Democrats and Republican moderates and two issues.

[1John2_26]

Democrats and their liberal leaders decry a system that does not "support the poor," and yet no Democrat ever thinks of "freedom" outside of lascivious permissiveness and open and easy accessabilty?

When listening to Senators during Supreme Court nominee hearings and politics coast to coast, it is sexual promiscuity that takes precedence.

In Casey vs. Planned Parenthood abortion was mentioned by a Republican Senator (Spector) as a birth control method.

Why does sexual promiscuity take on such importance to Democrats and non-conservatives?

[Vladd44]

lol platypus.

It is time for people to no longer allow the "moral high ground" to be defined as a position on roe vs wade and gay marriage.

There are many issues that can be affected. Millions of children that don't need a new supreme court justice to be saved, they simply need food. You may or may not be able to coerce or convince a person not to have an abortion, but i hazard to guess that you would be hard pressed to find a mother who would not allow you to provide food for their starving child.

And as far as gay marriage, as long as none of you guys on this forum propose to me, I don't really think I need to concern myself with it. Think about it republicans, at least they wont have a child that they will choose to abort in their marriage.

It is beyond my understanding how a policy that is so callous towards those with little or nothing can be considered moral simply bc of their giving lip service to anti roe vs wade sentiments.

Instead of wasting all this energy regarding changing the law to "save" a million babies a year, lets concern ourselves with the 15+million a year who starve to death.

12 Then said he also to him that bade him, When thou makest a dinner or a supper, call not thy friends, nor thy brethren, neither thy kinsmen, nor thy rich neighbours; lest they also bid thee again, and a recompence be made thee.

13 But when thou makest a feast, call the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind:

14 And thou shalt be blessed; for they cannot recompense thee: for thou shalt be recompensed at the resurrection of the just.

[The Persnickety Platypus]

Instead of wasting all this energy regarding changing the law to "save" a million babies a year, lets concern ourselves with the 15+million a year who starve to death.

Or die in car accidents, or are killed by guns, or are raped, or suffer government injustice, or can't afford healthcare, or suffer asthma thanks to the toxic fumes your Ford Expidition's ceaselessly emit.


Really guys, the signifigant issues are everywhere. All you need do is tear your eyes away from Romans 9:29 for a few seconds.

[przemeknowicki]

Hi Platypus,

Read only a few of your postings but I can tell a lion by its paw. Thanks for the information on Hugo Chavez. I met a young businessman from Venezuela while on vacation in Dominican Republic and of course started a conversation on Chavez. The businessman told me that he was cautiously sceptical about Chavez in the beginning but now he very much supports Chavez's policies and actions. He praised the program to pay off the national debt and invest in education.

I would like to invite you to another debate forum on the www.samharris.org website. My name there is Thomas Orr. I would be very interested in hearing your opinion on some political solutions I try to promote. Not that I believe we can implement those solution. I simply believe that just by discussing "hypothetical" options we increase chances of something good coming out of it. Of course, the Sam Harris forum is not about my ideas. It is about the book The End of Faith by Sam Harris. Along with The Long Emergency I consider it one of the most significant books of our time.

Regards,

Przemek

[The Persnickety Platypus]

Hello, Przemek.

Thanks for the invite. I may pop in a little, but I am rather pressed for time on my current schedule. Is "The Champion" the only real conservative there? See, I have thought about branching out to some other sites, but would like to go somewhere where there are plenty of Bushies to berate. I originally thought that I would get that here, but this site is more liberal than I ever would have dreamed.

But if I never get around to it, you are welcome to post your political solutions here, of course. I know there are plenty of others here who could offer some good input.

[przemeknowicki]

Hi Platypus,

Too bad. Everybody is looking for fun in the forums. We should be trying to accomplish something constructive instead.

Let me give you some samples of my thinking. I believe that democracy is a poor substitution for professionalism and competence. I am big proponent of institutions, which I recognize as
- Driven by some higher purpose
- Employing the "positive selection" in recruiting and promoting members (look at science where the selection is driven by the judgment of peers).
- Authority built on competence
- Neutral in terms of political power, independent but not exercising power over anybody either

In my opinion, almost every great political power in the past was good in building institutions. I see institutions being destroyed both in communist-type societies as well as in market driven economies like the US. Communist couldn't stand an independent authority. Politicians in our type of democracy don't want to be bothered with institutions. One example of a good institution we once had is the Army Corps of Engineers.

Equally important are communities and communal forms of ownership like credit unions and cooperatives. Together with institutions they counterbalance the power of private industry and guard the economical freedom of an individual. No minimum wage laws are necessary where there is a balance of power in the job market.

One role of institutions (many are needed in a state) is to support the government financially and thus reduce the level of taxation. I don't like when a private industry has the power of monopoly but I don't mind if the state chooses to protect its income with some kind of monopoly. Real estate taxes should be abolished as well as allowing the free market to dictate the price of land and other natural resources. We praise the free market when it creates competition and delivers more and better goods. Speculation does neither; it gives some people a lot of power and takes away freedom from others.

The government is necessary but the government should not be dealing with money. It should oversee institutions, communities and private industry. It should pass good laws designed to protect environment and individual freedoms, including economic freedom. Today, 90% of the laws passed have something to do either with collecting or spending the money. It should be 10% instead.

Finally, a civilized state must engage in sponsoring art and education. There are two forms of education. One is what you need to get a job. If you ask me the employer should pay for this kind of education. The second is what serves the purpose of elevating you to the higher level of understanding the world and your place in it; it is also for your enjoyment (once you acquire the necessary taste).

However, if we don't figure out how to control the population growth we are doomed and nothing will help. I don't think that we have a solution here. The stable birth rates in developed countries are nothing more than reflection of the financial burden every child creates for a family. Since I want to make lives more bearable ... we will have to learn how to control the population growth in the most fair and civilized way.

Przemek

[The Persnickety Platypus]

Too bad. Everybody is looking for fun in the forums. We should be trying to accomplish something constructive instead.

I do my best to accomplish something constructive, as a matter of fact. It just so happens that this often includes me berating conservative politics. Which just happens to be, if I do say, rather fun.

Likewise, I am sure most conservative activists derive some sort of enjoyment refuting evil freethinkers such as myself. None of us would be here if we did not take some delight in our positions, and most notably, the art of debating them.


I find your view agreeable enough at base value. Any reasonable solution to limiting the power of the private industry I am all for. Of course, specifics would be required before a truly accurate perspective may be given.

What sorts of institutions, in what different nations throughout history do you deem effective in this manner? I would imagine it might be hard to keep any organization politically neutral, and a residing check should probably be kept in place to prevent inescapable ulterior agenda's (in broader terms, deception or corruption) from taking root. I would imagine you have probably all ready considered this.

[przemeknowicki]

What sorts of institutions, in what different nations throughout history do you deem effective in this manner? I would imagine it might be hard to keep any organization politically neutral, and a residing check should probably be kept in place to prevent inescapable ulterior agenda's (in broader terms, deception or corruption) from taking root. I would imagine you have probably all ready considered this.

Think about science as the model for an institution. Unfortunately, you cannot "order" an institution into existence but we can do a lot to help. A good institution manages to create a culture and the culture in turn is what perpetuates the existence of the institution. Some departments in the University of Warsaw (Poland) I was working 30 years ago survived many years under communist regime because of the culture. The scientists there were motivated to do their work because of the rewards of recognition and pride that they contributed to science - not for the financial rewards. The culture also assured that people were selected and promoted based on talent and accomplishments, and not as a result of favoritism or political loyalties. Institution is good only as long as it is driven by the higher goal it adopted. What I observed in American corporations is that after reaching a certain size the goal of the corporation (to make profits) becomes irrelevant in what motivates the middle management. Everybody is engaged in the power struggle. I have seen millions of dollars thrown away because it was good for somebody's political gain. In addition, the corporation is slowly being eroded by the process of "negative selection". People get promoted and are denied promotion for the wrong reasons. The loyalty to the immediate boss is at premium while real skills and competence don't count that much.

Even the best of institutions can decline and get corrupted. It is inevitable. This is why some oversight from the public is necessary but when the institution is healthy it should be allowed to "govern" itself. Bell Labs in AT&T and the computer division in Xerox started as wonderful institutions and they produced spectacular results. Unfortunately, corporations and institutions don't mix well. In corporation the managers cannot control their instincts to "manage" but the institution cannot be managed from the outside for the simple reason that the lowest in rank member of an institution is more competent than any outsider.

Institutions also have something to do with utilizing the talents. There are many talents in a nation, people who can invent and improve things. The natural place for those people are private enterprises of medium size. US is quite successful in managing those talents because of the favorable business laws. On the other hand in a nation like ours there are relatively few people with high caliber talents, the geniuses. Those geniuses don't fare well in private businesses. Their natural place to thrive is an institution.

Example of good institutions in the past? Take British Empire. The Navy, Royal Academy of Science, Banks, British Railroads. France and Germany also had their successful institutions. Their model of education is still superior to what we have in the US. The Army Corps of Engineers was at some point the envy of the world. That was the time when America demonstrated some greatness. Now, what do we have today? Stock Market? It only serves the rich and this is why we are doomed.

Sorry, it is getting late for me and I have to go. See you later.

Przemek

[The Persnickety Platypus]

Well, I hope you wern't expecting me to dredge up arguments against this. When you're right you're right.


Then again, it's not like I really know anything about your subject. Unfortunately, I have not been alive near long enough to have experienced anything but a corporate hierarchy (or even anything outside high school). Thanks for sharing your observations.

[1John2_26]

Sam Harris The End of Faith.

A little bit of sensibilty coupled with the typical major hatred of Christians so common in this self-annointed humanist moralism club.

The world has seen him so many times before. Scrub clean the minds of earth's free people to accept only the "one mind" of the collective thought that of course, men like Harris will lead all into. Hmmm.

Even Harris cannot let go of the goals of TM, but has no problem to relegate Christians to the ghettos built on the Myth-heap. Sounds familiar.

"Read Sam Harris and wake up." - Richard Dawkins

Now there's an open-minded opinion if ever there was one.

Likewise, I am sure most conservative activists derive some sort of enjoyment refuting evil freethinkers such as myself. None of us would be here if we did not take some delight in our positions, and most notably, the art of debating them.

Why is it though, that all freethinkers think exactly the same? It's funny watching so many clones patting themselves on their own backs.

[Cephus]

Democrats see so much of their cause in Roe v. Wade.

Both parties do. It's the Republicans who constantly harp on abortion and how they want to overturn RvW, when in reality, the anti-abortion plank is just a bone they throw to fundamentalist Christians to keep them voting. The Republicans have absolutely no intention of ever posing a serious challenge to RvW, it would be political suicide to do so.

Nothing could get me to vote for a Democrat now that I am a parent.

Then don't. Nobody is telling you to. Even as a lifelong Republican, I find it hard to vote for either side, neither has done anything to earn my vote and both sides, especially under Bush, have done everything to make me believe that no party out there represents me.

It seems that they want two things above all else. Most of my money and the bodies of my children. Not necessarily in that order.

And the Republicans want most of your money and all of your mind. What's the difference?