Poll: Are you progressive, do you think most here are and do you think conservatives may be uncomfortable here?
I identify as progressive, I think most people here are also progressive and yes I do think conservatives probably feel uncomfortable sharing their political views here.
I identify as progressive, I think most people here are also progressive but I doubt if conservatives actually feel uncomfortable sharing their political views here.
I identify as progressive but I doubt if most people here are also progressive and regardless I doubt if conservatives feel uncomfortable about sharing their political views here.
I identify as progressive but I doubt if most people here are also progressive and regardless conservatives probably do feel uncomfortable about sharing their political views here.
I identify as conservative but I think most people here are progressive, and I do in fact feel uncomfortable sharing my political views here.
I identify as conservative but I think most people here are progressive, and I at least do not feel uncomfortable sharing my political views here.
I identify as conservative but I don't think most people here are progressive, and I do in fact feel uncomfortable sharing my political views.
I identify as conservative but I don't think most people here are progressive, and I at least do not feel uncomfortable sharing my political views.
[Show Results]
 
So is this site also predominantly progressive rather than conservative politically?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-07-2017, 02:58 PM
RE: So is this site also predominantly progressive rather than conservative political
(30-06-2017 03:08 PM)JesseB Wrote:  To be clear, I'm not in favor of Anarchy. I don't think it's evil or the worst idea possible, in fact given what we have I would consider it a marked improvement.
Fair enough.

Quote:But I do support a healthy government with limited and well defined responsibilities made up of the general population representing the general population to assist in promotion of the general welfare and pretty much the shit in the constitution n stuff.
That sounds nice. Let me know when you find one like that. Wink

Quote:I think if at any point in US history we had ever actually READ the fucking constitution and applied it (and not the way conservatives try to bastardize it), we'd actually be doing pretty well right now. I also think the constitution could do with a few updates for clarity and to change some outdated shit to a more.... modern place.

I've read all the documents with regards to the founding of our nation here and think that the constitution is in general a pretty ok document, maybe even the best attempt at a governing document created (at the time it was written), I don't think it's perfect there's room for improvement for sure (I'd add in campaign finance protections and election protections right into the constitution to avoid rich people fucking everyone else over, as one example)
The problem with the Constitution is that it was never intended to represent the general population, and certainly not to promote its general welfare. At least not beyond the extent necessary to maintain a perpetual ruling merchant aristocracy. Consider our bicameral legislature. For the first 125 years of the country's existence the populace did not get to elect senators directly. That was because the Senate was intended as a check on the political expression of the general populace via their representatives in the House. The purpose of the Senate is to limit the power of the general populace to affect its own governance.


Quote:But yes I totally reject any intrinsic meaning or purpose to the universe, government, our lives ect so I'm very much a Nihilist. Pretty sure my application of Nihilism is classified active Nihilism.
I don't recall mentioning "intrinsic" meaning, but I suppose "ultimate" meaning could be interpreted that way. Perhaps a better phrasing would be that nihilists reject meaning and morality, regardless of source. There are, I suppose, gradations of that. A complete nihilist would essentially be a sociopath with no sense of self preservation; those would seem to be conditions which would operate to keep their population low.

I don't reject meaning; I create my own. Nor do I reject morality, but neither do I believe that it is objective. Morality isn't a universal; it arises from interactive social contracts among human beings as member of a social species.

--
Dr H

"So, I became an anarchist, and all I got was this lousy T-shirt."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-07-2017, 03:07 PM
RE: So is this site also predominantly progressive rather than conservative political
(02-07-2017 11:12 PM)DLJ Wrote:  An objection/clarification ... external or 'top-down'?

In the most basic/literal sense it's a rejection of "top-down" government: anarchy="without a leader"

In the practical sense, it is a rejection of external government, and an assumption of personal responsibility.
Albert Parsons expressed it well:

"Governments are for slaves; free men govern themselves."

--
Dr H

"So, I became an anarchist, and all I got was this lousy T-shirt."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-07-2017, 03:13 PM
RE: So is this sitealsopredominantlyprogressive rather than conservative politically?
(03-07-2017 06:39 AM)DLJ Wrote:  So, what about the meaning of value?

Consider

Oh my.

Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance comes back to haunt us. Shocking

--
Dr H

"So, I became an anarchist, and all I got was this lousy T-shirt."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-07-2017, 03:16 PM
RE: Soisthissite also predominantly progressive rather than conservative politically?
(03-07-2017 06:12 PM)evenheathen Wrote:  We'd be better served to first define "meaning".

Done. Yes

--
Dr H

"So, I became an anarchist, and all I got was this lousy T-shirt."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Dr H's post
05-07-2017, 03:27 PM
RE: So is this site also predominantly progressive rather than conservative politically?
(05-07-2017 03:13 PM)Dr H Wrote:  
(03-07-2017 06:39 AM)DLJ Wrote:  So, what about the meaning of value?

Consider

Oh my.

Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance comes back to haunt us. Shocking

Hey, I liked that book (and still do)! I'm skeptical of any ultimate claims it makes, and I'm not sure I like the narrator as a person, but it sure was an interesting read.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-07-2017, 06:41 AM
RE: So is this site also predominantly progressive rather than conservative politically?
I don't talk about my political leanings very often as I'm not aware of any specific label that encompasses my views accurately enough to be worth using.

Depending one which views I express first people accuse me of being a far right conservative or a far left liberal so unless I can list them ALL at once people make assumptions. They do so love their labels and all the baggage that comes with them.

When valour preys on reason, it eats the sword it fights with.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like WhiskeyDebates's post
06-07-2017, 04:10 PM
RE: So is this site also predominantly progressive rather than conservative politically?
GENERAL WELFARE CLAUSE. Article I, section 8 of the U. S. Constitution grants Congress the power to "lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defense and general Welfare of the United States."

The problem with the Constitution is that some of it is ill defined and rather open ended. Purposefully! Just what IS the general Welfare? Who decides? The conservatives have been fighting the Progressives ever since Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal. The New Deal, as much of it that was passed despite conservative efforts to stop it has worked out pretty well.

When I shake my ignore file, I can hear them buzzing!

Cheerful Charlie
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Cheerful Charlie's post
06-07-2017, 05:36 PM
RE: So is this site also predominantly progressive rather than conservative political
(06-07-2017 04:10 PM)Cheerful Charlie Wrote:  GENERAL WELFARE CLAUSE. Article I, section 8 of the U. S. Constitution grants Congress the power to "lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defense and general Welfare of the United States."

The problem with the Constitution is that some of it is ill defined and rather open ended. Purposefully! Just what IS the general Welfare? Who decides? The conservatives have been fighting the Progressives ever since Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal. The New Deal, as much of it that was passed despite conservative efforts to stop it has worked out pretty well.

That is your opinion. It is not mine. And... I see I am the only person with conservative leanings that feels uncomfortable posting my views here, so either I am becoming more comfortable with the process or I am overly tired tonight and taking risks I would normally not take.

"The Ox is slow, but the Earth is patient."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Jeanne's post
07-07-2017, 12:27 AM (This post was last modified: 07-07-2017 12:36 AM by WhiskeyDebates.)
learning!
(06-07-2017 04:10 PM)Cheerful Charlie Wrote:  The problem with the Constitution is that some of it is ill defined and rather open ended. Purposefully!

It's kinda funny actually because as paradoxical as it sounds the first sentence is false but the second is, in a way, true. Let me explain.

When what we now know as the "General Welfare Clause" was debated at the Constitutional Convention in 1787 the Anit-Federalists pointed out that the clause was worded in such a way as that it could be interpreted very ....loosely.
The most famous response to this objection was written by James Madison in Federalist No. 41 saying that that is just not the case, that the only way that could be true is if the document didn't contain a list of enumerated powers which it clearly does.
This makes sense logically as there would be no point in enumerating the specific powers the Federal Government DOES have if you were just going to add a clause that said in essence that as long as the government labels it in the "general welfare" they can tax and spend as much as they want on anything they want. This would be entirely contrary to the entire point of the document.

Following the publication of Federalist No. 41 this was the view shared by everyone at the Convention. Publically anyway.(play for effect damn you.) Even Jefferson called it little more than "“a mere ‘grammatical quibble’. In fact all throughout the rest of the Constitutional Convention, not one person argued that it could or should be used in a broad scope that would grant the federal government additional taxing or spending powers beyond those enumerated in the Constitution.

So what does this all mean? Basically what it means is that what the framers meant and intended was that general welfare clause allowed the federal government to tax and spend money to fulfill those duties and powers delegated to it in the constitution and NO MORE. This view is supported by Madisons writings in Federalist No. 41, transcripts from the Constitutional Convention, as well as our library of professional and personal correspondence from and between members of the convention.

Pretty open and shut case right? Well....no because PLOT TWIST MOTHAFUCKA!


Remember back when I said that no one PUBLICLY argued that the General Welfare Clause could be used to grant the federal government powers beyond those few that were specifically granted to it? Yaaaaaaaa.....we gonna need to talk about that.
You see during the early days of the country politics was primarily of two minds, those being the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. In very broad strokes the Federalists believed that a strong centralized federal government could be a force for good in the burgeoning Union. The Anti-Federalists believed in small limited federal government exercising only those powers enumerated to it in the Constitution.
Alexander Hamilton would be considered a Federalist and a bit of an extremist at that when it came to his view of what America could be and should be. He wrote and spoke often about his desire for America to become a great Empire and wanted to supplant Great Britain as the world's superpower.

Why is this relevant? Well because despite joining in the chorus of people saying that the General Welfare Clause could not be interpreted broadly to grant the federal government powers beyond those enumerated to it he then turned around AFTER the Constitution was ratified and published Report on Manufactures which flat out asserted, unsupported by any evidence, that no it actually totally CAN be interpreted broadly to grant the federal government additional powers beyond those found in the constitution.
Basically, he lied about his intentions until after the Constitution was ratified then used his own personal interpretation of the clause to benefit himself, namely in providing a smokescreen of legality for his economic programs a fact Madison called him out on publicly during a debate where, one has to assume, Aaron Burr provided a super sick beat to Madi's dis track, accidentally starting one of America's first rap fueds that would ultimately not end well from Hamilton. Probably.




Aaaaaaaanyway this is what's known in historical circles as "a fucking dick move bro".


So what do the courts have to say? Well, for the most part, they largely agreed with Madison that the Clause offered the government no additional powers beyond those in the Constitution. In 1824 Chief Justice John Marshall reiterated this view and it continued this way until 1936. However in 1936 the constitutionality of Social Security was taken to the Supreme Court (Helvering v. Davis) where, in 1937, the Supreme Court reversed over a century of judicial consensus on what the General Welfare Clause meant.
"...the Supreme Court interpreted the clause even more expansively, disavowing almost entirely any role for judicial review of Congressional spending policies, thereby conferring upon Congress a plenary power to impose taxes and to spend money for the general welfare subject almost entirely to Congress's own discretion."

You might recognise that as literally the complete opposite of what it's supposed to fuckin' do.

So what does it all mean today? Basically, the government treats the General Welfare Clause as meaning the exact opposite of what it historically meant so it can tax anyone for any reason at any time and do whatever it wants with the money whenever and however it wants and the power to do so was given to the government .....by the government via 9 elderly and unelected judges.

Ain't democracy fun? No fuckin' problems here mate!Big Grin

(06-07-2017 04:10 PM)Cheerful Charlie Wrote:  The New Deal, as much of it that was passed despite conservative efforts to stop it has worked out pretty well.
I'd argue, and so would a large amount economists and historians both today and at the time, that it was a massive and colossal failure. In 2004 the Journal of Political Economy published an article by Harold L. Cole and Lee. E Ohanian that demonstrated that the Great Depression persisted as long as it did because of the new deal. From their report conclusions:
"Not only did the adoption of these industrial and trade policies co-
incide with the persistence of depression through the late 1930s, but
the subsequent abandonment of these policies coincided with the strong
economic recovery of the 1940s."

The worst of the New Deal in my opinion, though historians differ, has to be the Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA). This was a plan put in place in 1933 during a time when people were starving to death where, using tax money, the government paid farmers to plant less crops or destroy crops and livestock in an attempt to help farmers by driving up prices. It resulted in 1933 alone in the destruction of over 100 MILLION acres of cotton, the destructon of 6 MILLION pigs, oranges being covered in kerosine to make them unediable and corn being burnt en masse for cheap fule as well as many more examples.
Because Bastiat's Law of Unintended Consequences likes to say Hi from time to time this drop in agricultural production resulted in an additional 2 million people being forced out of work. And then starving. Cause the government was burning food.
Fun fact it still does this today actually, many of those regulations still have the government paying (or forcing) farmers to destroy millions of pounds of produce every year. they wont get this little motherfucker though! Banana_zorro

No one tell Africa. *sush* *edit: Fuck, or Bono!*

Anyway I'm off on a tangent now so I should hush lol

When valour preys on reason, it eats the sword it fights with.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes WhiskeyDebates's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: