Whistle Stopper

Whistle Stopper Forums is a quaint, simple, delightful little corner of the political forum universe. This is one of those forums where you either fit in well with the people or you do not. I've been lurking there for some time, reading the posts, trying to form an opinion about the content. Unfortunately, the variety of content at the Whistle Stopper is too broad to pigeonhole into a single categorization. What does that mean for you? How do you know if you'd be interested? Well, like most small, but active, political forums, if you enjoy the people, you'll enjoy the site. If you can't stand the people, then you'll find nothing but frustration.

Whistle Stopper is running V-Bulletin, but has not upgraded to the latest version. It's soft, clean-cut design is smoothly integrated into an easily navigated, easily acceptable, always fast, forum. The Forum boasts over 1,000,000 posts and over 18,000 registered members. This is a well established Forum that has stood the test of time, going strong since 2003. If you are looking for a political forum to call home, this is definitely that kind of forum.

$5,000 Reward for Rice

Michaelr posted an article @ Political Hotwire concerning several New Zealand students who plan on arresting Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Obviously many people support these kinds of over-hyped publicity stunts and seek to encourage them. I'm not sure its a very good idea.

How would you feel having the citizens of another nation arresting or detaining a public official of yours?

Another Stupid Thread by sdbest...

This time questioning the stupidity of Americans. This Volconvo critic and Canadian native seems to believe that there is a high degree of probability that Americans just might be the stupidest bastards in the civilized world, and what a shame, given all their wealth and opportunity that they suffer under such horrible conditions.

According to Development: US fails to measure up on 'human index', Americans lag far behind other countries on most measures of quality of life.

Not to be too provocative, but given America's absolute wealth doesn't this suggest that the average American is basically an idiot to accept these conditions. Isn't it clear yet to the majority of Americans that the "American Dream" of their mythology is, in fact, one big con?

Will Americans ever get it that the capitalist, free market system they've been indoctrinated to think is the best in the world is, in fact, a scam to rip off the majority of Americans who clearly are suckers?

The rich get richer thanks to the government they bought. The poor get poorer. And, the middle class gets sold to the Chinese, Indians, and the oil industry.

And most Americans just watch the TV as they're bled of everything of value, including their lives.

How sad. How sad. How sad.

It's amazing that Americans can still put their pants on one leg at a time. Damn! And could Americans defend themselves in this thread? Of course not. Americans pity themselves nearly as much as the Social Democrats and Canadian Liberals do. Frankly, I think Americans do suffer from a great deal of ignorance and apathy, which is a dangerous combination when considering the power and scope of our supposedly representative government. But if sdbest is correct, Canada and Europe should take pity on us lowly Americans and start giving us free energy like our pal Hugo Chavez, or maybe free prescription drugs for our seniors. Come on guys, step up. Save us from our stupidity!

John McCain's Age

Pragmatist published a post at Political Hotwire drawing attention to John McCain's age as a realistic issue in the 2008 election. Offering no thoughts of his own, he refers to a Daily Kos article instead.

NotMyRealName responded:

I'm not really going to judge McCain on these videos alone... but that's not to say this point doesn't have some teeth.

McCain is getting old, and you can tell he has some medical problems. I believe it will play a role in the campaign, rightly so.

And so it proves what I say... if Obama loses this election it really won't have anything to do with Republicans. It will be because Obama couldn't get the white democrat vote.

I think he makes a good point here. Frankly, I think McCain's age should be an issue and we should consider his physical and mental health. However, because Obama has made himself out to be such a fantastically polarizing figure in American politics, the election will come down to those who support him and those who do not. A vote for McCain will typically be a "not Obama" vote. This is why it will be so important for McCain to choose his running mate wisely. He may want to pick someone much younger than himself to say, "If something happens to me, this guy looks healthy!". Of course, this would further draw attention to McCain's age. So he may want to find a healthy 55 year old, who while being younger than McCain, is not so young that he makes McCain look old and decrepit himself.

Have We Won the Iraq War?

Starfish, of Religious Forums, quotes Michael Yon's contention that for all intents and purposes the war in Iraq is finished and the United States has been victorious:

"The war continues to abate in Iraq. Violence is still present, but, of course, Iraq was a relatively violent place long before Coalition forces moved in. I would go so far as to say that barring any major and unexpected developments (like an Israeli air strike on Iran and the retaliations that would follow), a fair-minded person could say with reasonable certainty that the war has ended. A new and better nation is growing legs. What's left is messy politics that likely will be punctuated by low-level violence and the occasional spectacular attack. Yet, the will of the Iraqi people has changed, and the Iraqi military has dramatically improved, so those spectacular attacks are diminishing along with the regular violence. Now it's time to rebuild the country, and create a pluralistic, stable and peaceful Iraq. That will be long, hard work. But by my estimation, the Iraq War is over. We won. Which means the Iraqi people won."

Starfish didn't go on to give an interpretation of the validity or meaning of those quotation. He merely left it there to settle in and annoy the liberals.

Troublemane contends that,

I predict there will be a declaration of victory by september, october at the latest, if only to deprive the obama camp of the privalege. there may be some optimism that mccain will win (not likely) but i think the polls are showing a greater probability obama will win, so---that means (just to be on the safe side) victory will be declared before the election, just to ensure bush gets the glory.

Not a bad contention, even though I don't think such an obvious ploy would go over well with our troops or the American people. No one wants to think of our military action as politically driven, and when we do, we tend to get rather pissed off about it.

I think we are a long way off from victoriously securing a democratic and peaceful Iraq, which seems to be our current military objective. Did the surge work? Of course it did and things are much better now than they were two years ago, but we've still got no viable exit strategy. Regardless of what the Bush Administration does in its waning days of its' White House occupancy, the future of Iraq will be left to the next occupant to deal with.

Is Senator Obama an Idiot? Well, some people would like to know!

SDBest has started a thread at Volconvo questioning the intelligence of the Messiah himself, Senator Obama. Ballsy.

SDBest writes that,

Barack Obama promises to withdraw from Iraq, but increase American troops in Afghanistan. Obama said, "As president, I will make the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban the top priority that it should be. This is a war that we have to win."

In my view, Obama is as big a fool and idiot as Bush to think that the US and its allies can prevail in Afghanistan. Throughout history, Afghanistan has resisted all attempts by invaders to subdue it. It is insane hubris to think that the US can prevail where all others failed, particularly when the U.S. loses most of its wars except those it wages on small islands like Grenada.

So, is Obama an idiot?

Certainly SD here isn't the only one questioning Obama's new foreign policy positions. Many of Obama's most ardent supporters are wondering what happened to their Great Pacifist Hope. The News Media, as it follows Obama around the world in awe of his grandeur, youth, and increasingly apparent inexperience, are trying to figure out how to report on Obama contradictory remarks.

HelioPrime, I think, pretty much spelled it out though:

I'd say he's just doing what it takes to get elected. Independent voters who oppose the war will support him over his Iraq drawdown while more conservative independents will support his continues fight against terrorism.

That's not cynicism folks. That's just reality of our political culture; and before you start bitching about it, we have no one to blame but ourselves.

Communist Applause for Obama

From Political Hotwire:

Burning Giraffe posted a link and quote from the Communist Party website, outlining from the Communist point of view, the benefits of the Obama candidacy. Unsurprisingly the debate has taken a rather defensive tone.

Kyryahn responds by saying,

And I'm pretty sure the KKK is strongly supporting McCain, and have speeches on how it's the 1st step towards an all white America without immigration etc, so what? You're not responsible for others' interpretation of you, of your message, of your actions.

Inkslinger retorts,

So what? Communism certainly isn't a threat today, no more than it was a threat in the 40's and 50s. Just a bunch of Ooga Booga the gullible right still clings to.
You guys are really having a tough time trying to get shit to stick to Obama, arent ya? Amusing...

Colin writes,

Somehow I doubt that the Obama Administration would nationalize American industry, erect an isolationist trade policy, promote workers cooperatives, implement massive wealth redistribution(as in the destruction of social class) and facilitate workers seizing the means of production.

Seriously some of you guys are just out to lunch on these issues.

I think it speaks to the commonality of conservatives throwing out the "communist" or "socialist" labels at Democrats every time Democrats support some government welfare program that instigates this kind of blind defensiveness. The inference drawn here is that the original poster was implying that Obama was a Communist or "Communist-Light". Of course, that wasn't what the article was about, and having read it myself, it is plain as day that what the Communist Party Chair is so enthusiastic about is America's embrace of the Leftward shift the Obama candidacy represents.

While it is usually the Republicans screaming that Democrats are moving left, this serves as a more objective verification of that, since the Communist Party (being at the extreme left) is also noticing such a shift. Then consider that one of the most liberal (big government) Republicans is now the Republican Nominee, it is evident that the fulcrum of American Politics has shifted leftward, which means that we can expect to see a more Social Democratic agenda in this country.

As Burning Giraffe would go on to say,

This isn't about sticking anything to Obama. I'm not calling him a communist. I'm very simply pointing out why the Communist Party is excited about Obama's candidacy, because of a philosophical overlap that should absolutely concern libertarians and maybe some Republicans as well. You can poo poo the issue all you like, but this is relevant.

But again, in their defense, if Republicans and Libertarians were less likely to irrationally accuse Democrats of being closet-communists, they probably wouldn't react so defensively to such an innocent post.

Point Your Finger

An excellent example of finger pointing has begun at Political Forums. Apparently Nancy Pelosi blames Bush for Gas Prices and the general state of the economy, even after nearly two years of a Democratic led Congress.

Superdude17 points out that:


Obviously insinuating that gas prices are the fault of the Democratic Congress.

The Stripey1 retorts that,

so if you want to lay blame on Congress for not accomplishing anything, be sure you lay that blame right where it belongs...
at the feet of the obstructionist republicans...

The rest of the thread is pretty much more of the same. What a beautiful example of ignorance in action. There is no real discussion of the causes of increased oil prices, no discussion of the legislation, regulation, and taxation involved here. There is no political insight into matters of substance or fact, just finger pointing. You can hardly blame them, after all this is the example set for us by our politicians and parroted by the media. This is the way debates are done. You've got to stick the other guys with the blame.

As for solutions, well, let's not talk about what causes our problems, lets just figure out how to reduce the damage. In the politicians mind, if the people want cheaper gas and there are a significant number of votes in ethanol, then including ethanol into our gasoline supply is a good idea for politicians. That the cost of corn and all the food stuffs corn goes into making has dramatically increased, that violent protests all around the world are taking place because of this, doesn't matter to our politicians. They'll just wait for another special interest opportunity and another politically expedient solution. DON'T ADDRESS THE CAUSE! There is no reason to talk about causation because causation doesn't help our politicians. Causation doesn't fit in neatly with the political discussion. Causation doesn't make for sexy media presentations.

Free Speech

A story concerning billboards blaming Democrats for 9/11 has raised the issue of free speech in "advertising" at Democracy Forums. What amuses me are that the responses are entirely political. This is a free speech issue, but the discussion has turned to political sniping.

Buck Laser responded,

"Let it stay for as long as he can afford it. It only hurts republicans".

Webwarrior wrote,

"It shows the mentality of the republican party. They can't run on the issues and they sure can run on their true agenda (the advancement of big oil, cooperate America and millionaires) so they resort to fearmongering, it's worked quite well for them, Americans aren't the brightest of people, look at the retard they call a president".

This all seems a bit illogical in my opinion. What is at issue here is free speech. Should these billboards be allowed to exist. People arguing for Free Speech would say yes. Now, as free speech is a civil liberty, Democrats typically support it, but they won't say so without making sure to characterize the ads as "Republican" and "fear mongering", which is utterly disingenuous.

What's So Good About Government Anyway?

From National Polemic & National Polemic Cultural Forums

In 1860, Abraham Lincoln’s Republican Party gained power by opposing the expansion of slavery. For the first time, the nation was split over an issue that affected the political liberties of the States, the role of the federal government, the national economy, and the identity of the nation at the same time. The result was the failed secession attempt by eleven southern states under the banner of the Confederate Flag and the leadership of Jefferson Davis. What began as a war over the State’s Right to Slavery, ended with a divide in the national conscience between the idea of State’s Rights and Federal authority.

In 1928, a global depression struck the first industrialized nations, and by October 29th, 1929, the Great Depression reached Wall Street in New York City, the effects of which would reverberate around the nation over the following months and years. Nearly every nation turned to their governments to save them from what must have seemed like the end of their economic world, with no hope of salvation. While the Russians pursued the collectivization of the peasants, the Germans turned to Adolph Hitler. The Americans, quickly turned to Franklin D. Roosevelt. But everyone turned to government.

Historians gave our politicians mixed reviews. Both Adolph Hitler and Franklin Roosevelt were credited with saving their national economies through the centralization of government and the use of government programs to direct and focus the energies of the nations. Of course, we ended up losing millions of men in a global war, but I suppose no government is perfect. Other historians have blamed FDR for extending the Great Depression. But one thing was certain, the torch of Big Government and centralized power in the United States was passed from the anti-Slavery Republicans to the anti-Business Democrats.

Banks, Businesses, Industrialists, and rich people in general, were demonized by the Roosevelt Administration and the general cultural affection shifted from a fierce loyalty to “freedom” by individuals fighting for self-reliance in a capitalist world to an overall appreciation for the good works of government and the great society such works seemed to promise. The legacy of FDR and the promise of a government-manufactured Great Society, would be the banner of the Democratic Party up to the present day.

Today, government has grown so large that citizens of the worlds’ industrialized nations work more days out of each year paying for their government than they do paying for their own lives. I suppose we should all be grateful that up until resent years, the capitalist economies have been growing faster than Government. Just as the whole world felt the burden of the Great Depression in the late 1920s, today the whole world is beginning to feel the burdensome weight of their governments. Sadly, in a miserable turn of human fortune, people are not looking at this problem from the perspective that we can no longer afford our governments. Rather, the people have become convinced that governments can no longer afford them, and, once again, the governments of the world are blaming the bankers, businessmen, industrialists, and rich people in general for the all the worlds’ woes, while claiming no real culpability themselves.

We need to raise the taxes on the rich, they tell us, in order to provide all those services We the People have begged from them over the years. Some industries just won’t play ball either, so we’ll need some more regulation of the capitalist economy and any offensive profits must be confiscated by the government on behalf of the people. The people are hurting, after all, and its the governments job to protect us. Therefore, we must hurt the people who aren’t hurting. Not in any long term strategy to improve the future of our economy, but in the short term interest of capitalizing on the wealth-envy of the poorer masses struggling to sustain their standard of living in the face of rising food, energy, and health care prices.

Today, we may be witnessing the next great turmoil in Western Civilization where the citizens of the Industrialized world will be forced to choose their allegiances and redefine their ideologies. While individualists, libertarians, and capitalists don’t have hardly any ground left to defend, they may be our only bulwark and rampart against the tidal waves of government. The only hope for individualists, libertarians, and capitalists is that people begin asking the question, “What’s so good about government anyway?”.

Meanwhile, our governments are proposing higher taxes, increased regulation, greater centralization of government (both nationally and internationally), and a wider proliferation of complex systems of political and economic controls over the peoples of the Western World. The banks and multinational corporations have done their own analysis and have chosen to latch on to governments, believing their survival to be intimately linked to their government connections and their own lobbying power. For the average citizen, however, there is still time to choose. Choose wisely.

American Culture Forums

In my search for new cultural forums to review, the only American Cultural Forum I found was National Polemic: America's Cultural Forum. Google gave me nothing. Yahoo couldn't help. There are hundreds of political forums. Plenty of Philosophy forums. But a shocking absence of popular Cultural Forums. Are people really that disinterested in Culture? It seems to me that Culture is as polarizing as Politics or Philosophy.

Ephilosopher Forum

For a Philosophical approach to political, cultural, and, yes, Philosophical issues, Ephilosopher Forms is where its at. That is, depending on what your definition of "is" is. This unique forum offers a wide range of topics and regular members that have generated 7605 threads and 138502 replies. If Philosophy is your thing, this is definitely one of the most active forums on the internet catering to your niche.

While I am not a contributing member at Ephilospher Forums, I have tried to browse the forum objectively, without letting my own philosophical snobbery get in the way of deciding whether or not it would appeal to my readers. While the vast majority of threads exhibit the kind of discussions you'd find in your Philosophy 101 courses in your average Community College, or a Knowledge and Realty course at your local university, there are enough threads to keep the serious philosopher interested on a part time basis. I suppose that most people are more interested in the amateur level discussion anyway.

Overall, this is a worthy forum. Check it and Enjoy.

On the Value of Children

Burning Giraffe has posted an interesting thread on the Value of Children at National Polemic Forums in response to a thread on Capital Punishment at Democracy Forums. I always love to see how ideas spread across the net!

---------- At National Polemic ----------

In a thread over at Democracy Forums, a member (IndieVisable) argued that,

Quote: "Sure I would support death sentence for some crimes, like extreme hideous one's or the killing of children! But I would want built in safe guards so to avoid killing a innocent person who feel between the cracks of the legal system. A manditory 5-10 year wait period".

and I responded by saying that,

"I'm sorry, but I don't think it would be any more of a crime for a man to kill my wife than it would for him to kill your child. Children are not more valuable than adults and their supposed innocence doesn't make them any less deserving of death, as if simply by growing older we become more expendable and deserving of being murdered.

The problem with reserving the death penalty for even hideous crimes is that the definition of "hideous" is subjective. Democrats might view not paying your taxes as a "hideous crime". It's best to invest in life without parole for the most violent criminals and to spare the expense of the taxpayer those non-violent, non-threatening "criminals" who merely broken the arbitrary laws of our country. Fine them or penalize them, but don't incarcerate them".

Which got me to thinking about this obsession people seem to have with the innocence and value of children. I've never understood this and I think it causes quite a considerable amount of trouble in the lives of adults.

For example, how many husbands have felt their value to their wives diminished when the children began arriving? How many women have even caught themselves making their children a priority over their husbands? Frankly, if I have children, I am going to want to have them see their mother and father making each other the priority in their lives, to prepare them for the tremendous life-long responsibility of being married. My commitments and responsibilities to my wife will continue until I die, but children move out and become independent.

Why should we shrug at the murder of an adult, but be appalled by the murder of a child? It seems like such a revoltingly unequal evaluation of human life! A person who murders a child is no worse than a person who murders a ninety year old or a forty-five year old. A person who kills a woman is no less moral than a person who kills a man. We really carry some seriously skewed ideas about the nature of human value.

How often have politicians told us that we need to do "X" for the Children, because the children are our future! Excuse me, but what possible reason should people be talked into sacrificing their own rights or liberties for the security of their children? Is this really going to make their children's lives any better?

I imagine this will cause quite a stir as people seem to hold children as the holy grail of innocence in innate human value.
__________________

Bob Barr or Ralph Nader

An excellent thread posted at Volconvo wondering whether or not Ralph Nader or Bob Barr would play the biggest role of "third party spoiler". From GHook93:

Everyone knows that the Green Party takes from the Democratic base and the Libertarian Party takes from the Republican base. So the question is who is going to be more of a spoiler. Right now Nader polls at 6% and Barr at 3%, which are not shabby numbers for 3rd party candidated (not numbers that scream they are true candidates, but not shabby).

Can either of them jump up into real contention? Nader has a Latino running with him, who is very active and known in CA, that could eat into the Latino basis of the Democrats. Under the Bush administration aka the Republicans, everything has gone to sh1t: Oil, food, the economy, Iraq, Afghanistan, the dollar, the mortgage meltdown, tax and spending increases, rising healthcare costs and an inevitable recission. Like it or not this all came on the Republican ticket. However, fiscal conservatives (such as myself) still don't want to go to the liberal camps in Obama or Nader. Therefore the alternative is to go Libertarian. I have committed my vote to Bob Barr, I wonder how many others will also.

Can either be a true threat? I personally think that neither will receive more than 1% of the vote. I think Nader will get a little more because of name recognition, but not much. Its a shame though. It would be nice to have 4 parties. I think the Libertarians and Greens must start with State and Local elections, then move to Congress and State governors and then go for the big ticket.

While I would hope that Bob Barr would get the most votes of any third party candidate, the resentment within the Libertarian Party at the nomination of two libertarian-leaning Republicans is very real, and many of them are defecting to the Constitution Party in support of Chuck Baldwin.

The Miserable Failure that is the US Congress

At Liberal Forums, No You Can't posted a Rasmussen Poll showing that for the first time in history the Congress is in single digital approval ratings.

Today Congress' approval rating fell to another historic low. It's funny that Foaming at the Mouth Liberals care so deeply about Bush's approval ratings (HE'S THE MOST UNPOPULAR PRESIDENT IN HISTORY!), yet they so easily dismiss the Democrat Congress' even more abismal ratings. Today they fell to SINGLE DIGITS for the first time ever:

MistyBlue demonstrates the typically indignant response you here from liberals from coast to coast.

There are Republicans in Congress also, you know.
The Democrats barely have a majority in the Senate, and Republicans are using the filibuster
to block everything. That is their strategy. They've admitted it.
So then they can send their flying monkeys, like you, out to say the Dems are a do nothing Congress.
They are also using procedural tactics in the House to slow things down, like introducing amendment
after amendment.
They've even dug up an old rule, that allows them to stop hearings.
The Republicans care more about politics, than they do about helping the American people.
Try watching C-Span once in a while.

Regardless of who is to blame, the fact is that Americans feel fed up with their government and yet remain unwilling to do anything about it. In fact, they are depending on the government to preach and inspire change, while they continue to shop and pay the bills. Nothing in government will change without widespread socio-cultural revolution.

Unemployment Reasons

From World Political Forums:

Geb22's Original Post: Hi, I would like to hear your thoughts on whether technical progress and globalization are important sources of unemployment today.

Posted by SmallPox: Globalization does not create unemployment. It only categorize geographic areas into specialization. When a manufacture job in Canada goes to China, the job is not lost to China, it's merely changed into something else. Now that the manufacturer of gas-pumps can't manufacture gas-pumps in Canada anymore, he'll either have to manufacture higher end products or go back to school and find employment that is actually in demand in his area and increase his skills. So he didn't lose his job, the economical circumstances forced him to find a job more appropriate for the specialization of his geographic area. Canada has incredibly low unemployment rates, despite the fact that outsourcing has been present here just as much as the US.

In fact, globalization creates MORE employment. By allowing the free-flow of goods and jobs around the world, it allows countries to specialize into fields, making them richer and therefore increasing their demands for higher-end goods and services provided by the "west". When Peugeot opens a factory in China, it forces its factory workers to find higher-class work. This higher-class work is then increased in demand because engineers, managers and sells-people are now in higher demand for the operations in China because with the reduce cost, more has to be spent on selling, innovating and managing. Globalization also increases production (see comparative advantage to trade) and the diversification of the market for the economy.

The reason there's so much unemployment in the US is because the Bush Administration did everything to make it look like a loose canon to investors and debt in Iraq are in the triple digits in the billions already.

That's an interesting perspective coming from someone living in Canada. What I find most interesting is that every time I come across economic threads, the vast majority of people demonstrate literally no understand of economics, but yet, due to the influence of the media, everyone speaks as though they understand it. I think Harry Frankfurt got it write in On Bullshit, "One of the most salient features of our culture is that there is so much bullshit". People understand the basic key words thrown around in economic debates and so they just harp on them endlessly. But actually economic knowledge, well, that's pretty much missing from all the debates. Smallpox here comes close to demonstrating an understanding of how things work, which is why I choose to post his response.

Debate on Political Forums

@ National Polemic Cultural Forums

Burning Giraffe:
Just a thought/question - but how do you all feel about the role of political forums in fostering quality discussions between people of differing political philosophies? Especially with people from other countries? Is the dialogue helpful? Is it informative?

Aubawok:In my limited experience political discussions on US forums that attract foreign input quickly break down into name calling and hostility. Briefly, reasonable members will point out that terms like liberal and conservative mean quite different things in other parts of the globe but then the discussion breaks down into how superior/inferior the US is. GWB is then painted as some kind of oil-snorting war junkie, the thread becomes locked, and members on both sides get banned. It rarely is pretty no matter how you feel about the issues.

The Religion of Doom & Gloom

A Discussion concerning the expansion of Pessimistic Philosophy and World View is taking place over at Democracy Forums.

Burning Giraffe:

Liberals and Mystics have been undermining Man’s faith in himself for centuries, promising Doom and Gloom around every corner, demanding more fear, more submissiveness, and more order to protect us from each other and from nature. (That’s where Global Warming comes in. Indeed, unbridled fear and helplessness has reached its most vigorous expression in the “science” of Global Warming). These people have reached the stage of out-right panic.

The Religion of Doom and Gloom is predicated on several premises:

1. That Human Beings are naturally evil and selfish.
2. That Human Beings are incapable of knowing the world around them.
3. That Liberty is a natural threat to unity, peace, and harmony amongst Men.
4. That Man’s nature must be curtailed by either the force and power of government or the fear of and submission to God.

Look around you and you’ll find these premises at work in the thinking of hundreds of millions of people all across the world. You'll find these premises alive in nearly every religion and in most political institutions, and certainly throughout the cultures and societies of the world. I call this a religion because these premises are the core of many people's world view and require a great deal of faith.

Buck Laser responds by noting:

I simply do not believe that it's "man's natural evil that requires great effort to tame and control" that lies at the basis of human society. Humans, despite the faults they share with the rest of the animal world, long ago learned the values of cooperation and compassion. That they slip from thes values doesn't mean they're evil creatures. Yeah, I know some people, especially a few of the more vocal Christians on this board believe that.

Guilt isn't so much the motive factor as the clear evidence that people generally do better in cooperative relations than they do in either anarchic or rigidly authoritarian systems. I have no use for anarchy, and I don't personally care much for authoritarianism, but I do believe there are situations where an authoritarian structure may be necessary. The military is one of the places where it's pretty much inescapable, as it would be in any human activity that requires closely coordinated actions.

The Debate Continues!

From Political Hotwire The Following is a debate between Davocrat & Burning Giraffe:

Originally Posted by Davocrat:

But you seem to infer that the only reason I support government in its efforts to promote the general welfare is out of guilt or altruism or some philosophical mandate.

Let's take one broad example. If there is a safety net that successfully helps people get a leg up when they fall on hard times, I see that as improving everyone's lives by preventing crime and reducing general squalor.

Indeed, but at the price of our economic liberty. I'm sorry, but its not worth it. Not to me anyway. I don't believe that government aid works anyway, so why not allow and encourage business by making America the freest economy on earth, and let the businessmen, inventors, producers, manufacturers, industrialists, and entrepreneurs provide for the general economic welfare of the people? You provide jobs for people right? Well, I trust you more than I trust the government. I want you providing people with a hand up, not a hand out. I want you to pay people for their help in making you a profit, so that your business will provide services which I can buy.

I'll trade you the money I make from my labor for your goods and services, which will make you rich, and allow you to hire more people to provide more goods and services from which I may benefit. Its a win win situation. Once the government starts regulating your industry, if it hasn't already, and taxing you to hell, if it hasn't all ready, then you'll be able to hire less people, won't be able to provide me goods and services at the cheapest possible price, and won't be able to contribute nearly as much to society. Well, I think that's wrong and am not willing to sacrifice that for an inefficient and inefficaciously run welfare system.

Originally Posted by Davocrat:
That's an investment that I can't personally afford to make, but with a tax base of X-hundred million adult citizens, we can do a lot for--what I consider--a very convenient contribution. To me that makes logical sense.

And even IF philanthropists could afford to remedy the country's problems, there are seldom situations where there are no strings attached...faith-based, politically linked, etc. If the government is doing its job, it should provide secular, objective and fair administration of social services.

We don't need philanthropists, we need businesses. We don't need charity, we need more economic activity. And you aren't going to get more economic activity by punishing the people who produce the products and offer the services upon which that economy depends.

Originally Posted by Davocrat:
If we completely take social services away and rely entirely on individual goodwill, we will eventually become a feudal state.

What? Good will? Who said anything about good will? Let's keep this on economic terms shall we? More economic freedom will lead to more wealth, which will create more jobs, and allow more people to earn their living. Even if 2 to 5% of the nation is unemployed, there will be more than enough wealth generated to allow private charity to help deal with those who have been perpetually burdened by poverty. Not out of good will, but out of self-interest. Let the businesses clean up the cities in order to create a more prosperous business environment.

Originally Posted by Davocrat:
A lot of what you base your favor of libertarian ideals on is absolute faith in free enterprise. But the very principles of free-market capitalism avoid philanthropy. It is not incentivized in the least (and since you'd abolish the tax system as we know it, contributions wouldn't even be deductible).

I don't understand why "moderation" and compromise are antithetical to libertarian principles (based on some of the nastier proponents of it on this board). Why can't elements of democracy be included?

Because "moderation" and compromise have proven to be a very real slippery slope (as opposed to the merely hypothetical kinds). Furthermore, the principles upon which these welfare systems are based are dependent upon need. And when you disturb and regulate and tax the free market all to hell, there is going to be a greater need amongst the poor, which liberals try to solve with more regulation and taxes and government services, and everything essentially spirals out of control. It isn't working. Government is incapable of creating wealth. Period. It should stay out of the way and let the people who actually know how to create wealth, to create jobs, to produce products and offer services to do so without having to bend over backwards for politicians who use the "needs" of the poor as a means to acquire power for themselves.

National Polemic

National Polemic is an American Cultural Forum, pretty much the only one of its kind that I've found. It is a brand new Forum running V-Bulletin Software, focusing on the topics of American Culture, US Politics, Philosophy, and Religion. This forum still has a long way to go before it could be considered "active", but new members would have the ability to shape its evolution and to establish a community of their own. Its a clean-slate forum. Do with it what you will. Based on the fact that the content on this forum is unique, I think it will do quite well once discovered.