find the OP to be correct. Extreme, ignorant views are more widespread than I’ve ever seen them. The political rhetoric (“he’s a Marxist that wants to destroy the country!”) is not just coming from fringe elements of random bloggers or anything like that, but is a view shared by large portions of our entire society.
I also find this behavior to be recent. There has always been hatred and lies and obstructionism and attacks on your political opponents, but I have never in my life seen anything remotely like the last few years from the right.
So the right is nuts now - not every single individually, obviously - but the crazy is pretty widespread. If you say essentially that they’re the same as they always been, that there has been no recent change - then you are essentially saying they’ve always been crazy ignorant liars.
Really? Who are you including in “we” here? Are you siding with the Birthers? The people who think Obama is a muslim? That the democrats hate America and want to destroy it? Is this who is misunderstood?
If you’re just talking about the non-batshit conservatives who don’t believe these things, then what problem do you have with the OP? You should be agreeing that it’s unfortunate that these people - the ignorant, hateful ones - feel that way.
I have more nuance than to group all conservatives as one, giant, monolithic entity. Your side has some sane, intelligent people - but they have less control and less of a media presence than they’ve ever had. Again, when you say “we”, who are you allying yourself with? Palin, Beck, and their fans?
Because of your “my side, right or wrong” attitude and your refusal to ackowledge and denounce the large amounts of crazies with them, you do tend to get lumped in with them. I mean, you’re essentially declaring solidarity with them. Because partisan loyalty is more important than anything else to you.
My point was the board does not systematically bar conservatives, like, say, free republic does. They are free to make their case like anyone else, and those who do so well are respected generally. You are not shut out of the process here - there just aren’t many of you who wish to stand up a rigorous argument against your views.
Do I need to respond to this? It’s basically “wrong, liberal!” based on false assumptions of my ideology.
And that’s good. And all too rare. I mean - let me ask you seriously, do you not think the Republican party and their conservative base have a higher degree of party loyalty than democrats? The democrats are a weak mess of conflicting interests, always with in fighting. The conservatives are a rather strong, monolothic entity but still with conflicting interests - the libertarians and the neocons and religious right probably have more conflicts than the various factions of the democratic party - yet they’ve managed to provide a much more united front.
This is consistent. Liberals are generally more tolerant of nuance, of opposing views. Among conservatives dissent gets stamped out pretty hard and a much higher value is placed on all being on the same page.
When you say things like “there are just as many crazies on the left and right” or “Sure, there’s Beck/Rush/etc. but there’s also John Stewart!” you are implictly supporting the worst of your kind. When your response to criticism is “well… your side doe it too!”, that is not a rejection of the bad people and ideas amongst your side.
The fact that even the smart conservatives on this board act like nothing has changed “oh, really, are there a lot more crazies on my side lately? I hadn’t noticed. Oh btw a blogger said something bad about Bush in 2002” is insane to me.
If I were conservative, I’d be saying “I wish these damn idiots weren’t on my side, they give all of us a bad name, and they make our side push for stupid shit”, not become an apologist for them or deny that they exist or try to use the bullshit “all sides are equally guilty” argument.
Which is why I conclude that if you are a man of principle and intellectual honesty, you’d probably say these sorts of things. That you don’t is another piece of evidence of implicit support of such groups and tactics.
Again with the “us”. Are you a birther? Are you calling for the death of Obama? Are you pushing creationism in our schools?
Are you saying that “there are reasonable, intelligent people among us” when I already conceded that in my first post?
Who is the “us”, here?
Fine. But if none of you denounce the crazy, hateful liars that have a huge amount of influence in your party now, don’t get angry at the assertion that they exist and are bad.
Is there any chance that you were beaten to death by an irony bat while you were saying this? I say that instead of acknowledging and rejecting the crazies amongst you, you say “oh well all sides are equal, here’s something a liberal did wrong once!” and your response is “the left is bad too!”
By now I assume I’ve made it clear. There are enough specifics named in this thread by me that what I’m talking about should be very clear.
Not only are you happy to have their votes, but you’re happy to use their sentiment. You’re happy to have them scream how Obama is a Marxist/Muslim sleeper cell agent who will all one day force us to get gay married to each other because you feel it advances your agenda as a whole. This makes you guilty of the ignorance and hatred that they spew. And additionally, it’s turning out that the crazy you whipped up to support your causes has become such a powerful frenzy that they’re actually taking over your party, not just being useful idiots.
People who think Beck/Rush/etc are crusaders of truth. People who make Sarah Palin a serious presidential candidate.
Oh, good, again with the “Oh, what, hmm? There are crazy conservatives? I don’t know what you mean. Oh by the way, here’s another thing leftists do that are evil”
I think you have a persecution complex combined with straw men that make you feel this way. In my experience, the left doesn’t accuse racism over everything.
For instance, I hear a lot of “Obama is going to destroy our country! Oh, I guess I can’t say that because criticizing the president is racist!” - the race issue for the most part in my experience is actually created and played up by the right as a way to deflect criticism of their stances rather than any actual accusations by the democrats.
But race also plays a role here and is a valid answer to certain questions. For instance, if you asked “why is it that Obama is so much more hated than previous democrats?” - to say that racism played a role would not only be legitimate, but it’d be absurd to deny it.
Really? We’ve hashed this stuff out in Fox News threads all the time, with media watchdog cites and everything. Do I need to restate the whole case?
The “editorial direction” is all there is. There’s barely any sort of neutral news at all. It’s so blatantly biased it’s simply absurd to say that it isn’t. The only thing you can do is the tired old “all sides are equally guilty” - therefore if Fox News is hugely biased, then the rest of the media must be biased in favor of the left! See, the equations add up now! Problem solved!
I don’t think anyone says “It can’t be allowed to compete” - I think they denounce it for what it is, a deliberate part of the republican media machine.
If you seriously think every other source of news out there is so biased that they can’t get a straight story, you have an almost pathological need for reality to be tailored to your liking. Just yesterday I heard someone say “You hate American because NBC/CBS/CNN tell you to”.
This goes back to my original point. Conservatives have a much stronger craving of an echo chamber. They pay people insane amounts of money (any idea what Rush/Beck/etc. make?) to repeat back to them what they want to hear. Any source that’s reasonable neutral - anything that’s not tailored to stroke their egos and preconceptions from the start - is viewed as biased.
I actually find the media to have a very strong statist bias if anything. They support the status quo. They won’t seriously challenge government. They have a sense of false balance where if two sides of an issue are given equal voice then that’s somehow fair journalism, even if the issue is whether or not the world is run by lizard people.
There’s no across-the-board bias so strong that you can’t “can’t get a straight story” out of the entirety of the media. Really, everyone - AP/reuters/CBS/NBC/CNN/ABC/Internet Sources/etc are all in the same ideological lockstep? And only Fox News, who is obviously more a conservative advocacy station than a news station, is the only beacon of truth?
By only taking in news from sources who cater to your biases?
There is nothing I’ve said from which this conclusion can be drawn. Straw man #59125.
Fox didn’t rush in to blame Republican politicians? MY GOD, HOW STRANGE. You think this supports their position of non-bias how, exactly?
Neither did CNN or any of the other major news outlets. We did here on this board, but conjecture amongst random people and reporting the news are seperate things.
Do you seriously contest the notion than there are more right wing glurge e-mails out there than leftist ones? Just look over snopes.com any time you want. Almost all political bullshit is pushed by the right. Or wait - is snopes.com biased now, refusing to report on some huge amount of leftist e-mails?
As far as liberal talk radio failing - yes, that supports my point. No idea how you think that scores one for you. My point is that there’s a much bigger market to tell conservatives what they want to hear than there is for liberals.
Right, because they provide a useful service that their listeners crave - an echo chamber.
Well, jokes on you! Not liberal! I don’t come here for an echo chamber because very often the general consensus of the boards is against what I consider to be right.
We do agree that this board started from a premise of fighting ignorance, right? That there’s no systematic bias keeping people out for holding certain views. That the level of discourse here is higher than it is around the internet in general, that people are more expected to provide evidence and sound logic for their arguments than amongst the general arguing population, right?
Let’s look at this another way. How well do moon hoaxers do on this board? Not very. Why? Because their arguments are bullshit, they’re not arguing reality. People rip them up. People don’t like to just be constantly destroyed by those who have better arguments than they do, so they get discouraged from being here.
So I could say “This board is full of people who are attached to reality because those whose views aren’t attached to reality (moon hoaxers, etc.) get wrecked in argument and leave”
Would I be engaging in circular logic there? Am I saying that this board is honest and smart because it’s generally free of moon hoaxer bullshit, and I’m predisposed to think that being free of moon hoaxer bullshit are signs of being smart and honest?
Everyone is free to come here. Those who make good arguments succeed, and those who don’t are appropriately ripped apart, and tend to get discouraged and leave. So over time good arguments tend to prevail over weaker ones.
And so it goes for conservative bullshit. People who come in here spewing “Obama is a muslim marxist!” get their ass handed to them pretty quickly. There are conservatives here who make intelligent arguments that do not resemble “Obama is a muslim marxist!” and they can succeed on their merits of their arguments.
But there are two problems here: Ideas like “Obama is a muslim marxist!” are widespread amongst the conservative base, ruling out a lot of people who could potentially come to the board from ever coming here, and conservatives are far less tolerant of differences of opinion and are hence more likely to leave when the prevailing sentiment around here turns against them. Hence the board progresivelly becomes less bullshitty and more liberal.
I wish that weren’t the case, actually. I’d like more posters around here to represent libertarianism or intellectual conservatism.
This is actually quite perceptive and true. I mean - wrong in this case, since I’m not a liberal and this board doesn’t serve as an echo chamber for me - but your statements about how groups reinforce each other’s beliefs is spot on.
I generally agree with this also.
…lol
Oh please, classical federalist liberals are most closely related to libertarians. And libertarians are a small, often reviled subset of what gets labelled conservative. As I’ve said earlier in the thread, I don’t even agree with the idea of labelling libertarians are conservative.
The base of the republican party are not high minded classical liberals, that’s just silly. They are a hateful bunch who preach about needing to lower taxes and reduce those freeloaders on welfare even though they as a group are the ones on the beneficial end of taxes in/taxes out calculations. These are the people who are interested in big government, so long as it’s for the reasons they want. The Republican party has not cut the size of government… ever, and its base doesn’t really want it to. Oh, sure, they’ll cut taxes, claim to want to “starve the beast”, but then it just gets rung up as debt. And then the democrats come in with the same debt and suddenly it’s “OMG OUR CHILDREN’S FUTURE!”
I have a friend who’s a staunch conservative. Big fan of Glenn Beck. He’s actually fairly smart, which is the bizarre part. He used to send me right wing writings all the time - sometimes bullshit, sometimes thoughtful. I’d get into a lot of arguments with him.
I remember we were actually debating health care reform in the abstract. I was advocating the detachment of health insurance from employment to make it more subjected to market forces. My position was actually more libertarian, more free-market oriented than his standard republican talking points - but he still attacked me. I said "the idea of employer-based insurance is a historical accident anyway. There were wage freezes in WW2 that made companies try to attract workers by providing benefits like health insurance, and then it was codified into tax law which essentially made it impractical to work any other way. I was arguing that this distorted the market for various reasons.
His reaction was then, essentially, “Well, good. I like that the government forced companies to provide other ways to compete for employees” - my friend here, mr. staunch free market republican mouthpiece, was actually defending the idea of government wage controls! You see, even though I was arguing for more market-based incentives around health care, and less government interference - something he should’ve ideologically sided with me on - I was saying the status quo needed to be changed, and he instinctively reacted by attacking the notion.
“Get the government out of my medicare!”
Anyway, intellectual libertarians are the ones you’re describing with this high minded classical liberal stuff, and they make up but a tiny sliver of your ideological allies. Theocrats alone outnumber them probably by an order of magnitude.
Yeah, I get that. But it’s been my observation - and it has been confirmed by study - that people of a conservative bent are less receptive to consider changes to the status quo.
Again, not every conservative, and not all types of conservative. But there are many times more Starving Artists than Sam Stones among the conservative base. And really - I’d actually consider Starving Artist to be amongst the more well-argued and reasonable of the conservatives I’ve met all throughout my life.
I should definitely listen to you then!
I’ve spent my life interacting with people of various ideological bents. As you can tell from my presence on the board, I actually seek out different viewpoints. I’ve had enough experience to start to generalize on differences between certain groups.
Oh come on. Death panels, “Operation Iraqi Freedom” - if we’re going to talk about nazi propoganda tactics, let’s look at The Big Lie and see whose political discourse it most closely resembles. Conservatives are much bigger on altering the language to control thought.
Right, because stonewalling rather than offering alternatives or improving ideas is the best direction to go. The republican position on health care reform wasn’t “here’s our alternate plan that will work better”, it’s “fight anything the democrats try to change, even if it’s helpful”
Oh yeah, people are definitely hypocritical on this issue. However, that doesn’t change the objective fact that the republicans’ behavior in recent times is significantly different than any other time that I’m familiar with.
The democrats have historically reserved fillibuster and extreme legislative tactics for things they considered absolutely important. And, until recently, this was mostly true of Republicans too. Since 2008, the republicans have attempted to block every single thing the democrats have done.
There’s no need in this thread to redebate the PPACA. Any argument you’re going to bring up now has already been addressed in threads about it. It is tangential to the issue at hand.
Haha, ok, you got me. This vegetable baby is my big secret and I’ve been trying to suppress it.
Actually, I didn’t even read the article. It has no bearing on this thread.
If we accept your idea that any health care reform is a step in the inevitable direction to government killing babies, then does that mean that we have to maintain the status quo forever?
What if someone enacted a bunch of changes that were unambiguously positive? Lowered the cost of care, increased availability, etc. Would we be barred from enacting those laws, because hey, anything we do in regards to health care is one step closer to dead babies.
I hate asking you these questions, even rhetorically, because I’m giving you an opening to hijack the thread further. Ok, I’m done.
Well - if you were thoroughly destroyed in argument, would you even know it? I’ve seen you absolutely wrecked before and you’ll be back in a few weeks with the same arguments that were destroyed before. It’s like whackamole.
Anyway, don’t care. I get that you’re an attention whore and you want to make this thread about you. I don’t want to engage you. I wouldn’t be making this post if someone else had said it, but I’ve had years around this board seeing what you do to threads and I’m trying to head that off.
And don’t say I’m not willing to engage anyone arguing with me, because I just wrote a fucking 8 billion word set of posts to smiling bandit. What he wrote was on topic enough to deserve a response, what you wrote does not because you’re just trying to hijack the thread.
I actually sort of half-ass apologize to Starving Artist because he hasn’t done anything egregious yet. I just know how things tend to get when he gets into a thread, and I thought were having at least parts of an interesting discussion without turning this into Health Care Reform Thread #915285, and in general I hate “let this random outlier tug at your heart strings” type argumentation. But still, I was probably overly harsh in my dismissal. If it were anyone else (besides perhaps Diogenes the Cynic) I wouldn’t have reacted that way, but they have an amazing ability to derail threads.
Like I said, it’s not a hijack. The OP wants to know what’s “wrong” with conservatives in America, and apprehension over government health care is one of the reasons conservatives are all het up these days.
Another reason is that it’s impossible to discuss alternative ideas with liberals. Any opposition or alternative to what liberals want, whether the subject is health care, the economy, issues of race, etc., is instantly met with hatred, insults and invective. So no dialog is possible. And where no dialog is possible, there is nothing to rein in the extremists. So it becomes you guys against everyone else, and, because the relative moderates get excluded, it’s the extremists against you.
So once again you find yourselves mired in difficulties of your own making. If you were more amenable to giving credence to the other side instead of thinking of yourselves as superior and infallible (impossible, I know), then the moderates on the conservative side would have a voice. As it stands now you’ve shut out all discussion, and in so doing you’re the ones who’ve given rise to the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Sarah Palin.
And on preview, thanks, Senor Beef, for that quasi-apology. As you can see from my post just above, I’m not trying to turn the thread into a health care debate. But in all fairness, you were the one who brought it up…and in even more fairness I have to assert once again that the topic of government health care is very much a burr under the blanket of conservatives these days, and as such is perfectly appropriate for discussion under the question posed by the OP. In other words, not a hijack, and not a “derailment”.
Now, having said that you’ll be glad to know I’m signing off for the night now, so you can resume your conservative-bashing - and therefore do your bit to choke off dialog between the two sides - without further interference from me.
-
I am hereby adding SeniorBeef to the (very short!) list of conservatives I respect.
-
Starving Artist:
Well, that’s hard to say. There is certainly a glimmer of hope in left wing circles that after a while, Americans will discover what a good thing HCR has been and maybe want to start to work on improving it even more. But to go forward in that direction we’ll have to build national consensus, which is going to be difficult when conservatives are doing everything in their power to sabotage the attempt before it’s even gotten started. I think the right is terrified that if they just let the bill work, even though it is certainly flawed, people will begin to discover that there lives are better for it, and that it isn’t this ”horrible left-wing plot to destroy all that’s good in America” the right has tried to make it out to be. (Certainly accusations that the left wants to establish ”death panels” is utterly ludicrous.) In particular I suspect monied interests hate to see an important source of cash flow evaporate.
With regard to the specific case in Canada you’ve brought up, well, it’s hard to pass any sort of judgment without a bit more knowledge of the facts than a single Fox news story. I mean, it could be a real tragedy, one of the very serious weaknesses of the Canadian health system. From my reading so far it seems as if the doctors at the hospital are in conflict with the will of the parents and have turned for some reason to the Canadian courts. Courts have ruled on the side of medical expertise. But who knows?
Over the last say, 10 years, there have doubtless been thousands of similar situations in Canada, with children of all ages on life support, facing death. Can you point to a single other instance in which the courts have taken the decision to prolong life, or end it, out of the hands of the parents? I mean, seriously, if your contention is that in Canada, where they have a socialized health care system, the government routinely decides who will live and who will die, one would expect hundreds of such examples at least.
I find it astounding as well, this breathless broken record-player routine. I wonder how many times I’ve seen it played out here? Some right-winger comes running in with a single article from Fox news and proclaims, ”See! I told you!” Cooler heads begin to look at the issue in more depth and it literally evaporates. 10 minutes later, some right-winger comes running in with a single article from Fox news and proclaims, ”See! I told you!” Cooler heads begin to look at the issue in more depth and it literally evaporates. 10 minutes later, some right-winger comes running in with a single article from Fox news and proclaims, ”See! I told you!” Cooler heads begin to look at the issue in more depth and it literally evaporates. 10 minutes later, some right-winger comes running in with a single article from Fox news and proclaims, ”See! I told you!” Cooler heads begin to look at the issue in more depth and it literally evaporates. 10 minutes later, some right-winger comes running in with a single article from Fox news and proclaims, ”See! I told you!” Cooler heads begin to look at the issue in more depth and it literally evaporates.
I think you get the idea. It astounds me that ya’ll keep doing it. WTF is wrong with you, conservative America?
Funnily enough, this describes the right far better than the left. Extremists and dogmatics on the left are often marginalized, sometimes very rapidly. Where is Cynthia McKinney these days? What happened to Air America? How’s Keith Olbermann doing? Conversely, say something extreme on the right and if it’s the right kind of extreme you get your own FoxNews show or become a candidate for Congress.
YOU LIE! Oops, sorry. Carry on…
I shouldn’t be by now, but am constantly amazed by the logical convolutions you go through to blame everything on the liberals, especially where evidence is firmly on the other side of the equation.
Have you been paying any attention at all to what’s going on in Congress? The evil health care bill was a Republican plan which incorporated ~200 Republican proposed amendments. Does that sound like not giving credence to the other side? Every single Republican voted against it. Does that?
I’ve been there pal. Sure, you think that now, but then you talk to him about American football, and all that respect gets completely wiped away.
-
While I stressed how much I wasn’t a liberal, I’m not a conservative either. I’ve had libertarian leanings most of my life but I’m reconsidering a decent portion of them. Generally, it’s too easy to simply pick one big overreaching set of beliefs and settle in. I consider myself a utilitarian - I seek outcomes that do the most amount of good for the most amount of people. But historically most societies who have had that as a goal have end up being pretty evil. So I’m certainly an authoritarian utilitarian. Generally I think people can govern themselves well with a little bit of nudging here and there. I spend a lot of time thinking on the issues and try to fledge out a full justification for any view I hold, requiring whatever nuance it requires.
-
Here’s how it goes with Hentor when it comes to arguments about football. I have won every single argument I’ve had with him relating to football, but because he happens to root for a better team than me, it ends with HAHAHAHHA YOU ROOT FOR A BAD TEAM, THEREFORE YOU ARE WRONG ABOUT (SPECIFIC ASPECT OF FOOTBALL) HHAHAHAHA. OH HAHA MY FOOTBALL TEAM BEAT YOUR LAST WEEK I GUESS I WON THAT ARGUMENT FROM 2007 DIDN’T I!
Really, Hentor. Find a non-prediction post where I’ve ever been wrong about anything football related.
I hope that you picked up on the good spirit in which my comment was intended. I do hate to have to use smilies, but I guess it’s probably a good idea in some cases. Nevertheless, I have a high degree of regard for you despite your football opinions.
I didn’t pick up on any good spirit, because you guys are tiresome. You all do the behavior I just described and then pat each other on the back. YEAH MAN I GUESS WE WON THAT ARGUMENT, AFTER ALL IT’S LIKE 9 OF US AND 1 OF HIM AND HAHHAA OUR FOOTBALL TEAM IS BETTER. And you aren’t joking about it, you’re wrong and smug. I don’t hate you over it or anything, but it’s not really an issue I feel good natured or jokey about
I meant to say NOT an authoritarian utilitarian. By that I mean I wouldn’t want governments trying to attempt to force utopia on people. In general society tends to work pretty well on its own with a few (major) exceptions.
I used to work under the assumption that pretty much everyone wanted what was best for everyone on average, but I’ve come to realize some libertarian types, which I may share a lot of overlap with, aren’t concerned with the utility at all. Rand Rover, for instance, for that type of libertarian. They feel that a libertarian environment will reward their obviously greater intellect and skill, and if only the government didn’t get in the way they’d be king. I’ve got mine, fuck everyone else. Some actually enjoy the idea of an elite few crushing everyone else. They always think they’ll be among them.
I find it disturbing that even amongst this tiny sliver of the population my views most overlapped with, I was approaching the problem from a completely different angle than a lot of the others, that I actually had good intentions with it. So I’ve become more selective about my own libertarian beliefs and who I side with.
So really, I’m not beholden to any group or party or loyalty. I’m introspective, critical, and try to figure out the optimal solution to any particular issue. I try to wipe out preconceptions and examine the evidence. As an example, I was staunchly against single payer health care most of my life because it simply struck my biases that it wouldn’t work. Yet the evidence clearly disagrees. As someone once said “it may work in practice, but it’ll never work in theory!”
In the presence of good evidence and argumentation, I’ve changed my mind entirely on this issue. And I don’t even necesarily think it’s anti-libertarian. Pretty much everyone agrees that it’s best to let the government handle some things. Our public road system has been a massive success, creating far more economic activity than its cost, enhancing freedom of movement, etc. It works far better than a private mess of toll roads would. Well, health care seems like it might be the same way. At least that’s what the evidence suggests.
Sigh
My point is that we all like to think that. And we are usually not honest when we do.
I see no particular evidence of any of that. I see a lot of people claiming it.
And yet, I don’t particularly see any of that happening. I see you (plural, general) congratulating yourself for having beaten up conservatives. But you don’t actually engage us. You argue at us, not with us.
It’s extremely comon to magnify the incidence of relatively small but visible and divergent views among the ‘enemy’. This is precisely what you are doing. Among conservatives, you might be surprised as to which views are common among Liberals. Same thing. And I have seen posters by the dozen blithely assume I MUST think X or believe Y, when I can’t find anyone at all among anyone I know who ever thought either.
You’re not liberal? I’ve seen you argue an awful lot to believe it. You may not self-identify that way, and you might have a point, but politically there’re few other labels for you. But let’s grant it, both for the sake of argument and because…
…Labels are often useless. We rarely get to choose our own. If you don’t want to be clled that, fine, but let’s not pretend you’re often against the common political grain. And I am usually called Consverative, though it’s not really correct, and I’ll just have to bear it.
Meheh?
First off, Libertarians do come from the same root stock as Conservatives. Both read the same philosphy, the same works, and hold many fo the same conclusions. The only real difference is in the perception of the value of the abstract concepts of Liberty versus Justice and Purity. But they are two branches of the same tree and the differences are more a matter of degree. A Conservative and a Libertarian can have a meaningful conversation, because they acknowledge many, if not all, of the same values.
Further, I would note that Libertarianism is very much against some of the major elements of the Federalists, planks which Conservatives do not reject.
And I would note that modern-day Liberalism is sort of a hybrid of that same root stock, but also Marxism* and Hegelianism. And I would say (and some psychological tests do agree, that Liberals place extremely high value on the concept of fairness. This is a huge point of disagreement, because Libertarians simply do NOT hold that value. And it’s intrustive that more or less all attempts to create a Liberal/Libertarian bloc have failed because there’s just very little common ground. Libertarians are often surprisingly aggressive in foreign policy and defense (though it’s not an intrinsic part of their plank). And they may or may not consider, for example, abortion rights to be a significantly critical portion of ‘liberty’.
*I don’t mean that as an insult. But it would be insane to say that Marxist thought has not heavily influenced liberals, here and in Europe.
And here we come down to it. ‘The people I don’t like are EVIL.’
That’s a common belief, but it’s not true, and the people opposed to you hold exactly the same opinion - just reversed to apply to your end of the political spectrum. And do you really want to test to see how many democrat voters know anything about anything, or actually pay attention to issues, or held nice enlightened viewpoints?
People are way too complicated, and you’ve right there proven that you’re not actually using real thought, but substituting stereotypes and vicious generalizations.
I don’t know where you live, but why don’t you try to go down to a Tea Party event and talk to people. You may find they come in all stripes. You may also find that Tea Party people tend to be energetic, have clear objectives, and leave their palces clean and without violence.
First off, the Republicans most defintiely have cut the size of governemnt (though admittedly, not in a long time. And to some degree, complaints about Big Government are saying it wrong. But if you actually look at what people are asking for, it isn’t Small Government, but Lean Government - Lean, Mean, and Effective.
And second, are you really surprised and offended that they have a different idea about what’s proper for governments? What they can and should do? Does this really mystify you so much you have to demonize them to create a worldview you can understand. Or for that matter, that Republicans might object in one degree to a large deficit and in a greater degree to a vastly larger one? And thought you probably didn’t notice (because it doesn’t appear that you actually pay very mucha ttention to us outside of sweeping and incrreoct generalizations) we complained a LOT during the Bush years on that very subject.
Yes. And he’s defintely out of the mainstream conservative thought on that. But note that even so, he framed it in conservative terms. He thought about forcing companies to compete.
Yes, more sweeping generalizations. Apparently, the vast majority of the republican base are evil, stupid, greedy, tyrannical theocrats, based solely on what you’ve posted here.
Luibertarians make up a big part of the party base. Granted, the differences among most people are not as distinct as among policy wonks. You will find vaguelly Con people and Libert people agreeing with each other, working together, and holding long conversations everywhere. And it’s a major aspect fo what republican candidates were pushing for in the msot recent election, and not merely then.
Have you considered that maybe the misperception is in you, and not all of them? That perhaps, they aren’t quite as crazy as you think? That they may have values you don’t understand, but are honorably and even nobly pursuing goods you simply don’t value so highly?
Have you considered that you and they might be looking at the bad “status quo” differently. Conservative actions on Social Security (now a major part of American life) are remarkably bold, whether you like them or not. Whether you like it or not, Bush’s actions in the Middle East changed things in a big way. Whether you like the result or not, Conservatives would indeed like to change a lot of things relating to health care. They’re just not the same things.
Furthermore, you will likely see conservatives making fewer changes in some areas, because a major portion of our thought is taken up with the concept of unintended consequences. In fact, it’s a huge part of where we differ from Liberals, adn we are constanhtly trying to restrain you from doing things you don’t understand.
Again, whether or not you really do understand and are right or wrong is irrlevant. You’ve demonstrated amply that you aren’t thinking in very original terms and remain mired by your preconceptions. I’m not even asking you to change your opinions, just to consider why you hold them.
Not neccessary. I’d much prefer it if you simply knew who we were, because I don’t think you know us at all. We’re like lab specimens.
Err… I wouldn’t judge you that way, actually. Not at all. Confrontational yes. But claiming that you have experience to generalize" about people is a rather novel perspective. I see far more people talking about the diversity of people the more they interact with them, not the mroe they generalize. And since you can’t bring up anything but rather vague elements of “I argued with this guy and that guy,” I start to wonder just how much interaction you had.
Arguing is one thing. If you want to see someone’s view, you have know them, deeply.
Oh, now that’s an argument I might lvoe to have some day. I could probably show you some things.
But note that however you slice it, we certainly believ those are real problems. Do we think that Liberals will stuff boards who pass judgement on who lives and dies? No. We we do believe - because we’ve seen it in action, even in Britain - that nameless, faceless bureaucrats will make arbitrary decision that do kill. And they will do it solely to save money, not lives. And if neccessary, they willd eny treatments.
You may not agree, but we definitely did want, do want, and continue to want, freedom and democracy in Iraq. Whether or not you like is beside the point. We fundamentally disagree about what ought to be done, and how we demonize our opponents depends on that.
Ah, but you’re assuming we think what the democrats offered is anything but a raging disaster. You jump from, ‘I think this is good’ to ‘My opponents really agree with me and are just being bastards’. It’s a common failing, but not a good one, you know.
Maybe, just maybe, we really, honestly think the current healthcare law is ungodly awful, was passed through without proper debate (and yeah, dems would have ahd to suffer; that’s democracy) and contained all kinds of incredibly stupid provisions. And maybe, just maybe, we’re not just bullshitting when we say it’s flatly unconstitutional.
Maybe, jsut maybe, we think you’re doing the wrong thing. I haven’t, for example, seen you roundly condemning democrats in Wisconsin and Indiana. Democrats aren’t complaining - they’re cheering! They’re rushing to offer support and complain about how the republicns are evil for trying to push through a budget and public union concessions - concessions which are pretty damn mild. And usually they require the dems tying themselves up in logical Gordion knots.
*And if you do, I’m more than happy to believe you. But I at least haven’t seen it.
I can’t say what you’re familiar with. As a student of American history, I can it’s at least as decent as anything we’ve ever been up to. Democrats are, I think, behind in that - but not by all that much. A number of semi-allied groups (unions) have actually been getting more violent and repressive in recent years.
Hardly true that everything’s been blocked or even attempted. But the big issues? Certainly, there’ve been a hard push to do jsut that. Not always with a fillibuster. But has it occurred to you that it mgiht be because we believe those issues are critical?
And to some degree I’ll nod towards the dems when they’re int he right or I sympathize. Tom DeLay* did something which was a very bad move some years ago. He wanted to shore up his power and utterly brutalized his own party. He managed to partly cut the dems out of power. And every congress - of either party - followed the trend. Until now, anway. Now things are getting back to normal. But that doesn’t mean that dems are going to get what they want, nor should they be surprised when they get called on doing the wrong thing, either. I excuse neither.
*I think it was DeLay, duringn his term as Speaker. I may be getting my facts wrong on this, but this is the story I got.
Honestly, I don’t think we’re getting anywhere. You evidently don’t care to even give your opponents the benefit of the doubt, so I don’t see how we can talk. Moreover, I have a funeral to prepare for, and I’m really not in the mood to argue any more.
I’ve often thought this, too. In the two years since inauguration, I personally have NEVER heard an overtly racist attack on Obama, coming from any self-described Republican.
Which makes me wonder… :dubious:
I guess either NO ONE in America is racist anymore [:rolleyes:] or quite a few folks are using things like health care reform and Hawaiian birth certificates as a veil for what are, at their core, racist views.
Or on the other hand, perhaps the racists are simply keeping their racist thoughts to themselves and the people who object to health care actually just…object to it.
Are you really and truly so blind to reality that you think the only reason anyone would object to government run health care is Obama’s race?
Not the only reason.