One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
Are political labels useful?
Mar 8, 2013 14:18:31   #
Tasine Loc: Southwest US
 
Are Political Labels Useful?

I say they are NOT useful.

They are not useful because as circumstances and time change, so do the meanings of the words.

Few liberals exist any more it seems. Mostly those on the left are in fact progressives, or worse. Both are usually members of the Democrat(ic) Party.

Few conservatives exist in politics any more it seems. Most politicians on the right are in fact RINOs. Most ordinary citizens who call themselves conservative are NOT RINOs. Many on the "left" refer to the right as "neo-cons", wh**ever that means. Most are members of the Republican Party or of the Libertarian Party, or are Independents.

Could we agree on terms that cannot be polluted by hyperbole and innuendo? Terms that are black and white with NO gray? These would be people on both political sides who have deep seated convictions.

I see two distinct types of people who follow politics:
Those who revere individual freedoms and those who feel they MUST control others. I call them "FREEMEN" AND "CONTROLLERS". People who demand to control others' lives, resorting to force (laws) to do so) are obviously the controllers. People who demand individual freedoms cannot possibly fit into the controller's corner. The opposite is also true. People who KNOW that force is needed to get the populace to agree with them are obviously the controllers. Ne'er do the two ever fall over into the other's corner. Both must agree on major issues, such as: What is a crime? What is a life? What is education? What is religious? What are rights?

Reply
Mar 8, 2013 14:46:44   #
Striker Loc: Arizona Rockies
 
The use of liberals in your context is a good example of the problem with Labels. Thomas Jefferson is called the Classic Liberal, which most understand as being Liberal with Freedom. Today's "liberal" is merely liberal with OPM (Other People's Money) which t***slates to socialism.

True "Freemen" cannot exist in a world which is Governed, but we get your idea. A better word, tho, escapes me!

Reply
Mar 8, 2013 15:07:24   #
Dave Loc: Upstate New York
 
I agree but would add a category - libertarian. These folks are generally aligned, in economic matters with what we call conservatives - but in social issues they tend to align themselves largely with liberals.

While conservatives look for less government involvement with economics, they do look for government regulating some behaviours - like gays, a******ns and drug use - more than liberals.

Liberals seem to be less likely to stifle personal behaviors, but more likely to want others to bear a larger part of the financial costs of personal choices.

The older I get the more I think the libertarians are more on point than either social right wingers and economic left wingers.

Reply
 
 
Mar 8, 2013 16:57:17   #
Striker Loc: Arizona Rockies
 
Being a Libertarian since post-Goldwater, and seeing so-called Libertarians all over the map, that doesn't serve well as a "Label".

For one thing, I see government in having no place in "social issues".

Then somehow the anti-war crowd seemed to wave Fonda f**g, which hurt it's own cause, and turned so many of the right/conservative to grasp the pro-war straw, which I see not as principle, but as a denial of Fonda.

This is my first reply on this site, and I find myself wishing I could see your good comment here while replying, as there is more we might banter about! But then, this post was about "labels", so I'll leave it alone.

Reply
Mar 8, 2013 17:13:34   #
Dave Loc: Upstate New York
 
Striker - you sound like a thinker - look forward to future posts.

Reply
Mar 8, 2013 19:10:35   #
Striker Loc: Arizona Rockies
 
Thanks, and ditto.
I still gotta learn the ropes to play on this site, but so far I'm liking it. :?

Reply
Mar 9, 2013 04:02:35   #
Voice of Reason Loc: Earth
 
Striker wrote:
Thanks, and ditto.
I still gotta learn the ropes to play on this site, but so far I'm liking it. :?


Striker, I'm relatively new here myself but have learned a few things that you may find helpful. First, if you use the "quote reply" button the comment you're replying to will appear in a box, like above, when you send it.

You mentioned not being able to see the message to which you're replying. The trick I learned for that is to display the message window full-screen, then open a smaller notepad window over it. That way you can see the original message as you type in notepad. When done, hit either "reply" or "quote reply" then copy and paste from notepad to the comment window.

As to your comments, I, too am a libertarian but I don't agree with Ron Paul's foreign policy. I, personally don't think dropping all labels is a good idea. There are so many issues I think having labels saves a lot of time. If somebody says, "I'm a progressive liberal" that lets everybody know where they stand on virtually all issues. If they had to go through each issue individually it could take days, but with the label it takes less than a second.

Granted, with progressive liberals it's easiest because they all co-exist in the same groupthink bubble where no dissension is allowed. But with conservatives it still saves quite a bit, they just have to delineate where they disagree with the GOP party line. As for us libertarians, I think most of us agree on most everything except foreign policy (and possibly gay marriage). I put the parenthetical remark in there because personally I don't think the radical gay activists or progressives should be allowed to redefine marriage.

I'm all for civil unions for gays which would give them all the legal benefits associated with marriage and most gay couples would be fine with that. However, the radicals don't want that. The question should not be "Do you support gay marriage?", it should be "Why do radical progressive liberals want to redefine marriage?", IMO.

Reply
 
 
Mar 9, 2013 12:54:36   #
Tasine Loc: Southwest US
 
Striker wrote:
The use of liberals in your context is a good example of the problem with Labels. Thomas Jefferson is called the Classic Liberal, which most understand as being Liberal with Freedom. Today's "liberal" is merely liberal with OPM (Other People's Money) which t***slates to socialism.

True "Freemen" cannot exist in a world which is Governed, but we get your idea. A better word, tho, escapes me!


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ergo, labels should not be an issue in an anarchy......but I'll bet we'd have them, no matter what, huh?

Reply
Mar 9, 2013 13:11:24   #
Voice of Reason Loc: Earth
 
Tasine wrote:
Striker wrote:
The use of liberals in your context is a good example of the problem with Labels. Thomas Jefferson is called the Classic Liberal, which most understand as being Liberal with Freedom. Today's "liberal" is merely liberal with OPM (Other People's Money) which t***slates to socialism.

True "Freemen" cannot exist in a world which is Governed, but we get your idea. A better word, tho, escapes me!


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ergo, labels should not be an issue in an anarchy......but I'll bet we'd have them, no matter what, huh?
quote=Striker The use of liberals in your context... (show quote)


I don't know much about anarchy, and you apparently don't want to answer the questions I asked about it, but I think labels are pretty much unavoidable and, at least to some extent, beneficial.

Reply
Mar 9, 2013 13:12:29   #
Tasine Loc: Southwest US
 
Dave wrote:
I agree but would add a category - libertarian. These folks are generally aligned, in economic matters with what we call conservatives - but in social issues they tend to align themselves largely with liberals.

While conservatives look for less government involvement with economics, they do look for government regulating some behaviours - like gays, a******ns and drug use - more than liberals.

Liberals seem to be less likely to stifle personal behaviors, but more likely to want others to bear a larger part of the financial costs of personal choices.

The older I get the more I think the libertarians are more on point than either social right wingers and economic left wingers.
I agree but would add a category - libertarian. T... (show quote)


I may have told you, I don't remember, I am a former Republican of 50 years, turned Libertarian in 2010 because the Republican Party was simply too collectivist and wimpy for my taste. So that indicates that I agree with you re being on point.

My beef with Democrats exactly: "Liberals seem to be less likely to stifle personal behaviors, but more likely to want others to bear a larger part of the financial costs of personal choices."

That has led to our downfall tremendously. Some personal behaviors should be abhored by every decent person, but are celebrated in the Democrat Party. I don't want laws banning the things they want - what I want is a citizenry who will not be intimidated by them and will fight their normalizing abhorant behavior. When a nation falls morally, it falls hard, and usually takes decades to recover. Insisting on decency is not meddling except to save the nation. Same with the controllers hatred of anything and everything religious.

The Christian religion is what kept America together through many a turmoil, but one doesn't have to agree with that premise, nor does one have to pay any attention to religion, but to try to force it off the world's stage is dangerous to all of us, and to sanction the taking of innocent life disgusts me. Fetuses today, old folks tomorrow, the infirm the next day, trouble makers the next day.

I implore everyone, but try to FORCE no one, to think long and hard about the immorality of a******n ON DEMAND. NEVER ignore incrementalism. If you do, you may well be next on the list of disposables. The religious MUST try to protect the fetus, and I'm glad they do. I try to protect it too, as a libertarian, as a moral person. Like most people, I can live with some a******ns - rape, incest, threat to the mother. I refuse to accept it as a means of birth control - it is FAR, FAR more dangerous than birth control.

Reply
Mar 9, 2013 13:23:55   #
Voice of Reason Loc: Earth
 
Tasine wrote:


I implore everyone, but try to FORCE no one, to think long and hard about the immorality of a******n ON DEMAND. NEVER ignore incrementalism. If you do, you may well be next on the list of disposables. The religious MUST try to protect the fetus, and I'm glad they do. I try to protect it too, as a libertarian, as a moral person. Like most people, I can live with some a******ns - rape, incest, threat to the mother. I refuse to accept it as a means of birth control - it is FAR, FAR more dangerous than birth control.
br br I implore everyone, but try to FORCE no o... (show quote)


Well, I agree complete about the "force no one" part.

When you say a******n is more dangerous than birth control, that implies that you think birth control is dangerous. How so?

Also, do you believe one should display consistency in their viewpoints?

Reply
 
 
Mar 9, 2013 13:42:02   #
Voice of Reason Loc: Earth
 
Dave wrote:
I agree but would add a category - libertarian. These folks are generally aligned, in economic matters with what we call conservatives - but in social issues they tend to align themselves largely with liberals.

While conservatives look for less government involvement with economics, they do look for government regulating some behaviours - like gays, a******ns and drug use - more than liberals.

Liberals seem to be less likely to stifle personal behaviors, but more likely to want others to bear a larger part of the financial costs of personal choices.

The older I get the more I think the libertarians are more on point than either social right wingers and economic left wingers.
I agree but would add a category - libertarian. T... (show quote)


I agree with everything except the part about liberals stifling personal behaviors. You are correct that they don't want the government involved in gay activities, a******ns and some drug use, but they are adamant about controlling other personal behaviors such as what one can eat or drink and controlling tobacco use.

They are also quite demanding when it comes to anything they see as safety issues, such as seatbelts and bicycle helmets.

They have also co-opted the green movement and want to limit the amount of electricity, gasoline and every other form of energy you're allowed to consume. In this same vein, the most extreme want to force everybody to become vegans consuming only locally-grown organic vegetables.

Reply
Mar 9, 2013 14:35:19   #
Striker Loc: Arizona Rockies
 
This round there is "Quick Reply" below.
I agree your approach to "gays" (homos) is better, Union okay but marriage is not. Government has no place in this battle whatsoever, but made discriminatory tax laws it should correct.

Problem with "labels" is the variable definitions resulting from doublespeak, that applies also to spinning many words.

As to the other stuff, we have some differences, not fatal, but we're headed for the abyss and if we survive that, we cannot repeat all this ever again. My profile now contains my main website.

Reply
Mar 9, 2013 15:01:08   #
Voice of Reason Loc: Earth
 
Striker wrote:
My profile now contains my main website.


Maybe it will eventually, but it doesn't yet.

Reply
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.