View Full Version : Would you rather....
If forced to choose:
Would you rather see a liberal level the economy through poor decision making or a conservative initiate wars and conflicts that may not be easily justified?
Why?
firetown
09-11-2008, 12:14 AM
I believe that nobody knows what would have happened hadn't the U.S. gone to war. I mean we hear so much about the Bush government, but the truth is that people underestimate the power of "the other side" and what I am getting at is people who follow a religion which is designed to empower looney encouraging followers to help conquer the world by the sword.
I think after 9/11 the world needed to be shown that enough is enough.
It had to be done to show followers of Islam, that those who committ acts of terror may not be as superior to the western world as they claim.
Whenever an attack gets unpunished, it is being used to motivate the crowd and encourage doing more.
Saddam used to claim having beaten the U.S. in Gulf War I. He violated enough rules from the U.N. to justify an invasion. The U.N. officials of course were on both sides' payroll, so when it comes to international conflicts, you really cannot count on them, and I think that this is not necessarily a senseless war.
Of course, nobody knows for sure what would have happened hadn't the U.S. gone to war, but I do believe that WMDs or not, a lesson needed to be taught to the Iraqi leadership and unfortunately America cannot count on the rest of the world except a few countries to help come up with efficient solutions.
Back to the initial question, I think liberalism is often the popular solution and a quick fix type of approach, but will always hurt us in the long run, so I go with the conservatives who may make mistake, but do follow a more logical and responsible approach overall.
]
Back to the initial question, I think liberalism is often the popular solution and a quick fix type of approach, but will always hurt us in the long run, so I go with the conservatives who may make mistake, but do follow a more logical and responsible approach overall.
Yet you appear to be backing Obama this year. Why?
firetown
09-11-2008, 12:31 PM
Yet you appear to be backing Obama this year. Why?
No, I'm not, changing my signature now to quit this confusion right here and there. :)
kerrin
10-10-2008, 08:40 PM
Would you rather see a liberal level the economy through poor decision making or a conservative initiate wars and conflicts that may not be easily justified?
Either same outcome. We need change—lets get the leveling over with and move on to better times—smaller government that spends less and doesn't borrow.
An interesting question to play off of yours is:
Which party, in their current state, brings about economic leveling and thus needed change sooner?
kerrin
10-10-2008, 08:46 PM
I go with the conservatives who may make mistake, but do follow a more logical and responsible approach overall.
Seriously? This seems very hard to justify. The "conservatives" are anything but conservative... spend and spend, imposing more and more control, policies that give less and less personal freedom.
How have the "conservatives" been "more responsible"?
Seriously? This seems very hard to justify. The "conservatives" are anything but conservative... spend and spend, imposing more and more control, policies that give less and less personal freedom.
How have the "conservatives" been "more responsible"?
Interesting that you lump everyone together under one label. ;)
kerrin
10-10-2008, 11:10 PM
Interesting that you lump everyone together under one label.
You have discovered my subversive tactic. I will continue to do so until there are noticeable differences in the major parties or other parties are considered.
You have discovered my subversive tactic. I will continue to do so until there are noticeable differences in the major parties or other parties are considered.
To what avail?
kerrin
10-10-2008, 11:33 PM
To what avail?
Change from status quo.
John Scott
10-11-2008, 12:03 AM
I'd choose the Liberals. The reason being, it will result in revolution.
Change from status quo.
So you can be different...just like the rest of us? :evil:
Edit: I couldn't resist. ;)
kerrin
10-11-2008, 09:36 PM
So you can be different...just like the rest of us?
Yes, everyone's different = no one is different
However, what's diferent now may become status quo later. I'm reminded of the wise words of Garth Algar of Wayne's World: "Live in the NOWWW!!"
Yes, everyone's different = no one is different
Interesting take. How'd ya figure?
kerrin
10-12-2008, 09:07 PM
Interesting take. How'd ya figure?
Well it's partly me playing around with word play.
But it's in line with Ayn Rand's idea in Atlas Shrugged where she bemoans a world that celebrated mediocrity over achievement, norms over exceptionalism. If everyone is special then no one is special. If special means the same thing in both instances then not everyone can be special or the word losses it's meaning and and the outcome is mediocrity. I was thinking the same thing with: if everyone's different then no ones different... but maybe it doesn't work.
Sounds as though your beliefs are right up there with John. Scott and Galt, it seems. ;)
I'd choose the Liberals. The reason being, it will result in revolution.
kerrin
10-12-2008, 09:57 PM
Sounds as though your beliefs are right up there with John. Scott and Galt, it seems.
Thanks, I'm honored.
I'm interested how you would differ in your beliefs, not for the sake of an argument, but I would love to know how/why you see things differently or disagree because I learn much from thoughtful people like yourself.
I'm interested how you would differ in your beliefs
I don't know that our beliefs are entirely different. I am a firm believer in meritocracy. I suppose that I may be more inclined, when possible, to evaluate everything on a case by case basis.
kerrin
10-13-2008, 02:57 PM
...I may be more inclined, when possible, to evaluate everything on a case by case basis.
Interesting. I want to understand more, so I'll ask more questions and hope you indulge me by answering:
Is this because you would like to remain open to a different approach and/or not wanting to make something absolute?
In your case by case evaluating would you say you are more sensitive to the plight of those 'less fortunate' or 'downcast'?
I've often been told, when sharing/arguing my beliefs that I don't have a heart or that my beliefs lead to a government with no heart. Does that get at the heart (pun intended) of your understanding yet not excepting my points entirely?
Is this because you would like to remain open to a different approach and/or not wanting to make something absolute?
I'm a big fan of nonlinear dynamics. It isn't so much that I'd like to keep an open mind as in my experience nothing has ever been cookie cutter. ;)
In your case by case evaluating would you say you are more sensitive to the plight of those 'less fortunate' or 'downcast'?
I don't believe in "less fortunate" or "downcast." In order for individuals to be "less fortunate" I'd have to be "more fortunate." I tend not to encourage individuals to feel gratuitously victimized. ;) They are responsible for their fortunes. I am responsible for mine. Our fortunes should not be forced to intersect. :)
I've often been told, when sharing/arguing my beliefs that I don't have a heart or that my beliefs lead to a government with no heart. Does that get at the heart (pun intended) of your understanding yet not excepting my points entirely?
You are asking me to make a value judgment. What relevance exists in my accepting or rejecting your beliefs? I'm more curious as to how you think.
kerrin
10-13-2008, 07:00 PM
I'm a big fan of nonlinear dynamics.
Did your education include some form of science discipline?
They are responsible for their fortunes. I am responsible for mine. Our fortunes should not be forced to intersect.
Love it.
What relevance exists in my accepting or rejecting your beliefs? I'm more curious as to how you think.
No relivance. Just a question. I like the way you think...I wanted to hear more.
Did your education include some form of science discipline?
Doesn't everyone's? :mrgreen:
kerrin
10-13-2008, 07:07 PM
Doesn't everyone's?
I'm a dropout...so no.
I'm a dropout...so no.
What has that to do with anything? You seem intelligent.
Education can also be informal. :)
kerrin
10-13-2008, 07:11 PM
You seem intelligent.
It's an illusion.
kerrin
10-14-2008, 08:13 PM
I was thinking more about this today. Alex, you said:
I don't believe in "less fortunate" or "downcast." In order for individuals to be "less fortunate" I'd have to be "more fortunate." I tend not to encourage individuals to feel gratuitously victimized. They are responsible for their fortunes. I am responsible for mine. Our fortunes should not be forced to intersect.
While ideologically I agree with your belief it is hard to ignore reality as we perceive it. Seems hard to deny that while one experiences a catastrophe (outside their control) and yet another does not experience the same catastrophe that there is a 'fortune' disparity between the two. How would you address this disparity? Or would you deny the perception of this occurring?
I was thinking more about this today. Alex, you said:
While ideologically I agree with your belief it is hard to ignore reality as we perceive it. Seems hard to deny that while one experiences a catastrophe (outside their control) and yet another does not experience the same catastrophe that there is a 'fortune' disparity between the two. How would you address this disparity? Or would you deny the perception of this occurring?
Good question. Ever read Candide?
kerrin
10-14-2008, 09:59 PM
Good question. Ever read Candide?
Sorry, I have not. Thanks for answering my question with a question. ;)
Scenario:
Two men with nearly identical means are equally impacted by the same catastrophic event.
Man #1 takes responsibility for his "plight" and begins to rebuild his life.
Man #2 does not take responsibility for his "plight," sits around, blames everyone else, and attempts to steal back his life. Man #2 feels victimized. Man #2 feels the world owes him something.
Regardless of the emotional value one places on their fortunes:
Man #1 has a better chance of survival. Mother Nature tends to weed out the Man #2's.
"Fortune" and "misfortune" are variable, human-fabricated, value judgments. They are an excellent tool of manipulation. Mother Nature does not appear to recognize such a disparity of fortunes, why should I?
John Scott
10-15-2008, 09:29 AM
I was thinking more about this today. Alex, you said:
While ideologically I agree with your belief it is hard to ignore reality as we perceive it. Seems hard to deny that while one experiences a catastrophe (outside their control) and yet another does not experience the same catastrophe that there is a 'fortune' disparity between the two. How would you address this disparity? Or would you deny the perception of this occurring?
Let's see. I have been very wealthy, and very poor (homeless), and everywhere in between. I can honestly say, the happiest times were when I was poor. Money in itself is a headache. It makes you a target of those who would steal it. It makes you a target of stupid lawsuits. It is something that has to be protected and maintained and the loss of all that wealth is the most liberating feeling.
Of course, I am not suggesting that people liberate others by taking their wealth.
And the misfortunes. I am relatively healthy, but I have had my misfortunes. The number one being the loss of my children (custody). But, I would not be the person who I am if it weren't for the misfortunes. I can't point to a single "fortunate" occurrence and say "that helped make me who I am". I can point to the loss of fortune, to the loss of my children, to this hardship or that tribulation, and say "that really grew me. I wouldn't trade that hardship in for a million bucks."
If we valued hardship the way it should be valued, those suffering through it would be regarded as the fortunate and those who manage to avoid it the less fortunate.
The single most valuable experience? 13 months in solitary confinement. Also the most difficult thing I have ever been through in my life, but the most valuable all the same.
@John: However you define misfortune, you took responsibility for your actions. You didn't attempt to use a perceived disparity to take advantage of others.
kerrin
10-16-2008, 05:37 PM
Alex,
I agree that personal responsibility and motivation often dictate the consequences of personal catastrophic event. If we humans choose we can learn more from failure (or misfortune) then we do success (or fortune)—as John chose to do (http://www.individualism.com/community/showthread.php?t=52&page=3#post602).
"Fortune" and "misfortune" are variable, human-fabricated, value judgments. They are an excellent tool of manipulation.
This is an interesting opinion...not sure I completely agree. Some physiologists say value judgments are necessary for processing that which we perceive. Since perception involves the making of representations (schemas) or mental maps of the world, which our brain then uses to process new perceptions and make a judgment as to the value of those new perceptions. The perceiver both acts on the world and is acted upon by the world. Processing is both top-down and bottom-up.
For instance we have value judgments when we experience pain. Our brains process the perception of our body hurting based on a previous schema of pain. Think of a child who wants to touch fire who has yet to experience the pain through perception. Once there is a pain schema your brain can process, quickly judge the value of a new perception of pain, and then decide the response based on that value judgment.
So I would not be as dismissive of value judgments, certainly they can be used for manipulation, but they seem necessary to process that which we perceive.
"Mother Nature does not appear to recognize such a disparity of fortunes, why should I?"
I agree. However, while I am part of nature, I am different then Mother Nature as I don't know that Mother Nature is a conscience being. I find it difficult to deny that I am a conscience being. Therefore, I think it's beneficial to make value judgments because they help me process what I perceive—they answer the question, "is this significant?"
Did I miss your point entirely? Maybe, I should ask what you mean by "value judgments?" Did I misuse the term in a way you did not mean?
No. You didn't miss my point at all. :)
I understand why you'd disagree. I can only reiterate that value judgements are subjective. I don't disagree that they may be necessary human parsing and coping mechanisms.
I just can't quite stomach some of the other applications.