Thread: Being a Conservative Doesn't Mean You Have to Be a Shill For the Goverment

Woods is a great speaker. Funny too.

Its not so unthinkable that there's a hell of a lot more common ground between the American left and the right than we're acting on. I wish I was better at convincing people of this. I heard a right wing talk show host say he wished the nation was more polarized. That comment got me a little mad, really.

In recent years of trying to understand opposing points of view, I've found that the right in America is a horrible role model for someone to base their idea of conservatism on. I don't know, maybe the same thing can be said for the left but I don't see it as being quite as bad, I'm probably biased. That video was much better than I'm used to seeing.

Even if you understand the dynamic between left and right and understand the virtues of both conservatism and progressivism, it doesn't make the minds of conservatives in the US any less warped by their propaganda.

The only difference between the parties is what they SAY.

They both start wars, they both strip away our rights for "security", they both increase spending (whether or not they admit it.) They both support the corporations that back them... etc. etc.

I'd like to see a Libertarian candidate in Congress sometime soon, or a Green candidate.

...but the parties (Rs & Ds) have precious little to do with liberalism or conservatism. That's another thing I keep failing at convincing people of. I wish we could have a discussion about liberalism and/or conservatism without bringing the parties into it.

They are SOCIALLY Conservative or Liberal, but economically they are not.

Economically they are corporatist and statist. We need options, but unfortunately that's not likely.

The battle should not be between corporatism and statism, anyways. The battle should be to make both more accountable to the people.

Libertarianism should be in there somewhere.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

The battle should not be between corporatism and statism, anyways. The battle should be to make both more accountable to the people.

Both corporatism and statism more accountable to the people?

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Both corporatism and statism more accountable to the people?

Both private and public sectors of society.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

Both private and public sectors of society.

So you want direct democracy in the government and workplace?

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

So you want direct democracy in the government and workplace?

Hehe that reminds me of a sign I saw from Occupy Wall Street. "Sex once every 4 years isn't a love life. 1 vote every 4 years isn't democracy."

What do they suppose we do, choose a new President weekly?


Local government is most accountable. Shift power to the Anti-Federalists and we can solve many problems. A few problems will arise, but I'd rather have State-level drug laws and state-level marriage laws than one national law that the majority don't like. (Oh yeah, and the majority can't change that, but at the State level, they can.)

I was going to advocate more local government as well, with more local statutes to stop corporatism on the local level out, using trickle-up legislation beginning in the neighborhoods. I've written extensively about this on this forum.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

I was going to advocate more local government as well, with more local statutes to stop corporatism on the local level out, using trickle-up legislation beginning in the neighborhoods. I've written extensively about this on this forum.

It works, because it's accountable and representative of the people. Unhappy? Let the 10,000 people in your neighborhood area change it, rather than change it for 300 million people.
It's also why I advocate the Congressional District method for the Electoral College; the most representative and fair way to elect a President.

Originally Posted by ThePreserver

It works, because it's accountable and representative of the people. Unhappy? Let the 10,000 people in your neighborhood area change it, rather than change it for 300 million people.
It's also why I advocate the Congressional District method for the Electoral College; the most representative and fair way to elect a President.

I don't know...I still think the 'elect a broom handle' method would result in better policies.

Originally Posted by cmind

I don't know...I still think the 'elect a broom handle' method would result in better policies.

Benefits, though, to a NON-winner-take-all system? Third parties. There's a greater chance that third party candidates can win. (And thanks to the internet, getting the word out is much easier for them.)

Originally Posted by ThePreserver

It works, because it's accountable and representative of the people. Unhappy? Let the 10,000 people in your neighborhood area change it, rather than change it for 300 million people.
It's also why I advocate the Congressional District method for the Electoral College; the most representative and fair way to elect a President.

You should read the thread entitled "The Balance between Liberals and Conservatives - Why Consensus is the Next Stage." Feel free to skim through it but basically I'm arguing along the same vein. Remove the electoral college and implement government convergence that starts in the neighborhood (roughly 100-300 people) and allow them to select their representative who goes to the next echelon of government (municipal/town hall) and have them reach consensus for the municipality. The municipality's representative then meets in the district and so forth.

My problem with starting government on the town or district level is you're still vulnerable to mob fervor and propaganda (Mayors in this country are crooked as shit). When you keep the constituency small, you cut out a lot of that vulnerability.

Originally Posted by ThePreserver

Benefits, though, to a NON-winner-take-all system? Third parties. There's a greater chance that third party candidates can win. (And thanks to the internet, getting the word out is much easier for them.)

It was a poorly worded joke.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

You should read the thread entitled "The Balance between Liberals and Conservatives - Why Consensus is the Next Stage." Feel free to skim through it but basically I'm arguing along the same vein. Remove the electoral college and implement government convergence that starts in the neighborhood (roughly 100-300 people) and allow them to select their representative who goes to the next echelon of government (municipal/town hall) and have them reach consensus for the municipality. The municipality's representative then meets in the district and so forth.

My problem with starting government on the town or district level is you're still vulnerable to mob fervor and propaganda (Mayors in this country are crooked as shit). When you keep the constituency small, you cut out a lot of that vulnerability.

Your system doesn't actually work. Different regions have different cultures, values, and needs. To force a consensus over a large geographical area will ALWAYS result in oppression, regardless of how the representatives are elected. Why must it go beyond the local level? You're still thinking in the wrong way.

Originally Posted by cmind

Your system doesn't actually work. Different regions have different cultures, values, and needs. To force a consensus over a large geographical area will ALWAYS result in oppression, regardless of how the representatives are elected. Why must it go beyond the local level? You're still thinking in the wrong way.

Well there actually is something to what he is saying. A cosmopolitan geographical area tends to be more tolerant of "strange behavior." Since there is such a diffusion of ideas, it makes it difficult for one resounding idea to maintain power thus causing decentralization.

Or you could have the various cultures figure out what they CAN agree on and work from there.

In a community of less than 300 people, you make the decisions necessary to keep the community running. This would also work on every ascending echelon of government. It's not about figuroung out how to run the world. It's about keeping things running based on the needs of the constituency.