board77

The Last Homely Site on the Web

Future of Republicanism

Post Reply   Page 3 of 18  [ 345 posts ]
Jump to page « 1 2 3 4 518 »
Author Message
sauronsfinger
Post subject: Re: Future of Republicanism
Posted: Wed 29 Apr , 2009 8:56 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 4336
Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 9:28 pm
Location: The real world
 
from Freddy
Quote:
It's about people being responsible for themselves and not punishing those that have applied themselves and become successful. Some people need help, I'm not arguing that. The mentally handicapped, physically handicapped, etc should receive help for their entire life. Those that refuse to work, then tough luck.
Freddy, if that is your view of what Republicanism is then what many of us Democrats see as our core values are no different than what you see as your core values. As somebody who has been a member of the Democratic party for 38 years, I cannot disagree with what you wrote in that paragraph.

_________________

There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs. - John Rogers


Top
Profile Quote
yovargas
Post subject: Re: Future of Republicanism
Posted: Wed 29 Apr , 2009 9:37 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 14774
Joined: Thu 24 Feb , 2005 12:11 pm
 
Lidless wrote:
Ultimately, when all is said and done, Republicanism is about 'me', Democratism is about 'us'.
An equally accurate and blindly biased assertion would be that Democratism is indeed about 'us', but more specifically controlling 'us'. And the smaller government Republicans like Freddy are about the opposite.

Of course, both statements are huge BS. In part because both parties are a huge mish-mash of often unrelated ideas with no particular core principle guiding it all. In part because the 'me' vs 'us' division is more often then not a fallacy since all 'us's are composed of 'me's and all 'me's belong to some 'us'. Therefore, almost any political position can be framed as a 'me' or an 'us' position if you feel like it.

As for myself, my positions largely stem from the simple conclusion that there are very few things that the majority can morally impose on an unwilling minority.
People who have little problem imposing their will on the populace kinda scare me. (Which means most people's political views kinda scare me these days.)


Top
Profile Quote
Feredir
Post subject: Re: Future of Republicanism
Posted: Wed 29 Apr , 2009 9:41 pm
 
 
One more thing I thought of while driving around. Alatar, it appears you took my original post to mean that I am against all laws. Obviously, that couldn't be further from the truth since I'm a cop. I do believe that there are laws that are needed (traffic, assaults, homicide, etc etc) but I do believe that some laws are ridiculous.

Laws are needed, I do not believe in anarchy.

freddy


Top
Quote
Alatar
Post subject: Re: Future of Republicanism
Posted: Wed 29 Apr , 2009 9:59 pm
of Vinyamar
Offline
 
Posts: 8274
Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 4:39 pm
Location: Ireland
Contact: ICQ
 
Fair enough Freddy, thanks for the response. Seems to me most people are pretty center when it comes down to it. Pity the parties aren't.

_________________

[ img ]
These are my friends, see how they glisten...


Top
Profile Quote
yovargas
Post subject: Re: Future of Republicanism
Posted: Wed 29 Apr , 2009 10:04 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 14774
Joined: Thu 24 Feb , 2005 12:11 pm
 
I've yet to meet anybody who desired anarchy, not even CG. I wish more people made at least a little effort to understand why libertarianism and anarchism are different things.


Top
Profile Quote
sauronsfinger
Post subject: Re: Future of Republicanism
Posted: Wed 29 Apr , 2009 10:20 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 4336
Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 9:28 pm
Location: The real world
 
We have. And our conclusions are different than yours. Five is not six but its close enough to be almost a half dozen.

I believe - when asked - CG has prevously labeled himself as one step removed from an anarcho-capitalist. But feel free to check with him on that as I did not write it down or anything.

_________________

There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs. - John Rogers


Top
Profile Quote
Eruname
Post subject: Re: Future of Republicanism
Posted: Wed 29 Apr , 2009 11:05 pm
Islanded in a Stream of Stars
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 8748
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:24 pm
Location: UK
Contact: Website
 
Feredir wrote:
It's about people being responsible for themselves and not punishing those that have applied themselves and become successful. Some people need help, I'm not arguing that. The mentally handicapped, physically handicapped, etc should receive help for their entire life. Those that refuse to work, then tough luck.
What about people who fall on hard times?

There's this prevalent thought across America that if you apply yourself you will become successful and that if you're not successful, well, you obviously didn't apply yourself. That's absolute bollocks. I used to think like that because I grew up in a Republican house (that strangely enough wasn't exactly successful) and now I feel somewhat ashamed that I had that attitude. Sometimes bad things happen to good people.

Personally, I would choose the British system, but with time limits in regards to benefits. There are a fair few who have no intention of working and live off benefits. I live around these type of people and have some really horrible ones living across from me. I'm not for life-long support for persons able to work. But I don't agree with help only being restricted to handicapped people. I believe it's best to help out people when they run into a rough patch, but have requirements for job training/seeking, etc and have the benefits gradually phased out, especially if the person shows no willingness to stand on their own feet.

_________________

Abandon this fleeting world
abandon yourself.
Then the moon and flowers
will guide you along the way.

-Ryokan

http://wanderingthroughmiddleearth.blogspot.com/


Top
Profile Quote
Cenedril_Gildinaur
Post subject: Re: Future of Republicanism
Posted: Wed 29 Apr , 2009 11:20 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 3348
Joined: Mon 15 Aug , 2005 3:48 am
Location: Planet Earth
 
Erunáme wrote:
There's this prevalent thought across America that if you apply yourself you will become successful and that if you're not successful, well, you obviously didn't apply yourself. That's absolute bollocks. I used to think like that because I grew up in a Republican house (that strangely enough wasn't exactly successful) and now I feel somewhat ashamed that I had that attitude. Sometimes bad things happen to good people.
Unfortunatley I don't agree with the attitude that all you have to do is apply yourself. There are too many barriers into the entry into too many markets for that to be the truth. I'm not advocating that a janitor would be a great surgeon (although it is theoretically possible but I'd rather not risk it without knowing - who knows, he could be a brilliant but eccentric genius who likes to mop floors) but there are too many fields with a strong pressure to keep newcomers out. As long as the government won't allow people to self-employ, then what is to be done to those who would but can't? I don't know, which is why I'd rather remove the barriers instead.

_________________

It is a myth that coercion is necessary in order to force people to get along together, but it is a persistent myth because it feeds a desire many people have. That desire is to be able to justify hurting people who have done nothing other than offend them in some way.

Last edited by Cenedril_Gildinaur on Tue Feb 30, 2026 13:61 am; edited 426 times in total


Top
Profile Quote
yovargas
Post subject: Re: Future of Republicanism
Posted: Wed 29 Apr , 2009 11:21 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 14774
Joined: Thu 24 Feb , 2005 12:11 pm
 
Erunáme wrote:
There's this prevalent thought across America that if you apply yourself you will become successful and that if you're not successful, well, you obviously didn't apply yourself. That's absolute bollocks.
I agree, I have some of this in my family too and it drives me mad. It ignores so much of reality. It's frustrating. Part of it, though, I think stems from a POV which I do agree with which is that hard-work should be rewarded and success encouraged. That same good value can be pushed to the uglier place you're talking about. However, I've found the opposite is also true - that by focusing on the value of helping the poor, some have developed an antagonistic attitude towards success and wealth. There are major pitfalls in the die-hard views of both of the US parties.


Top
Profile Quote
sauronsfinger
Post subject: Re: Future of Republicanism
Posted: Wed 29 Apr , 2009 11:54 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 4336
Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 9:28 pm
Location: The real world
 
CG -if you can, please be specific as to this
Quote:
but there are too many fields with a strong pressure to keep newcomers out. As long as the government won't allow people to self-employ, then what is to be done to those who would but can't? I don't know, which is why I'd rather remove the barriers instead.
somehow, someway I suspect an anti-labor union rant or some other blaming of progressive laws like civil rights laws coming on and I would like to be proven wrong.

_________________

There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs. - John Rogers


Top
Profile Quote
Eruname
Post subject: Re: Future of Republicanism
Posted: Thu 30 Apr , 2009 12:18 am
Islanded in a Stream of Stars
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 8748
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:24 pm
Location: UK
Contact: Website
 
Cenedril_Gildinaur wrote:
but there are too many fields with a strong pressure to keep newcomers out.
I am somewhat running into this problem myself. Back in the states I got a degree in Music Education, but ended up deciding it wasn't the job for me. I was able to get myself into the veterinary field as a veterinary nurse and was extremely happy with that career. In Texas it was rare for a nurse to have any qualifications or schooling. The vast majority learned on the job. I never got any qualifications and I am kicking myself for that now...though I'm not sure I would have had the time to complete it before moving across the pond.

Anyway, I want to continue the same career here. Problem is, whilst legally I could work as a nurse here all practices hire are Qualified Nurses. The only way to become a Qualified Nurse is to get a job at a training practice as a student nurse. Then you can start your schooling. Well those positions don't open up very often and they are extremely competitive. They often go to girls who already have animal care qualifications...which I can't get as that takes two years of full-time school...I can't afford it. So I have no clue when or if I'll ever get back to the job I love.

I can pretty much forget about getting any other sort of decent job because those all seem to require qualifications as well...something I as an American am not going to have. So I'm stuck with a crap, low-paying job and it most certainly is not a result of me not applying myself.
yovargas wrote:
However, I've found the opposite is also true - that by focusing on the value of helping the poor, some have developed an antagonistic attitude towards success and wealth.
I don't completely agree with that. Sure some people are resentful and jealous of what they don't have. But really, I think it's more of an expectation for those who have more to give more because they can.

Americans would have a heart attack if the taxes that have just been placed on the rich here in the UK was put in place in America. Not long ago, it was announced that anyone making over £150K will be taxed 50p per £...in other words, a 50% tax rate. Though very, very few people make over £150K...some really small number like 1% of the population. Here £30K is considered a good salary whilst that's low in the states. While I mostly agree with higher wage earners paying more in tax than those who are poor and struggling, I don't find it fair for anyone to be taxed half of their wages.

_________________

Abandon this fleeting world
abandon yourself.
Then the moon and flowers
will guide you along the way.

-Ryokan

http://wanderingthroughmiddleearth.blogspot.com/


Top
Profile Quote
sauronsfinger
Post subject: Re: Future of Republicanism
Posted: Thu 30 Apr , 2009 1:41 am
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 4336
Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 9:28 pm
Location: The real world
 
Eruname ... its too bad to hear that happened to you. Do you understand the reason why societies have enacted such basic consumer protections such as certification requirements and credentialed professionals?

_________________

There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs. - John Rogers


Top
Profile Quote
Feredir
Post subject: Re: Future of Republicanism
Posted: Thu 30 Apr , 2009 2:20 am
 
 
Erunáme wrote:
Feredir wrote:
It's about people being responsible for themselves and not punishing those that have applied themselves and become successful. Some people need help, I'm not arguing that. The mentally handicapped, physically handicapped, etc should receive help for their entire life. Those that refuse to work, then tough luck.
What about people who fall on hard times?

There's this prevalent thought across America that if you apply yourself you will become successful and that if you're not successful, well, you obviously didn't apply yourself. That's absolute bollocks. I used to think like that because I grew up in a Republican house (that strangely enough wasn't exactly successful) and now I feel somewhat ashamed that I had that attitude. Sometimes bad things happen to good people.

Personally, I would choose the British system, but with time limits in regards to benefits. There are a fair few who have no intention of working and live off benefits. I live around these type of people and have some really horrible ones living across from me. I'm not for life-long support for persons able to work. But I don't agree with help only being restricted to handicapped people. I believe it's best to help out people when they run into a rough patch, but have requirements for job training/seeking, etc and have the benefits gradually phased out, especially if the person shows no willingness to stand on their own feet.
I have no real problem with some assistance to those who "fall on hard times " but I have witnessed too many people who continue to live off of it. They want to have what others have but without working, they feel they deserve it. They don't vare that there is sacrifice involved in having the money to achieve certain things. Lali and I have not had cable in over ten years. Why? Because we have made decisions that go without it to afford it. Our government subsidized housing has a swimming pool. I can't afford to belong to a swim club but because the law states that the people living in these apartments are to have the same things as the people around them, they get it. I can give plenty of horror stories but really it would not prove anything.

freddy


Top
Quote
Alatar
Post subject: Re: Future of Republicanism
Posted: Thu 30 Apr , 2009 7:35 am
of Vinyamar
Offline
 
Posts: 8274
Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 4:39 pm
Location: Ireland
Contact: ICQ
 
Eru, are there any relevant qualifications you can get through night courses or open university?

_________________

[ img ]
These are my friends, see how they glisten...


Top
Profile Quote
Eruname
Post subject: Re: Future of Republicanism
Posted: Thu 30 Apr , 2009 9:50 am
Islanded in a Stream of Stars
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 8748
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:24 pm
Location: UK
Contact: Website
 
sauronsfinger wrote:
Eruname ... its too bad to hear that happened to you. Do you understand the reason why societies have enacted such basic consumer protections such as certification requirements and credentialed professionals?
:suspicious:

Are you seriously asking me this? I'm not one of your teenaged students. :neutral:

Freddy, I know there are plenty of people who take advantage of benefits but the problem with the Republican view of benefits is that they want to do away with most benefits to keep the few bad apples from getting it which then would hurt a lot of honest people. I don't think benefits need to be reduced greatly, but monitored a heck of a lot more closely.

Alatar, I can't seem to find any.

_________________

Abandon this fleeting world
abandon yourself.
Then the moon and flowers
will guide you along the way.

-Ryokan

http://wanderingthroughmiddleearth.blogspot.com/


Top
Profile Quote
sauronsfinger
Post subject: Re: Future of Republicanism
Posted: Thu 30 Apr , 2009 11:33 am
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 4336
Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 9:28 pm
Location: The real world
 
Eruname... I was simply asking a question to further the discussion. I am sorry you took offense to it. You seemed to look at your situation personally - and that is certainly understandable. I was simply trying to go beyond the personal to the reasons behind such societal protections.

We all are both individuals who see things through our own experience and how it impacts us and members of a larger society who have to look at those same things through a different filter or prism to gain a fuller understanding of why things are the way they are.

As to the entire question of government help to the poor - in the USA welfare reform under the Clinton presidency did much to help this by limitingthe time most persons could be on public aid. However, it allowed for a certain percentage of persons (20% or so) to be kept on the rolls in a somewhat permanent status declaring that they were essentially beyond redemption. I think that is a less than wise approach unless they have identifiable physical or mental factors that would explain their inability to work.

_________________

There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs. - John Rogers


Top
Profile Quote
Feredir
Post subject: Re: Future of Republicanism
Posted: Thu 30 Apr , 2009 4:02 pm
 
 
Erunáme wrote:
Freddy, I know there are plenty of people who take advantage of benefits but the problem with the Republican view of benefits is that they want to do away with most benefits to keep the few bad apples from getting it which then would hurt a lot of honest people. I don't think benefits need to be reduced greatly, but monitored a heck of a lot more closely.
Eru, I think you would be surprised about most Republicans and welfare. There is a need for the help but to what extent is it the government responsible to pay? How long is reasonable?


freddy


Top
Quote
Eruname
Post subject: Re: Future of Republicanism
Posted: Thu 30 Apr , 2009 5:20 pm
Islanded in a Stream of Stars
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 8748
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:24 pm
Location: UK
Contact: Website
 
sauronsfinger wrote:
Eruname... I was simply asking a question to further the discussion. I am sorry you took offense to it. You seemed to look at your situation personally - and that is certainly understandable. I was simply trying to go beyond the personal to the reasons behind such societal protections.

We all are both individuals who see things through our own experience and how it impacts us and members of a larger society who have to look at those same things through a different filter or prism to gain a fuller understanding of why things are the way they are.
I wasn't complaining about the need for qualifications, but discussing/complaining about the difficulty of getting them. I was always surprised in Texas that veterinary nurses weren't required to have any sort of official training. I think it's best that they do. But back in Texas getting into the training was much, MUCH easier. Here you have to get a job first before being allowed to start your training. With such few positions, the positions being occupied for at least two years, practices promoting internally and them wanting you to have previous training/qualifications, it is so incredibly difficult just to start the training. To me, that's is completely backwards and wrong.

Freddy, that's the heart of the issue isn't it? And where the Democrats and Republicans are going to be pretty divided.

_________________

Abandon this fleeting world
abandon yourself.
Then the moon and flowers
will guide you along the way.

-Ryokan

http://wanderingthroughmiddleearth.blogspot.com/


Top
Profile Quote
ellienor
Post subject: Re: Future of Republicanism
Posted: Thu 30 Apr , 2009 5:42 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 328
Joined: Mon 13 Dec , 2004 9:07 pm
 
I was having a conversation with a Republican in my office recently. I realized that part of the problem is that we see the problem differently. I'm not for welfare, agreeing with the idea that if you want money, you should work. At Taco Bell, if that is all you are qualified for.

But the main thing I see as the problem is that a good amount of people in this country are in fairly low paying work. And that's ok--we need the full spectrum of people, from garbage collectors to hair dressers to supermarket checkout clerks. If everyone had a Ph.D, well, then, who would cut my hair? :) But the problem is, that for those low paying jobs, there is a particularly severe problem with health insurance. If you have a $30,000 a year job (which isn't so bad--I made less than that for the first four years out of college), and you've got a family, and you don't get health insurance with your job, you're looking at market rates of, oh, say, $700 and up per month. And that's assuming that there's no preexisting conditions on the part of anybody in your family. I view this is the problem--not the lazy bums who won't work. But my Republican colleague did not see it that way, her position is, well, it's their choice to be in a low paying profession and why do I need to be penalized for it? Whereas my position is, well, we need all members of society in all manner of professions, and why is it that health care gets doled out on the basis of who has the highest grades (i.e., income)? Fundamentally that's wrong, to me. That is why I'm not a Republican. :halo:


As far as a flat tax, it's really regressive. If you count all the taxes we have to pay, property (which you pay as a renter), sales, car licensing, Social Security (which high income earners stop paying often early in the year!) you name it, by the time you get to the Federal income tax, you're looking at a really regressive tax structure which disproportionally hits lower income people. The federal EITC is for WORKING people, it's not some welfare handout.

And I don't think you should just put people on the dole--increasing educational opportunities, and making it easier for second career people to go back to school and earn degrees when their original career track isn't working out or they want to get ahead is important. This contributes to the ability of capitalism to destroy inefficient markets and industries.

Last edited by ellienor on Thu 30 Apr , 2009 5:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
Profile Quote
sauronsfinger
Post subject: Re: Future of Republicanism
Posted: Thu 30 Apr , 2009 5:44 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 4336
Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 9:28 pm
Location: The real world
 
Eruname - thanks for the explaination. I do hope you can find a way through all that so you can do what you are good at.

On this whole welfare issue: in the end it comes down to one question that is never answered..... as a society, will we allow people to fully reap the consequences of their own behaviors such as to starve to death, or freeze to death, or die for lack of medical care because they are lacking in whatever it takes to support themselves?

_________________

There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs. - John Rogers


Top
Profile Quote
Display: Sort by: Direction:
Post Reply   Page 3 of 18  [ 345 posts ]
Return to “The Symposium” | Jump to page « 1 2 3 4 518 »
Jump to: