Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/public/Sources/Load.php(225) : runtime-created function on line 3
Is dissent still patriotic?
I Read This
September 23, 2018, 08:43:06 EDT *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: The Lupinia Hosting Community, which hosts I Read This, is supported by donations!  Please contribute if you're able, click here for details.
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4
  Print  
Author Topic: Is dissent still patriotic?  (Read 15663 times)
joshbrenton
Active Libertarian
Political Analyst
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 365


« Reply #15 on: February 23, 2009, 18:52:41 EST »


When, precisely, has Obama labeled dissent as unpatriotic?  All Obama had done is suggest that if America wants to move forward, people need to work harder and be informed.  This could be labeled as saying that people should be more patriotic, but it is the good kind of patriotism that me and Current and even David Harsanyi advocate, with no specific indication of it being tied to slavishly supporting the government.

Well, not Obama specifically, but a number of his supporters are now echoing the die-hard neocons when Bush was in power. It's the same tired "If you don't support the president you're hurting the country" line, but now it's coming from the other side. So I think Harsanyi erred in that portion.
Logged
Bringerofpie
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1485



« Reply #16 on: February 23, 2009, 20:55:07 EST »


When, precisely, has Obama labeled dissent as unpatriotic?  All Obama had done is suggest that if America wants to move forward, people need to work harder and be informed.  This could be labeled as saying that people should be more patriotic, but it is the good kind of patriotism that me and Current and even David Harsanyi advocate, with no specific indication of it being tied to slavishly supporting the government.

Well, not Obama specifically, but a number of his supporters are now echoing the die-hard neocons when Bush was in power. It's the same tired "If you don't support the president you're hurting the country" line, but now it's coming from the other side. So I think Harsanyi erred in that portion.

I haven't heard that at all.
Logged

Set a new standard
Defy the odds
Step up.

Economic Left/Right: -7.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.21

Does anyone else get more liberal every time they take the political compass test?
rwpikul
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1961


« Reply #17 on: February 23, 2009, 21:41:28 EST »

Well, not Obama specifically, but a number of his supporters are now echoing the die-hard neocons when Bush was in power. It's the same tired "If you don't support the president you're hurting the country" line, but now it's coming from the other side. So I think Harsanyi erred in that portion.

I haven't heard that at all.

I've seen some that are, but only in the context of throwing it back in the faces of right wing-nuts.
Logged

--

Chakat Firepaw - Inventor & Scientist (Mad)
wodan46
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1469


« Reply #18 on: February 23, 2009, 21:57:14 EST »

They are throwing it at the Neoconservatives who've dominated the Republican party over the last decade or so, who made no attempt to be Bipartisan when in power, and when not in power, they do everything they can to bring political processes to a halt no matter what they are conceded.  So its more like "if you decide to be obstructionist and grind politics to a halt just because you didn't get your extreme right policies through like you did the last few years, then we don't have to like you, nor do we have to like those who support you"

We're angry not at people who oppose the president, but those who can't get it through their head that their party lost, and that if they want anything, they should be willing to compromise rather than obstruct every last thing because they can't get everything they want.
« Last Edit: February 23, 2009, 22:00:19 EST by wodan46 » Logged

The plural of "anecdote" is "anecdotes". Not "data".
Current
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3141


« Reply #19 on: February 24, 2009, 08:06:07 EST »

It depends on what sort of prevention you are talking about.  I don't think that it would be reasonable for each person to have their own armed guard provided by the state.  It is a similar situation with healthcare.

Holy false analogy, Batman. That's all there's to say to that.

As a side not, the state should make sure that most people don't need an armed guard. That's more easily done and much, much cheaper.
My point was about what the US constitution means.  It was not meant to mean that the state must provide sufficient resources to any particular individual to ensure that they remain alive.
I'm pretty sure that was exactly what it was providing for.  You have no problem with protecting people against murder.
It depends on what sort of prevention you are talking about.  I don't think that it would be reasonable for each person to have their own armed guard provided by the state.  It is a similar situation with healthcare.
If the government can enact a functional security and justice system to protect people from murder, it is obligated to.  Your strawman is none of that.

If the government can enact a functional universal healthcare system, it is obligated to.
I fail to see why.
Because the purpose of government is to protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to the best of its ability.  An enactable and functional universal healthcare system falls within those criteria.  If it would be non-functional, or non-enactable, or would cause undermining of life/liberty/pursuit elsewhere, then it would not qualify as "best of its ability".  Most of the pseudo dystopian extremes you accuse me of advocating would also fail the last and probably the first/second criteria.  Implementing a government that is excessively vulnerable to sliding down the slippery slope from advocating protection to undermining it for the supposed greater good is itself a failure to meet the criteria.
There is a difference between meanings of the word "protecting".  As I understand it what the founders of the US thought was that the government should not infringe upon "life", "liberty" and "happiness".  And it should protect against others infringing on such things.

That protection though was not meant to mean assistance though.  The protection of life meant that the state should put in place a criminal justice system to deter others from taking lives, and should not take lives itself.  It is protection against other men, not against the forces of nature.

The analogy I gave about an armed guard shows something else.  If we take an extreme view of protection then that may justify almost any action.  I don't think it was that extreme view that the founders had in mind.  When a scheme infringes on liberty, as universal healthcare does, that must be kept in mind.

Quote from: DavidLeoThomas
The right to life, however, is unqualified - and denying someone access to health care could fairly be judged an infringement of this right.
That though does not mean that the denial due to lack of financial means is necessarily precluded.


If, hypothetically, that could be done without impinging on anyone's right to life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness, then I would argue it *does* necessarily preclude that.
Perhaps, but it hardly matters since it does impinge on others liberty.

I don't see a way to do that, so it's a matter of deciding between options that *all* impinge on those "inalienable rights" in some measure, and the goal is finding the role of government that impinges the least.
To some degree yes.  However, that doesn't mean that we should take a crude utilitarian sort of approach as Wodan does.  See my arguments against him in other threads.

Exactomundo.  Current and other libertarians seem to be of the perspective that its one step forward two steps back for the government, and that for every right they protect they impinge on two others.  I agree that government can reach that point, but I see no reason why such is inevitably the dominant product of government, even in a social democracy system.
I think that in most cases today it is "one step forward two steps back".  This is my view of "social democracy" certainly.

In the UK and Ireland there is more "Social Democracy" than in the US.  I'm familiar with the two steps back.
Logged
Heq
Trouble
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1391



« Reply #20 on: February 24, 2009, 14:54:38 EST »

A...er...I didn't claim Gallileo was a nice guy, just that his works were expected to be controversial due to the cliant nature of his relationship with the Medici clan (and the pope was one of them at this time), he simply was unpolitik.

He saw that without seperating magistratum the Chruch was in a bundle of trouble, so he took the Copernican model and made it work with his whole "Say what you see." because, like the Lutherans, he believed that the divine majesty would be evident (See Leibnitz or Spinoza for how this often spirals out).  He was just bad at reading the tea leaves.

The NYP as racist?  Come on.  Obama's surrogates use race cards as their preferred way to fight dissent, but that aside, it is not justified to say "the other side crushes dissent too".  No, that is not fair game, and should not be part of the governmental lingo.

This is the kind of shit that makes America just look...dim.

"Oh noes, we have been mocked in a cartoon!"
-B, and have supporters run around howling.

Options:
A:  Anounce that you won election, should be supported
B:  Play Race Card
C:  Explain Position -Teacher's note:  BOOOOOORRRRIIING, replace with "Play Class card"
D:  Give Hillary a lead pipe, have her show up at 3 am with a recommendation

"Oh noes, our stimulous bill has stalled"
-A, shake fist

"We've been caught using extro-ordinary rendition in gross violation of rights!"
-A, claim you'll do it less, torture is okay, as long as it's less torture then Bush

"China won't buy our bonds!"
-B
"China does not care you are Black Mr. President."
-D???
"You're just guessing, aren't you"
-A
Logged

"No common man could believe such a thing, you'd have to be an intellectual to fall for anything as stupid as that."-Orwell
wodan46
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1469


« Reply #21 on: February 24, 2009, 15:06:52 EST »

There is a difference between meanings of the word "protecting".  As I understand it what the founders of the US thought was that the government should not infringe upon "life", "liberty" and "happiness".  And it should protect against others infringing on such things.
Therein is the key.  The government's purpose is to prevent infringement upon life, liberty, and pursuit, which necessitates that it protect people from other people, from the government itself(duh), and from anything else.

For example, if a disease runs rampant, it is the government's job to quarantine and eliminate it.  This is in part because the government is the only entity who has the motive and capability to do such things.  If each person was supposed to deal with disease on their own, the rich would form poorly coordinated organizations to protect themselves, and leave everyone else to rot, as they lack the means to deal with it.

That protection though was not meant to mean assistance though.  The protection of life meant that the state should put in place a criminal justice system to deter others from taking lives, and should not take lives itself.  It is protection against other men, not against the forces of nature.
No.  It is not.

The analogy I gave about an armed guard shows something else.  If we take an extreme view of protection then that may justify almost any action.  I don't think it was that extreme view that the founders had in mind.  When a scheme infringes on liberty, as universal healthcare does, that must be kept in mind.
And how, precisely, does universal healthcare infringe on liberty?
Logged

The plural of "anecdote" is "anecdotes". Not "data".
Heq
Trouble
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1391



« Reply #22 on: February 24, 2009, 15:16:56 EST »

It doesn't directly, but the collection of data on an individual and the use of arguments for social duty to railroad people into certain behaviors certainly would be.
Logged

"No common man could believe such a thing, you'd have to be an intellectual to fall for anything as stupid as that."-Orwell
wodan46
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1469


« Reply #23 on: February 24, 2009, 15:44:36 EST »

It doesn't directly, but the collection of data on an individual and the use of arguments for social duty to railroad people into certain behaviors certainly would be.
You mean like people are obligated to pay taxes so that we can organize a military to keep the Vikings from invading us?  See, what Current doesn't get is that his view that the Government can't violate Liberty ever is incompatible with the view that Government can violate Liberty if it is in the name of securing negative rights.  Because of that, I view his arguments as quite Utilitarian, even if he thinks they are not.  He is willing to undermine Life, a good portion of Liberty, and Pursuit in order to secure a narrowly defined sliver of Liberty, which he in turn is willing to sacrifice to protect Negative Rights, like Property.  In short, Current's priorities are as follows: Property>Liberty>Life>Pursuit
Logged

The plural of "anecdote" is "anecdotes". Not "data".
Heq
Trouble
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1391



« Reply #24 on: February 24, 2009, 17:42:17 EST »

You also often include the concept of competence, which...I actually don't know if he's a competence libertarian or not.

My counter to a lot of statist arguments is that while that would be good were it the case that the state could do it morally and competantly, it is rarely the case that the government behaves in a moral or competent fashion.  At the end of the day I'm a practicalist above anything else.

What can I say, I'm an orc at heart, and we suffer a penalty to our Int. scores, so we tend to put more into Wis as a result.
Logged

"No common man could believe such a thing, you'd have to be an intellectual to fall for anything as stupid as that."-Orwell
wodan46
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1469


« Reply #25 on: February 24, 2009, 22:04:19 EST »

My counter to a lot of statist arguments is that while that would be good were it the case that the state could do it morally and competantly, it is rarely the case that the government behaves in a moral or competent fashion.  At the end of the day I'm a practicalist above anything else.
I am the same.  I hardly advocate excessive government power.  I simply wish to overhaul and refine government.

What can I say, I'm an orc at heart, and we suffer a penalty to our Int. scores, so we tend to put more into Wis as a result.
Not if you switch to 4th Edition.  In 4th Edition, all races and all classes are equal, having thrown off the bourgeois yoke of the spell-casters.
Logged

The plural of "anecdote" is "anecdotes". Not "data".
DavidLeoThomas
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3255


WWW
« Reply #26 on: February 25, 2009, 15:57:13 EST »

And how, precisely, does universal healthcare infringe on liberty?

It infringes on the liberty of health-care practitioners to choose the terms under which they provide their services, and it infringes on the liberty of the rest of us to choose how we spend that portion of our income used to pay for it.

The magnitude of these infringements depends upon the particular implementation of universal health-care, and their significance is a matter of personal opinion, but there is clearly some infringement.
Logged

"America means civil liberties.  Patriotism means protecting them."
wodan46
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1469


« Reply #27 on: February 25, 2009, 17:20:29 EST »

And how, precisely, does universal healthcare infringe on liberty?

It infringes on the liberty of health-care practitioners to choose the terms under which they provide their services,
How so?  Why does the proffering of universal healthcare result in the destruction of private healthcare?  Even if it did, those working in universal health-care systems indicate that they are MORE free to provide services, as before, they were permitted to offer services only if the person could pay for it, whereas in universal healthcare that restriction is removed.

and it infringes on the liberty of the rest of us to choose how we spend that portion of our income used to pay for it.
Property rights and liberty are not the same thing.  Not to mention, choosing to be a citizen of the United States means that you are now in a "contract" with the US government, receiving rights, privileges, responsibilities, and duties thereof.
Logged

The plural of "anecdote" is "anecdotes". Not "data".
Heq
Trouble
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1391



« Reply #28 on: February 26, 2009, 10:46:45 EST »

Wodan, the problem with significant overhauls is that those doing the overhauling use it as an excuse to feather their nests.
Logged

"No common man could believe such a thing, you'd have to be an intellectual to fall for anything as stupid as that."-Orwell
wodan46
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1469


« Reply #29 on: February 26, 2009, 12:50:05 EST »

Wodan, the problem with significant overhauls is that those doing the overhauling use it as an excuse to feather their nests.
You do realize that one of the two main purposes of the overhauling is to get rid of nest feathering*.  If the overhaul is being used to feather nests, then it isn't an overhaul at all, its just more of the same.  Whether or not it is possible to do an overhaul at all with such standards is a reasonable question, but its worth a shot.

*Other purpose is to stop throwing money at problems in completely retarded and pointless manners, such as the 100s of billions the government spends on a private healthcare system that doesn't work when it could be spent on a public system that would.
Logged

The plural of "anecdote" is "anecdotes". Not "data".
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!