Single Issue Voter?

[JohnT]

Consistancy is the hobgoblin of small minds.

[Boris Godunov]

Groucho,



Indeed.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by JohnT


Consistancy is the hobgoblin of small minds.

hobgoblins twice in one page...you've been playing too much D&D lately, and all good conservatives know that is a tool of the Devil!

[- Groucho -]

To give them a bit of credit ...

Do I contradict myself?
Very well then I contradict myself,
(I am large, I contain multitudes.)

- Walt Whitman, "Song of Myself"

[JohnT]

I had no idea that the conversation would turn to me using the Emerson quote. Odd how these things happen. I don't play D&D, either and it's been quite awhile since I've fired up a RPG.

[- Groucho -]

I wonder who came up with the thought first, Emerson or Whitman?

[David Floyd]

The GOP only champions individual rights when it is convenient and in line with their moral philosophy. They are anti-individual rights on drugs, gay rights, the flag burning ammendment, the war on terror, etc. It's not consistent

The same can, of course, be said with regards to liberals and the Democrats.

Both the Republicans and the Democrats only support liberty when it is in line with their political beliefs of acceptable behavior. Therefore, neither party is pro-liberty, so I won't vote for either at this stage.

[tandeetaylor]

Originally posted by JohnT
DF and I got into a little spat about it in this thread, though I must warn you that I remained on-topic and talked about reforming Social Security and not abolishing it. If you feel like adding something to the conversation, please do - I'd like to hear your opinion.

I don't know that much about SS, that's why I said my plan was childish, simplistic, and ignorant. I agree with DF, and that's probably because we think so very much alike. I really don't understand why everyone dogs so much on him, all he was trying to do was bring logic, ethics, and morality to the discussion. Apparently that's not what anyone wants to hear, and they continually batter him with, "You're just selfish." What everyone is failing to realize is that we are talking about the use of government force here... the power to take away your life and freedom, and just like no one should be forced at gunpoint to live a Christian lifestyle, no one should be forced at gunpoint to conform to someone else's standard of morality. I happen to be a very generous person, (although I hate it when strangers come up to me ask me for money) but that isn't really an issue. The government does not have the right to force me to be generous. If you are, donate to a charity that will at least use your money more wisely than the government, or, even better, find people in your own life who can and will use your help.

What I REALLY don't understand is why you are in apparent agreement with the suggestion that SS should be abolished, when you dismiss all legitimate arguments as to the morality of doing so. Upon what morality do you base your opinion? That it just isn't working? And if only we could find a program that works, then it's OK? You flip-flop within the same post! Maintain some sort of purity, or I'm just going to get confused about who you are.

[- Groucho -]

If they aren't pro-liberty - why call them liberals?

Why not socialists? Or amoral secular humanists? Or anything that is half way close to having some sort of content.

Oh. Guess I just answered my own question. If your discourse has content then it can be debated and debate is not all that popular amongst the political elite. So if you use a word like "liberal" as an insult, the fact that it has no content other than "something vaguely bad, leftist and unamerican" makes it perfect because there is no way of saying "No, I'm not!" When the word "liberal" has no solid meaning, there is no way of saying it doesn't apply to you.

[tandeetaylor]

Back in the day, "liberal" did mean someone who espoused liberty.

[David Floyd]

In American politics, though, it simply means "left winger".

[Sandman]

I'll never vote for a party that espouses nationalistic doctrines, even if I agree on their other principles.

[Rex Little]

Originally posted by tandeetaylor
Back in the day, "liberal" did mean someone who espoused liberty.

More specifically: in the 19th and maybe the early 20th century, it meant taking the side of individual rights vs. government power across all issues, pretty much like today's libertarians. (My understanding is that it still has that meaning in Europe.) Somewhere between the Roosevelts, the term got hijacked by the Left.

[tandeetaylor]

I only knew that because I like English novels. I didn't know that it ever meant the same thing in America.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by tandeetaylor
I happen to be a very generous person, (although I hate it when strangers come up to me ask me for money) but that isn't really an issue. The government does not have the right to force me to be generous. If you are, donate to a charity that will at least use your money more wisely than the government, or, even better, find people in your own life who can and will use your help.

Tandee- you haven't had the benefit of what I'm about to post before. It's a post I made on this forum about 3 years ago, and I dig it out when well-intentioned people suggest abolishing social security.

"Let me follow up my last post with my explanation of why I feel tax-funded welfare is essential.

Unlike (I suspect) most of the regular posters on this forum, I have been on the dole (receiving welfare for unemployment) twice. The first period was for 7 months after leaving school while the second period was for 5 months after I graduated from University. I claimed unemployment benefit during both periods, and the fact that I didn't have to worry about eating or keeping a roof over my head allowed me to concentrate on going to nightschool and seeking work during the day. At the end of each period of unemployment I found a permanent job and for the vast majority of my adult life I have been in stable employment and paying taxes.

My unemployment was due to economic factors in Britain at the time. There simply weren't enough jobs around so myself and 3 million others were on the dole. I'm educated, I have a sound work ethic and I pay my way.

Resorting to "charitable donations" in such circumstances really means one thing- begging. I would have had to spend my days scraping together a pittance to survive on with little hope of obtaining a job. I suspect that under such circumstances I would still be on the streets today, or dead. Instead I am a manager for a major British bank and feeding much-needed funds back into the state. I consider it my duty as a citizen in a democratic country, and consider those who evade taxation to be parasites.

A nation without welfare funded by taxation is a nation where shantytowns and begging children are depressingly familiar sights. The atrocious social conditions result in high crime rates and a huge social underclass which breeds malcontent.

I owe my education to state funded education. I owe my health to the National Health Service. I owe my current affluence to the welfare state. I pay my taxes willingly and think that the income tax rates in Britain should be higher for the good of the country.

I consider tax-funded welfare to leave the nation a better place, and this far outweighs the individual irritation of paying tax. I feel this way because the streets are a cold and unforgiving place to sleep."


I'm glad to hear you're a generous person, tandee, but I think the few pennies you and your kind might throw my way would just prolong my starvation.