(01-09-2017, 01:27 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ] (01-08-2017, 07:32 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]I like to think my own way of looking at the world is well thought out, logical, based on lessons from history, common sense and developed on reasonable teachings of my culture. I also like to think that everybody thinks their values are such, well thought out, logical, based on lessons from history, common sense and developed on reasonable teachings of their cultures.
Your mistake is in assuming it's all about culture for everyone, just because it happens to be so for you. In fact, most of the conservatives here are libertarian leaning, and base our reasoning not on culture but on facts and proven economic theory. Assuming that it's a clash of cultures may be why you go wrong so much.
I find it hilarious when Libertarians think they and only they have "facts" and "proven economic theory" and think all the rest of us are just going by our feels, it reeks of projection, and Libertarians tend to be exactly the kind of technically-oriented types that have little self-awareness of their own feelings and THINK they are super-logical and rational.
(01-09-2017, 08:28 AM)Odin Wrote: [ -> ] (01-09-2017, 01:27 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ] (01-08-2017, 07:32 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]I like to think my own way of looking at the world is well thought out, logical, based on lessons from history, common sense and developed on reasonable teachings of my culture. I also like to think that everybody thinks their values are such, well thought out, logical, based on lessons from history, common sense and developed on reasonable teachings of their cultures.
Your mistake is in assuming it's all about culture for everyone, just because it happens to be so for you. In fact, most of the conservatives here are libertarian leaning, and base our reasoning not on culture but on facts and proven economic theory. Assuming that it's a clash of cultures may be why you go wrong so much.
I find it hilarious when Libertarians think they and only they have "facts" and "proven economic theory" and think all the rest of us are just going by our feels, it reeks of projection, and Libertarians tend to be exactly the kind of technically-oriented types that have little self-awareness of their own feelings and THINK they are super-logical and rational.
Lots of humor and truth in that. The Libertarians certainly have a well established approach to justifying their world view. I don't know that they are that unique, though.
I remember attempting to communicate with our token Christian Fundamentalist a few years back. Everything in the Bible was no doubt about it literally true. I view the Bible as a historical document, written over a period of centuries, reflecting major changes in philosophy and multiple traditions that evolved over time. The Bible, to him, presented a unified Truth rather than reflecting a diverse evolving culture. He had a complete playbook of interpretations that justified cherry picking among the passages to confirm his particular spin on things. This featured prioritizing Old Testament eye for an eye type passages over New Testament turn the other cheek. Of necessity he also had pat answers ready for when science conflicted with the Bible. If you're going to be a Fundamentalist, you have to. He was intelligent, well if selectively read, passionate, articulate, sane in most respects, but had a well thought out set of defenses for his world view that allowed him to shrug off any challenge.
Libertarian doublethink reminds me a lot of Fundamentalist doublethink. If one is intelligent, if one does one's homework, if one really thinks things through, one can fool one's self completely. One can develop a complete and unbreakable immunity from reality.
But that's not unique to Libertarians or Fundamentalists. Any extreme partisan is apt to face similar challenges to their personal realities. Perhaps everyone has a playbook for blocking out reality. There are enough Libertarians and Fundamentalists that one can recognize their styles. The further one is from those world views, any world view, the more obviously off the playbooks feel. However, be looking for for similar defense mechanisms in any extreme partisan, well thought out structures for shedding facts.
(01-09-2017, 02:29 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-09-2017, 01:27 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ] (01-08-2017, 07:32 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]I like to think my own way of looking at the world is well thought out, logical, based on lessons from history, common sense and developed on reasonable teachings of my culture. I also like to think that everybody thinks their values are such, well thought out, logical, based on lessons from history, common sense and developed on reasonable teachings of their cultures.
Your mistake is in assuming it's all about culture for everyone, just because it happens to be so for you. In fact, most of the conservatives here are libertarian leaning, and base our reasoning not on culture but on facts and proven economic theory. Assuming that it's a clash of cultures may be why you go wrong so much.
I often use 'culture' as meaning 'a large group of people who share common world views and values'. Don't assume that when talking cultures in abstract that I am always referring to one of the groups from Albion's Seed.
I'm from greater Boston and fit reasonably with the 'Yankee' pattern from Albion's Seed. I'm also a software guy with a formidable respect for science. I went to Catholic Saturday religious classes in my youth, which effects my views on morality, though I never fully bought into the Catholic's authoritarian hierarchical side. I chased after a handful of spiritual systems in my youth, and retained a few snippets of wisdom. All these influences and others merge together to form something much more complex than the expectations one might have of someone who is committed to any one of the above influences.
I assume this is true of most people. If someone is sufficiently religious, the fact that he comes from one of the regions and cultures covered by Albion's Seed might or might not be entirely irrelevant. If someone is sufficiently politically partisan, his religion might or might not mean much. There are all sorts of people who center their lives on different things.
By this understanding, libertarianism is a culture, a set of values and a way of looking at the world shared by many people. As I see it, this political philosophy is much more dominant in yourself than any element of 'yankee' culture you might have picked up by living near Boston. It would be a gross and obvious mistake to assume Albion's Seed will provide insight into your thought. This isn't to say that Albion's Seed doesn't provide considerable insight on the country's divisions. Albion's Seed provides a useful set of stereotypes, but stereotypes are quite often a very poor tool for understanding people.
I try to recognize this complexity and respect that all these ways of looking at the world had valid historical reasons for coming into existence. No matter what culture one comes from, growing up within that culture will allow firm commitment to that culture's values and world view. Members of cultures can develop a very firm faith that commitment to that culture is rational, logical, justified and entirely defensible. Thus, as much as I deplore large parts of Hillbilly culture, reading Hillbilly Eulogy helps me understand how the culture evolved and why they are what they are.
Many people are locked into their own values and culture. What they believe is true. Anything that conflicts with it is false. Thus, they must create intense defense mechanisms that allows them to reject anything that conflicts with their belief system. Thus, we have extreme partisans, intensely clinging to their own perspective, required to deny any validity to other perspectives, casually thinking that anyone from another culture must be wrong. Often they'll use stronger words than 'wrong'... insane, ammosexual, evil, stupid, etc...
That's where we're really coming from different places. I am doubtful that you will be able follow what I'm trying to say without learning to respect other people's perspectives. I see you as too firmly committed to your own perspective to learn to do that.
In other words, you have to force fit everyone else into your world view regarding cultures, instead of accepting that some people reason differently from you. This is why you have so much trouble "getting a true understanding of motives" (and also a big part of the blue/red divide).
(01-09-2017, 02:18 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-09-2017, 03:26 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ] (01-09-2017, 01:27 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ] (01-08-2017, 07:32 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]I like to think my own way of looking at the world is well thought out, logical, based on lessons from history, common sense and developed on reasonable teachings of my culture. I also like to think that everybody thinks their values are such, well thought out, logical, based on lessons from history, common sense and developed on reasonable teachings of their cultures.
Your mistake is in assuming it's all about culture for everyone, just because it happens to be so for you. In fact, most of the conservatives here are libertarian leaning, and base our reasoning not on culture but on facts and proven economic theory. Assuming that it's a clash of cultures may be why you go wrong so much.
Neo-liberalism (aka Reaganomics, Austrian economics, libertarian economics, trickle-down, free market ideology, etc.) is not based on facts, but on an ideological belief system promoted by those whose interests are served by it.
Human history for the last 12,000 years has been powered by a series of innovations, climaxing in our modern world over the last 200-plus years, according to the 2015 PBS documentary called Humanity from Space:
Humanity has proved that it can innovate, and explode the data availiable to us.
This documentary is far from the full human story. Indeed, it neglects the vast field of "culture" and ideas/ideologies. But it makes a great point. We have the data and the innovative ability to create a civilization for the future.
But the catch is that we need to pay attention to the data, and support the innovations we need.
But neo-liberalism is the greatest obstacle to that future. It is the greatest threat to all of our lives.
Because neo-liberals systematically deceive the people with false conspiracy theories that deny the data, and oppose innovation, and seeks to shut down the best means of coordinated action to support innovation and transmit data-- our public institutions.
Neo-liberals promote denial of climate change, ignoring and distorting the data that all our technology provides us about our future.
Neo-liberals oppose the innovations that could save us and allow us to prosper in the future, by defending the corporations that produce the kinds of energy and products that endanger us, and putting politicians in office like Donald Trump, Paul Ryan and Rex Tillerson who want to expand rather than transfer away from the industries that threaten us.
Neo-liberals deny that we are a global society, and seek to keep us enslaved to nationalist scammers like Donald Trump, at a time when peoples of the world need to work together to resolve our issues. It denies the value of people working together for the greater good, which has made us what we are; touting instead a ridiculous individualism that creates nothing.
Neo-liberalism seeks to concentrate the wealth created by human innovation in the hands of a few people, seeking a neo-medieval society in which everything is controlled by a few owners.
Neo-liberalism has been disproven by any standard imaginable. It is the worst scam of our time. No intelligent person has any business supporting or promoting it.
Hey Eric I think you are a bit off in your concept of Neo Liberalism. According to the accepted political and academic definition, many Democratic politicians are also considered Neo Liberals. In general it's a Centrist arena albeit one that promotes a light touch of government in terms of managing the economy. It was a type of "fine tuning" of the classic New Deal mixed economy model. Think the DLC. On the GOP side, think "Establishment Republicans." It sought to tweak it without throwing it out completely.
I have my own critique of Neo Liberalism due to its naive outlook regarding the ways that certain geopolitical actors exploit the West's blind faith in Neo Liberalism's reputed ability to supposedly prevent Great War (e.g. by fostering economic friendly competition). Those geopolitical actors meanwhile prepare for Great War.
I think the term is generally accepted to represent the views of Mises and Hayek, blended with those of Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman, (and our own Mr. Galen, Warren Dew and Classic Xer among others) and which took power under Reagan and Thatcher in circa 1980 ("thirty fucking years ago"-- George Carlin), and represent the conventional wisdom today that "less government" is better. It's not tweaking or fine tuning; it is INDEED throwing out the New Deal completely. It is radical and utopian, and fundamentally and at its core completely identical with the original classical liberal economics of Adam Smith and David Ricardo. Neo-liberalism is absolutely synonymous with libertarian, free-market
laissez faire economics which dominates the Republican Party today, and all its leaders and followers-- especially the Tea Party, Mr. Paul Ryan and Mr. Mike Pence. It is free trade, austerity, tax cuts, deregulation and racial dog whistling.
It is the greatest threat that we face, because it renders all government action futile and impossible. No, I am not a "bit off" on this; I am spot on on this. It is THE ideology that needs to be debunked. NO, prosperity does NOT trickle down when you give tax and regulation breaks to "job creaters." NO, taxes are NOT "theft for freeloaders." NO, the CEOs and financial gamblers do NOT deserve their excess profits and salaries, and they do NOT force people to work "that builds character" and avoids "dependency" on welfare.
Read the posted articles, and discern that this underlying ideology with 100 names is the major obstacle to progress and even "freedom" today.
Neo-liberalism in a nutshell aka trickle-down economics aka Reaganomics:
(01-09-2017, 08:28 AM)Odin Wrote: [ -> ] (01-09-2017, 01:27 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ] (01-08-2017, 07:32 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]I like to think my own way of looking at the world is well thought out, logical, based on lessons from history, common sense and developed on reasonable teachings of my culture. I also like to think that everybody thinks their values are such, well thought out, logical, based on lessons from history, common sense and developed on reasonable teachings of their cultures.
Your mistake is in assuming it's all about culture for everyone, just because it happens to be so for you. In fact, most of the conservatives here are libertarian leaning, and base our reasoning not on culture but on facts and proven economic theory. Assuming that it's a clash of cultures may be why you go wrong so much.
I find it hilarious when Libertarians think they and only they have "facts" and "proven economic theory" and think all the rest of us are just going by our feels, it reeks of projection, and Libertarians tend to be exactly the kind of technically-oriented types that have little self-awareness of their own feelings and THINK they are super-logical and rational.
I don't think "all the rest of" you are just going by your feelings; I only think that, now, of Bob since he basically said that's how he operates. I judge each person individually, which is part of that libertarian preference for facts and logic.
You may well go by logic and facts as you see them. pbrower certainly seems to. In theory I could have a productive discussion with you two in a way I could not with Bob, if we had enough time available for digging into empirical data and combing over each others' logic.
Actually, Eric may go by facts and logic as he sees them, too, but he and I are too far apart to make a productive discussion likely. It would be pretty difficult for me to develop "respect", as Bob puts it, for astrological logic. That doesn't prevent a discussion between us being fun, though, even if it's unproductive. Unlike Bob, Eric is open to understanding where his opponents are really coming from, even if only for the purpose of better pushing his own point of view.
(01-09-2017, 02:18 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-09-2017, 03:26 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ] (01-09-2017, 01:27 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ] (01-08-2017, 07:32 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]I like to think my own way of looking at the world is well thought out, logical, based on lessons from history, common sense and developed on reasonable teachings of my culture. I also like to think that everybody thinks their values are such, well thought out, logical, based on lessons from history, common sense and developed on reasonable teachings of their cultures.
Your mistake is in assuming it's all about culture for everyone, just because it happens to be so for you. In fact, most of the conservatives here are libertarian leaning, and base our reasoning not on culture but on facts and proven economic theory. Assuming that it's a clash of cultures may be why you go wrong so much.
Neo-liberalism (aka Reaganomics, Austrian economics, libertarian economics, trickle-down, free market ideology, etc.) is not based on facts, but on an ideological belief system promoted by those whose interests are served by it.
Human history for the last 12,000 years has been powered by a series of innovations, climaxing in our modern world over the last 200-plus years, according to the 2015 PBS documentary called Humanity from Space:
Humanity has proved that it can innovate, and explode the data availiable to us.
This documentary is far from the full human story. Indeed, it neglects the vast field of "culture" and ideas/ideologies. But it makes a great point. We have the data and the innovative ability to create a civilization for the future.
But the catch is that we need to pay attention to the data, and support the innovations we need.
But neo-liberalism is the greatest obstacle to that future. It is the greatest threat to all of our lives.
Because neo-liberals systematically deceive the people with false conspiracy theories that deny the data, and oppose innovation, and seeks to shut down the best means of coordinated action to support innovation and transmit data-- our public institutions.
Neo-liberals promote denial of climate change, ignoring and distorting the data that all our technology provides us about our future.
Neo-liberals oppose the innovations that could save us and allow us to prosper in the future, by defending the corporations that produce the kinds of energy and products that endanger us, and putting politicians in office like Donald Trump, Paul Ryan and Rex Tillerson who want to expand rather than transfer away from the industries that threaten us.
Neo-liberals deny that we are a global society, and seek to keep us enslaved to nationalist scammers like Donald Trump, at a time when peoples of the world need to work together to resolve our issues. It denies the value of people working together for the greater good, which has made us what we are; touting instead a ridiculous individualism that creates nothing.
Neo-liberalism seeks to concentrate the wealth created by human innovation in the hands of a few people, seeking a neo-medieval society in which everything is controlled by a few owners.
Neo-liberalism has been disproven by any standard imaginable. It is the worst scam of our time. No intelligent person has any business supporting or promoting it.
Hey Eric I think you are a bit off in your concept of Neo Liberalism. According to the accepted political and academic definition, many Democratic politicians are also considered Neo Liberals. In general it's a Centrist arena albeit one that promotes a light touch of government in terms of managing the economy. It was a type of "fine tuning" of the classic New Deal mixed economy model. Think the DLC. On the GOP side, think "Establishment Republicans." It sought to tweak it without throwing it out completely.
I have my own critique of Neo Liberalism due to its naive outlook regarding the ways that certain geopolitical actors exploit the West's blind faith in Neo Liberalism's reputed ability to supposedly prevent Great War (e.g. by fostering economic friendly competition). Those geopolitical actors meanwhile prepare for Great War.
What Eric really objects to is classical liberalism, which does mean he and I are almost diametrically opposed. I think he's purposely obfuscating the differences between classical liberalism and neoliberalism because he actually approves of those parts of neoliberalism that aren't part of classical liberalism.
(01-09-2017, 03:36 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ] (01-09-2017, 02:18 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-09-2017, 03:26 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ] (01-09-2017, 01:27 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ] (01-08-2017, 07:32 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]I like to think my own way of looking at the world is well thought out, logical, based on lessons from history, common sense and developed on reasonable teachings of my culture. I also like to think that everybody thinks their values are such, well thought out, logical, based on lessons from history, common sense and developed on reasonable teachings of their cultures.
Your mistake is in assuming it's all about culture for everyone, just because it happens to be so for you. In fact, most of the conservatives here are libertarian leaning, and base our reasoning not on culture but on facts and proven economic theory. Assuming that it's a clash of cultures may be why you go wrong so much.
Neo-liberalism (aka Reaganomics, Austrian economics, libertarian economics, trickle-down, free market ideology, etc.) is not based on facts, but on an ideological belief system promoted by those whose interests are served by it.
Human history for the last 12,000 years has been powered by a series of innovations, climaxing in our modern world over the last 200-plus years, according to the 2015 PBS documentary called Humanity from Space:
Humanity has proved that it can innovate, and explode the data availiable to us.
This documentary is far from the full human story. Indeed, it neglects the vast field of "culture" and ideas/ideologies. But it makes a great point. We have the data and the innovative ability to create a civilization for the future.
But the catch is that we need to pay attention to the data, and support the innovations we need.
But neo-liberalism is the greatest obstacle to that future. It is the greatest threat to all of our lives.
Because neo-liberals systematically deceive the people with false conspiracy theories that deny the data, and oppose innovation, and seeks to shut down the best means of coordinated action to support innovation and transmit data-- our public institutions.
Neo-liberals promote denial of climate change, ignoring and distorting the data that all our technology provides us about our future.
Neo-liberals oppose the innovations that could save us and allow us to prosper in the future, by defending the corporations that produce the kinds of energy and products that endanger us, and putting politicians in office like Donald Trump, Paul Ryan and Rex Tillerson who want to expand rather than transfer away from the industries that threaten us.
Neo-liberals deny that we are a global society, and seek to keep us enslaved to nationalist scammers like Donald Trump, at a time when peoples of the world need to work together to resolve our issues. It denies the value of people working together for the greater good, which has made us what we are; touting instead a ridiculous individualism that creates nothing.
Neo-liberalism seeks to concentrate the wealth created by human innovation in the hands of a few people, seeking a neo-medieval society in which everything is controlled by a few owners.
Neo-liberalism has been disproven by any standard imaginable. It is the worst scam of our time. No intelligent person has any business supporting or promoting it.
Hey Eric I think you are a bit off in your concept of Neo Liberalism. According to the accepted political and academic definition, many Democratic politicians are also considered Neo Liberals. In general it's a Centrist arena albeit one that promotes a light touch of government in terms of managing the economy. It was a type of "fine tuning" of the classic New Deal mixed economy model. Think the DLC. On the GOP side, think "Establishment Republicans." It sought to tweak it without throwing it out completely.
I have my own critique of Neo Liberalism due to its naive outlook regarding the ways that certain geopolitical actors exploit the West's blind faith in Neo Liberalism's reputed ability to supposedly prevent Great War (e.g. by fostering economic friendly competition). Those geopolitical actors meanwhile prepare for Great War.
What Eric really objects to is classical liberalism, which does mean he and I are almost diametrically opposed. I think he's purposely obfuscating the differences between classical liberalism and neoliberalism because he actually approves of those parts of neoliberalism that aren't part of classical liberalism.
There really AREN'T such parts; that's the point. I am not aware of any part of neo-liberalism that I approve of; it's just that I grant some grains of truth in it, which are the
same as those grains of truth in classical liberalism (because they are in fact identical). YOU Warren may not be as big a fan of the wealthy as most neo-liberals are, but no one follower of neo-liberalism or any other ism is completely archetypal, and people shift their opinions occasionally.
Neo-liberalism and classical liberalism (aka THE SAME FUCKING THING) may have some phony value as an opposing view to communist totalitarianism; but beyond that it has very little value once that enemy is not on the horizon. No doubt though, many neo-liberals still think that it
is, just as Hayek and Mises once (basically-correctly) did.
And yet today, as Mr. X points out, under Trump/Pence neo-liberalism is actually an ally or fellow practitioner of communist-totalitarianism's successor, Putin's and his allies' kind of neo-capitalist tyrannical oligarchy. And that IS rather ironic indeed.
I admit though I am curious
What parts of neo-liberalism do you think I approve of (which you presumably don't), that aren't part of classical liberalism, Warren Dew?
I wouldn't worry too much about my astrological logic. The other parts of my logic still work fine. But keep a wink of an eye open to my predictions; apart from the 2016 general election, perhaps, my crystal ball works a lot of the time.
I can't help remembering your statement that it was Reagan's success that got you interested in classical liberalism. But since Reagan is acknowledged by all as the one who put "neo-liberalism" into practice, along with Thatcher, I can't really see where you find a distinction. Except that people often like to define words to suit themselves.
(01-09-2017, 08:28 AM)Odin Wrote: [ -> ] (01-09-2017, 01:27 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ] (01-08-2017, 07:32 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]I like to think my own way of looking at the world is well thought out, logical, based on lessons from history, common sense and developed on reasonable teachings of my culture. I also like to think that everybody thinks their values are such, well thought out, logical, based on lessons from history, common sense and developed on reasonable teachings of their cultures.
Your mistake is in assuming it's all about culture for everyone, just because it happens to be so for you. In fact, most of the conservatives here are libertarian leaning, and base our reasoning not on culture but on facts and proven economic theory. Assuming that it's a clash of cultures may be why you go wrong so much.
I find it hilarious when Libertarians think they and only they have "facts" and "proven economic theory" and think all the rest of us are just going by our feels, it reeks of projection, and Libertarians tend to be exactly the kind of technically-oriented types that have little self-awareness of their own feelings and THINK they are super-logical and rational.
I'm not a Libertarian voter/Libertarian as you say.
(01-09-2017, 05:54 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ] (01-09-2017, 08:28 AM)Odin Wrote: [ -> ] (01-09-2017, 01:27 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ] (01-08-2017, 07:32 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]I like to think my own way of looking at the world is well thought out, logical, based on lessons from history, common sense and developed on reasonable teachings of my culture. I also like to think that everybody thinks their values are such, well thought out, logical, based on lessons from history, common sense and developed on reasonable teachings of their cultures.
Your mistake is in assuming it's all about culture for everyone, just because it happens to be so for you. In fact, most of the conservatives here are libertarian leaning, and base our reasoning not on culture but on facts and proven economic theory. Assuming that it's a clash of cultures may be why you go wrong so much.
I find it hilarious when Libertarians think they and only they have "facts" and "proven economic theory" and think all the rest of us are just going by our feels, it reeks of projection, and Libertarians tend to be exactly the kind of technically-oriented types that have little self-awareness of their own feelings and THINK they are super-logical and rational.
I'm not a Libertarian voter/Libertarian as you say.
Classic Xer, Warren Dew, Galen; completely-typical neo-liberals/classic liberals/free marketeers/libertarian economics believers.... geez how many other names are there for what we all know what it is.........
(01-09-2017, 03:36 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ] (01-09-2017, 02:18 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-09-2017, 03:26 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ] (01-09-2017, 01:27 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ] (01-08-2017, 07:32 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]I like to think my own way of looking at the world is well thought out, logical, based on lessons from history, common sense and developed on reasonable teachings of my culture. I also like to think that everybody thinks their values are such, well thought out, logical, based on lessons from history, common sense and developed on reasonable teachings of their cultures.
Your mistake is in assuming it's all about culture for everyone, just because it happens to be so for you. In fact, most of the conservatives here are libertarian leaning, and base our reasoning not on culture but on facts and proven economic theory. Assuming that it's a clash of cultures may be why you go wrong so much.
Neo-liberalism (aka Reaganomics, Austrian economics, libertarian economics, trickle-down, free market ideology, etc.) is not based on facts, but on an ideological belief system promoted by those whose interests are served by it.
Human history for the last 12,000 years has been powered by a series of innovations, climaxing in our modern world over the last 200-plus years, according to the 2015 PBS documentary called Humanity from Space:
Humanity has proved that it can innovate, and explode the data availiable to us.
This documentary is far from the full human story. Indeed, it neglects the vast field of "culture" and ideas/ideologies. But it makes a great point. We have the data and the innovative ability to create a civilization for the future.
But the catch is that we need to pay attention to the data, and support the innovations we need.
But neo-liberalism is the greatest obstacle to that future. It is the greatest threat to all of our lives.
Because neo-liberals systematically deceive the people with false conspiracy theories that deny the data, and oppose innovation, and seeks to shut down the best means of coordinated action to support innovation and transmit data-- our public institutions.
Neo-liberals promote denial of climate change, ignoring and distorting the data that all our technology provides us about our future.
Neo-liberals oppose the innovations that could save us and allow us to prosper in the future, by defending the corporations that produce the kinds of energy and products that endanger us, and putting politicians in office like Donald Trump, Paul Ryan and Rex Tillerson who want to expand rather than transfer away from the industries that threaten us.
Neo-liberals deny that we are a global society, and seek to keep us enslaved to nationalist scammers like Donald Trump, at a time when peoples of the world need to work together to resolve our issues. It denies the value of people working together for the greater good, which has made us what we are; touting instead a ridiculous individualism that creates nothing.
Neo-liberalism seeks to concentrate the wealth created by human innovation in the hands of a few people, seeking a neo-medieval society in which everything is controlled by a few owners.
Neo-liberalism has been disproven by any standard imaginable. It is the worst scam of our time. No intelligent person has any business supporting or promoting it.
Hey Eric I think you are a bit off in your concept of Neo Liberalism. According to the accepted political and academic definition, many Democratic politicians are also considered Neo Liberals. In general it's a Centrist arena albeit one that promotes a light touch of government in terms of managing the economy. It was a type of "fine tuning" of the classic New Deal mixed economy model. Think the DLC. On the GOP side, think "Establishment Republicans." It sought to tweak it without throwing it out completely.
I have my own critique of Neo Liberalism due to its naive outlook regarding the ways that certain geopolitical actors exploit the West's blind faith in Neo Liberalism's reputed ability to supposedly prevent Great War (e.g. by fostering economic friendly competition). Those geopolitical actors meanwhile prepare for Great War.
What Eric really objects to is classical liberalism, which does mean he and I are almost diametrically opposed. I think he's purposely obfuscating the differences between classical liberalism and neoliberalism because he actually approves of those parts of neoliberalism that aren't part of classical liberalism.
I get the impression that he's not a fan of all the individual freedoms and constitutional rights and protections that we represent and often find ourselves defending here.
(01-09-2017, 04:36 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]I admit though I am curious What parts of neo-liberalism do you think I approve of (which you presumably don't), that aren't part of classical liberalism, Warren Dew?
Offhand, since you think political elites can do no wrong, no doubt you approve of the top down, big government, EU imposition of austerity on Greece. That's definitely part of neoliberalism that isn't part of classical liberalism.
Come to think of it, austerity itself, since it involves increased tax rates, is another part of neoliberalism that isn't part of classical liberalism. You may not approve of austerity as a package, but I bet you approve of the increased tax rates part of it.
I'm sure there are
Quote:I can't help remembering your statement that it was Reagan's success that got you interested in classical liberalism.
I didn't make any such statement, though I might have made a statement you interpreted that way. The economics parts of classical liberalism I got interested in from reading Milton Friedman's Newsweek column in the early 1970s. The personal liberty part I think I was born with.
(01-09-2017, 06:31 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ] (01-09-2017, 03:36 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ] (01-09-2017, 02:18 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-09-2017, 03:26 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ] (01-09-2017, 01:27 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ]Your mistake is in assuming it's all about culture for everyone, just because it happens to be so for you. In fact, most of the conservatives here are libertarian leaning, and base our reasoning not on culture but on facts and proven economic theory. Assuming that it's a clash of cultures may be why you go wrong so much.
Neo-liberalism (aka Reaganomics, Austrian economics, libertarian economics, trickle-down, free market ideology, etc.) is not based on facts, but on an ideological belief system promoted by those whose interests are served by it.
Human history for the last 12,000 years has been powered by a series of innovations, climaxing in our modern world over the last 200-plus years, according to the 2015 PBS documentary called Humanity from Space:
Humanity has proved that it can innovate, and explode the data availiable to us.
This documentary is far from the full human story. Indeed, it neglects the vast field of "culture" and ideas/ideologies. But it makes a great point. We have the data and the innovative ability to create a civilization for the future.
But the catch is that we need to pay attention to the data, and support the innovations we need.
But neo-liberalism is the greatest obstacle to that future. It is the greatest threat to all of our lives.
Because neo-liberals systematically deceive the people with false conspiracy theories that deny the data, and oppose innovation, and seeks to shut down the best means of coordinated action to support innovation and transmit data-- our public institutions.
Neo-liberals promote denial of climate change, ignoring and distorting the data that all our technology provides us about our future.
Neo-liberals oppose the innovations that could save us and allow us to prosper in the future, by defending the corporations that produce the kinds of energy and products that endanger us, and putting politicians in office like Donald Trump, Paul Ryan and Rex Tillerson who want to expand rather than transfer away from the industries that threaten us.
Neo-liberals deny that we are a global society, and seek to keep us enslaved to nationalist scammers like Donald Trump, at a time when peoples of the world need to work together to resolve our issues. It denies the value of people working together for the greater good, which has made us what we are; touting instead a ridiculous individualism that creates nothing.
Neo-liberalism seeks to concentrate the wealth created by human innovation in the hands of a few people, seeking a neo-medieval society in which everything is controlled by a few owners.
Neo-liberalism has been disproven by any standard imaginable. It is the worst scam of our time. No intelligent person has any business supporting or promoting it.
Hey Eric I think you are a bit off in your concept of Neo Liberalism. According to the accepted political and academic definition, many Democratic politicians are also considered Neo Liberals. In general it's a Centrist arena albeit one that promotes a light touch of government in terms of managing the economy. It was a type of "fine tuning" of the classic New Deal mixed economy model. Think the DLC. On the GOP side, think "Establishment Republicans." It sought to tweak it without throwing it out completely.
I have my own critique of Neo Liberalism due to its naive outlook regarding the ways that certain geopolitical actors exploit the West's blind faith in Neo Liberalism's reputed ability to supposedly prevent Great War (e.g. by fostering economic friendly competition). Those geopolitical actors meanwhile prepare for Great War.
What Eric really objects to is classical liberalism, which does mean he and I are almost diametrically opposed. I think he's purposely obfuscating the differences between classical liberalism and neoliberalism because he actually approves of those parts of neoliberalism that aren't part of classical liberalism.
I get the impression that he's not a fan of all the individual freedoms and constitutional rights and protections that we represent and often find ourselves defending here.
I wouldn't be surprised but I haven't seen major discussions of that stuff in my time here yet. We didn't exactly have a personal liberty champion available in the general election this time around.
It's actually kind of weird; the regeneracy is a time of declining personal liberty, despite reactives gaining in influence. I guess the boomers have to fade into the sunset before the reactives start getting their way - or maybe the reactives just try to get some protections inserted piecemeal into boomer controlled agendas. Any thoughts?
(01-09-2017, 06:15 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ] (01-09-2017, 05:54 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ] (01-09-2017, 08:28 AM)Odin Wrote: [ -> ] (01-09-2017, 01:27 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ] (01-08-2017, 07:32 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]I like to think my own way of looking at the world is well thought out, logical, based on lessons from history, common sense and developed on reasonable teachings of my culture. I also like to think that everybody thinks their values are such, well thought out, logical, based on lessons from history, common sense and developed on reasonable teachings of their cultures.
Your mistake is in assuming it's all about culture for everyone, just because it happens to be so for you. In fact, most of the conservatives here are libertarian leaning, and base our reasoning not on culture but on facts and proven economic theory. Assuming that it's a clash of cultures may be why you go wrong so much.
I find it hilarious when Libertarians think they and only they have "facts" and "proven economic theory" and think all the rest of us are just going by our feels, it reeks of projection, and Libertarians tend to be exactly the kind of technically-oriented types that have little self-awareness of their own feelings and THINK they are super-logical and rational.
I'm not a Libertarian voter/Libertarian as you say.
Classic Xer, Warren Dew, Galen; completely-typical neo-liberals/classic liberals/free marketeers/libertarian economics believers.... geez how many other names are there for what we all know what it is.........
About as many names that there are for you....blue/Green/socialist/progressive/Marxist/communist economic believers...I'll need to check out Neo Liberalism and its origin to see if there's a connection with the late great FDR.
(01-09-2017, 07:10 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ] (01-09-2017, 06:15 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ] (01-09-2017, 05:54 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ] (01-09-2017, 08:28 AM)Odin Wrote: [ -> ] (01-09-2017, 01:27 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ]Your mistake is in assuming it's all about culture for everyone, just because it happens to be so for you. In fact, most of the conservatives here are libertarian leaning, and base our reasoning not on culture but on facts and proven economic theory. Assuming that it's a clash of cultures may be why you go wrong so much.
I find it hilarious when Libertarians think they and only they have "facts" and "proven economic theory" and think all the rest of us are just going by our feels, it reeks of projection, and Libertarians tend to be exactly the kind of technically-oriented types that have little self-awareness of their own feelings and THINK they are super-logical and rational.
I'm not a Libertarian voter/Libertarian as you say.
Classic Xer, Warren Dew, Galen; completely-typical neo-liberals/classic liberals/free marketeers/libertarian economics believers.... geez how many other names are there for what we all know what it is.........
About as many names that there are for you....blue/Green/socialist/progressive/Marxist/communist economic believers...I'll need to check out Neo Liberalism and its origin to see if there's a connection with the late great FDR.
It seems folk are ready to lump their opposition groups into one big bag, shake well, and not distinguish between very different systems. I can reasonably accept the blue, green and progressive labels. I emphatically reject the Marxist and communist labels. Those who remember my exchanges with Kinser can confirm my firm rejection of Marx's solutions. 'Socialist' seems to mean different things to different people. I favor safety nets, but not hammocks. As the word's meaning is so fuzzy, I'm reluctant to embrace the word.
As I reject communist and Classic rejects Libertarian, how many others reject some of those labels that opponents would like to stick on them?
(01-09-2017, 07:00 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ] (01-09-2017, 06:31 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ] (01-09-2017, 03:36 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ] (01-09-2017, 02:18 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-09-2017, 03:26 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]Neo-liberalism (aka Reaganomics, Austrian economics, libertarian economics, trickle-down, free market ideology, etc.) is not based on facts, but on an ideological belief system promoted by those whose interests are served by it.
Human history for the last 12,000 years has been powered by a series of innovations, climaxing in our modern world over the last 200-plus years, according to the 2015 PBS documentary called Humanity from Space:
Humanity has proved that it can innovate, and explode the data availiable to us.
This documentary is far from the full human story. Indeed, it neglects the vast field of "culture" and ideas/ideologies. But it makes a great point. We have the data and the innovative ability to create a civilization for the future.
But the catch is that we need to pay attention to the data, and support the innovations we need.
But neo-liberalism is the greatest obstacle to that future. It is the greatest threat to all of our lives.
Because neo-liberals systematically deceive the people with false conspiracy theories that deny the data, and oppose innovation, and seeks to shut down the best means of coordinated action to support innovation and transmit data-- our public institutions.
Neo-liberals promote denial of climate change, ignoring and distorting the data that all our technology provides us about our future.
Neo-liberals oppose the innovations that could save us and allow us to prosper in the future, by defending the corporations that produce the kinds of energy and products that endanger us, and putting politicians in office like Donald Trump, Paul Ryan and Rex Tillerson who want to expand rather than transfer away from the industries that threaten us.
Neo-liberals deny that we are a global society, and seek to keep us enslaved to nationalist scammers like Donald Trump, at a time when peoples of the world need to work together to resolve our issues. It denies the value of people working together for the greater good, which has made us what we are; touting instead a ridiculous individualism that creates nothing.
Neo-liberalism seeks to concentrate the wealth created by human innovation in the hands of a few people, seeking a neo-medieval society in which everything is controlled by a few owners.
Neo-liberalism has been disproven by any standard imaginable. It is the worst scam of our time. No intelligent person has any business supporting or promoting it.
Hey Eric I think you are a bit off in your concept of Neo Liberalism. According to the accepted political and academic definition, many Democratic politicians are also considered Neo Liberals. In general it's a Centrist arena albeit one that promotes a light touch of government in terms of managing the economy. It was a type of "fine tuning" of the classic New Deal mixed economy model. Think the DLC. On the GOP side, think "Establishment Republicans." It sought to tweak it without throwing it out completely.
I have my own critique of Neo Liberalism due to its naive outlook regarding the ways that certain geopolitical actors exploit the West's blind faith in Neo Liberalism's reputed ability to supposedly prevent Great War (e.g. by fostering economic friendly competition). Those geopolitical actors meanwhile prepare for Great War.
What Eric really objects to is classical liberalism, which does mean he and I are almost diametrically opposed. I think he's purposely obfuscating the differences between classical liberalism and neoliberalism because he actually approves of those parts of neoliberalism that aren't part of classical liberalism.
I get the impression that he's not a fan of all the individual freedoms and constitutional rights and protections that we represent and often find ourselves defending here.
I wouldn't be surprised but I haven't seen major discussions of that stuff in my time here yet. We didn't exactly have a personal liberty champion available in the general election this time around.
It's actually kind of weird; the regeneracy is a time of declining personal liberty, despite reactives gaining in influence. I guess the boomers have to fade into the sunset before the reactives start getting their way - or maybe the reactives just try to get some protections inserted piecemeal into boomer controlled agendas. Any thoughts?
I think we did have one and we both voted for him.
(01-09-2017, 06:31 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ] (01-09-2017, 03:36 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ] (01-09-2017, 02:18 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-09-2017, 03:26 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ] (01-09-2017, 01:27 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ]Your mistake is in assuming it's all about culture for everyone, just because it happens to be so for you. In fact, most of the conservatives here are libertarian leaning, and base our reasoning not on culture but on facts and proven economic theory. Assuming that it's a clash of cultures may be why you go wrong so much.
Neo-liberalism (aka Reaganomics, Austrian economics, libertarian economics, trickle-down, free market ideology, etc.) is not based on facts, but on an ideological belief system promoted by those whose interests are served by it.
Human history for the last 12,000 years has been powered by a series of innovations, climaxing in our modern world over the last 200-plus years, according to the 2015 PBS documentary called Humanity from Space:
Humanity has proved that it can innovate, and explode the data availiable to us.
This documentary is far from the full human story. Indeed, it neglects the vast field of "culture" and ideas/ideologies. But it makes a great point. We have the data and the innovative ability to create a civilization for the future.
But the catch is that we need to pay attention to the data, and support the innovations we need.
But neo-liberalism is the greatest obstacle to that future. It is the greatest threat to all of our lives.
Because neo-liberals systematically deceive the people with false conspiracy theories that deny the data, and oppose innovation, and seeks to shut down the best means of coordinated action to support innovation and transmit data-- our public institutions.
Neo-liberals promote denial of climate change, ignoring and distorting the data that all our technology provides us about our future.
Neo-liberals oppose the innovations that could save us and allow us to prosper in the future, by defending the corporations that produce the kinds of energy and products that endanger us, and putting politicians in office like Donald Trump, Paul Ryan and Rex Tillerson who want to expand rather than transfer away from the industries that threaten us.
Neo-liberals deny that we are a global society, and seek to keep us enslaved to nationalist scammers like Donald Trump, at a time when peoples of the world need to work together to resolve our issues. It denies the value of people working together for the greater good, which has made us what we are; touting instead a ridiculous individualism that creates nothing.
Neo-liberalism seeks to concentrate the wealth created by human innovation in the hands of a few people, seeking a neo-medieval society in which everything is controlled by a few owners.
Neo-liberalism has been disproven by any standard imaginable. It is the worst scam of our time. No intelligent person has any business supporting or promoting it.
Hey Eric I think you are a bit off in your concept of Neo Liberalism. According to the accepted political and academic definition, many Democratic politicians are also considered Neo Liberals. In general it's a Centrist arena albeit one that promotes a light touch of government in terms of managing the economy. It was a type of "fine tuning" of the classic New Deal mixed economy model. Think the DLC. On the GOP side, think "Establishment Republicans." It sought to tweak it without throwing it out completely.
I have my own critique of Neo Liberalism due to its naive outlook regarding the ways that certain geopolitical actors exploit the West's blind faith in Neo Liberalism's reputed ability to supposedly prevent Great War (e.g. by fostering economic friendly competition). Those geopolitical actors meanwhile prepare for Great War.
What Eric really objects to is classical liberalism, which does mean he and I are almost diametrically opposed. I think he's purposely obfuscating the differences between classical liberalism and neoliberalism because he actually approves of those parts of neoliberalism that aren't part of classical liberalism.
I get the impression that he's not a fan of all the individual freedoms and constitutional rights and protections that we represent and often find ourselves defending here.
As usual you seem particularly amazing in your ability to get the wrong ideas about me. Of course I am for individual freedoms; that's why I oppose all of Trump's appointments and his repressive slogans.
But you neo-liberal conservatives seem to think that individual freedom boils down to gun rights. You seem to think that this "right" of anyone to have a quick and easy means to kill people, along with the "right" of business to exploit and cheat others, is what "individual freedom" is. But that's Orwellian doublespeak, but that fits the totalitarian people that you are, Classic Xer. Or, at least, authoritarian (I don't want to exaggerate
)
(01-09-2017, 07:10 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ] (01-09-2017, 06:15 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ] (01-09-2017, 05:54 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ] (01-09-2017, 08:28 AM)Odin Wrote: [ -> ] (01-09-2017, 01:27 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ]Your mistake is in assuming it's all about culture for everyone, just because it happens to be so for you. In fact, most of the conservatives here are libertarian leaning, and base our reasoning not on culture but on facts and proven economic theory. Assuming that it's a clash of cultures may be why you go wrong so much.
I find it hilarious when Libertarians think they and only they have "facts" and "proven economic theory" and think all the rest of us are just going by our feels, it reeks of projection, and Libertarians tend to be exactly the kind of technically-oriented types that have little self-awareness of their own feelings and THINK they are super-logical and rational.
I'm not a Libertarian voter/Libertarian as you say.
Classic Xer, Warren Dew, Galen; completely-typical neo-liberals/classic liberals/free marketeers/libertarian economics believers.... geez how many other names are there for what we all know what it is.........
About as many names that there are for you....blue/Green/socialist/progressive/Marxist/communist economic believers...I'll need to check out Neo Liberalism and its origin to see if there's a connection with the late great FDR.
Yes, you should. You should know more about more of the originators of your own belief system.
And that's the difference between your side and mine. We use accurate names for your side, as I did here. You do not; and that does not matter to you. Because obfuscation, deception, confusion, etc., serves your authoritarian needs and your politics of fear and hate.
The first four names for my side are fine, of course, although those names represent quite a variety of ideas, whereas neo/classical-liberal et al ideas are easily boiled down to a few pernicious beliefs. "Socialist" is not a good fit for me either, actually. A "democratic socialist" like Bernie Sanders I am likely to agree with most of the time, but socialism's main definition is government ownership of the economy, and I do believe in private enterprise; just not private enterprise uber alles as libertarian economics believers do. A mixed economy is the progressive ideal.
I note that I said "100 names for what we all know what it is" and you said "as many names that there are for YOU" (me, Eric the Green). But it's not about me; it's about a kind of belief system that you happen to uphold, Classic Xer.
If someone labels you, sometimes it's best just to accept the label. It should be understood that labels are always approximate. Anyone who doesn't understand that, is the one with the problem.
I don't even agree with Greens all the time these days. I didn't vote Green this time anyway. But, I'm still proud to be Green.
(01-09-2017, 06:55 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ] (01-09-2017, 04:36 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]I admit though I am curious What parts of neo-liberalism do you think I approve of (which you presumably don't), that aren't part of classical liberalism, Warren Dew?
Offhand, since you think political elites can do no wrong, no doubt you approve of the top down, big government, EU imposition of austerity on Greece. That's definitely part of neoliberalism that isn't part of classical liberalism.
Come to think of it, austerity itself, since it involves increased tax rates, is another part of neoliberalism that isn't part of classical liberalism. You may not approve of austerity as a package, but I bet you approve of the increased tax rates part of it.
I'm sure there are
Quote:I can't help remembering your statement that it was Reagan's success that got you interested in classical liberalism.
I didn't make any such statement, though I might have made a statement you interpreted that way. The economics parts of classical liberalism I got interested in from reading Milton Friedman's Newsweek column in the early 1970s. The personal liberty part I think I was born with.
You did say that about Reagan and his effect on you. But speaking of things people never said, I never said I favor austerity on Greece. Higher taxes maybe, if they are on the wealthy, because that's the secret about Greece that isn't often said, that a portion of their problems come from the wealthy's priviledges in that country. But higher taxes is not what austerity means in neo-liberalism; it means cuts to government spending on social and welfare programs that help the people and society. Neo-liberalism is all about
tax cuts. That means you're a neo-liberal, Warren.
Neo-liberals frequently DO believe in higher taxes, and so do classical liberals (AGAIN, THE SAME THING!), when the burden will fall heavier on the poor and/or middle class. That's what the flat tax schemes are all about, and would accomplish. It's what Trump's tax plan aims to do. It's what folks like Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney want when they complain that the poor don't pay taxes. Neo/classical liberalism could be summed up in the adage: "it's best to rob from the poor and give to the rich!"
Political elites do wrong frequently, because in the USA they are mostly neo-liberal/classical liberal Republican conservatives. But progressive liberals can do wrong and become corrupt too, and forget whom they serve. It happens because power corrupts. No, I don't approve of that. Progressive means grass roots; we support only politicians that represent the people and respond to the peoples' wishes, provided those wishes are in accord with progressive principles of solving problems, sharing the wealth, respecting civil liberties, respecting all of life, greater democracy, etc. Progressive means we the people are active and concerned and choose politicians that take action to benefit the people; that means all the people, NOT a priviledged few like the neo/classical liberals like you choose represent.
The Green Party Four Pillars are:
Ecological wisdom.
Social justice.
Grassroots democracy.
Nonviolence.
greenpolitics.wikia.com/wiki/Four_Pillars_of_the_Green_Party
(01-09-2017, 08:14 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-09-2017, 07:10 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ] (01-09-2017, 06:15 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ] (01-09-2017, 05:54 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ] (01-09-2017, 08:28 AM)Odin Wrote: [ -> ]I find it hilarious when Libertarians think they and only they have "facts" and "proven economic theory" and think all the rest of us are just going by our feels, it reeks of projection, and Libertarians tend to be exactly the kind of technically-oriented types that have little self-awareness of their own feelings and THINK they are super-logical and rational.
I'm not a Libertarian voter/Libertarian as you say.
Classic Xer, Warren Dew, Galen; completely-typical neo-liberals/classic liberals/free marketeers/libertarian economics believers.... geez how many other names are there for what we all know what it is.........
About as many names that there are for you....blue/Green/socialist/progressive/Marxist/communist economic believers...I'll need to check out Neo Liberalism and its origin to see if there's a connection with the late great FDR.
It seems folk are ready to lump their opposition groups into one big bag, shake well, and not distinguish between very different systems. I can reasonably accept the blue, green and progressive labels. I emphatically reject the Marxist and communist labels. Those who remember my exchanges with Kinser can confirm my firm rejection of Marx's solutions. 'Socialist' seems to mean different things to different people. I favor safety nets, but not hammocks. As the word's meaning is so fuzzy, I'm reluctant to embrace the word.
As I reject communist and Classic rejects Libertarian, how many others reject some of those labels that opponents would like to stick on them?
I go by the definition of socialist. You've advocated the need for more socialism but you've also made it known to me that you'd prefer to stick with capitalism yourself. I'll give you some slack understanding the political position that you're in and have been in since the progressives took control over the bulk of your party.
(01-09-2017, 11:56 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]I go by the definition of socialist. You've advocated the need for more socialism but you've also made it known to me that you'd prefer to stick with capitalism yourself. I'll give you some slack understanding the political position that you're in and have been in since the progressives took control over the bulk of your party.
My dictionary came up with a list that looks similar enough to the ones we came up with above.
Quote:socialist
adjective
the socialist movement: left-wing, progressive, leftist, labor, anti-corporate, antiglobalization; radical, revolutionary, militant; communist; informal lefty, red. ANTONYMS conservative.
noun
a well-known socialist: left-winger, leftist, progressive, progressivist; radical, revolutionary; communist, Marxist; informal lefty, red. ANTONYMS conservative.
If I have to be all of the above to be a socialist, I'm not a socialist. There seems to be one contradiction. Some American progressives have been accused of being too much in favor of globalization. I'll deny I'm communist, Marxist or revolutionary. I'd like to see some big changes, but I don't think I qualify as a radical??? I think the government would benefit from a stronger labor movement, and distrust Wall Street's excessive pulling money out of corporate structures to give it to investors. Corporate structure sure needs changed, but not destroyed. I don't know that anti-corporate fits me.
In short, all the words in the above list aren't synonyms. I accept that some of them apply well enough to me, but not all of them. If you insist on lumping them all together, you'll won't be describing where I'm at.
Just for laughs...
Quote:conservative
adjective
1 the conservative wing of the party: right-wing, reactionary, traditionalist; Republican; British Tory; informal redneck. ANTONYMS socialist.
Quote:progressive
adjective
2 progressive views: modern, liberal, advanced, forward-thinking, enlightened, enterprising, innovative, pioneering, dynamic, bold, avant-garde, reforming, reformist, radical; informal go-ahead. ANTONYMS conservative, reactionary.
I'd say by these definitions, progressive describes me far better than socialist. I won't claim that all of the words in the progressive definition apply to me, but they are a lot closer than the socialist words.
I don't particularly peg you as reactionary or a redneck. Would you agree that these dictionary definitions don't peg either of us perfectly?