Modern Liberals And Hatred Of The Good

[wgbgator]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

It is my belief that liberals want equality through radical egalitaranism and to promote equal social and economic outcomes.

That may be your belief, but unfortunately, it couldn't be more wrong.

[gatorman_07732]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

That may be your belief, but unfortunately, it couldn't be more wrong.

I do understand the reasoning in not wanting to admit to it

[wgbgator]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

I do understand the reasoning in not wanting to admit to it

I don't understand why conservatives always think liberals have these secret radical beliefs despite all the public statements and policy proposals that seem to belie that. We're just trying to trick you, is that it? Say we support gun ownership, support policies that still do that, but secretly want to take all guns away. Say we want rich people to keep most of their money, support polices that do that, but secretly we want everyone to have the same amount of money and create equal outcomes for all. This is what "reasoning" passes for with conservatives?

[gatorman_07732]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

I don't understand why conservatives always think liberals have these secret radical beliefs despite all the public statements and policy proposals that seem to belie that. We're just trying to trick you, is that it? Say we support gun ownership, support policies that still do that, but secretly want to take all guns away. Say we want rich people to keep most of their money, support polices that do that, but secretly we want everyone to have the same amount of money and create equal outcomes for all. This is what "reasoning" passes for with conservatives?

What I do see liberals doing (and some republicans for that matter) is slowly giving the centralized government more and more power. That is not fiction, it is absolute truth. The change they seek comes from the centralized government and if they can't get it there then they look to the courts to legislate from the bench.

[wgbgator]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

What I do see liberals doing (and some republicans for that matter) is slowly giving the centralized government more and more power. That is not fiction, it is absolute truth. The change they seek comes from the centralized government and if they can't get it there then they look to the courts to legislate from the bench.

And this is in service of "radical egalitarianism" to produce "equal social and economic outcomes?" We'll all have the same stuff and abilities thanks to the government and courts? Is that what you're suggesting? Or are you just rehashing the plot of Harrison Bergeron and projecting it on liberals?

[gatorman_07732]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

And this is in service of "radical egalitarianism" to produce "equal social and economic outcomes?" We'll all have the same stuff and abilities thanks to the government and courts? Is that what you're suggesting? Or are you just rehashing the plot of Harrison Bergeron and projecting it on liberals?

Not at all. like I said there are some republicans guilty of this as well. Why the need to give centralized government more and more power?

[WESGATORS]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

I sort of agree, but its not really more/less government. Essentially, we're arguing over where markets function best (and what degree of regulation/oversight is needed) and where they don't.

That's in addition to, not instead of. First it takes an agreement that a government has a role (or should/could have a role) in a particular area. Once that's established, you sort out the details of what that role should be (including the prospects of lessening/increasing the role).

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[wgbgator]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

Not at all. like I said there are some republicans guilty of this as well. Why the need to give centralized government more and more power?

That's a vague and loaded question.

[gatorman_07732]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

That's a vague and loaded question.

It's a question you don't want to answer. There is no other plausible explanation other than acquire power for the change you seek.

[wgbgator]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

It's a question you don't want to answer. There is no other plausible explanation other than acquire power for the change you seek.

No, its kinda like asking someone why they want to keep beating their wife more and more. Why would I (and how could I) answer a question with which I completely dispute or disagree with the premise?

[gatorman_07732]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

No, its kinda like asking someone why they want to keep beating their wife more and more. Why would I (and how could I) answer a question with which I completely dispute the premise?

You dispute the question because it would expose perhaps a little something. I don't see the problem with the question, after all I can answer the equal but opposite question of why I want less central government power.

[fredsanford]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

I don't understand why conservatives always think liberals have these secret radical beliefs despite all the public statements and policy proposals that seem to belie that. We're just trying to trick you, is that it? Say we support gun ownership, support policies that still do that, but secretly want to take all guns away. Say we want rich people to keep most of their money, support polices that do that, but secretly we want everyone to have the same amount of money and create equal outcomes for all. This is what "reasoning" passes for with conservatives?

Conservative minds best understand dualities. Sliding scales and shades of grey have little use in their alternate reality.

[wgbgator]

Originally Posted by WESGATORS

That's in addition to, not instead of. First it takes an agreement that a government has a role (or should/could have a role) in a particular area. Once that's established, you sort out the details of what that role should be (including the prospects of lessening/increasing the role).

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

I think I understand what you mean, but the government techincally has a "role" in everything, even if its just a simple enforcement of contracts/laws or the discrete ongoing protection of private citizens individual & property rights. Just as you could say market forces have a "role" in everything - economic forces still drive the cost of services.

What I'm saying is that what is being determined in the democratic process is: will those interactions be primarily driven by market forces or by other forces, which I suppose you could call "government" or "public interest." Or something in between. In any case, there would be no complete absense of "government" or "market" forces.

[wgbgator]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

You dispute the question because it would expose perhaps a little something. I don't see the problem with the question, after all I can answer the equal but opposite question of why I want less central government power.

You can? So, you want a smaller military, for instance. Or for the government to stay out of abortion and marriage? Or drugs? Or prostitution?

[gatorman_07732]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

You can? So, you want a smaller military, for instance. Or for the government to stay out of abortion and marriage? Or drugs? Or prostitution?

I would refer you to Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution that lists the seventeen powers specifically enumerated to the Constitution.

[WESGATORS]

The government doesn't have a role in:

- mate selection
- what you name your children
- how many children you can have

Three seemingly obvious examples, yet three examples where governments elsewhere in the world do implement restrictions. That is why I believe it is important to identify where we want the government to intervene and where we don't. I don't agree that government technically has a role in everything.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[wgbgator]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

I would refer you to Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution that lists the seventeen powers specifically enumerated to the Constitution.

I don't recall much specification on the size or scope of gov't activities related to taxation, spending, regulation of national/international trade, common defense or "the general welfare." Maybe you can enlighten me as to what you think this proves.

[wgbgator]

Originally Posted by WESGATORS

The government doesn't have a role in:

- mate selection
- what you name your children
- how many children you can have

Three seemingly obvious examples, yet three examples where governments elsewhere in the world do implement restrictions. That is why I believe it is important to identify where we want the government to intervene and where we don't. I don't agree that government technically has a role in everything.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

I disagree with your reasoning. Yes, the government does not have a role in deciding those things, but those things are not independent of government or market forces. Those arent decisions made in a vacuum.

[WESGATORS]

What part of Section 8 implies that taxing, borrowing, and building armies cannot be increased?

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[WESGATORS]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

I disagree with your reasoning. Yes, the government does not have a role in deciding those things, but those things are not independent of government or market forces. Those arent decisions made in a vacuum.

They are not independent of market forces, but they are independent of government (in this country at least). But the bold part is to the point I was making. Don't tell me "you didn't name your child"

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS