What if Huntington is right?
Scott Erb
By that I don't mean "liberal" in the American political jargon sense; in
fact, in terms of political ideology probably over 90% of Americans and
virtually all mainstream politicians (including George W. Bush) are liberal.
Liberals believe that humans are basically self-interested and rational, and
share fundamental human rights of life, liberty and property. For liberals,
globalization is a force that is spreading market economics and
secular/materialist approaches to life and governance. This counters
traditional cultures, and is seen as a threat by some. Liberals believe
that self-interest will lead most in a society to embrace the new way of
thinking and erode traditional cultural and conservative religious values.
Within liberalism there are at least three forces. Libertarians have the
most faith in markets and their power to transform, and hence tend to eschew
government involvement overseas. Ron Paul of Texas (officially a
Republican) is the classic non-interventionist libertarian. They are the
most optimistic that markets will induce people to rationally choose to
reject extremism in favor of liberty and prosperity.
Neo-conservatives believe that markets will naturally win over most people,
but that a cadre of fervent militarists use emotion to try to sway others to
lash out at the West, which is seen as instigating the threat. Terrorists
are thus basically fascists, and if you eliminate them, you'll make way for
the victory of markets and democracy. They don't think markets will do it
on their own, they reject the libertarian optimism, and they recognize this
may be a difficult path. But in the neo-conservative perspective we have
the power to intervene to shape, even engineer, social change in various
parts of the world, and must not be loathe to use this power. It is for
them the project of this century. If we do not shy away from it, even if it
is at times costly and violent, they believe we'll allow for a future where
even war might be a thing of the past, with nations so interdependent that
war would become irrational. Democracies don't fight democracies, as the
President says.
The third group are gradualists, who believe that the problem with
globalization is that the pressure is too much too quickly on societies to
reform, and therefore the answer is to avoid unnecessary antagonism ( the
neo-conservative approach is rejected as giving fodder to the extremists,
thereby actually making matters worse), focus on countering the direct
threat (getting Bin Laden and breaking down the al qaeda and similar
networks), and trying to regulate globalization in a manner that minimizes
negative impacts on third world countries, rejecting the libertarian
approach to market driven change.
But what if the liberals are wrong? What if markets and democracy are not
the "natural" state for humans, but a cultural creation of the west? Our
market oriented economy means we spend lots of time working in order to
continually get more stuff, defining success and indeed life in
predominately materialist terms. Samuel Huntington wrote a book Clash of
Civilizations back in the early nineties positing seven or eight world
civilizations which have very different perspectives on humanity and the
meaning of life. (Here's an article where he explains it, this is from
1993: http://www.alamut.com/subj/economics/misc/clash.html.
If Huntington is right, there is no guarantee that our liberal/modern ideals
are natural to humans. Even if we hold on to core beliefs in human rights,
what these mean and how they are understood differ across civilizations, and
clearly the idea that secular materialist market economics is a more
natural, rational pursuit than other 'traditional' ways of life is brought
into question. If Huntington is right, then we face a more profound danger
in the future. We can't simply 'spread democracy' and get rid of "fascists"
who want to use emotion and appeals to special identity to work against the
West. Rather, terrorism is the "first shots" of potential wars caused by
the engines of globalization and technology.
What would that mean? Some Social Darwinists might argue this means the
West should fight these other civilization in order to assure the dominance
of western ideals. But that is a fight we'd surely lose, in large part
because what it would take to have a chance of winning would require denying
the values that define western culture, and thus the effort would destroy
the civilization as we know it. We lack the ability to win such a battle
anyway. No, if Huntington is right, we have to find a way to allow
globalization to proceed in a manner which does not create the fear and
anger that gives rise to terrorism. If Huntington is right, Islamic
terrorism is only one of many potential threats (and conflicts wouldn't just
be with the West, but could be Japan vs. China, for instance). If
Huntington is right, our state system is ill positioned to handle the
challenges, and the neo-conservative approach emphasizing the use of
American power is a sure path towards hastening our fall -- it plays into
the hands of those who want to have a 'clash of civilizations.'
But Huntington may be wrong. It depends upon whether one sees economics or
culture as the dominant force in global development (and I've not even
touched the Neo-Marxian analysis, which differs from both the civilizational
and liberal perspectives). It also could be a matter of degrees;
gradualist liberals are more likely to see the difficulty of markets
sweeping into different "civilizations," while neo-conservatives and
libertarians think that the superiority of the west (democracy and markets)
is so profound that "civilizations," to the extent they exist, will change
quickly due to the choices of individuals within those cultures. I think
that as we move forward and try to contemplate what to do about the Iraqi
mess, and terrorism in general, it's important to step back and think about
just what is happening in the world, how we understand it, what needs to be
done. So far, that's not really being done, as a society we're marching
into a dangerous future with blinders on.
Scott Maas
Scott Erb wrote:
> The American fight against terrorism is based primarily on liberal ideology.
> By that I don't mean "liberal" in the American political jargon sense; in
> fact, in terms of political ideology probably over 90% of Americans and
> virtually all mainstream politicians (including George W. Bush) are liberal.
> Liberals believe that humans are basically self-interested and rational, and
> share fundamental human rights of life, liberty and property. For liberals,
> globalization is a force that is spreading market economics and
> secular/materialist approaches to life and governance. This counters
> traditional cultures, and is seen as a threat by some. Liberals believe
> that self-interest will lead most in a society to embrace the new way of
> thinking and erode traditional cultural and conservative religious values.
> Within liberalism there are at least three forces. Libertarians have the
> most faith in markets and their power to transform, and hence tend to eschew
> government involvement overseas. Ron Paul of Texas (officially a
> Republican) is the classic non-interventionist libertarian. They are the
> most optimistic that markets will induce people to rationally choose to
> reject extremism in favor of liberty and prosperity.
Government staying out of business in terms of "non-intervention?"
We've had that for the last 6 years, and it's been a disaster.
You can't see this???
Scott Maas
Scott Erb wrote:
> The American fight against terrorism is based primarily on liberal ideology.
> By that I don't mean "liberal" in the American political jargon sense; in
> fact, in terms of political ideology probably over 90% of Americans and
> virtually all mainstream politicians (including George W. Bush) are liberal.
> Liberals believe that humans are basically self-interested and rational, and
> share fundamental human rights of life, liberty and property. For liberals,
> globalization is a force that is spreading market economics and
> secular/materialist approaches to life and governance. This counters
> traditional cultures, and is seen as a threat by some. Liberals believe
> that self-interest will lead most in a society to embrace the new way of
> thinking and erode traditional cultural and conservative religious values.
> Within liberalism there are at least three forces. Libertarians have the
> most faith in markets and their power to transform, and hence tend to eschew
> government involvement overseas. Ron Paul of Texas (officially a
> Republican) is the classic non-interventionist libertarian. They are the
> most optimistic that markets will induce people to rationally choose to
> reject extremism in favor of liberty and prosperity.
Government staying out of busines in terms of "non-intervention?"
We've had that for the last 6 years, and it's been a disaster.
You can't see this???
>
Jeffrey Turner
> Scott Erb wrote:
>
>>The American fight against terrorism is based primarily on liberal ideology.
>>By that I don't mean "liberal" in the American political jargon sense; in
>>fact, in terms of political ideology probably over 90% of Americans and
>>virtually all mainstream politicians (including George W. Bush) are liberal.
>>Liberals believe that humans are basically self-interested and rational, and
>>share fundamental human rights of life, liberty and property. For liberals,
>>globalization is a force that is spreading market economics and
>>secular/materialist approaches to life and governance. This counters
>>traditional cultures, and is seen as a threat by some. Liberals believe
>>that self-interest will lead most in a society to embrace the new way of
>>thinking and erode traditional cultural and conservative religious values.
>>Within liberalism there are at least three forces. Libertarians have the
>>most faith in markets and their power to transform, and hence tend to eschew
>>government involvement overseas. Ron Paul of Texas (officially a
>>Republican) is the classic non-interventionist libertarian. They are the
>>most optimistic that markets will induce people to rationally choose to
>>reject extremism in favor of liberty and prosperity.
>
>
> Government staying out of business in terms of "non-intervention?"
>
> We've had that for the last 6 years, and it's been a disaster.
>
> You can't see this???
Capitalist libertarianism is a popular form of idiocy.
"The rich don't care for anybody but themselves; it's only the
poor that have feeling for the poor, and help them." --Mark Twain
--Jeff
--
The shepherd always tries to persuade
the sheep that their interests and
his own are the same. --Stendhal
Scott Erb
"Jeffrey Turner" <jtu...@localnet.com> wrote in message
news:11eb7bh...@corp.supernews.com...
More interesting is Left libertarianism, which recognizes that denial of
liberty can come from big money as well as big government.
mand...@verizon.net
Absolutely, democracy and the primacy of markets are the outgrowth of a
particular, and very rare constellation of political and economic
characteristics, all peculiar to the modern West. Study ancient and
medieval societies (including the West)---you'll find that very few of
them were free, or even valued freedom. Trying to impose democracy on
ferociously patriarchal, tribalistic countries like Iraq and
Afghanistan is a fool's errand, to say the very least, and is
guaranteed to end tragically.
Lisa
Steven Canyon
<ROTFLMAO> Left libertarianism is a contradiction in terms...
--
Steve
Martin McPhillips
news:FGaFe.33235$5N3....@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Scott, your entire essay is based on a false
dichotomy where the structure of human societies
is either culturally determined or determined
by human nature. That's shallow enough, but
then you try to use it to support your lame
arguments against current American foreign
policy, which makes it even more shallow.
You're running the most boring carnival
booth I've ever seen, Scott. The game is
silly and the stuffed animals have no
stuffing.
Martin McPhillips
news:7g1ce11b0ai174nhv...@4ax.com...
Scott's has a lot of Marxist lotions in his
traveling salesman's case.
Steven Canyon
<scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>[.....], as a society we're marching
>into a dangerous future with blinders on.
But, Erb, OTOH, has all the answers. Too bad that instead of finding
a position in the government where he could put his amazing insight
into use, he chose to become a ... <LOL> ... political science
teacher.
--
Steve
Steven Canyon
The socialists in the USA have been in a continuous mode of trying to
refine themselves for many years. Part of that process is to come up
with new names that attempt to deny the collectivist agenda.
--
Steve
Amadeus Unterhosen
<scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Can you tell me who you think is a Left libertarian?
Amadeus Unterhosen
"Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that
only an intellectual could ignore or evade it."
--- Thomas Sowell
Scott Erb
than big government, but they also reject the capitalist libertarian notion
that markets somehow yield the best results. They are distrustful of both
markets and government planned economies, and thus see a need to create a
check and balance system protecting individual liberty. They also recognize
that individual liberty requires a social context, so they don't have the
radical individualism of pure capitalist libertarians.
"Scott Erb" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:QoyFe.36927$5N3....@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> "Amadeus Unterhosen" <ama...@unterhosen.net> wrote in message
> news:3vtce1d5u4ntc1jsm...@4ax.com...
> In most texts Left Libertarian is defined as someone who opposes the use
of
> power to deny liberty to or oppress or exploit individuals. They usually
> are equally distrustful of big government and big business. Older
> literature often associated left libertarianism with anarchists, now Green
> parties often fit in this mold.
>
> Capitalist libertarianism is most common in the US; the term 'libertarian'
> when used elsewhere (and even in US academic circles) rarely means
> capitalist libertarian, unless the talk is about the libertarian party.
The
> idea that libertarian means capitalist is simply wrong.
>
>
Scott Erb
In most texts Left Libertarian is defined as someone who opposes the use of
Amadeus Unterhosen
<scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>"Amadeus Unterhosen" <ama...@unterhosen.net> wrote in message
>news:3vtce1d5u4ntc1jsm...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 02:32:41 GMT, "Scott Erb"
>> <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Jeffrey Turner" <jtu...@localnet.com> wrote in message
>> >news:11eb7bh...@corp.supernews.com...
>> >> Scott Maas wrote:
>
>> >> Capitalist libertarianism is a popular form of idiocy.
>> >
>> >More interesting is Left libertarianism, which recognizes that denial of
>> >liberty can come from big money as well as big government.
>> >
>> Can you tell me who you think is a Left libertarian?
>
>In most texts Left Libertarian is defined as someone who opposes the use of
>power to deny liberty to or oppress or exploit individuals. They usually
>are equally distrustful of big government and big business. Older
>literature often associated left libertarianism with anarchists, now Green
>parties often fit in this mold.
>
>Capitalist libertarianism is most common in the US; the term 'libertarian'
>when used elsewhere (and even in US academic circles) rarely means
>capitalist libertarian, unless the talk is about the libertarian party. The
>idea that libertarian means capitalist is simply wrong.
>
I would think it would be difficult to reconcile libertarianism with
socialism. One is concerned with the good of the individual and the
other with the good the other with the good of the general population.
Martin McPhillips
>
> I would think it would be difficult to reconcile
> libertarianism with
> socialism.
Yes, the impossible is difficult.
Martin McPhillips
>I should add that Left Libertarians not only don't trust
>big money any more
> than big government,
Right, "left libertarianism" (a contradiction in
terms) is about sitting around drinking free
espresso in the government subsidized espresso
bar while complaining about the government. In other
words, it's an undergraduate fantasy encouraged
by some infantile faculty.
> but they also reject the capitalist libertarian notion
> that markets somehow yield the best results.
And, yes, it requires ignoring/denying the
driving force of prosperity because avoiding
responsibility is the sine qua non of "left
libertarianism."
There is no liberty in socialism and no
socialism in liberty.
Steven Canyon
exactly
--
Steve
Steven Canyon
<scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>"Amadeus Unterhosen" <ama...@unterhosen.net> wrote in message
>news:3vtce1d5u4ntc1jsm...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 02:32:41 GMT, "Scott Erb"
>> <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Jeffrey Turner" <jtu...@localnet.com> wrote in message
>> >news:11eb7bh...@corp.supernews.com...
>> >> Scott Maas wrote:
>
>> >> Capitalist libertarianism is a popular form of idiocy.
>> >
>> >More interesting is Left libertarianism, which recognizes that denial of
>> >liberty can come from big money as well as big government.
>> >
>> Can you tell me who you think is a Left libertarian?
>
>In most texts Left Libertarian is defined as someone who opposes the use of
>power to deny liberty to or oppress or exploit individuals. They usually
>are equally distrustful of big government and big business. Older
>literature often associated left libertarianism with anarchists, now Green
>parties often fit in this mold.
>
>Capitalist libertarianism is most common in the US; the term 'libertarian'
>when used elsewhere (and even in US academic circles) rarely means
>capitalist libertarian, unless the talk is about the libertarian party. The
>idea that libertarian means capitalist is simply wrong.
>
Erb is usually simply wrong. You can't have libertarianism without
capitalism.
--
Steve
Steven Canyon
<scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>I should add that Left Libertarians not only don't trust big money any more
>than big government, but they also reject the capitalist libertarian notion
>that markets somehow yield the best results. They are distrustful of both
>markets and government planned economies, and thus see a need to create a
>check and balance system protecting individual liberty. They also recognize
>that individual liberty requires a social context, so they don't have the
>radical individualism of pure capitalist libertarians.
I should add that anyone that calls themselves a Left Libertarian is
really a socialist that's ashamed of being called a socialist.
--
Steve
Martin McPhillips
I don't know about that. Most normal people experience
shame. Scott doesn't seem to. I think that his
motive with the "left libertarianism" disguise isn't
to cover shame but to practice deception, of which
he is not ashamed.
Scott Erb
> On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 22:01:20 GMT, "Scott Erb"
of
> >power to deny liberty to or oppress or exploit individuals. They usually
> >are equally distrustful of big government and big business. Older
> >literature often associated left libertarianism with anarchists, now
Green
> >parties often fit in this mold.
> >
> >Capitalist libertarianism is most common in the US; the term
'libertarian'
> >when used elsewhere (and even in US academic circles) rarely means
> >capitalist libertarian, unless the talk is about the libertarian party.
The
> >idea that libertarian means capitalist is simply wrong.
> >
> I would think it would be difficult to reconcile libertarianism with
> socialism. One is concerned with the good of the individual and the
> other with the good the other with the good of the general population.
I think left libertarianism reflects a general dissatisfaction with the
materialist orientation of both capitalism and socialism. Green parties are
often called post-materialist (a term coined by Ronald Inglehart, who has
done 30 years of research on the subject), though post-materialism isn't
necessarily associated with any political party. Post-materialism looks at
quality of life issues as more important than economic factors as primary
political values.
There is a profound distrust of the state and governmental power in left
libertarian ideals, meaning that unlike socialists, they don't look to
government primarily as a means of equalizing outcomes or redistributing
wealth. While they do see a role for government far beyond that of
capitalist libertarians, they also tend to promote civil liberties,
government decentralization, increased transparency and accountability.
They see markets in a much friendlier light than socialists too (though
social democrats have been liberalizing for decades now), recognizing that
government planning is economically suicidal, and too much in the way of
forced equalization in outcomes leads to a psychology of dependency and a
lower quality of life.
A left libertarian would say "I would think it would be difficult to
reconcile libertarianism with capitalism. One is concerned with the good of
the individual, and the other with the good of those who can profit in the
marketplace." Left libertarians get the "left" because they agree with the
general view on the left that social structures mean that capitalism creates
benefits for one class over another (the 'winners' can use their wealth to
structure advantages for themselves and their children). They just see the
traditional socialist answer of "big government" as a cure that is at least
as bad as the disease. Instead they emphasize strong participatory
democracy and government that can be active so long as it is transparent and
accountable to the people, and so long as its actions are designed to
maximize liberty for all, equalize opportunity, and not abuse power in the
way governments traditionally have done.
-scott
http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Martin McPhillips
>
> I think left libertarianism reflects a general
> dissatisfaction with the
> materialist orientation of both capitalism and socialism.
I think you've pooped in your pants, which is
actually a step in the right direction for
you.
> Green parties are
> often called post-materialist
"Green" parties are your basic commies obsessing
about the environment. It's a way to draw the
unsuspecting into the latest utopian enterprise
without having to swallow the usual gallon of
shit that accepting straight socialism requires.
Similar angles of fraud are involved in identity
and gender politics, which the Greens also
embrace to flesh out their agenda before getting
down to the basic socialism that always rounds
out their programs.
Amadeus Unterhosen
"Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word:
equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in
liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude."
--Alexis de Tocqueville, 1805-1859
Amadeus Unterhosen
It seems to me that Green Parties are post Communism. After Communism
was defeated, Green parties appeared.
>There is a profound distrust of the state and governmental power in left
>libertarian ideals, meaning that unlike socialists, they don't look to
>government primarily as a means of equalizing outcomes or redistributing
>wealth. While they do see a role for government far beyond that of
>capitalist libertarians, they also tend to promote civil liberties,
>government decentralization, increased transparency and accountability.
It is difficult for me to see Greens as favoring decentralization.
>They see markets in a much friendlier light than socialists too (though
>social democrats have been liberalizing for decades now), recognizing that
>government planning is economically suicidal, and too much in the way of
>forced equalization in outcomes leads to a psychology of dependency and a
>lower quality of life.
>
Any government that allowed Greens to take over would be committing
economic suicide.
>A left libertarian would say "I would think it would be difficult to
>reconcile libertarianism with capitalism. One is concerned with the good of
>the individual, and the other with the good of those who can profit in the
>marketplace." Left libertarians get the "left" because they agree with the
>general view on the left that social structures mean that capitalism creates
>benefits for one class over another (the 'winners' can use their wealth to
>structure advantages for themselves and their children). They just see the
>traditional socialist answer of "big government" as a cure that is at least
>as bad as the disease. Instead they emphasize strong participatory
>democracy and government that can be active so long as it is transparent and
>accountable to the people, and so long as its actions are designed to
>maximize liberty for all, equalize opportunity, and not abuse power in the
>way governments traditionally have done.
>-scott
>http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
>
Why is it that in capitalistic countries that all classes benefit and
in socialistic countries only those who are ruling benefit?
In what socialist country is the government accountable to the people?
>
>
Amadeus Unterhosen
One of the things an observant person notices is that Greens did not
come on to the scene until the fall of Communism. It seems like the
Reds turned Green to keep from disappearing.
Amadeus Unterhosen
You can't have libertarianism without liberty. Communism and liberty
are incompatible.
t1gercat
that that their interests are best served by corporate fascists. They
do this by appealing to the insecurities and prejudices of confused and
unhappy low-brows, by reducing complex issues to simple matters of "we
and them" (where "them" is always some powerful conspiracy of
government bureaucrats, intellectual elitists and minority toadies),
and by conveying the lie that the corporate interests believe in free
markets, libertarian ideals, and the Protestant ethic. They're so good
at spreading this propaganda (and have so much money to do so) that no
matter what happens -- Enron, Worldcomm, inane and baseless wars, the
outsourcing of millions of jobs, huge budget deficits, the destruction
of pensions, the dissolution of unions, the stacking of courts with
right-wing cronies, the shameless award of billions of dollars in
government contracts to corporate fascists, the sexual abuse of
prisoners, the gradual decline of our cities, the shrinking of the
middle class, the assault on our environmental protection laws -- the
shrill drone of propaganda smothers it all.
Unwrap the lies, lance the sore, and out will ooze a cabal of corporate
executives who have been rapaciously gobbling millions, if not
billions, who are ready to exploit and destroy anything -- including
you, your house, your family, your dog, the very air your breathe and
water you drink -- if they can make money doing it.
I suppose you think you're a conservative. Well, if you support Bush,
you're not. You're a poor, benighted dupe who's fallen for the big lie.
There are more real conservatives among liberals than there are among
the corporate fascists. Even socialists believe in free markets for
small businesses, something the corporate fascists want to kill with
shopping malls, franchises, and large warehouse stores filled with
artificially cheap goods made overseas where the environment is filthy,
the governments oppressive and the average worker virtually a serf (a
model they'd dearly like to emulate here).
Arm yourself against the hobgoblins of the right, identity and gender
politics, and pretend that the environment doesn't matter, the rich
have all your best interests at heart, and the good Christians in the
Republican Party would never betray you. It'll be a comfort when your
job is gone, your house is repossessed, your medical bills drive you
into the new bankruptcy from which you can never recover, the doctor
who screwed you can't be sued, and you'll have to work until you die
because you'll never have a pension.
Wexford
t1gercat
you dimwitted dupe. They had their origins in the late 1960s - 1970s.
By 1983, the German Greens were powerful enough to land 28 seats in the
German parliament.
Communism was anything but Green. The Communists, not unlike our own
corporate fascists, despoiled everything they touched.
As for your rhetorical comment on Socialism, why don't you ask the
population of Western Europe? Most Western European countries have been
run under one form of Socialism or another since WWII. The Marxists,
who ran the 2nd World, were abominable, but the Socialists of Western
Europe, despite their foibles, infighting, and arrogance, have created
prosperous, healthy countries with well-educated populations.
Wexford
1783 Dead
Oh, look, it's another Watermelon man, here to rewrite history to try
and match it to his own ignorant little prejudicies.
The Greens have been around in America since at least1972, in Europe
longer than that.
So who the hell was his senility blathering at when he said "tear down
this wall"? Pixies?
"I have not ordered the use of force. I hope
the use of force will not become necessary.
Hopefully this can be done peacefully.
Hopefully we can do this without any
military action."
--Putsch, three months after telling Blair he planned
to attack as soon as he had the phony intelligence
and propaganda all in place.
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_news
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_essays
a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson
Steven Canyon
Blah! Socialism with a different name....
--
Steve
Steven Canyon
You would be thinking correctly, and yet, that is precisely what Left
libertarianism says it will do.
--
Steve
Scott Erb
> On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 00:31:54 GMT, "Scott Erb"
> It seems to me that Green Parties are post Communism. After Communism
> was defeated, Green parties appeared.
No, the Greens emerged in the seventies, strongest in Germany, as an
anti-authoritarian facet of the then "left" (those terms left and right are
becoming obsolete). They were anti-communist then, save a few "red greens"
who later dropped from the movement (they were likely pro-Soviet
infiltrators of the peace movement anyway). Now the Greens in Germany are
the strongest voice of the so-called left against the post-communist PDS
(which recently changed its name to the Linkspartei)
> >There is a profound distrust of the state and governmental power in left
> >libertarian ideals, meaning that unlike socialists, they don't look to
> >government primarily as a means of equalizing outcomes or redistributing
> >wealth. While they do see a role for government far beyond that of
> >capitalist libertarians, they also tend to promote civil liberties,
> >government decentralization, increased transparency and accountability.
>
> It is difficult for me to see Greens as favoring decentralization.
Well, I think you are reacting on meager information.
> >They see markets in a much friendlier light than socialists too (though
> >social democrats have been liberalizing for decades now), recognizing
that
> >government planning is economically suicidal, and too much in the way of
> >forced equalization in outcomes leads to a psychology of dependency and a
> >lower quality of life.
> >
> Any government that allowed Greens to take over would be committing
> economic suicide.
I doubt that very much.
I'm not sure what you mean. If you're talking about communism, well, yeah,
that was an evil and corrupt system, doomed to fail. If you're talking
social democracy such as in much of Europe, benefits were diffuse, though
there were other economic and political problems that emerged (just as there
are here).
> In what socialist country is the government accountable to the people?
Sweden? Does that count as "socialist" to you? What do you mean by
"socialist?"
Left libertarianism is an ALTERNATIVE to socialism, or perhaps the left
finally realizing that big government is not its friend.
Scott Erb
"1783 Dead" <zepp1783#2211finestplanet.com> wrote in message
news:bb3ee1985qfbanp3o...@4ax.com...
> >One of the things an observant person notices is that Greens did not
> >come on to the scene until the fall of Communism. It seems like the
> >Reds turned Green to keep from disappearing.
>
> Oh, look, it's another Watermelon man, here to rewrite history to try
> and match it to his own ignorant little prejudicies.
>
> The Greens have been around in America since at least1972, in Europe
> longer than that.
>
> So who the hell was his senility blathering at when he said "tear down
> this wall"? Pixies?
Clearly a lot of posters don't really understand the dynamics of how
political ideas have been developing. Seeing the world as a left-right
dichochotomy was always vastly oversimplified, and now completely obsolete.
Some people want to try to fight communism, but communism is long dead as a
real force.
Steven Canyon
<scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>Clearly a lot of posters don't really understand the dynamics of how
>political ideas have been developing. Seeing the world as a left-right
>dichochotomy was always vastly oversimplified, and now completely obsolete.
>Some people want to try to fight communism, but communism is long dead as a
>real force.
>
<LOL> Scott Erb likes to imagine that he's on the cutting edge of
U.S. political theory. That's pretty funny since he's a socialist,
which puts him in line with about 0.5 percent of the population.
Lately, he's been promoting the concept of <LOL> "left libertarianism"
which is what you'd get if you could combine leftism, the theory that
government should become everyone's mommy and daddy, and
libertarianism, the theory that government's purpose should not go
beyond protecting everyone's life, liberty, and property.
--
Steve
Steven Canyon
<scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>No, the Greens emerged in the seventies, strongest in Germany, as an
>anti-authoritarian facet of the then "left" (those terms left and right are
>becoming obsolete).
<ROTFLMAO> Erb is expressing his fantasies as if they were fact.
>They were anti-communist then, save a few "red greens"
>who later dropped from the movement (they were likely pro-Soviet
>infiltrators of the peace movement anyway). Now the Greens in Germany are
>the strongest voice of the so-called left against the post-communist PDS
>(which recently changed its name to the Linkspartei)
--
Steve
1783 Dead
They need to fight AGAINST SOMETHING, because they have little or
nothing positive to offer.
"Terrorists" are the bogeymen du jour, of course, but for sheer
credibility, they can't hold a candle to the old Kruschev-era commies.
Some right wingers just can't let go of that.
Odd, though. Nazis were even more dangerous, more powerful, more
willing to destroy America.
They never complain about them, except when they try to pretend that
Nazis were commies.
Steven Canyon
<zepp1783#2211finestplanet.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 10:40:23 GMT, "Scott Erb"
><scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"1783 Dead" <zepp1783#2211finestplanet.com> wrote in message
>>news:bb3ee1985qfbanp3o...@4ax.com...
>>> On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 03:12:40 GMT, Amadeus Unterhosen
>>> <ama...@unterhosen.net> wrote:
>>
>>> >One of the things an observant person notices is that Greens did not
>>> >come on to the scene until the fall of Communism. It seems like the
>>> >Reds turned Green to keep from disappearing.
>>>
>>> Oh, look, it's another Watermelon man, here to rewrite history to try
>>> and match it to his own ignorant little prejudicies.
>>>
>>> The Greens have been around in America since at least1972, in Europe
>>> longer than that.
>>>
>>> So who the hell was his senility blathering at when he said "tear down
>>> this wall"? Pixies?
>>
>>Clearly a lot of posters don't really understand the dynamics of how
>>political ideas have been developing. Seeing the world as a left-right
>>dichochotomy was always vastly oversimplified, and now completely obsolete.
>>Some people want to try to fight communism, but communism is long dead as a
>>real force.
>>
>They need to fight AGAINST SOMETHING, because they have little or
>nothing positive to offer.
<LOL> Irony anyone?
>"Terrorists" are the bogeymen du jour, of course, but for sheer
>credibility, they can't hold a candle to the old Kruschev-era commies.
Yeah, like the USA wasn't attacked by terrorists..
>Some right wingers just can't let go of that.
>
>Odd, though. Nazis were even more dangerous, more powerful, more
>willing to destroy America.
Not odd at all that Greywolf's perspective is a bit odd.
--
"Me, I'm a half-ass empath, and if I ingest the right chemicals,
telepath too -- but I *hate* it. Folks don't *like* it when ye
look inside their heads. Lost me some friends that way, and it
sucks. I do psychometry sometimes -- pick up vibes off objects
or things. And that sucks, too. Ever hold a murder weapon in
yer hand, and flash on it? You don't want to. I was handed a
real Nazi dagger once, by an asshole pseudo-friend who thought
it'd be a real trip. When I got done pukin' I busted his nose
for him."
--Greywolf Zepp Jamieson Sep 13 1997
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.horror.werewolves/msg/aa602f6537936ca5?hl=en&
Amadeus Unterhosen
He seems to be reluctant to tell us the names of prominent Left
libertarians. Is it because they are truly socialists?
Amadeus Unterhosen
Can you give me the names of some prominent Left libertarians?
Scott Erb
I'd actually put Joschka Fischer in there (German Green foreign minister),
and I could name other German politicians, as well some political theorists.
Germany's situation is interesting, as the Social Democrats were unable to
reform to deal with new economic realities (Gerhard Schroeder tried, but
couldn't pull a Tony Blair), and the Greens are emerging as the only party
on the so-called left that has much to offer. The Socialists (the new
Linkspartei) are out of step with the economic realities.
In America I'd probably put Ralph Nader in that camp.
Most American politicians are ideologically liberal, from George W. Bush to
Ted Kennedy. They just espouse different kinds of liberalism (I'm using
terms as they are used in political philosophy, not American political
jargon -- Ronald Reagan was a liberal, for instance). I don't know if I
could name any prominent socialists in the US either beyond just naming the
fringe parties. America's simply full of liberals, though many call
themselves "conservative."
Rather than talk about names of others, I'd rather discuss ideas. Here's
where I am taking the test at:
http://politicalcompass.org/
As you can see, I'm in what they label "left-libertarian," though my social
libertarian score is extremely high, while I'm closer to the center on
economics:
Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -2.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.41
Authoritarian
Left
Right
Libertarian
Scott Erb
representation of my position. Basically, I was near the anarchist point in
terms of authoritarian-libertarian, while I was slightly left of center on
economics. Gandhi, the Dalai Lama and Nelson Mandela were in my quadrant in
the examples they give on their results web site, so I guess they'd be
prominent left libertarians. All of those were farther left than me
economically, and I was far closer to the anarchist position in terms of
politics (I think the Dalai Lama was closest to where I ended up).
Milton Friedman was far to the right on economics, but close to the center
on the authoritarian-anarchist scale. Margaret Thatcher was high on the
authoritarian scale, but far to the right on economics. Hitler was (not
surprisingly) at fascism on their scale, and slightly right on economics.
Stalin was near fascism on the authoritarian scale, but far left on
economics.
Other examples they give concerning current leaders: Left-authoritarian has
Saddam Hussein, Robert Mugabe, and Pope Benedict XVI.
Right-authoritarian has: Jacques Chirac, Gerhard Schroeder (though he is
closest to dead center), Tony Blair, Paul Martin, Silvio Berlusconi, George
W. Bush, and Ariel Sharon -- most current political leaders.
Right-libertarian has: nobody listed (from current leaders).
I don't know how valid this all is, but at first glance the placements
(including my own) make sense.
"Scott Erb" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:PcPFe.496449$cg1.3...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Steven Canyon
That'd be my guess. Erb has been pumping socialist hot air for a long
time, trying to redefine it, trying to gloss it over, trying to make
it smell better, (etc) See below:
--
Here's Martin McPhillip's brilliant disassembling of
Scott Erb from back in the good old old days.
**************************************************************************
Here you bash Pale Rider for defining socialism
as the people "owning the means of production"--
11/9/99
Pale Rider:
>Look, Scott, socialism is where the people
>own the means of production collectively and
>capitalism is where they own it
>individually.
Erb:
Wrong. There are many different forms of
each ideology, it can't be so
simplistically turned into a dichotomy.
Social Democracy in fact is defined
as a type of socialism which embraces
private property. You need to learn more
about the variations within the ideologies.
--------
Here you bash Schneider with the same
definition of socialism that you bash Pale
Rider for using--
4/10/97
Erb:
Mikey, you really do need to learn how
concepts are defined before you use
them. Socialism is not the same as state
capitalism of the sorts the East
Asian NICs used to industrialized and enter
the world economy. Socialism is
the state OWNING the means of production.
State planning is something
different. It can be criticized, but your
attempt to argue by labelling is
not only logically fallcious, but you don't
even know what the concepts mean!
You really aren't too bright, are you?
cheers, scott
--------
Here you are asking Pale Rider "Where do
you get this stuff" for using the definition of socialism
you used when you told Schneider that "you
don't even know what these concepts mean!"--
11/10/99--
Pale Rider:
>Defined by who? If the MOP is not
>owned collectively it ain't
>socialism. That's what socialism is.
Erb:
You assert that, but its NOT TRUE!
You are simply wrong. Where
do you get this stuff?
----------------
Here you say that "social democracy"
is a form of socialism, insisting that the
"collective ownership" definition of socialism
is only properly used to define "orthodox Marxism"--
11/9/99--
Erb:
Social Democracy is a form of socialism
defined by its acceptance
of markets and private ownership of the means
of production.
Pale Rider:
> In order for an economic system to
> be defined as socialism the means
> of production must be owned by the
> people collectively, otherwise it
> isn't socialism because that's
> what socialism is.
Erb:
No, you're mixing orthodox Marxian
thought with socialism. Marx's
"scientific socialism" (an
objectivist philosophy based on the
truthbeing knowable and objectively
provable) had that kind of statement,
but many socialists of different
outlooks disagree considerably with
Marx on this.
-------------
Here, when Sabotta calls Sweden "socialist"
and is answered by Anders that Sweden is
not socialist, you agree with Anders, and
draw a sharp distinction between "social
democracy" and "socialism"---
11/14/95
John Sabotta:
>>But since virtually everybody - including
>>Sweden's admirers - consider Sweden to
>>be some form of socialist state,
>>your insistance that it is not
>>is unusually perverse.
Anders (from Sweden, apparently):
>In my opinion it is your "everybody knows"
>arguments that are perverse. If you look
>at the facts you will find that Sweden
>is no less capitalistic and in many
>ways more free, compared to the US.
Erb:
Quite true. The poster apparently doesn't
understand the difference between Social
Democracy and Socialism as defined as a
planned economy with the state owning the
means of production. People throw out
socialism to describe everything they
don't like (here in Maine I heard someone
accuse another of being a socialist
because they supported a manditory seat belt
law!).
-------------
Here, without mentioning the term "social
democracy" you refer to the "Swedish Socialists"
and the system they created in, I assume, Sweden,
and in this context you allud
Amadeus Unterhosen
<scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>"Amadeus Unterhosen" <ama...@unterhosen.net> wrote in message
>news:qndfe1t50fs51vetq...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 10:38:27 GMT, "Scott Erb"
>> <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>> >Left libertarianism is an ALTERNATIVE to socialism, or perhaps the left
>> >finally realizing that big government is not its friend.
>> >
>> Can you give me the names of some prominent Left libertarians?
>
>I'd actually put Joschka Fischer in there (German Green foreign minister),
>and I could name other German politicians, as well some political theorists.
>Germany's situation is interesting, as the Social Democrats were unable to
>reform to deal with new economic realities (Gerhard Schroeder tried, but
>couldn't pull a Tony Blair), and the Greens are emerging as the only party
>on the so-called left that has much to offer. The Socialists (the new
>Linkspartei) are out of step with the economic realities.
>
I have never heard of Fischer. If he a Green; he's probably a
socialist.
>In America I'd probably put Ralph Nader in that camp.
>
Nader in my mind is a socialist. Socialism has such a bad reputation
that nobody will admit to being one in this country.
>Most American politicians are ideologically liberal, from George W. Bush to
>Ted Kennedy. They just espouse different kinds of liberalism (I'm using
>terms as they are used in political philosophy, not American political
>jargon -- Ronald Reagan was a liberal, for instance). I don't know if I
>could name any prominent socialists in the US either beyond just naming the
>fringe parties. America's simply full of liberals, though many call
>themselves "conservative."
>
I once considered myself to be a liberal but by today's standards of
liberalism; I'm anything but. I still hold to those principles of
liberalism but the liberals of today call it conservative ism.
>Rather than talk about names of others, I'd rather discuss ideas. Here's
>where I am taking the test at:
>http://politicalcompass.org/
>
>As you can see, I'm in what they label "left-libertarian," though my social
>libertarian score is extremely high, while I'm closer to the center on
>economics:
>Your political compass
>Economic Left/Right: -2.75
>Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.41
> Authoritarian
> Left
>
Here is a test to see how Liberal/Left libertarian you are.
I am only in favor of one.
I would appreciate you grading me.
You say you are a liberal.
Do you believe the following?
1. Standards for admissions to universities, fire departments, etc.
should be lowered for people of color.
2. Bilingual education for children of immigrants, rather than
immersion in English, is good for them and for America.
3. Murderers should never be put to death.
4. During the Cold War, America should have adopted a nuclear arms
freeze.
5. Colleges should not allow ROTC programs.
6. It was wrong to wage war against Saddam Hussein in the Gulf War.
7. Poor parents should not be allowed to have vouchers to send
their children to private schools.
8. It is good that trial lawyers and teachers unions are the two
biggest contributors to the Democratic Party.
9. Marriage should be redefined from male-female to any two people.
10. A married couple should not have more of a right to adopt a
child than two men or two women.
11. The Boy Scouts should not be allowed to use parks or any other
public places and should be prohibited from using churches and
synagogues for their meetings.
12. The present high tax rates are good.
13. Speech codes on college campuses are good and American values
are bad.
14. The Israelis and Palestinians are morally equivalent.
15. The United Nations is a moral force for good in the world, and
therefore America should be subservient to it and such international
institutions as a world court.
16. It is good that colleges have dropped hundreds of men's sports
teams in order to meet gender-based quotas.
17. No abortions can be labeled immoral.
18. Restaurants should be prohibited by law from allowing customers
to choose between a smoking and a non-smoking section.
19. High schools should make condoms available to students and teach
them how to use them.
20. Racial profiling for terrorists is wrong -- a white American
grandmother should as likely be searched as a Saudi young male.
21. Racism and poverty -- not a lack of fathers and a crisis of
values -- are the primary causes of violent crime in the inner city.
22. It is wrong and unconstitutional for students to be told, "God
bless you" at their graduation.
23. No culture is morally superior to any other.
Those are all liberal positions. How many of them do you hold?
Amadeus Unterhosen
<scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>OK, I don't think my cut and paste worked, I didn't get the graphic
>representation of my position. Basically, I was near the anarchist point in
>terms of authoritarian-libertarian, while I was slightly left of center on
>economics. Gandhi, the Dalai Lama and Nelson Mandela were in my quadrant in
>the examples they give on their results web site, so I guess they'd be
>prominent left libertarians. All of those were farther left than me
>economically, and I was far closer to the anarchist position in terms of
>politics (I think the Dalai Lama was closest to where I ended up).
>
Those three were not in my quadrant at all. I had stopped being an
idealistic utopian a long time ago. FDR, HST and JFK would be in my
quadrant.
>Milton Friedman was far to the right on economics, but close to the center
>on the authoritarian-anarchist scale. Margaret Thatcher was high on the
>authoritarian scale, but far to the right on economics. Hitler was (not
>surprisingly) at fascism on their scale, and slightly right on economics.
>Stalin was near fascism on the authoritarian scale, but far left on
>economics.
>
Friedman, Thatcher and Hitler were anti-communists. National
Socialism was in competition with Communism for world domination.
Friedman and Thatcher opposed both Hitler and Stalin.
>Other examples they give concerning current leaders: Left-authoritarian has
>Saddam Hussein, Robert Mugabe, and Pope Benedict XVI.
>Right-authoritarian has: Jacques Chirac, Gerhard Schroeder (though he is
>closest to dead center), Tony Blair, Paul Martin, Silvio Berlusconi, George
>W. Bush, and Ariel Sharon -- most current political leaders.
>Right-libertarian has: nobody listed (from current leaders).
>
Given your definitions; would you support a right authoritarian who
was doing his best to stop a left authoritarian from killing you or
taking your freedom?
Amadeus Unterhosen
A Watermelon man-green on the outside, red on the inside.
BY MICHAEL VASQUEZ
A city press release that promised a ''Ghetto Style Talent Show'' and
''Watermelon Eating Contest'' during a summer camp picnic in the heart
of Miami's black community drew sharp outrage on Monday from some
Model City residents who live near the park where the events are
scheduled.
The press release said, ``campers who think they know the true meaning
of ghetto style will take to the stage to prove just how ghetto they
are.''
''We're not trying to be ghetto, we're trying to come out of the
ghetto and be a civilized people,'' said Model City resident Grady
Muhammad, who added that the billed talent show portrayed the
neighborhood's youth as ''subhuman'' or ``animals.''
Likewise, the watermeloneating contest echoes unflattering stereotypes
and is ''an insult to black history and black pride,'' said Marvin
Dunn, a Florida International University psychology professor and an
expert on Miami's historically tense race relations.
The events are part of a grand finale picnic for Miami's summer-camp
program, which provides affordable summer camps for thousands of
children aged 7-13 citywide. Thousands of children from across Miami
are expected to attend the picnic on Friday at Hadley Park, 1300 NW
50th St., which will also feature a chess tournament and sidewalk art
contest.
Scott Erb
"Amadeus Unterhosen" <ama...@unterhosen.net> wrote in message
news:khqfe1parog2a8o8l...@4ax.com...
Amadeus Unterhosen
<scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Based on a quick read, I hold 9 of those 25 positions.
>
I'd say by today's standards, you are not very liberal. The man who
put together the questions maintains that there are very few really
liberal people in this country. Many people who believe themselves to
be 'nice people' think they are liberal but would not subscribe to
many of those positions.
Amadeus Unterhosen
Amadeus Unterhosen
wrote:
>Green parties were formed in Europe long before the fall of Communism,
>you dimwitted dupe. They had their origins in the late 1960s - 1970s.
>By 1983, the German Greens were powerful enough to land 28 seats in the
>German parliament.
>
>Communism was anything but Green. The Communists, not unlike our own
>corporate fascists, despoiled everything they touched.
>
What do you think has been despoiled in our country?
Do you think our culture has been despoiled by corporations like
Time-Warner, Disney and other media-entertainment corps.?
>As for your rhetorical comment on Socialism, why don't you ask the
>population of Western Europe? Most Western European countries have been
>run under one form of Socialism or another since WWII. The Marxists,
>who ran the 2nd World, were abominable, but the Socialists of Western
>Europe, despite their foibles, infighting, and arrogance, have created
>prosperous, healthy countries with well-educated populations.
>
>Wexford
Do you think the US is a prosperous, healthy country with a well
educated population?
Amadeus Unterhosen
<scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
I'm not too sure Sweden is a truely socialist country.
Economy:
Aided by peace and neutrality for the whole 20th century, Sweden has
achieved an enviable standard of living under a mixed system of
high-tech capitalism and extensive welfare benefits. It has a modern
distribution system, excellent internal and external communications,
and a skilled labor force. Timber, hydropower, and iron ore constitute
the resource base of an economy heavily oriented toward foreign trade.
Privately owned firms account for about 90% of industrial output, of
which the engineering sector accounts for 50% of output and exports.
Agriculture accounts for only 2% of GDP and 2% of the jobs. The
government's commitment to fiscal discipline resulted in a substantial
budgetary surplus in 2001, which was cut by more than half in 2002,
due to the global economic slowdown, declining revenue, and increased
spending. The Swedish central bank (the Riksbank) focuses on price
stability with its inflation target of 2%. Growth remained sluggish in
2003, but picked up in 2004. Presumably because of generous sicktime
benefits, Swedish workers report in sick more often than other
Europeans. On 14 September 2003, Swedish voters turned down entry into
the euro system, concerned about the impact on democracy and
sovereignty.
Scott Erb
> On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 17:24:58 GMT, "Scott Erb"
> <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >OK, I don't think my cut and paste worked, I didn't get the graphic
> >representation of my position. Basically, I was near the anarchist point
in
> >terms of authoritarian-libertarian, while I was slightly left of center
on
> >economics. Gandhi, the Dalai Lama and Nelson Mandela were in my quadrant
in
> >the examples they give on their results web site, so I guess they'd be
> >prominent left libertarians. All of those were farther left than me
> >economically, and I was far closer to the anarchist position in terms of
> >politics (I think the Dalai Lama was closest to where I ended up).
> >
> Those three were not in my quadrant at all. I had stopped being an
> idealistic utopian a long time ago. FDR, HST and JFK would be in my
> quadrant.
I consider myself a pragmatic idealist, but have spiritual beliefs which
probably have commonalities with those in my quadrant.
> >Milton Friedman was far to the right on economics, but close to the
center
> >on the authoritarian-anarchist scale. Margaret Thatcher was high on the
> >authoritarian scale, but far to the right on economics. Hitler was (not
> >surprisingly) at fascism on their scale, and slightly right on economics.
> >Stalin was near fascism on the authoritarian scale, but far left on
> >economics.
> >
> Friedman, Thatcher and Hitler were anti-communists. National
> Socialism was in competition with Communism for world domination.
> Friedman and Thatcher opposed both Hitler and Stalin.
Most people opposed Nazism and Communism, to be sure.
> >Other examples they give concerning current leaders: Left-authoritarian
has
> >Saddam Hussein, Robert Mugabe, and Pope Benedict XVI.
> >Right-authoritarian has: Jacques Chirac, Gerhard Schroeder (though he is
> >closest to dead center), Tony Blair, Paul Martin, Silvio Berlusconi,
George
> >W. Bush, and Ariel Sharon -- most current political leaders.
> >Right-libertarian has: nobody listed (from current leaders).
> >
> Given your definitions; would you support a right authoritarian who
> was doing his best to stop a left authoritarian from killing you or
> taking your freedom?
The way you word that scenario sounds a bit silly. I'd choose my support
based on my own principles and moral guidelines. I'd very possibly support
neither authoritarian. (And of course, the question could be reversed:
would you or I support a left authoritarian who was trying to stop a right
authoritarian from taking away yours or my freedom?) The answer to the
question would be the same either way.
Amadeus Unterhosen
<scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
I looked at this 'test' and found it to be one of the most shallowest
articles I've ever seen. It appears to be a list of slogans which ask
you if you agree or disagree and if I answered them it would tell you
or anybody nothing about me or my political philosophy. It might tell
you my reaction to silly political slogans.
Scott Erb
> On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 21:06:41 GMT, "Scott Erb"
> <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >Based on a quick read, I hold 9 of those 25 positions.
> >
> I'd say by today's standards, you are not very liberal.
I may have miscounted. I was on my way out of the house. I'll go through
it again.
> The man who
> put together the questions maintains that there are very few really
> liberal people in this country. Many people who believe themselves to
> be 'nice people' think they are liberal but would not subscribe to
> many of those positions.
I think perhaps that the boogey man of "liberalism" that gets paraded by
talk radio types is a caricature. Most liberals are very reasonable people.
> >> 1. Standards for admissions to universities, fire departments, etc.
> >> should be lowered for people of color.
No, though in some cases I can see reason to give preference at universities
for the benefit of the university. Overall, though, I don't think lower
standards helps minorities. There are other ways to deal with structural
inequities.
> >> 2. Bilingual education for children of immigrants, rather than
> >> immersion in English, is good for them and for America.
Again no. That seems unrealistic as a principle -- how many different
languages would be needed? I can see pragmatic reasons for limited
bilingual education with the goal of getting children to be able to function
fully in English, but that would be focused mostly on teaching English!
> >> 3. Murderers should never be put to death.
Yes. My moral principles (like those of many conservatives such as the
Pope) say that humans should not be killing others, even if others have
killed.
> >> 4. During the Cold War, America should have adopted a nuclear arms
> >> freeze.
Yes -- I think Communism was collapsing and a freeze would have saved money.
Luckily Reagan recognized Gorbachev's sincereity and stopped the defense
build up after Gorbachev came to power, allowing Gorbachev elbow room to
stay in and make the reforms that caused the USSR's demise.
> >> 5. Colleges should not allow ROTC programs.
No. I personally am anti-militarist -- hanging around with Gandhi, Mandela
and the Dalai Lama in my quadrant has an impact :-) -- but others can make
their own choices, I am not here to force my morality on others.
> >> 6. It was wrong to wage war against Saddam Hussein in the Gulf War.
Yes. The 1991 war is easier to justify than the current war, but both were
wrong.
> >> 7. Poor parents should not be allowed to have vouchers to send
> >> their children to private schools.
Uncertain. I haven't thought through this issue enough to have a stance one
way or another.
> >> 8. It is good that trial lawyers and teachers unions are the two
> >> biggest contributors to the Democratic Party.
No (though Judge Roberts is a trial lawyer, and the GOP doesn't seem to have
a problem with him!) I don't think such focused donorship is good for the
Democratic Party. That gives particular groups potentially too much power
over party direction.
> >> 9. Marriage should be redefined from male-female to any two people.
No -- though if you worded the question differently it could become yes.
Any two people make possible father and daughter, sister and brother, etc.
I think same sex marriage is fine, but any two people potentially would
allow children to marry.
> >> 10. A married couple should not have more of a right to adopt a
> >> child than two men or two women.
A qualified yes. I'd allow gay marriage and then give equal rights to gays
to adopt. But I'd still want the couples -- gay or straight -- to be
married (have undertaken that commitment to the relationship).
> >> 11. The Boy Scouts should not be allowed to use parks or any other
> >> public places and should be prohibited from using churches and
> >> synagogues for their meetings.
No. I don't agree with much of what they do (anti-authoritarian that I am,
I hate uniforms), but let's not pick on them too much.
> >> 12. The present high tax rates are good.
No, I'd prefer a flat tax or mildly progressive near-flat tax with NO
loopholes.
> >> 13. Speech codes on college campuses are good and American values
> >> are bad.
Working on a college campus, my view is that universities are a place for
pure free speech, and there should never be a limitation except in cases of
absolute malicious intent (e.g., if I were to start screaming insults at
someone because they bumped into me). Universities are for the free
exchange of ideas, and speech must not be limited.
> >> 14. The Israelis and Palestinians are morally equivalent.
No, but I don't necessarily agree that the two sides can be grouped.
Palestinians wanting peaceful independence are morally superior to Israelis
wanting to take all the land on the West Bank for themselves, even by use of
ethnic cleansing. Morality is individual, not collective.
> >> 15. The United Nations is a moral force for good in the world, and
> >> therefore America should be subservient to it and such international
> >> institutions as a world court.
Yikes, this is so badly worded that I have to say NO, even though I'm a
strong supporter of the UN. No nation should be "subservient" to the UN,
though I do think more power can be given to the World Court and ICC, and in
general the UN is an excellent facilitator of cooperation.
> >> 16. It is good that colleges have dropped hundreds of men's sports
> >> teams in order to meet gender-based quotas.
No, though I can't say it's a tragedy either.
> >> 17. No abortions can be labeled immoral.
Again, the wording here is bad. I am pro-choice, but clearly there are many
abortions that are immoral.
> >> 18. Restaurants should be prohibited by law from allowing customers
> >> to choose between a smoking and a non-smoking section.
No. I'm a non-smoker, but think that some of this has gone too far.
> >> 19. High schools should make condoms available to students and teach
> >> them how to use them.
Yes, that seems reasonable.
> >> 20. Racial profiling for terrorists is wrong -- a white American
> >> grandmother should as likely be searched as a Saudi young male.
No.
> >> 21. Racism and poverty -- not a lack of fathers and a crisis of
> >> values -- are the primary causes of violent crime in the inner city.
Yes, though I'd say racism and poverty are part of the cause of the 'lack of
fathers and the crisis of values.' Poverty subverts values.
> >> 22. It is wrong and unconstitutional for students to be told, "God
> >> bless you" at their graduation.
Poorly worded. I went to a Lutheran College, and of course it was expected
that someone would say that at our graduation. But for high school students
in public schools, such a proclamation shouldn't be made by a school
official or someone acting in the capacity of representing a school. But if
your Grandma wants to see it after the ceremony, that's fine.
> >> 23. No culture is morally superior to any other.
Can a 'culture' be morally superior? I guess so, though I still focus on
individual acts to determine morality.
So I'll recount:
6 Yes, the rest No. But the wording was poor on many, some would have been
"yes" answers if the wording had been slightly different.
Scott Erb
> >Sweden? Does that count as "socialist" to you? What do you mean by
> >"socialist?"
>
> I'm not too sure Sweden is a truely socialist country.
I'm not sure how you are defining socialism. If you mean communism and
centrally planned economies, then I'd say that kind of socialism is a total
failure.
The Left hopefully has learned that big government is not its friend, and
that the goal of human liberation cannot be achieved from the top down.
Scott Erb
Given the 23 questions in your test, most of which were really poorly
worded, the irony is amusing.
I think your test was far inferior to that one, and I wonder if you
understand what goes into such tests?
In any event, your criticism would be more believable if it wasn't for the
sloganistic and poorly worded set of questions you posted for me to answer.
Unlike you, I pointed out how the questions were poorly worded, and answered
them nonetheless. You seem to have ran away from the test throwing insults
behind you.
I think I won this round.
Amadeus Unterhosen
<scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
I'll take that as a negative.
Amadeus Unterhosen
<scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>"Amadeus Unterhosen" <ama...@unterhosen.net> wrote in message
>news:kmvfe1lk7q0q7fclp...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 21:06:41 GMT, "Scott Erb"
>> <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Based on a quick read, I hold 9 of those 25 positions.
>> >
>> I'd say by today's standards, you are not very liberal.
>
>I may have miscounted. I was on my way out of the house. I'll go through
>it again.
>
>> The man who
>> put together the questions maintains that there are very few really
>> liberal people in this country. Many people who believe themselves to
>> be 'nice people' think they are liberal but would not subscribe to
>> many of those positions.
>
>I think perhaps that the boogey man of "liberalism" that gets paraded by
>talk radio types is a caricature. Most liberals are very reasonable people.
>
>> >> 1. Standards for admissions to universities, fire departments, etc.
>> >> should be lowered for people of color.
>
>No, though in some cases I can see reason to give preference at universities
>for the benefit of the university. Overall, though, I don't think lower
>standards helps minorities. There are other ways to deal with structural
>inequities.
>
That sounds like a John Kerry answer. No but then again yes.
>> >> 2. Bilingual education for children of immigrants, rather than
>> >> immersion in English, is good for them and for America.
>
>Again no. That seems unrealistic as a principle -- how many different
>languages would be needed? I can see pragmatic reasons for limited
>bilingual education with the goal of getting children to be able to function
>fully in English, but that would be focused mostly on teaching English!
>
That sounds like a no.
>> >> 3. Murderers should never be put to death.
>
>Yes. My moral principles (like those of many conservatives such as the
>Pope) say that humans should not be killing others, even if others have
>killed.
>
Strait forward answer.
>> >> 4. During the Cold War, America should have adopted a nuclear arms
>> >> freeze.
>
>Yes -- I think Communism was collapsing and a freeze would have saved money.
>Luckily Reagan recognized Gorbachev's sincereity and stopped the defense
>build up after Gorbachev came to power, allowing Gorbachev elbow room to
>stay in and make the reforms that caused the USSR's demise.
>
>> >> 5. Colleges should not allow ROTC programs.
>
>No. I personally am anti-militarist -- hanging around with Gandhi, Mandela
>and the Dalai Lama in my quadrant has an impact :-) -- but others can make
>their own choices, I am not here to force my morality on others.
>
>> >> 6. It was wrong to wage war against Saddam Hussein in the Gulf War.
>
>Yes. The 1991 war is easier to justify than the current war, but both were
>wrong.
>
>> >> 7. Poor parents should not be allowed to have vouchers to send
>> >> their children to private schools.
>
>Uncertain. I haven't thought through this issue enough to have a stance one
>way or another.
>
This is the one I agree with.
>> >> 8. It is good that trial lawyers and teachers unions are the two
>> >> biggest contributors to the Democratic Party.
>
>No (though Judge Roberts is a trial lawyer, and the GOP doesn't seem to have
>a problem with him!) I don't think such focused donorship is good for the
>Democratic Party. That gives particular groups potentially too much power
>over party direction.
>
>> >> 9. Marriage should be redefined from male-female to any two people.
>
>No -- though if you worded the question differently it could become yes.
>Any two people make possible father and daughter, sister and brother, etc.
>I think same sex marriage is fine, but any two people potentially would
>allow children to marry.
>
Why only same sex couples?
>> >> 10. A married couple should not have more of a right to adopt a
>> >> child than two men or two women.
>
>A qualified yes. I'd allow gay marriage and then give equal rights to gays
>to adopt. But I'd still want the couples -- gay or straight -- to be
>married (have undertaken that commitment to the relationship).
>
>> >> 11. The Boy Scouts should not be allowed to use parks or any other
>> >> public places and should be prohibited from using churches and
>> >> synagogues for their meetings.
>
>No. I don't agree with much of what they do (anti-authoritarian that I am,
>I hate uniforms), but let's not pick on them too much.
>
>> >> 12. The present high tax rates are good.
>
>No, I'd prefer a flat tax or mildly progressive near-flat tax with NO
>loopholes.
>
I sought of agree with this even though my taxes would be raised. The
people who really like the system the way it is are the ones who pay
no taxes.
>> >> 13. Speech codes on college campuses are good and American values
>> >> are bad.
>
>Working on a college campus, my view is that universities are a place for
>pure free speech, and there should never be a limitation except in cases of
>absolute malicious intent (e.g., if I were to start screaming insults at
>someone because they bumped into me). Universities are for the free
>exchange of ideas, and speech must not be limited.
>
I take it that means that you would allow speech that you disagree
with. Even Conservatives speaking on campus?
>> >> 14. The Israelis and Palestinians are morally equivalent.
>
>No, but I don't necessarily agree that the two sides can be grouped.
>Palestinians wanting peaceful independence are morally superior to Israelis
>wanting to take all the land on the West Bank for themselves, even by use of
>ethnic cleansing. Morality is individual, not collective.
>
I can't believe this one!! You say you are non-violent and against
the taking of human life but you favor people who use those tactic
indiscriminately against innocent people. WOW!!
>> >> 15. The United Nations is a moral force for good in the world, and
>> >> therefore America should be subservient to it and such international
>> >> institutions as a world court.
>
>Yikes, this is so badly worded that I have to say NO, even though I'm a
>strong supporter of the UN. No nation should be "subservient" to the UN,
>though I do think more power can be given to the World Court and ICC, and in
>general the UN is an excellent facilitator of cooperation.
>
>> >> 16. It is good that colleges have dropped hundreds of men's sports
>> >> teams in order to meet gender-based quotas.
>
>No, though I can't say it's a tragedy either.
>
>> >> 17. No abortions can be labeled immoral.
>
>Again, the wording here is bad. I am pro-choice, but clearly there are many
>abortions that are immoral.
>
Why are you so hesitant to oppose the taking of human life?
>> >> 18. Restaurants should be prohibited by law from allowing customers
>> >> to choose between a smoking and a non-smoking section.
>
>No. I'm a non-smoker, but think that some of this has gone too far.
>
>> >> 19. High schools should make condoms available to students and teach
>> >> them how to use them.
>
>Yes, that seems reasonable.
>
>> >> 20. Racial profiling for terrorists is wrong -- a white American
>> >> grandmother should as likely be searched as a Saudi young male.
>
>No.
>
>> >> 21. Racism and poverty -- not a lack of fathers and a crisis of
>> >> values -- are the primary causes of violent crime in the inner city.
>
>Yes, though I'd say racism and poverty are part of the cause of the 'lack of
>fathers and the crisis of values.' Poverty subverts values.
>
I believe that crime causes poverty.
>> >> 22. It is wrong and unconstitutional for students to be told, "God
>> >> bless you" at their graduation.
>
>Poorly worded. I went to a Lutheran College, and of course it was expected
>that someone would say that at our graduation. But for high school students
>in public schools, such a proclamation shouldn't be made by a school
>official or someone acting in the capacity of representing a school. But if
>your Grandma wants to see it after the ceremony, that's fine.
>
>> >> 23. No culture is morally superior to any other.
>
>Can a 'culture' be morally superior? I guess so, though I still focus on
>individual acts to determine morality.
>
>So I'll recount:
>
>6 Yes, the rest No. But the wording was poor on many, some would have been
>"yes" answers if the wording had been slightly different.
>
To be 100% liberal you would have needed 23 of 23. Six does not make
you very liberal. The man who made this up has proved his point.
Many of those who believe themselves to be liberal are not very
liberal at all.
But then again there are some places where you come down on the side
of evil, so that may be one reason you consider yourself liberal.
Siding with mass murderers, rapists, brutal, abortionists government
does have a tenancy to put people in the Liberal camp.
Amadeus Unterhosen
<scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
They were written exactly specifically identifying a position; not a
slogan. Maybe that was the problem.
>I think your test was far inferior to that one, and I wonder if you
>understand what goes into such tests?
>
In the Prager test exact statements were made. In the other test it
was such, "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth," agree, disagree,
strong, weak.
And then another slogan. It was as if it was written by someone who
write slogans for signs at a protest rally.
>In any event, your criticism would be more believable if it wasn't for the
>sloganistic and poorly worded set of questions you posted for me to answer.
>Unlike you, I pointed out how the questions were poorly worded, and answered
>them nonetheless. You seem to have ran away from the test throwing insults
>behind you.
>
The questions were exact and no slogans.
>I think I won this round.
Of course you would.
>
Scott Erb
If I was in a room, and some left authoritarian was pointing a gun at me,
and a right authoritarian came to try to stop him, I'd give him all the
assistance I could.
If the right authoritarian tries to rationalize killing lots of people in
the country of the Left authoritarian by claiming I'm in danger from the
Left authoritarian, I'd be doubtful of his claims.
Scott Erb
-snip bits with no response-
>> >> >> 1. Standards for admissions to universities, fire departments,
etc.
> >> >> should be lowered for people of color.
> >
> >No, though in some cases I can see reason to give preference at
universities
> >for the benefit of the university. Overall, though, I don't think lower
> >standards helps minorities. There are other ways to deal with structural
> >inequities.
> >
> That sounds like a John Kerry answer. No but then again yes.
I'm sorry if can't handle complexity, but the real world defies simplistic
one size fits all answers. In this case, you mix fire stations, colleges,
etc. in one rubric, and then have a rather vague "lower standards." That's
really more than one question, the same answer doesn't apply to every
situation the question has within it.
-snip-
> >> >> 9. Marriage should be redefined from male-female to any two
people.
> >
> >No -- though if you worded the question differently it could become yes.
> >Any two people make possible father and daughter, sister and brother,
etc.
> >I think same sex marriage is fine, but any two people potentially would
> >allow children to marry.
> >
> Why only same sex couples?
Even if you change "people" to "adults," I think it would be bad to have
people marry within families as this causes birth defects and other
problems. Scientifically, it's a bad situation.
-snip-
> >> >> 12. The present high tax rates are good.
> >
> >No, I'd prefer a flat tax or mildly progressive near-flat tax with NO
> >loopholes.
> >
> I sought of agree with this even though my taxes would be raised. The
> people who really like the system the way it is are the ones who pay
> no taxes.
OK
> >> >> 13. Speech codes on college campuses are good and American values
> >> >> are bad.
> >
> >Working on a college campus, my view is that universities are a place for
> >pure free speech, and there should never be a limitation except in cases
of
> >absolute malicious intent (e.g., if I were to start screaming insults at
> >someone because they bumped into me). Universities are for the free
> >exchange of ideas, and speech must not be limited.
> >
> I take it that means that you would allow speech that you disagree
> with. Even Conservatives speaking on campus?
Of course! If I could get Condoleezza Rice or Paul Wolfowitz or Donald
Rumsfeld or Dick Cheney to come to campus, I'd beg them to be guest speakers
in my class and talk about their thoughts on the world, and I'd demand
students treat them with respect (i.e., they can ask hard questions based on
reason and evidence, but not be rude and not interupt.)
> >> >> 14. The Israelis and Palestinians are morally equivalent.
> >
> >No, but I don't necessarily agree that the two sides can be grouped.
> >Palestinians wanting peaceful independence are morally superior to
Israelis
> >wanting to take all the land on the West Bank for themselves, even by use
of
> >ethnic cleansing. Morality is individual, not collective.
> >
> I can't believe this one!! You say you are non-violent and against
> the taking of human life but you favor people who use those tactic
> indiscriminately against innocent people. WOW!!
Please re-read my answer. Morality is individual. Peaceful Palestinians
wanting independence (which is most of them, most of them don't engage in
violence) are not morally inferior to peaceful Israelis, and are likely
morally superior to Israeli extremists engaged in violence against
Palestinians. Conversely, peaceful Israelis (which are the majority there
too) are morally superior to violent Palestinians. Morality is individual,
you can't judge morality through a collective group like 'the Palestinians'
and 'the Israelis.'
> >> >> 17. No abortions can be labeled immoral.
> >
> >Again, the wording here is bad. I am pro-choice, but clearly there are
many
> >abortions that are immoral.
> >
> Why are you so hesitant to oppose the taking of human life?
Clearly the question of whether or not this taking a human life is hotly
debated. Some would claim an IUD takes a human life since it works after
the egg has been fertilized. Others would claim that only when the fetus is
viable outside the womb is it a human life. Others claim (as most
traditions indicate) that life starts at birth. Some abortions are immoral,
but many are not, in my opinion (especially in rape, incest, if the child
has catastrophic problems, the life of the mother is in danger, etc.) Even
for those I would consider immoral, the lack of a societal consensus makes
me loathe to use the power of government to force others to live by moral
beliefs.
-snip-
> >> >> 21. Racism and poverty -- not a lack of fathers and a crisis of
> >> >> values -- are the primary causes of violent crime in the inner city.
> >
> >Yes, though I'd say racism and poverty are part of the cause of the 'lack
of
> >fathers and the crisis of values.' Poverty subverts values.
> >
> I believe that crime causes poverty.
Most sociologists see it the other way around -- when the economy booms,
crime goes down, when the economy slows down, crime increases. Violence and
crime are higher in impoverished regions. Why do you see it in reverse?
> To be 100% liberal you would have needed 23 of 23. Six does not make
> you very liberal. The man who made this up has proved his point.
> Many of those who believe themselves to be liberal are not very
> liberal at all.
> But then again there are some places where you come down on the side
> of evil, so that may be one reason you consider yourself liberal.
> Siding with mass murderers, rapists, brutal, abortionists government
> does have a tenancy to put people in the Liberal camp.
You have an odd way of looking at the world, and an odd definition of
"liberal."
Scott Erb
ask are very typical for these sorts of tests, as they aim to get at
people's basic beliefs. Even if you don't think it's worth much, do it for
fun. I answered your questions, after all!
"Amadeus Unterhosen" <ama...@unterhosen.net> wrote in message
news:14lie1pkq000bj4qd...@4ax.com...
Amadeus Unterhosen
<scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>"Amadeus Unterhosen" <ama...@unterhosen.net> wrote in message
>news:6cjie11qj0rcqkmgl...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 03:38:51 GMT, "Scott Erb"
>> <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>
>
>> >> Given your definitions; would you support a right authoritarian who
>> >> was doing his best to stop a left authoritarian from killing you or
>> >> taking your freedom?
>> >
>> >The way you word that scenario sounds a bit silly. I'd choose my support
>> >based on my own principles and moral guidelines. I'd very possibly
>support
>> >neither authoritarian. (And of course, the question could be reversed:
>> >would you or I support a left authoritarian who was trying to stop a
>right
>> >authoritarian from taking away yours or my freedom?) The answer to the
>> >question would be the same either way.
>> >
>> I'll take that as a negative.
>
>If I was in a room, and some left authoritarian was pointing a gun at me,
>and a right authoritarian came to try to stop him, I'd give him all the
>assistance I could.
>
To save your own life.
>If the right authoritarian tries to rationalize killing lots of people in
>the country of the Left authoritarian by claiming I'm in danger from the
>Left authoritarian, I'd be doubtful of his claims.
>
Even if it was evident that the bad guy was killing lots of people,
right?
Amadeus Unterhosen
<scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>"Amadeus Unterhosen" <ama...@unterhosen.net> wrote in message
>news:lfjie15bb9mmlcnhd...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 04:03:54 GMT, "Scott Erb"
>> <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>-snip bits with no response-
>
>>> >> >> 1. Standards for admissions to universities, fire departments,
>etc.
>> >> >> should be lowered for people of color.
>> >
>> >No, though in some cases I can see reason to give preference at
>universities
>> >for the benefit of the university. Overall, though, I don't think lower
>> >standards helps minorities. There are other ways to deal with structural
>> >inequities.
>> >
>> That sounds like a John Kerry answer. No but then again yes.
>
>I'm sorry if can't handle complexity, but the real world defies simplistic
>one size fits all answers. In this case, you mix fire stations, colleges,
>etc. in one rubric, and then have a rather vague "lower standards." That's
>really more than one question, the same answer doesn't apply to every
>situation the question has within it.
>
What is so complex about saying 'no but yes'? It is a simple way of
dodging the question.
>-snip-
>
>> >> >> 9. Marriage should be redefined from male-female to any two
>people.
>> >
>> >No -- though if you worded the question differently it could become yes.
>> >Any two people make possible father and daughter, sister and brother,
>etc.
>> >I think same sex marriage is fine, but any two people potentially would
>> >allow children to marry.
>> >
>> Why only same sex couples?
>
>Even if you change "people" to "adults," I think it would be bad to have
>people marry within families as this causes birth defects and other
>problems. Scientifically, it's a bad situation.
>
How does marriage cause birth defects and other problems? Can you
give me the name of the scientist that told you that?
>-snip-
>
>> >> >> 12. The present high tax rates are good.
>> >
>> >No, I'd prefer a flat tax or mildly progressive near-flat tax with NO
>> >loopholes.
>> >
>> I sought of agree with this even though my taxes would be raised. The
>> people who really like the system the way it is are the ones who pay
>> no taxes.
>
>OK
>
>> >> >> 13. Speech codes on college campuses are good and American values
>> >> >> are bad.
>> >
>> >Working on a college campus, my view is that universities are a place for
>> >pure free speech, and there should never be a limitation except in cases
>of
>> >absolute malicious intent (e.g., if I were to start screaming insults at
>> >someone because they bumped into me). Universities are for the free
>> >exchange of ideas, and speech must not be limited.
>> >
>> I take it that means that you would allow speech that you disagree
>> with. Even Conservatives speaking on campus?
>
>Of course! If I could get Condoleezza Rice or Paul Wolfowitz or Donald
>Rumsfeld or Dick Cheney to come to campus, I'd beg them to be guest speakers
>in my class and talk about their thoughts on the world, and I'd demand
>students treat them with respect (i.e., they can ask hard questions based on
>reason and evidence, but not be rude and not interupt.)
>
There a lot of campuses or is it Campi that would not be as 'liberal'
as you. You are to be commended.
>> >> >> 14. The Israelis and Palestinians are morally equivalent.
>> >
>> >No, but I don't necessarily agree that the two sides can be grouped.
>> >Palestinians wanting peaceful independence are morally superior to
>Israelis
>> >wanting to take all the land on the West Bank for themselves, even by use
>of
>> >ethnic cleansing. Morality is individual, not collective.
>> >
>> I can't believe this one!! You say you are non-violent and against
>> the taking of human life but you favor people who use those tactic
>> indiscriminately against innocent people. WOW!!
>
>Please re-read my answer. Morality is individual. Peaceful Palestinians
>wanting independence (which is most of them, most of them don't engage in
>violence) are not morally inferior to peaceful Israelis, and are likely
>morally superior to Israeli extremists engaged in violence against
>Palestinians. Conversely, peaceful Israelis (which are the majority there
>too) are morally superior to violent Palestinians. Morality is individual,
>you can't judge morality through a collective group like 'the Palestinians'
>and 'the Israelis.'
>
Morality is individual? Are you saying that a government or society
cannot be immoral? I'm not talking about peaceful Palestinians. I'm
talking about suicide bombers who will kill innocent young people and
as many as they can for reasons that have nothing to do with wanting
independence. Mass murderers who want to kill every Jew who is
living. Like Hitler; who you say yo despise.
>> >> >> 17. No abortions can be labeled immoral.
>> >
>> >Again, the wording here is bad. I am pro-choice, but clearly there are
>many
>> >abortions that are immoral.
>> >
>> Why are you so hesitant to oppose the taking of human life?
>
>Clearly the question of whether or not this taking a human life is hotly
>debated. Some would claim an IUD takes a human life since it works after
>the egg has been fertilized. Others would claim that only when the fetus is
>viable outside the womb is it a human life. Others claim (as most
>traditions indicate) that life starts at birth. Some abortions are immoral,
>but many are not, in my opinion (especially in rape, incest, if the child
>has catastrophic problems, the life of the mother is in danger, etc.) Even
>for those I would consider immoral, the lack of a societal consensus makes
>me loathe to use the power of government to force others to live by moral
>beliefs.
>
I'm not talking about IUDs. I'm talking about legalizing the drilling
a hole in the head of a baby who is out of the womb and sucking the
brains out. A Bill to criminalize this was voted against by 15
Democrats in the House.
>-snip-
>
>> >> >> 21. Racism and poverty -- not a lack of fathers and a crisis of
>> >> >> values -- are the primary causes of violent crime in the inner city.
>> >
>> >Yes, though I'd say racism and poverty are part of the cause of the 'lack
>of
>> >fathers and the crisis of values.' Poverty subverts values.
>> >
>> I believe that crime causes poverty.
>
>Most sociologists see it the other way around -- when the economy booms,
>crime goes down, when the economy slows down, crime increases. Violence and
>crime are higher in impoverished regions. Why do you see it in reverse?
>
I see it that where ever you have violence and crime; you will have an
impoverished region. If you abolish violence and crime; the economy
booms. It works every time.
>> To be 100% liberal you would have needed 23 of 23. Six does not make
>> you very liberal. The man who made this up has proved his point.
>> Many of those who believe themselves to be liberal are not very
>> liberal at all.
>> But then again there are some places where you come down on the side
>> of evil, so that may be one reason you consider yourself liberal.
>> Siding with mass murderers, rapists, brutal, abortionists government
>> does have a tenancy to put people in the Liberal camp.
>
>You have an odd way of looking at the world, and an odd definition of
>"liberal."
>
And yet you only agree with six and you consider yourself a Liberal.
Odd.
Amadeus Unterhosen
<scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Oh, come on, take the test and see what you get. The kind of questions they
>ask are very typical for these sorts of tests, as they aim to get at
>people's basic beliefs. Even if you don't think it's worth much, do it for
>fun. I answered your questions, after all!
>
OK. I owe it to you. You have been fair.
I will pick out the ones that I consider the shallowest and discuss
them with you, if you will allow me.
Scott Erb
That was the question you gave.
> >If the right authoritarian tries to rationalize killing lots of people in
> >the country of the Left authoritarian by claiming I'm in danger from the
> >Left authoritarian, I'd be doubtful of his claims.
> >
> Even if it was evident that the bad guy was killing lots of people,
> right?
Lots of bad guys in the world are killing people.
Scott Erb
> What is so complex about saying 'no but yes'? It is a simple way of
> dodging the question.
I'm trying to answer, not dodge the question. The answer would be no if I
took the question literally.
> >Even if you change "people" to "adults," I think it would be bad to have
> >people marry within families as this causes birth defects and other
> >problems. Scientifically, it's a bad situation.
> >
> How does marriage cause birth defects and other problems? Can you
> give me the name of the scientist that told you that?
Marriage is usually associated with sex, and sex can lead to children, and
incest can lead to birth defects.
> >> I take it that means that you would allow speech that you disagree
> >> with. Even Conservatives speaking on campus?
> >
> >Of course! If I could get Condoleezza Rice or Paul Wolfowitz or Donald
> >Rumsfeld or Dick Cheney to come to campus, I'd beg them to be guest
speakers
> >in my class and talk about their thoughts on the world, and I'd demand
> >students treat them with respect (i.e., they can ask hard questions based
on
> >reason and evidence, but not be rude and not interupt.)
> >
> There a lot of campuses or is it Campi that would not be as 'liberal'
> as you. You are to be commended.
I think you might have a caricatured image of college campuses and
"liberals." If you listen to talk radio, they take the 1% or even 0.001% of
the most extreme examples from the left, and then try to claim that is what
liberalism is all about. It's good to get emotions flowing among the
listeners and boost ratings, but it's neither rational nor honest.
> >> I can't believe this one!! You say you are non-violent and against
> >> the taking of human life but you favor people who use those tactic
> >> indiscriminately against innocent people. WOW!!
> >
> >Please re-read my answer. Morality is individual. Peaceful Palestinians
> >wanting independence (which is most of them, most of them don't engage in
> >violence) are not morally inferior to peaceful Israelis, and are likely
> >morally superior to Israeli extremists engaged in violence against
> >Palestinians. Conversely, peaceful Israelis (which are the majority
there
> >too) are morally superior to violent Palestinians. Morality is
individual,
> >you can't judge morality through a collective group like 'the
Palestinians'
> >and 'the Israelis.'
> >
> Morality is individual? Are you saying that a government or society
> cannot be immoral?
I judge morality on an individual basis. I do not believe in "guilt by
association."
> I'm not talking about peaceful Palestinians. I'm
You said "Palestinians," you should have specified suicide bombers and the
like, a very, very small subset of that group.
> talking about suicide bombers who will kill innocent young people and
And they are doing acts of evil, as are those very few Israeli soldiers who
target Palestinian youths and shot them without cause.
> as many as they can for reasons that have nothing to do with wanting
> independence. Mass murderers who want to kill every Jew who is
> living. Like Hitler; who you say yo despise.
And there are extremist Jews, extremist Christians and others. The evil of
Hitler was caused by a collective guilt claim, that one group could be
labelled as morally bad due only to the religion and ethnicity of the people
involved. Doing that with "the Palestinians" or with "Muslims" would be not
only irrational, but evil.
> >Clearly the question of whether or not this taking a human life is hotly
> >debated. Some would claim an IUD takes a human life since it works after
> >the egg has been fertilized. Others would claim that only when the fetus
is
> >viable outside the womb is it a human life. Others claim (as most
> >traditions indicate) that life starts at birth. Some abortions are
immoral,
> >but many are not, in my opinion (especially in rape, incest, if the child
> >has catastrophic problems, the life of the mother is in danger, etc.)
Even
> >for those I would consider immoral, the lack of a societal consensus
makes
> >me loathe to use the power of government to force others to live by moral
> >beliefs.
> >
> I'm not talking about IUDs. I'm talking about legalizing the drilling
> a hole in the head of a baby who is out of the womb and sucking the
> brains out. A Bill to criminalize this was voted against by 15
> Democrats in the House.
That is only done when the baby is completely unviable, brains developing
outside of the skull and all of that. It would be insane to force a mom to
give birth to something that cannot live, and thereby put her life and
health in danger. Anyone who wants to force a woman to do that is immoral.
> >Most sociologists see it the other way around -- when the economy booms,
> >crime goes down, when the economy slows down, crime increases. Violence
and
> >crime are higher in impoverished regions. Why do you see it in reverse?
> >
> I see it that where ever you have violence and crime; you will have an
> impoverished region. If you abolish violence and crime; the economy
> booms. It works every time.
From all the evidence I've seen, you have your causal arrows backwards. You
improve the economy, and then violence and crime goes down. Poverty is the
cause.
> >> To be 100% liberal you would have needed 23 of 23. Six does not make
> >> you very liberal. The man who made this up has proved his point.
> >> Many of those who believe themselves to be liberal are not very
> >> liberal at all.
> >> But then again there are some places where you come down on the side
> >> of evil, so that may be one reason you consider yourself liberal.
> >> Siding with mass murderers, rapists, brutal, abortionists government
> >> does have a tenancy to put people in the Liberal camp.
> >
> >You have an odd way of looking at the world, and an odd definition of
> >"liberal."
> >
> And yet you only agree with six and you consider yourself a Liberal.
> Odd.
I don't buy the American definitions of conservative and liberal, since
ideologically almost all Americans are liberal, and the US spectrum is a
narrow range within ideological liberalism. There does seem to be an
emerging far right focus on nationalism, demonization of others, and
emotionalism. That needs to be watched, and countered, just as surely as a
far left movement would have to be watched and countered (and not countered
by government force, but citizens speaking out and using their rights of
free speech and assembly).