Keith, Arlo, and others,
Arlo, you mentioned I believe, or it might have
been Ian, that the slow-revolution versus Marx's
fast-revolution the former is what is happening. The
New Deal safety net, mentioned here by Keith, seems to
be a speed bump if this slow-revolution is what is
happening (I'm no expert in these political
discussions just injecting my experience). The tries
on the political scale using New Deal type safety nets
would be compassionate. Keith, you mention how
different agendas exist within the general parties.
How much of these agendas have grass-root practical
experience in which those professing any one agenda
can say - well it worked in this part of the country?
Even local efforts that go national could be
dangerous. Politics is dealing with peoples
livelihoods. National politics tries to micro-manage
at times. I believe this is very dangerous. Notice
how these agendas are motivated, at least how Keith
explains them and I've heard these agendas explained
by others this way, too, such as for the betterment of
social livelihoods (such as medical insurance for the
many). Why the need for these safety nets? Why the
need for gov't to step in? It's seemingly in a tone
of war, or I'm putting it in such a tone. People are
working hard, and they need promised medical care.
There are causalities in this society, with horrible
heart-conditions and the number one need in doctor's
office (reported by CNN) that patients are asking for
is depression medications. Thus, the safety nets to
help out a wounding society. To 'just fix' what's
happening, but what is happening? Why the need for
these declarations that say 'we'll save the
constitution' and then many feel this is a true cause,
as if the constitution is threatened, and the social
programs that are trying to patch up the causalities
churned out by a giant left and right. Why are people
in such need of Health Care in mass numbers in the
first place, especially when the conditions that
Health Care would help out is heart conditions and
mental-health (depression). So, the agendas, in
total, seem to be spelling out, at least on the
surface: threatened hearts, and minds?
SA
> ----Platt, Sunday, July 08, 2007 10:36-----
> The freedoms that matters to conservative besides
> the free market are
> freedom of speech, religion, trial by jury, etc. as
> described by Pirsig as
> intellectual values, guaranteed in the U.S. by the
> Bill of Rights. "Liberal"
> in the U.S. has come to mean left-wing
> communism/socialism.
> ------
>
> Thanks for the laugh, Platt.
>
> I'm afraid that I completely disagree that in the
> U.S. conservative =
> guardian of liberty & liberal = communist.
>
> Current U.S. "conservatives" may value the free
> market, but those in power
> certainly have little respect for freedom of
> religion (see the blurring of
> church & state that is Faith Based Initiatives now
> defended by the
> conservative Supreme Court), trial by jury
> (suspension of habeas corpus,
> anyone?), nor freedom of speech (disagree with the
> President's Iraq policy
> == not supporting the troops == unpatriotic).
>
> On the other hand, while U.S. "liberals" may not be
> in love with an
> unfettered free market, they tend to support the
> other of Pirsig's
> intellectual values and donate money to the ACLU and
> Freedom From Religion
> to defend them.
>
> Really, though this conservative/liberal dichotomy
> is all but useless to
> have a meaningful conversation. Let's talk some
> specifics. If we were to
> identify the subpopulations within these over-broad
> categories, we might
> have something to talk about. Libertarians do
> support all of the freedoms
> you spell out, but they are a minority
> "conservative" party in the U.S. The
> majority of the Republicans in power appear to be
> Christian social
> conservatives who seek to legislate their religious
> values and thereby shred
> those Constitutional freedoms. Within the "liberal"
> flank, there are those
> on the "left" who lean toward democratic socialism.
> Most centrist Democrats,
> however, want to promote the social good through
> government regulation and
> incentivization of private industry and
> public-private partnerships with
> respect to medical care and the New Deal social
> safety net programs. The
> number of communists in the U.S. must be vanishingly
> small, however, as I
> don't hear anyone talking about turning over the
> means of production to the
> state.
>
> moq_discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
>
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
>
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>
____________________________________________________________________________________Ready
for the edge of your seat?
Check out tonight's top picks on Yahoo! TV.
http://tv.yahoo.com/
moq_discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
