Arguments for the prohibition of drugs
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-02-2013, 11:10 AM (This post was last modified: 28-02-2013 11:21 AM by TrulyX.)
RE: Arguments for the prohibition of drugs
(27-02-2013 08:22 PM)I and I Wrote:  Which class controls the state for its benefit is the issue. Under capitalism the minority capitalists control the state under communism the workers control the state for its benefit.
(27-02-2013 08:58 PM)Chas Wrote:  Except there has never been a communist state that met that definition. Not one.

That's not communism. Communist state is an oxymoron. Communism would be stateless.

Also, the idea that progress in society actually requires an overthrow of the current state, for a new totalitarian rule or dictatorship, is junk. It's complete bullshit, and any person with a general sense, could tell you that authoritarian rule and strong centralization are some of the worst ideas you could come up with, in terms of attempting to make socioeconomic improvement, specifically with stability.

I think China is really the only culture that would even come close to accepting a system of putting their trust in few people, to do what is best for the overall prosperity. There is the idea that in China corruption is used for good, whereas elsewhere in the world, corruption is used for evil. However, overall, it's still an extremely bad model for stability. Or I guess, China would be a good example, more so than the only ones who would accept it.

Socialism is meant as a fix for the problems of capitalism. It's not meant as a system by itself. It's not for totalitarian rule, or violent revolution. The violence is more a predicted inevitability if capitalistic problems are not solved otherwise, with socialism being an inevitability toward properly resolving the problems of capitalism. The end results would be full socialism, then if things progressed to be almost utopian in nature, a communist, stateless, moneyless, classless society would be the result of solving socioeconomic problems.

The USA really, almost, exemplified the ideal approach. We actually might have had that shit, if it wasn't for racism, conservatism and Christianity.

The Paradox Of Fools And Wise Men:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” ― Bertrand Russell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-02-2013, 11:34 AM
RE: Arguments for the prohibition of drugs
Theoretically far left and far right both lead to the same result, they just get there by going in opposite directions. Both are virtual impossibilities though.

@Truly X, please define conservatism, do you mean religious conservatism, American political conservatism, European political conservatism, or something else?

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-02-2013, 12:30 PM (This post was last modified: 28-02-2013 12:33 PM by TrulyX.)
RE: Arguments for the prohibition of drugs
(28-02-2013 11:34 AM)Dark Light Wrote:  Theoretically far left and far right both lead to the same result, they just get there by going in opposite directions. Both are virtual impossibilities though.

No, no, no....not even close.

The key is that capitalism and the far right-wing = private ownership, money, profits, classes. To the left, those things would be systematically eliminated, in terms of necessity, practicality, etc., and the fundamental problems are actually addressed and solved, on the way. Both would, ideally, be what you could technically call anarchical societies, but capitalism is still a system, and it can lead to what is far worse than an actual legitimate state, specifically a corrupt, violent one.

The far-left is viewed as an end goal or ideal, not a practical solution. It's viewed as a result of the problems being solved, not an answer to the problems.

Quote:@Truly X, please define conservatism, do you mean religious conservatism, American political conservatism, European political conservatism, or something else?

Well, in American politics, people, a lot of the time, use conservative to describe right-wing, which is just annoying as hell.

I meant conservative. Conservative as in being for what is, or was, traditional, showing a resistance to change, etc. I guess you could apply that to any specific thing you wanted, but I was talking as part of an overall worldview.

The Paradox Of Fools And Wise Men:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” ― Bertrand Russell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-02-2013, 02:15 PM
RE: Arguments for the prohibition of drugs
Well, I disagree with the first bit completely. I prefer to think political stances and goals as being a three-dimensional sphere rather than a left and right graph. I have tried coming up a easy way to explain it with words, but I am finding myself unable to do so, whatever we'll just have to disagree.

As for the second bit, do you mean classical liberalism? That is what I would call traditional American political conservatism, but you must also understand even in our very early days Federalists still had a lot of support. Did I miss?

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Dark Light's post
28-02-2013, 06:56 PM (This post was last modified: 01-03-2013 09:06 AM by TrulyX.)
RE: Arguments for the prohibition of drugs
(28-02-2013 02:15 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  Well, I disagree with the first bit completely. I prefer to think political stances and goals as being a three-dimensional sphere rather than a left and right graph. I have tried coming up a easy way to explain it with words, but I am finding myself unable to do so, whatever we'll just have to disagree.

As for the second bit, do you mean classical liberalism? That is what I would call traditional American political conservatism, but you must also understand even in our very early days Federalists still had a lot of support. Did I miss?

You have elements of collectivism vs individualism, pacifism vs militarism, liberalism vs. conservatism, libertarianism vs authoritarianism, etc. Left and right, is left and right, though. I tend to simplify it to left being socialism, Marxism, communism, with the right being capitalism, laissez-faire, free-markets.

As far as dimensions, I do tend to see it as better described with authoritarianism and libertarianism, but I was just assuming libertarianism/anarchism.

Yeah, you did miss. I meant 'conservative' for what the word means, by the definition I gave: being for what is, or was, traditional, showing a resistance to change, etc. From thefreedictionary.com: Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.

I wouldn't call "classic liberal" the same as "conservative" at all. Conservative is conservative, and liberal is liberal. It's relative to the circumstances and situations, and the view you have toward things, especially in society, and your reaction and decision making.

To apply toward America, think: opposition to the abolition of slavery, opposition to the civil rights of blacks, opposition to women's rights, opposition to gay rights, opposition to non-capitalist economic views, opposition to non-Christian religions and secular views, etc, and so on.

The Paradox Of Fools And Wise Men:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” ― Bertrand Russell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-02-2013, 09:54 PM
RE: Arguments for the prohibition of drugs
Okay, you did confuse me a bit, but hey, that's why I asked for clarification. People use these terms to mean different things. When I say conservative in the context of American politics I am referring to classic liberalism as it was the dominant political philosophy in America's early years, indeed I don't think we would have had an American Revolution at that point in time without it. Anyhow, cheers!

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-03-2013, 10:28 AM
RE: Arguments for the prohibition of drugs
(28-02-2013 09:54 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  Okay, you did confuse me a bit, but hey, that's why I asked for clarification. People use these terms to mean different things. When I say conservative in the context of American politics I am referring to classic liberalism as it was the dominant political philosophy in America's early years, indeed I don't think we would have had an American Revolution at that point in time without it. Anyhow, cheers!

Liberalism was the "dominant political philosophy in America's early years". Free-speech, free-press, freedom of religion, secularism, republicanism, democracy, "life, liberty, property", social contract, etc., were all, at one point in history, including during the American Revolution, pretty liberal ideas.

To me, liberal ideas progress over time, and that is kind of the whole point of being liberal. Looking back in retrospect and cherry-picking ideas, one hundred or so years after they were established ideas, then adding in "neo", "classical", etc., doesn't make you liberal. Classical liberalism, or neo-liberalism, just describe movements, that built off of ideas, that were at one time, pretty liberal ideas. I'm not saying that doesn't make people part of those ideologies liberal, but the association with those previously established ideas, alone, definitely doesn't make them liberal.

You can apply conservative to that, obviously, in the sense that they are showing a resistance to any, not already previously established, change, but calling those already established ideas conservative is just simply wrong. Those are just previously established ideas, that have subsequently been accepted, and certain groups of people aren't open-minded or accepting of change toward any of those original principles, regardless of societal changes, which is the opposite of liberal.

The Paradox Of Fools And Wise Men:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” ― Bertrand Russell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-03-2013, 05:33 PM
RE: Arguments for the prohibition of drugs
In my opinion, the modern use of conservative is a lot more fitting than the modern usage of the word liberal.

The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names. - Chinese Proverb
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-03-2013, 06:21 PM
RE: Arguments for the prohibition of drugs
@ X, I disagree. In my opinion the conservative American political ideas are liberal, meaning liberating, conserving the ideas of allowing people to be as free as possible.

@bbeljefe, I kind of agree, calling the modern democrats "liberal" is an insult to real liberals. By the same token the so-called "conservative" Republicans want to force their religious idea's on people against their will. Likewise they have a tendency to say one thing and do another on economic issues. Both parties have a pretty terrible track record with it comes to foreign relations. Either way I don't think either party is particularly liberal, they are both centrists, one a little more liberal on social issues, the other a little more liberal on economic issues, neither doing a particularly good job on either.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-03-2013, 07:04 PM
RE: Arguments for the prohibition of drugs
There is a difference between "liberal" and "libertarian". Those describe two completely different things. You can obviously have attributes of both, at the same time, but they are still separable, and hence conservative libertarians e.g. the Tea party.

Some people think that any authority (in the form of a state) is less freedom, and those people are libertarians; however, you can't box every person into that one type of liberty i.e. liberty from a state and authority.

Liberal, in a political sense, just describes an open-mindedness toward change, progress and decisions making, or actions taken, in a society, whereas conservative describes the opposite, resistant to change, adherence to traditional views.

To say some people who call themselves liberal, today, are not, would be okay, but to completely generalize and dismiss modern liberals, is just absurdity. Global warming is an example. Liberals, in modern times, have been taking the science for what it's worth and planning for solutions. They haven't been denying the science the whole way through, dismissing any and all evidence or challenging our collective power to do any thing about the issues through government, due their personal beliefs and economic self-interests.

The Paradox Of Fools And Wise Men:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” ― Bertrand Russell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: