The United States (In your opinion) has been more (fundamentally, NOT officially)...

[chasteh 0]

Next, when you say that the United States government has predominantly acted in a (for example) Liberal way, what do you mean by this? Is this really a fair estimation? What might others say to your charge, and how would you respond?

Given the fact that Skydivers can be some of the most opinionated people on the planet, lets treat our posts here as a way of stating our positions clearly in an effort to more easily identify your positions. Keep your posts as short as possible, as making them excessively long will only make it more likely for irrelevant tangents to appear.

Also, if you are one of the rare Ayn Rand supporters who is offended by my placing Objectivism where it is, just check that option anyways and spare us the extremely vague ranting is likely to occur please.

Thanks guys, begin voting... NOW!

Oh, and if you happen to be a BASE jumper that would not chose option #1, why?

[JohnRich 4]

Welcome stranger.

Is that short enough for you?

My, you certainly have a lot of rules for someone making his very first post here.

[chasteh 0]

Hello.

Yep, thats short enough. (But I want justification too!)

Hehe I suppose, but i'm looking for genuine defenses also.

Yes I am a new poster, but the truth is I have been stalking each and every one of you for years, and just now decided to make my presence known.

A license pending, 35 jumps, 750 hour Jump pilot after 1 year : )

[Lefty 0]

I would say the U.S. started out fairly libertarian (insert rant about libertarian poll placement here), in that government was small, people were generally self-reliant, and the government stuck to its narrow, specified tasks.

It is my theory that any republic is going to inevitably shift toward the liberal side of the spectrum as its people become soft, fat, and lazy. "Liberal" meaning a larger government making more intrusions into our daily lives. Specifically in the case of the U.S., our populace has become obsessed with the technology and comforts our civilization affords us. As such, we become disconnected from our self-reliant roots and defer a large part of our independence to a government who will take a lot of the scariness out of life.

I'd say that is a fair estimation. To my charge, people might say "No. That's wrong and I don't like your face". I'd respond by speaking ill of their mothers, and so on.

Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful.
-Calvin

[chasteh 0]

Quote

...any republic is going to inevitably shift toward the liberal side of the spectrum as its people become soft, fat, and lazy.

Yeeeeeeaaaaaaa.... but I mean that is sort of a Libertarian predisposition though... i mean... Ethical Egoists have been saying that since the beginning of time.

Quote

"Liberal" meaning a larger government making more intrusions into our daily lives.

Yea I suppose that is pretty fair. That sounds a bit more like the Socialism option though. I, although have yet to really adopt one political perspective, definitely see reason to be weary of how the government can be used in destructive ways. (You know, like when computer chipping a population becomes even a mere possibility-that is a sign that the police-state you crazy libertarians are afraid of is actually likely to happen in the U.S.)

[billvon 2,991]

> "Liberal" meaning a larger government making more intrusions into our daily lives.

In its more modern meaning, "liberal" means more personal freedoms (the right to marry whoever you like, the right to decide for yourself if you want an abortion, the right to smoke pot, the right to read whatever you want and watch whatever you want) and "conservative" means more corporate freedoms (the freedom to pay employees whatever you want, the freedom to pollute, the freedom to play accounting games without oversight, the freedom to not deal with unions, regulations and restrictions on business.) Both are important IMO.

On the minus side, "liberal" often means onerous restrictions on business, and "conservative" often means reductions in your personal rights - the right to marry, have an abortion, watch porn, take drugs etc.

>I would say the U.S. started out fairly libertarian (insert rant about
>libertarian poll placement here), in that government was small, people
>were generally self-reliant, and the government stuck to its narrow,
>specified tasks.

True. On the minus side, many people were slaves, women couldn't vote, and killing indians, wiping out whole species and polluting as much as possible were not only OK but often encouraged.

[Lefty 0]

Quote

On the minus side, many people were slaves, women couldn't vote, and killing indians, wiping out whole species and polluting as much as possible were not only OK but often encouraged.

To our everlasting shame. Those practices in themselves don't reflect any sort of modern conservative/liberal ideology, however, and to get in an argument as to which side championed the solution of what issue would derail this thread completely.

Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful.
-Calvin

[Lefty 0]

Quote

Yeeeeeeaaaaaaa.... but I mean that is sort of a Libertarian predisposition though...

Guilty as charged. As billvon pointed out, conservatives have their own methods of saving people from themselves. I'm not a big fan of either the conservative or liberal flavor of such a practice.

Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful.
-Calvin

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

It is my theory that any republic is going to inevitably shift toward the liberal side of the spectrum as its people become soft, fat, and lazy.

Well, how else are we going to get our bread and circuses?

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Interesting generalities. But they are just that. There are exceptions to both sides, such as liberals being on a quest to destroy gun rights and the rights of the unborn where conservatives have a strong history of upholding these rights.
Workers rights are tough to place within either party. On one hand you have the right of the workers to unionize, but on the other hand unions destroy the rights of the individual worker to bargain for himself.
I believe, like you, that both liberals and conservatives are needed for a successful government and society. Liberals to work to bring about change, and conservatives to make sure change is for the right reasons and not just for the sake of change.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[billvon 2,991]

>Those practices in themselves don't reflect any sort of
>modern conservative/liberal ideology . . .

Agreed. They reflected the political ideologies of the time - which is why I would argue that we've gotten considerably better in many ways.

[chasteh 0]

Quote

I believe, like you, that both liberals and conservatives are needed for a successful government and society. Liberals to work to bring about change, and conservatives to make sure change is for the right reasons and not just for the sake of change.

Phew! That is a LOADED statement, but I think I understand where you are coming from. I suppose I would agree with you IF most of the GOP and democratic party didn't exist. There are probably only three or four (what i mean by that is there are precicely two) politicians from both sides who I think deserve to be making decisions at the same time. They are both friends, they are both old, and they both are (gasp!) highly intelligent. One of them also tried his damndest during the GOP debates to make the other 10 slimeballs acknowledge even where the 9/11 hijackers came from! (Saudi Arabia-which in fact is a different country entirely from the other two that we invaded since 2001-and which in fact produces 8 million more barrels of oil per day than it consumes)

For the rest of the Democratic and GOP parties, I couldn't help but sense the same thing I sense when I an standing in front of a used car salesman. (Lied to, taken advantage of, etc.)

So, IF all the members of each party 1)Consistently, and persistently had a well articulated message (You know, like Ron Paul always does); 2)Actually acknowledged historical facts; and 3)Were indeed participating in government functions to better the state, as opposed to private interests

Then I would agree that we most definitely need bipartisanship for the reasons you mentioned.

[billvon 2,991]

>There are exceptions to both sides, such as liberals being on a quest to destroy
>gun rights and the rights of the unborn where conservatives have a strong history
>of upholding these rights.

Yes; liberals tend to place the women's rights over fetal rights, and conservatives do tend to support gun rights pretty strongly.

>Workers rights are tough to place within either party.

Based purely on voting patterns, unionized workers vote overwhelmingly democratic, so at least they perceive that the democratic party supports them more strongly.*

>Liberals to work to bring about change, and conservatives to make sure change is
>for the right reasons and not just for the sake of change.

That's not a bad generalization, and is pretty close to the classic definition of liberal vs conservative.

(* - note that these statements are starting to speak to political parties instead of ideologies; they are not really the same thing.)

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

>>Workers rights are tough to place within either party.

Based purely on voting patterns, unionized workers vote overwhelmingly democratic, so at least they perceive that the democratic party supports them more strongly.*

.
.
.
pretty close to the classic definition of liberal vs conservative.

1 - unions (of today) are hardly for "the worker" so that is interesting but not really to the point - (acknowledge you do note "unionized workers" but that's a weak subset of all workers, really)

2 - agree that BD's definition are the classic reads on liberal and conservative - both of which absolutely do not apply at all today.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 2,991]

>unions (of today) are hardly for "the worker" so that is interesting but
>not really to the point . . .

If you define "workers" as anyone who works (as opposed to people who work in jobs that either have or traditionally have had union representation) then I agree that it's sorta pointless to discuss where they fit in, since they represent 80% of the people in the US.

>agree that BD's definition are the classic reads on liberal and conservative -
>both of which absolutely do not apply at all today.

I agree that the classic definitions of liberal and conservative no longer apply to the political parties (i.e. republican and democrat.) But that doesn't mean that the definition itself has changed. I know a few conservatives, for example, who protest that what they call the "conservative party" has abandoned their values. That indicates they think there's an underlying definition of conservative that doesn't change with time.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

It is my theory that any republic is going to inevitably shift toward the liberal side of the spectrum as its people become soft, fat, and lazy. "Liberal" meaning a larger government making more intrusions into our daily lives. Specifically in the case of the U.S., our populace has become obsessed with the technology and comforts our civilization affords us. As such, we become disconnected from our self-reliant roots and defer a large part of our independence to a government who will take a lot of the scariness out of life.

Quote

For when the plebs discover that they can vote themselves bread and circuses without limit and that the productive members of the body politic cannot stop them, they will do so, until the state bleeds to death, or in its weakened condition the state succumbs to an invader--the barbarians enter Rome.
(To Sail Beyond the Sunset, 227) - Robert Heinlein

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[BaronVonBoll 0]

History inevitably repeats itself..

Rome
Started out as a republic.
as decadense and self interst progressed into government interposing its Ideas to satait a growing populace and catering to the desires of the body politic coruption grew.
In order to maintain power politicians had to placate the masses and make life easier. Circuses parades and a show of Roman superiority gave the facade of prosperity. power for powers sake ran rampant eventually the easy life for the rich (who believed they had the right to live as they did as the natural way of things) gave way to resentment from the poor. and the empire failed.

Point for point over time can be matched to the US in a condensed version due to industrialization. what took Rome centuries to fail is happening here in just two.


ROme started as a republic
US. Started ans a republic
Rome had institutional slavery
The U.S. had institutional slavery.
Civil war over secesion happenes in rome
Civil war of secesion happened here.
Only roman land owners could be citizens and vote.
In the U.S. for a long time only land owners could vote. not women not any race but white.
people in rome became lazy and non productive buying more services than producing goods
Same thing here in the US.
Education became Reading writing mathmatics were neglected
Us education system is failing to produce people who can effectivly read or do simple math here in the U.S.
Rome had to concur and expand in order to maintain its lifestyle and keep brining in the items and "Necessities its citizens demanded.
We are doing the same borrowing money from other countries and getting into wars to keep resourses available!
The comparision is clear. What we will do about it who knows
But it is clear we cannot rely upon the Gov. to provided a dolist ideaology and expect to escape the same fate of ancient Rome.

Thats the way I see it.
Who knows maybe we will one day elect and give power to our own ceasar on our way to further dependance!

[ErricoMalatesta 0]

Conservative when it comes to sharing wealth.
Liberal when it comes to dishing out terrorism.

[nerdgirl 0]

... liberal.

Conservatives wanted to remain under the monarchy.

The Democratic and Republican parties of the last have 150 years of so have been variants of liberalism, i.e., ideas derived from Hobbes, Rousseau, Kant, Locke, etc.

Cool question to think about historically and implications for today, imo.

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying