Is Liberalism Genetic?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

I do not line up with any political party, I believe in an ideology instead. I think with money, you need to be smart. Wars, health care, social programs, all of it costs money, and there are needs we need to meet. But you can only stretch a dollar so far, without straining the means of that income (the taxpayers).

Socially, like I said, I don’t care. If you are a good person, then I really don’t give a shit what ideology you follow. If you act Christian-like because you believe in Christianity, then cool. If you are Christian-like because you believe in investing in the good of man without any specific label to brand it, then so be it. Religion is only as good as the person who practices it. As far as people wanting to share their wealth and base it on Christian beliefs, I think people would be more willing to donate if they could see their money bring something useful. What I mean is, if we saw more schools in Africa, if we saw more jobs and industry being created with our money invested, then we could see the fruits of our labor. Instead, I think people view donating money to charity as a bottomless black hole of which nothing develops from.

Yes I do believe that medical care should not be limited to those who are either working or rich. I don’t think insurance companies should not be allowed to boot you should you get cancer all of a sudden. But they got smart, they just adjust the rate upward so it’s too damn expensive for the sick to pay anymore, and they drop out of their plan because it’s too much. If you saw what I pay a month, you might fall over. There has to be some kind of balance with this, but who has the sack to tell insurance companies that?

Job wise, I would deport all illegal aliens and give those jobs to the unemployed and poor. I know it’s not a wonderful fix, but I would start with something like that. Ultimately, it would help but not a permanent fix. If we could free up some money not spent on welfare, maybe we could get some of these people in school, learning trades, something like that.

Yes the prison system sucks ass, I spent time in Leavenworth CCA (which is a private facility). Here in Cali, we spend on average $55k/year per inmate, yet Texas spends $17k/year (I use Texas as a model because it is similar with population as Cali.) There is money to be made by locking people up, and for a long time. Anyone wonder why “the war on drugs” was started when a “war on child molesting” or a “war on rapists” was not? How many drug users/addicts/dealers are there compared to child molesters or rapists? Shit tons more. This has been orchestrated by the letter. Think about how many jobs involve incarceration? Prison guards, administrators, court officials, US Marshals, probation, parole, it’s fucking huge.

62

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

In places like Europe, where you have huge taxes, you actually get alot of that in return in the sense of health care, public services, and education (college is very cheap because it is successfully subsidized.) Here in America, we do not have a government honest enough with our money to return or provide those services back to the people.

Think about it, who trusts the government to spend our money wisely? So why give them more money just to go fuck it off?[/quote]

You have assumed that I am a liberal, which is partially true. I tend to have progressive values and I tend to vote Democratic (mainly because, since I became of age to vote, all of the republican tickets for the presidency have been painfully and pathetically full of shortcomings that I couldn’t overlook). That said, I am a tad more fiscally conservative than the average liberal.

I too have lived in a socialist country. I wouldn’t want for us to cash in our chips and turn completely toward socialism, but I do think (as you seem to) that we could learn a lot from the Europeans, especially with regard to public goods like health care and transportation. Those things require money and the money comes from taxes. An income tax hike that amounts to a three-percentage-point raise is not socialism in my opinion.

I do agree that if we were to adopt some aspects of European socialism here, we would need to seriously change some basic aspects of our government so as to make it trustworthy enough to handle our money. [/quote]

I think what this ultimately comes down to, (and I also this to be a comment on Bodyguard’s post too), is that we as a people do not have a trustworthy government.

This is the root problem, the very foundation of our political system is so fucking corrupt, that we as a people actually have to defend ourselves against our own government.

Corruption fucks over any government system you implement, but with Capitalism, if you are able to keep taxes low, I think the damage can be less noticeable.

The best politicians are the ones who cannot be bought, who do not let their lives revolve around the making of a dollar, but who are willing to make the best common sense decisions in the best interest of the people. I have not seen that in my lifetime, and doubt I ever will.

The thing with Europe is that they do not want to be the global leader in economy, and Socialism certainly isn’t designed to provide that. Their system is designed to let people enjoy a somewhat peaceful life, letting their gov’t provide alot (and they actually do because they are more honest than ours), yet that doesn’t provide the best environment to let someone create wealth for themselves.

People wonder why you see Europeans sipping espressos all day at a caffe, well why not in their system? If you are taxed at 70%, why bother working hard? If you got a raise, the amount you actually took home would be so low, it would not be worth the effort to chase a raise. Their union structure also is very powerful, more so than here I think. They are truly successful at shutting down a country when they go on strike. [/quote]

Good post.

I for one would hate to see hard word disincentivized to such an extent. I want the opportunity to be extremely rich and I want all Americans to have it.

However, I also want a public transportation system that doesn’t look and feel like it’s sixty years old. The high speed railways snaking their way through Europe and Asia put us to absolute shame. I want health care to be universally accessible as well.

As you say, we need to fix our government at a fundamental level if we are going to ever make such dreams a reality. If, after that is done, we need to pay a few extra percentage points in taxes, I’m alright with that.

If I end up making $500,000 annually (fingers crossed lol) and have to pay a 39% (or 42 or whatever) instead of 36% income tax, I’d be happy to–as long as we can get our system straightened out to such an extent that our money is put to good and proper use.

That, to me, isn’t liberal or conservative. I want an efficient government (as should we all) and I want it to use my money for good (as should we all). Before throwing ourselves headlong into bullshit wars, I want my roads and railways and medical services in order. And I’m willing to sacrifice a bit more in such a pursuit.[/quote]

That’s the problem, the money isn’t spent well. It feeds union pensions mostly. We have the highest taxes in the country, but if I took you down a street here in LA, you would think you’re on a roller coaster it’s so bad. It’s just another boondoggle. Money is not allocated appropriately, and since that’s the case, people just don’t want to pay anymore.

Public transit will never work here in America. The reason why it’s so efficient in Europe is because the roads existed before the cities were built (think about the roads leading to Rome 2000 years ago). Literally, they took those same roads and just paved them with concrete. Cities were then built around those roads which became highways or had train tracks laid down.

In the US, cities were built first, and it’s much more politically complicated to knock down a building or neighborhood to build a road or freeway.

63

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Simple, those with “higher” education believe they can rely on their reason alone. However, the po’ po’ free peasants of the Red States know better. We know that’s impossible to rely on reason alone because we know the weakness of our reasoning faculties, so we rely on tradition.

We’ll take the word of 10,000 free men then the word of one lunatic with a degree.[/quote]

I think we should trust the experts as much as we can. I trust engineers to design and build the bridges that I drive on every day. I trust my doctors to figure out what ails me and fix it.[/quote]

Yes, and I only trust those engineers and doctors that bind themselves to the established practices of their trade…a la tradition.

I think only freeman accompanied by wealth and/or leisure should have suffrage.

[quote]This goes for liberals as well as conservatives. Whenever an economist is talking I listen, because whatever his politics, he is far more qualified to speak on the topic than am I.

It isn’t rich vs. poor or white vs. blue collar.[/quote]

“Free peasants” is an old term for land owner, usually a rancher used by Burke and others in Britain around the Revolution.

Reasoning for my views on suffrage.

Then I’d suggest one book for you, The Conservative Mind – $10 bucks on Amazon for the Kindle edition.

64

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Simple, those with “higher” education believe they can rely on their reason alone. However, the po’ po’ free peasants of the Red States know better. We know that’s impossible to rely on reason alone because we know the weakness of our reasoning faculties, so we rely on tradition.

We’ll take the word of 10,000 free men then the word of one lunatic with a degree.[/quote]

I think we should trust the experts as much as we can. I trust engineers to design and build the bridges that I drive on every day. I trust my doctors to figure out what ails me and fix it. I think the less intelligent should at least take into consideration what their smarter countrymen say and think with regard to public policy. This goes for liberals as well as conservatives. Whenever an economist is talking I listen, because whatever his politics, he is far more qualified to speak on the topic than am I.

It isn’t rich vs. poor or white vs. blue collar. In the end it is all about understanding the issues and having the intellectual and perceptive acumen requisite to fix them. If we all forgot knee-jerk politics for a minute and committed to understanding the complexities and REALITIES (for the distortion of reality is one of the primary weapons of the politician) of the problems facing us today, our world would be far better.[/quote]

The problem is, we’re not fixing problems. Our politicians fight about how much we’re going to spend on the band aid instead of working on the cure.

We’re an “advanced civilization” in the mightiest nation of the world and we still have:

A health care problem;
Homelessness;
Hunger; and
A justice system that creates career criminals;

to just name a few of our ills…
[/quote]

I’ll just say that homelessness and hunger are not something you can make into an equality issue, it’ll be around forever (well as long as there are people who wish not to work). The only thing we can do is do acts of charity and alms giving to the homeless and hungry. To try and break up the classes will never work, those are inequalities that have been around since the dawn of man and will be until the day the last man goes down in a cloud of dust.

65

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Simple, those with “higher” education believe they can rely on their reason alone. However, the po’ po’ free peasants of the Red States know better. We know that’s impossible to rely on reason alone because we know the weakness of our reasoning faculties, so we rely on tradition.

We’ll take the word of 10,000 free men then the word of one lunatic with a degree.[/quote]

I think we should trust the experts as much as we can. I trust engineers to design and build the bridges that I drive on every day. I trust my doctors to figure out what ails me and fix it. I think the less intelligent should at least take into consideration what their smarter countrymen say and think with regard to public policy. This goes for liberals as well as conservatives. Whenever an economist is talking I listen, because whatever his politics, he is far more qualified to speak on the topic than am I.

It isn’t rich vs. poor or white vs. blue collar. In the end it is all about understanding the issues and having the intellectual and perceptive acumen requisite to fix them. If we all forgot knee-jerk politics for a minute and committed to understanding the complexities and REALITIES (for the distortion of reality is one of the primary weapons of the politician) of the problems facing us today, our world would be far better.[/quote]

The problem is, we’re not fixing problems. Our politicians fight about how much we’re going to spend on the band aid instead of working on the cure.

We’re an “advanced civilization” in the mightiest nation of the world and we still have:

A health care problem;
Homelessness;
Hunger; and
A justice system that creates career criminals;

to just name a few of our ills…
[/quote]

I’m in complete agreement.

We throw money around as if it is worthless to us. A huge amount of that money is being dutifully tossed into the infinitely hungry furnace that is our defense budget. We outspend our competitors by ridiculous and unnecessarily large margins (not that we have any true competitors on the field of hard military power anyway) while having wasted literally trillions of dollars on two ambiguously-justified quagmires thousands of miles away.

How we will be able to justify to our grandchildren the fact that we spent billions on shiny new fighter jets while our schools collapsed and our children failed to learn mathematics is beyond me. How we will justify spending time talking about cutting programs for home heating oil for the poor while we have a costly standing army stationed all around the world including in fucking Europe is beyond me.

If an intelligent extraterrestrial came to observe Earth he would stand here scratching his head in disbelief wondering how the fuck we came to accept such an illogical status quo in “the greatest country on the planet”. [/quote]

And he’s probably scratch his head at all those imaginary boundaries on a map. Humanity is the whole. American, Canadian, South American, African, European, et als. are meaningless labels. We are all related in some fashion and we’re all inhabiting the same planet. [/quote]

Except we have different traditions and cultures. I mean we could break the borders up, but I have a leading feeling that would lead to tribalism.

66

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

And he’s probably scratch his head at all those imaginary boundaries on a map. Humanity is the whole. American, Canadian, South American, African, European, et als. are meaningless labels. We are all related in some fashion and we’re all inhabiting the same planet. [/quote]

Exactly. And he’d be further puzzled by this: as individuals we tend to treat each other with compassion or at the very least cordiality. If I have a dispute with my neighbor I am expected to talk it out or seek the help of an unbiased third party–chasing him around with a shovel is generally frowned upon. At the personal level we aren’t so bad after all (mostly).

And at the national level? If I am a sovereign state and so is he? Fuck, if I like my neighbor’s blueberry bushes I’ll hop right over his fence and take them the goddamn things. If he tries to stop me I’ll stab him in the fucking dick. If I feel like it I’ll make up some bullshit story about him keeping weapons in his house and then start dropping fire from the sky right over his fucking kids’ rooms.

Any sane observer would be puzzled at the fact that we as Americans are expected to (and usually do) treat our neighbors with respect or, at the very worst, cordial indifference. Meanwhile we allow our governments to act like petulant children, spitting in each others faces and brushing out the toilet bowl with each others toothbrushes on the sly.[/quote]

The fear of punishment is a major determinate of individual to individual interaction. However, I have no doubt of man’s inclination to do evil when provoked or not, only that of tradition and the such will stop man’s large ability to do evil.

67

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Statistics also do not explain cause and effect relationships. [/quote]

Yes I know. Some of the most intellectual people I know are fiscal conservatives. I was using the data as a quick “fuck you” to the notion of liberalism as a mental disorder, not as something I think truly meaningful/worthy of a lot of serious consideration.[/quote]

You failed.

There is something about providing something for someone for no cost, versus teaching them to provide for themselves.

When Pelosi said, “For every dollar a person receives in food stamps, $1.79 is put back into the economy. It is the biggest bang for the buck when you do food stamps and unemployment insurance. The biggest bang for the buck.” I nearly fell over.

All Liberals must show they are able to do simple math. [/quote]

I’m not defending what you refer to as “liberals” with the following question to you. I think I’ve quite clearly expressed that I do not agree with throwing money at problems as opposed to spending the money on fixing them.

Do you find that your political leanings are in any way antithetical or inconsistent with your religious beliefs? If I understand correctly, the theological interpretation for Christian charity is not the same as the common use of the term. But unarguably, the Church is in the business of collecting donations (benevolent giving - the common use definition of charity) and distributing them to those in need. The Church itself makes no such distinction that we attempt to make when discussing needs in the political sense. You give because people need. And hence my question to you. [/quote]

I don’t impose my religious beliefs with my political leanings. There are many examples of religious people who are beyond fucked up, and also examples of atheists who are very nice people. [/quote]

You can’t judge a medicine by those who do not take it. As well, I have an inclination that most atheist, even if they do not wish to admit it are heavily influenced by their cultures religious traditions. A government without their traditional religion is about as useful as a wet paper bag to carry your milk home. Point, look at Northern Europe before the monks came around (and even during), those gangsters in LA county, Houston, Phoenix, &c. would have been running to their mamas if they had to live out there. Bears and barbarians!

68

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
If you want a HUGE study, look at California. The more Democratic areas that are also highly educated (look at the Bay area with Stanford/Berkeley), you will find some of the worst spending policies in the state as well as the entire country. You have “smart people” who have invoked statewide Global Warming laws (when the data is mediocre at best), trying to pass statewide universal health care, with no regard for the cost.[/quote]

Reason for my suffrage views.

69

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Thanks, but I’m not sure you understood my question. Do your religious beliefs at all guide your political leanings and, if not, why? Let’s start with the basic concept of providing for those in need. In a political structure that is very polarized on “welfare” type of spending, do your religious beliefs at all guide you?

I understand perfectly your finding the way we spend the money repugnant, and I share that view, but often, voting for the guy that would spend less ends up not taking care of those in need. Do you see where I’m coming from? How do you reconcile that with your religious underpinnings?

If it were a choice between “spend spend and spend some more” (allegedly democratic behavior) v. “let’s pour the money into the front-end, and fix the problem” - the choice is clear. But when it’s merely “spend” v. “spend less, but not address the problem” - do you not feel any ethical conflict with your religious beliefs?

I hope I was a bit clearer this time. [/quote]

Charity. There was a large - large charity foundation before the 50’s and health care was more available to those without the means to pay up front. I mean you had entire organizations dedicated to the well being of widows and orphans. Now, hard to find one (Knights of Columbus, I know of) but the increase in taxation and increase in the monetary base has shown most of those charities the door.

70

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Yes I think we should provide for those who are less fortunate, but also to a point. There also needs to be some kind of emphasis on getting these people off the public dime. Here in California, we are the only state that does not abide by welfare laws (which limit the amount of time someone can be on welfare.) Since these people continually get money, there is no incentive for them to look for a job. Not ironic how California has 35% of the welfare in the country, yet only 12% of the population. Thank you Democruds.[/quote]

Provide without enabling, I say.

71

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
I spent time in Leavenworth CCA (which is a private facility).

[/quote]

I see you spent some time right around the corner from my Grandparents.

72

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

I’ll just say that homelessness and hunger are not something you can make into an equality issue, it’ll be around forever (well as long as there are people who wish not to work). The only thing we can do is do acts of charity and alms giving to the homeless and hungry. To try and break up the classes will never work, those are inequalities that have been around since the dawn of man and will be until the day the last man goes down in a cloud of dust.[/quote]

You misunderstood my point, or I didn’t express it well.

My point is simply that no human should be without food or shelter - whatever it takes. That certain classes will always exists is granted. That they should be without basic means for survival is inexcusable.

73

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

And he’s probably scratch his head at all those imaginary boundaries on a map. Humanity is the whole. American, Canadian, South American, African, European, et als. are meaningless labels. We are all related in some fashion and we’re all inhabiting the same planet. [/quote]

Exactly. And he’d be further puzzled by this: as individuals we tend to treat each other with compassion or at the very least cordiality. If I have a dispute with my neighbor I am expected to talk it out or seek the help of an unbiased third party–chasing him around with a shovel is generally frowned upon. At the personal level we aren’t so bad after all (mostly).

And at the national level? If I am a sovereign state and so is he? Fuck, if I like my neighbor’s blueberry bushes I’ll hop right over his fence and take them the goddamn things. If he tries to stop me I’ll stab him in the fucking dick. If I feel like it I’ll make up some bullshit story about him keeping weapons in his house and then start dropping fire from the sky right over his fucking kids’ rooms.

Any sane observer would be puzzled at the fact that we as Americans are expected to (and usually do) treat our neighbors with respect or, at the very worst, cordial indifference. Meanwhile we allow our governments to act like petulant children, spitting in each others faces and brushing out the toilet bowl with each others toothbrushes on the sly.[/quote]

The fear of punishment is a major determinate of individual to individual interaction. [/quote]

Exactly. Criminality is minimized only under the watchful eye of a powerful higher authority ready and able to bring justice upon transgressors. As long as our world is anarchic at the national level–i.e., there is no true authority to govern nation-states–governments will treat each other like petulant adolescent children.

The UN and its ICJ branch could theoretically have been established in such a way as to fulfill such a role. But why would the world’s superpowers surrender their place atop the hierarchy?

74

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Simple, those with “higher” education believe they can rely on their reason alone. However, the po’ po’ free peasants of the Red States know better. We know that’s impossible to rely on reason alone because we know the weakness of our reasoning faculties, so we rely on tradition.

We’ll take the word of 10,000 free men then the word of one lunatic with a degree.[/quote]

I think we should trust the experts as much as we can. I trust engineers to design and build the bridges that I drive on every day. I trust my doctors to figure out what ails me and fix it.[/quote]

Yes, and I only trust those engineers and doctors that bind themselves to the established practices of their trade…a la tradition.

[/quote]

While also keeping current on the progress being made in their respective fields. In fact in many ways progress is more important than tradition.

If tradition trumped progress absolutely, doctors would still be attaching leaches to us and drilling holes in our heads to let the headache demons escape.

Or if that is too far in the past, consider that less than 50 years ago, “four out of five doctors recommend Camel cigarettes!”

It’s all about a balance. Tradition without progress is as detrimental as progress without tradition.

75

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

I’ll just say that homelessness and hunger are not something you can make into an equality issue, it’ll be around forever (well as long as there are people who wish not to work). The only thing we can do is do acts of charity and alms giving to the homeless and hungry. To try and break up the classes will never work, those are inequalities that have been around since the dawn of man and will be until the day the last man goes down in a cloud of dust.[/quote]

You misunderstood my point, or I didn’t express it well.

My point is simply that no human should be without food or shelter - whatever it takes. That certain classes will always exists is granted. That they should be without basic means for survival is inexcusable. [/quote]

No doubt I agree with you. However, there has to be a sense of altruism and responsibility in the citizens. Otherwise a bloated welfare system will be the result. The destitute will feel neglected and feel as if they will have to live off the system to survive. I have no doubt of man’s drive to survive, and if he is not given a hand by his fellow countryman on a personal level he will resort to other things if need be.

76

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

And he’s probably scratch his head at all those imaginary boundaries on a map. Humanity is the whole. American, Canadian, South American, African, European, et als. are meaningless labels. We are all related in some fashion and we’re all inhabiting the same planet. [/quote]

Exactly. And he’d be further puzzled by this: as individuals we tend to treat each other with compassion or at the very least cordiality. If I have a dispute with my neighbor I am expected to talk it out or seek the help of an unbiased third party–chasing him around with a shovel is generally frowned upon. At the personal level we aren’t so bad after all (mostly).

And at the national level? If I am a sovereign state and so is he? Fuck, if I like my neighbor’s blueberry bushes I’ll hop right over his fence and take them the goddamn things. If he tries to stop me I’ll stab him in the fucking dick. If I feel like it I’ll make up some bullshit story about him keeping weapons in his house and then start dropping fire from the sky right over his fucking kids’ rooms.

Any sane observer would be puzzled at the fact that we as Americans are expected to (and usually do) treat our neighbors with respect or, at the very worst, cordial indifference. Meanwhile we allow our governments to act like petulant children, spitting in each others faces and brushing out the toilet bowl with each others toothbrushes on the sly.[/quote]

The fear of punishment is a major determinate of individual to individual interaction. [/quote]

Exactly. Criminality is minimized only under the watchful eye of a powerful higher authority ready and able to bring justice upon transgressors. As long as our world is anarchic at the national level–i.e., there is no true authority to govern nation-states–governments will treat each other like petulant adolescent children.

The UN and its ICJ branch could theoretically have been established in such a way as to fulfill such a role. But why would the world’s superpowers surrender their place atop the hierarchy?[/quote]

It won’t work. Such a large government will become ineffective, especially with universal suffrage as it will sway with the public opinion instead justice. The United States (I still hold it is a union and not a country) was very effective in containing itself when they held to a decree that Congress had to declare an act of war before actually going into war.

77

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Simple, those with “higher” education believe they can rely on their reason alone. However, the po’ po’ free peasants of the Red States know better. We know that’s impossible to rely on reason alone because we know the weakness of our reasoning faculties, so we rely on tradition.

We’ll take the word of 10,000 free men then the word of one lunatic with a degree.[/quote]

I think we should trust the experts as much as we can. I trust engineers to design and build the bridges that I drive on every day. I trust my doctors to figure out what ails me and fix it.[/quote]

Yes, and I only trust those engineers and doctors that bind themselves to the established practices of their trade…a la tradition.

[/quote]

While also keeping current on the progress being made in their respective fields. In fact in many ways progress is more important than tradition.

If tradition trumped progress absolutely, doctors would still be attaching leaches to us and drilling holes in our heads to let the headache demons escape.

Or if that is too far in the past, consider that less than 50 years ago, “four out of five doctors recommend Camel cigarettes!”

It’s all about a balance. Tradition without progress is as detrimental as progress without tradition.[/quote]

Yes, but now we’re on a road of toss tradition and bring on the progress. I prefer to realise that reform is needed, not revolution as some people wish to see happen.

78

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

And he’s probably scratch his head at all those imaginary boundaries on a map. Humanity is the whole. American, Canadian, South American, African, European, et als. are meaningless labels. We are all related in some fashion and we’re all inhabiting the same planet. [/quote]

Exactly. And he’d be further puzzled by this: as individuals we tend to treat each other with compassion or at the very least cordiality. If I have a dispute with my neighbor I am expected to talk it out or seek the help of an unbiased third party–chasing him around with a shovel is generally frowned upon. At the personal level we aren’t so bad after all (mostly).

And at the national level? If I am a sovereign state and so is he? Fuck, if I like my neighbor’s blueberry bushes I’ll hop right over his fence and take them the goddamn things. If he tries to stop me I’ll stab him in the fucking dick. If I feel like it I’ll make up some bullshit story about him keeping weapons in his house and then start dropping fire from the sky right over his fucking kids’ rooms.

Any sane observer would be puzzled at the fact that we as Americans are expected to (and usually do) treat our neighbors with respect or, at the very worst, cordial indifference. Meanwhile we allow our governments to act like petulant children, spitting in each others faces and brushing out the toilet bowl with each others toothbrushes on the sly.[/quote]

The fear of punishment is a major determinate of individual to individual interaction. [/quote]

Exactly. Criminality is minimized only under the watchful eye of a powerful higher authority ready and able to bring justice upon transgressors. As long as our world is anarchic at the national level–i.e., there is no true authority to govern nation-states–governments will treat each other like petulant adolescent children.

The UN and its ICJ branch could theoretically have been established in such a way as to fulfill such a role. But why would the world’s superpowers surrender their place atop the hierarchy?[/quote]

It won’t work. Such a large government will become ineffective, especially with universal suffrage as it will sway with the public opinion instead justice. The United States (I still hold it is a union and not a country) was very effective in containing itself when they held to a decree that Congress had to declare an act of war before actually going into war.[/quote]

True. I was speaking more idealistically than realistically. If only it were possible…but there is every indication that it isn’t.

79

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Tick,

You spent time in California right? The most liberal state in the Union I would argue. We have…

  1. The highest taxes in almost every category.

  2. The 3rd highest unemployment rate in the country.

  3. Ranked 49th out of 50 in student performance, yet pay the highest in teacher salaries in the union.

  4. 35% of the welfare IN THE ENTIRE COUNTRY, yet only 12% of the country’s population.

  5. One of the highest state college tuition rates (which is being increased yet again), yet one of the highest dropout rates in the country.

  6. The highest illegal alien population in the country.

  7. A tax bracket that qualifies you as being “rich” when making $47k/year or more, that means that you are placed in the highest tax bracket.

With all that shit right there^^^, where is all this money going? What has been produced from such a socialistic state? We pour (should I say waste) more money into worthless bottomless hole programs that produce nothing, because of Liberal parasites.

How is that Liberalism working for you? How did Greece turn out ? Cali is on the way, from policies that you encourage.

Great job, you took the state with the 5th largest economy IN THE WORLD, and turned it into a 3rd world shit hole. Yay Liberalism. Yay Fucking Democruds, spend the fuck out of money we don’t have. Tax the shit out of wealth makers, to the point where they leave to more tax friendly states.

And you call your ideology “common sense?” Bitch please. [/quote]

Firstly, I’d ask for sources for those stats. Since last I heard Mississippi, Alabama and Texas were all at the bottom for education I don’t think I believe California is suddenly the worst!

Secondly, I think you shouldn’t confuse progressiveness with being a Democrat. The Dem’s are idiots and the Republican’s are inflexible ideologues who want to shrink government just small enough to fit in our bedrooms and hospital rooms. Neither are worth a damn.

Thirdly, my post said I was born in Iowa, grew up in CA and lived in WI, AZ, Europe, and Canada. I moved out of CA when I was 18, never voted in a CA election. How exactly is the current state of the State of California a reflection on my voting record?

80

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]TheTick42 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
If they find a religious gene I’m getting a t-shirt that says “I’m not religious, but my Priest is.” Then I’m going to lead a campaign on campus against religious-phobes ( self-hating closeted religious people, really). If everyone’s getting a predisposition/orientation, I want mine, too.[/quote]

Finest poster? You are telling me that a bigot is the best we got? Really? I didn’t look him up, maybe he makes Samuel Silvio look like Mary Poppins but a bigot is a bigot. Atheists are “closeted religious” people? How does that even make sense?
[/quote]

So, when it finally hits you that you simply didn’t get the joke, and that, indeed, the meaning of the post went sailing over your head, will Sloth still be a bigot? And what will it make you?
[/quote]

If that’s true than Mia Culpa, egg on my face, and my apologies. Downside of the web but since the first responses weren’t to point out that I had made a mistake but were to tell me how right he was…my bad.