I have a Question for the Liberals here...

Metanis · Post by **Metanis** » March 27, 2003, 8:16 pm

I have a question for you Liberals.

But first let me lay some groundwork. I describe Liberalism as an ideology that leans toward the "collective". Their general mindset is that people need to be protected from themselves. Their common reaction to life's problems is, "There ought to be a law". They would be supporters of strong central governments and restrictive legislation and programs to control people. While supporting government rule and law, the Liberals mostly reject organized religion and religious morality.

I would describe Conservatism as supportive of Religion, less supportive of government control, and more idealistic in particular as it relates to Individualism, Capitalism, free markets, and free enterprise.

My question is how a person of Liberal persuasion can ignore the horrible things done by governments in the last century? Why would you want the government to be more in control of things and people when it has been proven over and over that governments are the most severe killers and repressive organisms known to human kind?

My examples would be Hitler's Nazi Germany, Stalin's Communist Russia, Mao's Communist China, Ortega's Sandinistas, Saddam's Bathe party, Omar's Taliban, and the list could go on for page after page. These are mostly governments that begin with authenticity and then devolve into bloodbaths with repression and oppression. Please note I'm not only picking on the leftist but also the far right fascist governments.

In contrast, the dedicated lefties will frequently cite evidence such as the recent Enron debacle as proof that government regulation needs to be tighter. They will point at the divide between rich and poor as evidence that a government needs to equalize them.

In my mind, the the transgressions of too much freedom such as Enron, Worldcom, etc. pale in comparison to the atrocities performed by governments.

I mean Enron cost people $Billions but it didn't kill anyone. Government's do things like secretly performing syphilis studies on poor black men without their knowledge or consent. So Free Enterprise may overcharge you... but your government can kill you...

Even when companies do kill people, like Union Carbide in Bhopal, India, they at least attempt to pay settlements as some sort of compensation. How much do you think the USSR paid it's people for their suffering in the Chornobyl Nuclear meltdown disaster?

My conclusion is the left's insistence on governmental control is much more dangerous than leaving a great deal of life unregulated and possibly messy and occasionally unfair.

So I will reiterate my question, how can you ignore the harm that government's do?

I'm not asking to get flamed here, I honestly don't understand the mindset that it's best for a government bureaucrat to run my life.

Spangaloid_PE · Post by **Spangaloid_PE** » March 27, 2003, 8:22 pm

Metanis wrote:I have a question for you Liberals.

But first let me lay some groundwork. I describe Liberalism as an ideology that leans toward the "collective". Their general mindset is that people need to be protected from themselves. Their common reaction to life's problems is, "There ought to be a law". They would be supporters of strong central governments and restrictive legislation and programs to control people. While supporting government rule and law, the Liberals mostly reject organized religion and religious morality.

I would describe Conservatism as supportive of Religion, less supportive of government control, and more idealistic in particular as it relates to Individualism, Capitalism, free markets, and free enterprise.

My question is how a person of Liberal persuasion can ignore the horrible things done by governments in the last century? Why would you want the government to be more in control of things and people when it has been proven over and over that governments are the most severe killers and repressive organisms known to human kind?

My examples would be Hitler's Nazi Germany, Stalin's Communist Russia, Mao's Communist China, Ortega's Sandinistas, Saddam's Bathe party, Omar's Taliban, and the list could go on for page after page. These are mostly governments that begin with authenticity and then devolve into bloodbaths with repression and oppression. Please note I'm not only picking on the leftist but also the far right fascist governments.

In contrast, the dedicated lefties will frequently cite evidence such as the recent Enron debacle as proof that government regulation needs to be tighter. They will point at the divide between rich and poor as evidence that a government needs to equalize them.

In my mind, the the transgressions of too much freedom such as Enron, Worldcom, etc. pale in comparison to the atrocities performed by governments.

I mean Enron cost people $Billions but it didn't kill anyone. Government's do things like secretly performing syphilis studies on poor black men without their knowledge or consent. So Free Enterprise may overcharge you... but your government can kill you...

Even when companies do kill people, like Union Carbide in Bhopal, India, they at least attempt to pay settlements as some sort of compensation. How much do you think the USSR paid it's people for their suffering in the Chornobyl Nuclear meltdown disaster?

My conclusion is the left's insistence on governmental control is much more dangerous than leaving a great deal of life unregulated and possibly messy and occasionally unfair.

So I will reiterate my question, how can you ignore the harm that government's do?

I'm not asking to get flamed here, I honestly don't understand the mindset that it's best for a government bureaucrat to run my life.

think you might be able to sum this up? condense it perhaps?

Salis · Post by **Salis** » March 27, 2003, 9:50 pm

uh, rofl

Sorry, prefer to lurk but that was amazing

Marbus · Post by **Marbus** » March 27, 2003, 9:56 pm

I think your definitions are flawed... I would however agree they represent what is commonly held as liberal and conservative.

Lets first note that Fascism (Nazis) are conservative, they are as far RIGHT as you can go. On the other end of the spectrum is Communism which is as far LEFT as you can go. Considering there has never been a true communist society, and in my opinion never will be, it's difficult to use some of the examples you noted. Lenin's bastardization of Communism would make Marx roll over in his grave.

Fact is though human greed will never let a true state exist. You said ENRON didn't kill people? You don't know that. Thousands of people worked their whole life and now have nothing. Even if you discount the suicides I'm sure eventually someone will die from some other element related to ENRON.

While I love my country and fully support it we have done some pretty shitty things to people around the world in the past. Take for instance one of the few, if not only, true Communist revolution in Guatamala during the 1950s. The new head of state took all the land owned by the American conglomerate United Fruit and split it up between the people of his country. Declassified infomation now proves that the CIA sent people in and started a "democratic" revolution so that our corporation could have it's land back... screw the people. The painful thing is that our generation, my generation - people in their 30s, are the ones who paid with American blood for this mistake. The puppet government we setup spawned years of murder and atrocities all around the area. Eventually we had to send in troops to correct the problem.

The Nazis, who eventually killed more people than anyone but Stalin, were in power because they did what the democratic government couldn't do... they fed the people.

Liberal or Conservative are terms that IMHO are almost meaningless and at the least GREATLY over used in relation to freedom and the will of the people. People often misidentify Socialism with Communism, big difference. While in general we are a Capitalist Society we have many Socialist programs which 99% of American's would be in big trouble without. Clinton was blasted for his ideas on Socialized medicine but how many kids go without medical care? Not their fault, they aren't the one accountable. In Arkansas our Republican Gov. started a program a couple of years ago called ARKidsFirst. What is it? Socialized medicine for kids that qualify... everyone loves it (shhhh... don't call it socialized though).

While we talk about only the "liberals" wanting to "give" people things you will find a huge number of conservative Amercans that wouldn't/couldn't do without their "Social Security." Before WWII it was the many "social" programs that began to bring us out of the depression which pure unbridled capitalism got us into in the first place. Of course the war is what eventually got us on our feet but...

Bottom line: We have to have checks and balances in this country and in any country. It's good to mix things up a little, if we get too many people, too far on eitherside then we will be in trouble. Why voted for Bush in 88, worked for Clinton in 92 & 96 then voted for Bush in 2000. Virtue is a mean

At least in my opinion...

Marb

Metanis · Post by **Metanis** » March 27, 2003, 10:43 pm

Marbus wrote:Communist revolution in Guatamala during the 1950s. The new head of state took all the land owned by the American conglomerate United Fruit and split it up between the people of his country. Declassified infomation now proves that the CIA sent people in and started a "democratic" revolution so that our corporation could have it's land back... screw the people.

In a way you are proving my point here. The property rights of a group of people were ignored by a government. Another government stepped in and made the mess even worse.

You are making an assumption that the rights of the United Fruit conglomerate were somehow less important than the rights of a handful of socialists.

In ordinary affairs this would be considered theft. Your attitude is that theft when directed or sanctioned by a government is somehow ok.

I'm not trying to defend conglomerates or even big business. I'm trying to point out that the socialism "cure" is often worse than the "disease".

Drakoslay123 · Post by **Drakoslay123** » March 27, 2003, 11:33 pm

Studied history in China, I found that capitalism was not right for the old China. The Nationalists were not doing a great job in building the econnomy and feeding its people. Instead, a few of the top echelons profited from all the financial support from the west at the time. The Nationalist at the time was starving the Chinese to death. The country was in shamble. Thus, was the capitalism really working for the chinese?

Everyone pointed fingers at Mao. What about the atrocities and equalities the Nationalists committed during the time? What about the killing and injustice commited by the Nationalists (Capitalists) to the Taiwanese?

Maybe, China needed the Communists rather than the Capitalists at the time. Therefore, the politics of a country does not depend on what is truely ideal on the concepts, rather suitability to a culture, enviornment and its time period.

To categorize all liberals and communists into something that is evil advocators or supporters are kind of short sighted, don't you think?

Drakoslay

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » March 27, 2003, 11:44 pm

It seems like liberal social issues and political stances are almost opposite, they lean more towards communism, yet support choice and freedom in social issues.

Not everyone is a liberal or a conservative, i am neather, I support everything that promotes freedom...right to bear arms, pro choice, legalization of pot, against the death penalty, and less government control, i think its defined somewhat as a "libertarian" but it isnt jack shit either liberal or conservitave

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » March 28, 2003, 12:10 am

what the fuck are you advocating? no government?

and btw you described socialism and libertarianism, not liberals and conservatives.

moron.

Toshira · Post by **Toshira** » March 28, 2003, 12:31 am

I think she means libertarianism. Silly Kooky.

Metanis · Post by **Metanis** » March 28, 2003, 1:43 am

kyoukan type-R wrote:what the fuck are you advocating? no government?

and btw you described socialism and libertarianism, not liberals and conservatives.

moron.

Perhaps I see Liberals too ready to apply socialistic solutions. I think that's moronic and shortsighted.

I think freedom and democracy don't have to be pretty or inherently fair. I think equality of opportunity is important, not political correctness.

I'm not advocating a lack of government, but I do believe individual rights need to be protected zealously.

I think people who use name-calling are just...

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » March 28, 2003, 1:54 am

so what about your rights? who is trampling on them?

keep in mind if you say "the liberals" I will find you and run you over in my car.

Millie · Post by **Millie** » March 28, 2003, 2:20 am

Metanis wrote:I describe Liberalism as an ideology that leans toward the "collective". Their general mindset is that people need to be protected from themselves. Their common reaction to life's problems is, "There ought to be a law". They would be supporters of strong central governments and restrictive legislation and programs to control people

First off, the government has ALWAYS increased in size, restricted individual rights, and further asserted control over the people under the reign of Republican presidents. George W. Bush's term is no exception. In the last few years our rights have been trampled on in the name of "security," our government has expanded twofold, and everything has become increasingly centralized. The common reaction among Bush's cronies is "...there out to be a law."

It's a common misconception among Republicans that all liberal-minded people favor a strong central government and less individual rights. That's hogwash.

What it really comes down to is the priority one places on change. A "conservative," by definition, is someone who is more or less satisfied with the way things are. The conservative will support the status quo, resist social and political change, and extreme conseratives (called "reactionaries") will want things to return to the way they "used to be."

The "liberal," on the other hand, is someone who favors change. Liberals do not believe things are perfect the way they are; they believe things could be much better. Extreme liberals (called "radicals") believe that things should be changed completely.

Between "Liberal" on the left, and "Conservative" on the right are many different designations on the political spectrum. It doesn't all amount to a black & white difference between the two.

So ultimately, the definitions of liberal and conservative are constant. Only the connotations change with time.

Millie · Post by **Millie** » March 28, 2003, 2:23 am

Metanis wrote: Perhaps I see Liberals too ready to apply socialistic solutions.

Perhaps you see things incorrectly.

Metanis · Post by **Metanis** » March 28, 2003, 2:23 am

Millie wrote:So ultimately, the definitions of liberal and conservative are constant. Only the connotations change with time.

Huh?

Millie · Post by **Millie** » March 28, 2003, 2:27 am

Metanis wrote:
Millie wrote:So ultimately, the definitions of liberal and conservative are constant. Only the connotations change with time.
Huh?

I didn't mean to confuse you with that big word. Anyhow, I'll explain it more clearly:

A liberal is someone who favors change. A conservative is someone who favors no change, or perhaps backward change.

Those are the hard and fast, unchanging definitions of liberalism and conservatism. They are constant.

Connotations of the two political ideas, on the other hand, are things that have come to be associated with either liberals or conservatives. A common connotation of liberals, for example, is that they favor a strong centralized government. That's just a popular belief, based on how liberals are currently seen by most people in the country. It may change in a few years, and it was certainly not the connotation of liberalism many years ago. It is not an unchanging definition of liberalism, but rather a current association people make with liberalism.

I don't know how better to explain this, so I'd advise that you look up the word "connotation" in the dictionary.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » March 28, 2003, 2:47 am

You asked an honest question, so I'm going to try to provide an honest answer.

Your problem is that your definitions of "liberal" and "conservative" are incorrect. Liberals do not favor big government.

Liberals, in this country, at this time, tend to favor less government in terms of military spending, drug laws, personal freedoms, moral issues, social issues, and so forth. They favor big government in terms of the economy, healthcare, foreign aid, and so forth.

Conservatives are the opposite.

Pherr the Dorf · Post by **Pherr the Dorf** » March 28, 2003, 3:04 am

Perfect example of how things change in government. It used to be republicans lambasted democrats for deficit spending, now we can look forward to the largest deficits in history, coupled with tax cuts on dividends because we all know how bad they were hurting us. The oddest thing in the world has happened at the same time... the Demo's... of all freakin people... are going off about deficit spending as a bad thing, I swear, it's like a freaky twilight zone episode

Toshira · Post by **Toshira** » March 28, 2003, 3:51 am

Don't bring democrats and republicans into this. They practically have the same party agendas now.

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » March 28, 2003, 8:02 am

My main objection to the diatribe that started this thread is the plain nonsense about how companies are somehow benign and enable freedom while governments don't. This is pure nonsense.

Firstly without government there is no social framework for businesses to thrive.
Secondly corporate negligence, exploitation and misinformation has lead to millions of deaths. Union Carbide, the tobacco industry refusing to acknowledge cancer, slack safety in the name of more profit killing workers, pollution etc etc.
Thirdly the corporations wield massive power in terms of employing people, the amount of money they have and generally shaping the fabric of society. As such they share their burden of the world's ills.

I could go on as I disagree with the monetarists creed that free markets are a universal panacea. Profit at any cost with absolutely no moral judgements encourages the worst of corporate abuses and in the long run they cost all of us. George Soros' little book on Globalisation has some very decent ideas in it.

Oh and the final point about conservatism that bothers me: the entire "more of the same is just fine" idealogy coupled with the conservative creed of globalisation and the idea that monetarism will solve all of the world's problems is just wrong IMO. The rich western world lives an unsustainable lifestyle that is trashing the planet. To promise this lifestyle to the rest of the world makes the problem worse. To deny them this promise maintains the worldwide divisions between haves and have-nots from which almost all other problems stem.
To me it seems that "more of the same" is impossible and to deny that many things need to change across the board for the good of everyone is just blinkered.

So in summary I feel conservatives are generally happy to send the world to hell in a handbasket as long as they aren't paying any tax and their money buys them a greater degree of freedom than everyone else. Those of us on the other side of the fence see plenty of room for improvement but it means acknowledging the interdependence of everyone who shares the planet, and making changes.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » March 28, 2003, 11:25 am

kyoukan type-R wrote:so what about your rights? who is trampling on them?

keep in mind if you say "the liberals" I will find you and run you over in my car.

The Liberals

I just want to meet ya

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » March 28, 2003, 11:29 am

I don't agree with the original poster's definition of liberal at all.

I have my own bliefs and am often labeld liberal. So here are my basics...

1. Less government. OMGIAMRETARDEDCAUSEALOTISTWOWORDS less.

2. More personal freedoms. The government has no right to get involved in people's personal lives.

3. Health care should be universal.

4. Education should be universal up to and including college.

5. Religion should be 100% seperate from government.

6. Everyone should pay the same % of taxes.

7. Less $$ spent on military. OMGIAMRETARDEDCAUSEALOTISTWOWORDS less.

8. We should research alternate fuels.

9. Less corporate welfare.

10. I'm pro-individual.

11. I'm anti-propaganda.

12. Get Dubya the fuck out of office before his administration completely fucks the US beyond any hope of repair. I hate it when my bad feelings turn out to be right.

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » March 28, 2003, 11:39 am

Fairweather Pure wrote:I don't agree with the original poster's definition of liberal at all.

I have my own bliefs and am often labeld liberal. So here are my basics...

1. Less government. OMGIAMRETARDEDCAUSEALOTISTWOWORDS less.

2. More personal freedoms. The government has no right to get involved in people's personal lives.

3. Health care should be universal.

4. Education should be universal up to and including college.

5. Religion should be 100% seperate from government.

6. Everyone should pay the same % of taxes.

7. Less $$ spent on military. OMGIAMRETARDEDCAUSEALOTISTWOWORDS less.

8. We should research alternate fuels.

9. Less corporate welfare.

10. I'm pro-individual.

11. I'm anti-propaganda.

12. Get Dubya the fuck out of office before his administration completely fucks the US beyond any hope of repair. I hate it when my bad feelings turn out to be right.

With exception to #'s 1, 2, and 8, you are a liberal. I really don't understand your number 11. Propoganda is here to stay. People are hard pressed these days to find un-biased news sources. Not saying it's not out there.

Pherr the Dorf · Post by **Pherr the Dorf** » March 28, 2003, 11:43 am

5 and 6 would not be liberal. Flat tax is not a liberal idea cause it taxes the bottom 5% at the same rate as the top 5%. As far as 5 goes, well, that is part of the framework of our nation, if that brands you liberal, the seperation of church and state, then our founding fathers were liberals.... wait... they were fucking revolutionaries!

Millie · Post by **Millie** » March 28, 2003, 11:54 am

vn_Tanc wrote:So in summary I feel conservatives are generally happy to send the world to hell in a handbasket as long as they aren't paying any tax and their money buys them a greater degree of freedom than everyone else. Those of us on the other side of the fence see plenty of room for improvement but it means acknowledging the interdependence of everyone who shares the planet, and making changes.

Well said. While there are certainly conservatives out there who do see everyone on equal footing, such conservatives are few and far between. The majority of American conservatives feel as though we are the globe's rulers, and our military and political dominance somehow entitles us to bullying others into compliance. The good of humanity takes second place to the good of America. Furthermore, they see us as the world's police force -- able to resolve any dilemma in the world merely by sending our troops in to kill people until they stop acting up.

That sort of attitude has done nothing but harm to our environment, our neighboring peoples, and ironically enough, ourselves. While there are certainly justifiable causes for international policework, we should be very careful not to act hastily and arrogantly. WWII is the perfect example of how policing sometimes works; Vietnam is the perfect example of how it often fails. The trick is gaining as full an understanding as possible of a given conflict before entering it.

It's also critically important to keep our role and motives in perspective. Think of how invading a given country will help the people of that country *before* thinking of how it will help us.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » March 28, 2003, 11:58 am

1. Less government. OMGIAMRETARDEDCAUSEALOTISTWOWORDS less.

Once the world is more stable I would agree with this.

2. More personal freedoms. The government has no right to get involved in people's personal lives.

I agree with this and it should include Govt. Officials too, I.E Clinton's Affair and Bush's Daughters
3. Health care should be universal.

To some extent yes for preventive care and needed treatment, not for the Luxurys.4. Education should be universal up to and including college.

5. Religion should be 100% seperate from government.

Amen Brother Fair Preach it.

6. Everyone should pay the same % of taxes.

This one I agree with if its a Flat tax with no deductions.

7. Less $$ spent on military. OMGIAMRETARDEDCAUSEALOTISTWOWORDS less.

Maybe a little more intelligent spending

8. We should research alternate fuels.

Yes YES YES!!! I want a Car that runs on Hummer's

9. Less corporate welfare.

Unless they prove they are helping out Employment and Enviroment at a loss.

10. I'm pro-individual.

11. I'm anti-propaganda.

12. Get Dubya the fuck out of office before his administration completely fucks the US beyond any hope of repair. I hate it when my bad feelings turn out to be right

Silvarel Mistmoon · Post by **Silvarel Mistmoon** » March 28, 2003, 12:24 pm

1. Less government. OMGIAMRETARDEDCAUSEALOTISTWOWORDS less.

2. More personal freedoms. The government has no right to get involved in people's personal lives.

3. Health care should be universal.

4. Education should be universal up to and including college.

5. Religion should be 100% seperate from government.

6. Everyone should pay the same % of taxes.

7. Less $$ spent on military. OMGIAMRETARDEDCAUSEALOTISTWOWORDS less.

8. We should research alternate fuels.

9. Less corporate welfare.

10. I'm pro-individual.

11. I'm anti-propaganda.

12. Get Dubya the fuck out of office before his administration completely fucks the US beyond any hope of repair. I hate it when my bad feelings turn out to be right.

Just wondering how the government has gotten involved in your personal freedoms?

Some one recently told me they thought that if number two were to happen in our country that you might find the good Doctors would retire or not accept any type of health care or aid and then only the very rich would be able to access good health care. I thought that was a valid point. I also think we would end up with the government only providing Dr.s that couldn't get a job before hand.

I completely aggre with number 4. This is the one thing that kills me is in 2003 you still see schools that don't have enough books for each child to be able to take one home for their homework.
I think if the government should fund anything 100% it should be the schools.

#5 when I read this I remeber other statements you have made in the past, sorry not looking for them to quote them.

But because of our freedom of speach our President has the right to say "God Bless Our Country" or if he wants to quote a bible phrase. Just as he has the right to not mention the bible or God at all if he chooses not to believe.
IF he starts preaching to you and changing a law saying you must recite the bible or Koran (sp) and rock back and forth and you must only believe in one beleif or be killed then you have a problem. But that hasn't happened in our country and I honestly do not think the American population will let it happen.
We like being able to pick what we believe in, we like being able to openly disagree.

#6 I aggree, I actually wish it was like Penn. where they don't pay taxes on food or clothes.

#7 Becareful with this, all that spending is not only on tanks, guns and ammo. The military gets payed ya know. There are military familes that struggle from pay check to pay check. They make less then the average Civie.

#8 I agree with that of course there were those that laughed when George Bush spoke of it, and no I am not talking about the drilling.

#9 I am against ANY welfare unless the person is crippled or so old they can't work.

Gotta go to work now.

Kluden · Post by **Kluden** » March 28, 2003, 12:45 pm

What do you mean by "education should be universal up to and including college"?

I'm concerned with the notion if you mean that college should be a freebie like public education. I don't think you understand the world if that is your belief. To put it simply in someoen elses term I heard long ago, "The world needs ditch diggers too."

I hate to sound negative, but college and higher education is just not for everyone. If you mean more on the lines of "people who should be in college can't afford it"...well, that's 1970's bullshit. Anyone who wants to goto college, and makes the effort...key part is making the effort...can indeed goto college. I paid my own way through school using our government's student loan program. If I got a loan, anyone can. So if you mean people can't afford college...I say bullshit...there are so many avenues to take, it is ridiculous...especially if you are a minority. Scolarships gallore. And if all else fails...there is ROTC. And the armed forces pay insane amounts of money for you to goto school nowadays.

Once again, was unsure on your point for #4...but if it was about affording college...basicly I'm saying that is an antiquated complaint about higher education.

I am also a liberal, and the rest of your points are very valid. I especially support the "flat tax". The idea that is floating around in Washington now about it is as follows: The government will set a certain "level" of income to qualify. If you are under it, you will pay a reduced tax, if you are over this level, then you will pay a flat percentage tax no matter how far above the set income is. So, family A makes $75,000 combined will pay the same rate as family B who earns $1,000,000 combined. I only wish it would be radified....but never will.

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » March 28, 2003, 12:46 pm

I completely aggre with number 4. This is the one thing that kills me is in 2003 you still see schools that don't have enough books for each child to be able to take one home for their homework.
I think if the government should fund anything 100% it should be the schools.

Got to agree with this. Education is the foundation stone of civilisation IMO.
I'm glad that I don't have any kids to worry about educating as the system in the UK has gone to total shit over the last 20 years.

Vetiria · Post by **Vetiria** » March 28, 2003, 12:51 pm

Drakoslay123 wrote:Studied history in China, I found that capitalism was not right for the old China. The Nationalists were not doing a great job in building the econnomy and feeding its people. Instead, a few of the top echelons profited from all the financial support from the west at the time. The Nationalist at the time was starving the Chinese to death. The country was in shamble. Thus, was the capitalism really working for the chinese?

Everyone pointed fingers at Mao. What about the atrocities and equalities the Nationalists committed during the time? What about the killing and injustice commited by the Nationalists (Capitalists) to the Taiwanese?

Maybe, China needed the Communists rather than the Capitalists at the time. Therefore, the politics of a country does not depend on what is truely ideal on the concepts, rather suitability to a culture, enviornment and its time period.

To categorize all liberals and communists into something that is evil advocators or supporters are kind of short sighted, don't you think?

Drakoslay

Well, when communists took over China, anything would have been better than what had been happening in the country. From about 1915(?) when Yuan Shih-kai (military dictator after the Manchus were overthrown) died, to about 1926, there was no central government in China at all. Just warlords in the different provinces. The country was even more regionalized than in the past during this period.

In 1926, Chiang Kai-shek (another military dictator) took control of China under the guise of Sun Yat-sen's plan to turn the country to democracy: take over the country militarily, 3 years to get rid of the monarcy, then another 6 years of military rule to setup a Constitution and an elected president. Here's the thing though--Chiang never had the intention of turning the country over to a democracy. He wanted complete rule.

One of the first things he did was cut all the wages of the laborers so the bosses could give him money. Chiang focused on bringing the bosses and landlords to his side, instead of the masses and workers--the bosses had the money, and they were located mostly in the coastal areas of China since thats where most of the trade with foreigners (US, Britain, Spain, etc...). When Japan went in and attacked and took control of the China coast before WWII began, that cut off all of Chiang's financing and pretty much fucked him over. Since the communists believed in bringing the masses (peasants) and workers, obviously they would take control now that the coast was in Japan's hands.

Capitalism (under a democratic rule) was never given a chance in China. Chiang wasn't a capitalist, he was a dictator just like every other leader of China before him.

Wulfran · Post by **Wulfran** » March 28, 2003, 12:58 pm

The problem that Metanis has with his whole position can be seen in his examples. He is using a series of Totalitarian (or near ) regimes of various flavours, be they communist, fascist or religious fundmenralist and branding them as "logical" extensions from an educated and informed populace.

I know as a Canadian, my views will differ from a lot of Americans, because I am used to, and accept more government. I am not saying that it is all necessary, but some is.

I found it interesting that he cited Union Carbide's releasing a cloud of poisonous gas in Bhopal, as it is an example used in my professional life. With proper checks and balances/supervision (i.e. UC metting the same building and engineering codes and using the same maintenance practices that they would have had to for a similar facility in North America) Bhopal should have never happened. They built a cheap facility based on what "they thought" they needed and cost savings took precedence over public safety. This is NOT a unique approach from the private sector: everyone is driving to lower operational costs, while maximising profit, to encourage investors (look at Sony/V.I. and their "scaled back" CS as an example from a totally different industry).

To me, that example shows the disregard many companies hold for anything that doesn't directly translate into short term profit. I guess I have to take some responsibility for that attitude, because when I invest in a stock or a fund, I want something that outperforms (i.e. is more profitable) than its peers. At the same time I believe public safety should take precedence over my ability to make money.

IMO a government should create an environment that lets its citizens live, work and play in safety. It should help them attain a level of (education and) prosperity. The choice is what degree of service do you require?

Crav · Post by **Crav** » March 28, 2003, 12:58 pm

As many people have stated already, the original poster's definitions of liberal and conservatives are flawed. However, I will address the question they originally asked. How can people who consider themselves liberals ignore the horrible things done by governments in the last century and why would said liberals want the government to be more in control of things and people.

Well first your assuming that liberals do not condemn what the Nazi, Soviets and the other governments you listed have done. Second, grouping all governments together with the ones you mentioned is somewhat akin to grouping all individuals with Ted Buddy, Geoffrey Domer(sp), and other serial killers. I believe that liberals have spoken out about actions taken by the government that they do not believe in, such as our own government's involvement in covert operations in South America and the recent actions taken by our government in domestic and foreign affairs. So you can't really say that liberals want the government to be in more control, but rather that we want the government to provide more opportunities for everyone by expanding or fully funding the social initiatives in our country.

Marbus · Post by **Marbus** » March 28, 2003, 2:52 pm

Wow Fair I agree with you on many more topics than I thought

I can go along with College and higher education being free if we increase testings. Of course that has major flaws but in most EU countries the system knows through educational and aptitude tests how far you are likley to go, as someone said "the world needs ditch diggers too." That being said the past 100+ years in the country have continually built the idea that everyone can rise above if they only try hard enough. While this isn't usually true, it is from time to time and we would miss out on those individuals... double edged sword

Someone posted that they didn't like the 5% sales tax. As someone who has increased their income drastically over the past 10 years I don't see that as being a bad that at ANY income level. 5% of poverty level is a hell of a lot less than 5% of 100,000 a year so it won't make a big difference on their income. It would also get this really rich pukes to pay up. Lets face it, the more money you make the better lawyers you can afford. It's the middle class that support everything. IMHO it's time the megarich did their fair share. No deducations, you make 10,000,000 a year you pay 500,000.

While I admire Bush's devotion and willingness to share that as a Christian I don't think it needs to be in every speech or area. Letting someone know your Faith is admirable IMHO but shoving it down someone's throat is unacceptable when you are a government official. The US, while primarily Christian, has many other religions. He is their President as well and shouldn't make them feel uncomfortable everytime he speaks.

More later... lunch...

Marb

Legenae · Post by **Legenae** » March 28, 2003, 5:56 pm

Fairweather Pure wrote:I don't agree with the original poster's definition of liberal at all.

I have my own bliefs and am often labeld liberal. So here are my basics...

1. Less government. OMGIAMRETARDEDCAUSEALOTISTWOWORDS less.

2. More personal freedoms. The government has no right to get involved in people's personal lives.

3. Health care should be universal.

4. Education should be universal up to and including college.

5. Religion should be 100% seperate from government.

6. Everyone should pay the same % of taxes.

7. Less $$ spent on military. OMGIAMRETARDEDCAUSEALOTISTWOWORDS less.

8. We should research alternate fuels.

9. Less corporate welfare.

10. I'm pro-individual.

11. I'm anti-propaganda.

12. Get Dubya the fuck out of office before his administration completely fucks the US beyond any hope of repair. I hate it when my bad feelings turn out to be right.

I agree with this Fair.

I think what Fairweather means (and he can correct me if I am wrong) regarding number 5 (which could also include number 2 I guess), is that Dubya started this "Faith-Based" plan thing.

This is the most recent article on this subject:

http://www.theolympian.com/home/news/20 ... 1292.shtml

I am glad they removed it from legislation.

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » March 28, 2003, 6:24 pm

Most people should find it rather easy to agree with my main points simply because they're common sense. That's why it's so frustrating to me that they always fall to the wayside.

The faith-based BS that Dubya is supporting scares me to no end. Hell, just look what his father said:

George H.W. Bush, as Presidential Nominee for the Republican party; 1987-AUG-27: "No, I don't know that Atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God."

That's pretty scary right there. If you're not concerned, you goddamn should be.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » March 28, 2003, 6:28 pm

A christian theocracy is just what the US needs.

Legenae · Post by **Legenae** » March 28, 2003, 6:29 pm

Fairweather Pure wrote:Most people should find it rather easy to agree with my main points simply because they're common sense. That's why it's so frustrating to me that they always fall to the wayside.

The faith-based BS that Dubya is supporting scares me to no end. Hell, just look what his father said:

George H.W. Bush, as Presidential Nominee for the Republican party; 1987-AUG-27: "No, I don't know that Atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God."
That's pretty scary right there. If you're not concerned, you goddamn should be.

EXACTLY!

Just because someone chooses to worship (or not worship) differently than someone else doesn't mean that they aren't a good, moral person who deserves the same rights as the next guy.

Gurugurumaki · Post by **Gurugurumaki** » March 28, 2003, 6:31 pm

Legenae wrote: EXACTLY!

Just because someone chooses to worship (or not worship) differently than someone else doesn't mean that they aren't a good, moral person who deserves the same rights as the next guy.

Sure it does you atheist bastard, you are teh devil~

Legenae · Post by **Legenae** » March 28, 2003, 6:31 pm

Gurugurumaki wrote:
Legenae wrote: EXACTLY!

Just because someone chooses to worship (or not worship) differently than someone else doesn't mean that they aren't a good, moral person who deserves the same rights as the next guy.
Sure it does you atheist bastard, you are teh devil~

masteen · Post by **masteen** » March 28, 2003, 7:35 pm

kyoukan type-R wrote:A christian theocracy is just what the US needs.

I'm looking forward to teh book burnings! The only question I have is who would get to be High Theocrat?

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » March 28, 2003, 7:45 pm

masteen wrote:
kyoukan type-R wrote:A christian theocracy is just what the US needs.
I'm looking forward to teh book burnings! The only question I have is who would get to be High Theocrat?

John Ashcroft

Trek · Post by **Trek** » March 28, 2003, 8:15 pm

Voronwë wrote:
masteen wrote:
kyoukan type-R wrote:A christian theocracy is just what the US needs.
I'm looking forward to teh book burnings! The only question I have is who would get to be High Theocrat?
John Ashcroft

Im kinda partial to Laura

Silvarel Mistmoon · Post by **Silvarel Mistmoon** » March 28, 2003, 10:39 pm

http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/fb ... ation.html

http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/fb ... _s1924.pdf

Xyun · Post by **Xyun** » March 29, 2003, 6:59 am

Equating the idea of "more government" with liberals or conservatives is foolish in my opinion. Their difference in opinion between the two is not how much government, rather what is the purpose of the government and what are the things that government should do for its people.

Millie · Post by **Millie** » March 29, 2003, 3:45 pm

Xyun wrote:Equating the idea of "more government" with liberals or conservatives is foolish in my opinion. Their difference in opinion between the two is not how much government, rather what is the purpose of the government and what are the things that government should do for its people.

Bingo. I'm not sure why I haven't said as much lately, but I'm guessing that my 14-hour workdays this week have prevented me from posting in top form. Anyhow, well said.

VeeshanVault

I have a Question for the Liberals here...

I have a Question for the Liberals here...

Re: I have a Question for the Liberals here...

Re: I have a Question for the Liberals here...

Re: I have a Question for the Liberals here...

Re: I have a Question for the Liberals here...