Vive La France- Colonialism

[SmithWesen]

I wasn't implying you were sympathizing. I was implying that it is impossible to really comprehend why some would do that. Mainly impart to the fact that I find racism right up there with single cell organism's commiting mitosis, as far as acts of intelligence go.

And thats an insult to single celled organisms, everywhere.

Racists are like the goddamn kid in a class the ruins it for everyone by telling the teacher how everyone is cheating.

Man I hated that kid.

 

[Ashmo]

Y'see, your ignorance may keep you away from the problem, but it prevents you from analyzing and (potentially) solving it.

Going by the idea that racists are stupid untermenschen isn't any different from the basic idea behind racism, which is that anybody different from you is one.

The nazi/anti-fa issue is the same with-us-or-against-us thinking people have abused to force others into their black-and-white thinking for ages, most prominently shown by Mr Dubya Bush not so long ago.

It's a simple logic, but it is flawed.

 

[SmithWesen]

That's a very valid point actually.

As a side note though, and I can't remember which comedian/pop culture icon/ historical figure. I am quoting on this one, but
"We should never become so tolerant as to tolerate intolerance."

Which is why I can't stand racism. I wouldn't put them to death or anything. But I can't stand 'em. I do however see your point and I will have to do some thinking on this.

 

[Ashmo]

Nobody's said anything about tolerating them. It's more about using your brain rather than removing them from your definition of "human beings" just so you don't have to deal with them.

 

[Brother None]

Funny.

In 2002 or 2003, don't remember which, the French parliament passed a law forbidding any and all trivialisation or relativisation of the colonial period. In 2005, the author of a well-praised paper on French colonialism was brought to court for not being criticial enough of French colonialism.

This is also an infringement on freedom of speech and historical revisionism. Nobody was crying back then, though. Funny.

 

[John Uskglass]

This is also an infringement on freedom of speech and historical revisionism. Nobody was crying back then, though. Funny.

Liberalism is dead, and no one appears to want to sing a requiem. What an age.

 

[welsh]

I hope not, John. If liberalism dies- and the idea of a progressive state with it- what do you have left.

A conservative, status quo state that seeks to formalize the power of the strong over the weak?

A fundamentalist state that seeks to replace reason with faith?

Sad times indeed.

 

[John Uskglass]

Liberalism does not implie a progressive state. That's a wretched flaw in modern Liberal thought. Frankly, the notion of societal 'progress' is almost detrimental to the maintinance of a Liberal scoiety where the Government's role is to do almost nothing. 'Progressive states' throw free speech out the window in the name of Multiculturalism.

 

[welsh]

Liberalism does not implie a progressive state. That's a wretched flaw in modern Liberal thought.

WHile I agree that liberalism doesn't imply progressive, generally speaking we've had more movement towards a progressive liberal state under liberal administrations than under conservative administrations.

The idea that conservatives are pro-status quo, anti-change, and limited in their willingness to extend civil rights is fairly well born out.

Frankly, the notion of societal 'progress' is almost detrimental to the maintinance of a Liberal scoiety where the Government's role is to do almost nothing. 'Progressive states' throw free speech out the window in the name of Multiculturalism.

But that assumes that the government's role is to do nothing. I would argue that's not true. The government's role is larger than just the protection of security, but also about redistributing wealth, resolving social conficts and creating a better society for future generations.

As for progressivism throwing out free speech in lieu of multi-culturalism- how? We live in a state today where if you are critical of the government your neighbor can call the FBI down on you. This is free speech? We have a move towards banning "extreme speech" - because one apparently can't be extremely pissed off about the state of affairs. And last I heard, no one was saying that you couldn't be a racist- merely that you couldn't use government authority to further racist policies... but that's a matter of equality- a progressive idea.

 

[John Uskglass]

WHile I agree that liberalism doesn't imply progressive, generally speaking we've had more movement towards a progressive liberal state under liberal administrations than under conservative administrations.

You are fucking the word Liberal, welsh. I don't blame you, it's been misued terribly, but by Liberal I mean Classical Liberal: liberal economically AND socially. Meaning that while Democratic administrations have pushed one side, many have pushed for more something of a Social Market economy at other times (read: New Deal, LBJ)

The idea that conservatives are pro-status quo, anti-change, and limited in their willingness to extend civil rights is fairly well born out.

As is their disliking of government intervention in the economy and national industries. That's as Liberal as the above.

But that assumes that the government's role is to do nothing. I would argue that's not true. The government's role is larger than just the protection of security, but also about redistributing wealth, resolving social conficts and creating a better society for future generations.

I can respect that, but I don't believe in it. The Government's roles are security, maintinance of a free market economy and trying to create equal oppertunity for all through public schools and the like, not to 'redistributing wealth', that's utter shit.

Frankly, I think that all Government is an ugly nessecity, and that in terms of America we are best served by having the Government small and efficent, not (GAH) redistributing wealth, as tempting as that might be.

 

[welsh]

What governments should do and what they do actually do are very different things.

You are suggesting that a government can stand above society and provide equality and security for all. This is a very static definition of government as the protector of society- a status quo position.

But governments represent social groups who come with social issues. This point was raised earlier- it is easier to defend the status quo when you are benefitted from that status quo. The question should be- who does the status quo benefit and how does it cause the detriment to others.

Governments are little more than formal institutions that inherently mobilize bias towards the interests of those who benefit from those institutions.

So the idea that governments should not redistribute wealth is idealistic, but not realistic. Inherently governments will redistribute wealth if only to protect the status quo.

How that redistribution occurs- through taxes, through the funding or support of industries, through grants to industries or social groups, through a variety of subsidies. Does the government tax the wealthy or the poor, does it fund the military (and thus the industries that supply the military) or does it invest in new technologies or broader social inclusion through education? Does it provide social safety nets to those vulnerable to economic change or does it provide corporate welfare? Does it clean the environment for the betterment of societies quality of life or does it cut back on environmental protections to give industry a more competitive edge.

Who wins and who loses- is the business of politics. What government does is centralize the decision making process and thus limit the ability of society to utilize self-help- and in doing so provides domestic tranquility and peace.

Governments must do this because it is, in part, the reason for their existance. In providing for domestic security- higher levels of inequality and unemployment may lead to higher rates of crime. Subsidies militaries may allow for greater military expansion abroad. People often participate in government because government looks after their individual wealth- thus the top10% of the top 1% of our population were also the major contributors to the current administration in DC.

To assume governments shouldn't redistribute wealth is foolish. They do because they must.

John- for a quick read- check out Robert Bates- Prosperty and Violence.

 

[John Uskglass]

What governments should do and what they do actually do are very different things.

That's pretty close to my argument.

You are suggesting that a government can stand above society and provide equality and security for all. This is a very static definition of government as the protector of society- a status quo position.

.............no...........

No, not what I am saying. Social capital is almost impossible to accumulate without sacrificing the continued growth of the market, ergo the government should be expected to primarily deal with economic issues in the same way that any other enterprise does, while still maintaining Pareto improvement, in addition to sustaining a stable and moderately sane society through legislation and (limited) government programs.

Basically, the government's job is primarily to regulate the market, provide security, prevent Trusts and Feudalism from seeping in and provide a minimum of social services while ensuring some manner of continued improvement of society through the market (Pareto improvement) and preventing a collapse of the market (and the society) through legislation.

Make sense? I'm not a motherfucking Communitarian.

But governments represent social groups who come with social issues. This point was raised earlier- it is easier to defend the status quo when you are benefitted from that status quo. The question should be- who does the status quo benefit and how does it cause the detriment to others.

Again: Pareto improvement. Not many people in America are suffering any kind of *regression* in their standards of living, however many sections are improving more quickly. While the government SHOULD keep an eye on this, this is as much a natural fluctation of the market as much as anything, and drastic steps just lead to stupidity.

Governments are little more than formal institutions that inherently mobilize bias towards the interests of those who benefit from those institutions.

Hey, I'M the one saying that the Government's job should be small, not you.

So the idea that governments should not redistribute wealth is idealistic, but not realistic. Inherently governments will redistribute wealth if only to protect the status quo.

Redistribute wealth through taxes? Can't say I am for it, honestly. The flat tax has essentially proven to be as effective as any manner of graduated tax where it is used (if only because the Rich get out of paying taxes in a graduated system). But through social services such as education? I think so.

How that redistribution occurs- through taxes, through the funding or support of industries, through grants to industries or social groups, through a variety of subsidies. Does the government tax the wealthy or the poor, does it fund the military (and thus the industries that supply the military) or does it invest in new technologies or broader social inclusion through education? Does it provide social safety nets to those vulnerable to economic change or does it provide corporate welfare? Does it clean the environment for the betterment of societies quality of life or does it cut back on environmental protections to give industry a more competitive edge.

1) The Government taxes all equally by % of income.
2) Yes. A military is always needed.
3) Both. I'm pro Education in almost any situation, and am not entirely sure that for primary education that a free market benefits the society.
4) No and for the most part no. Subsidies are the devil.
5) I'm fairly mixed on the issue. I personally think taxing certain negative industries due to their polluting effects is an excellent idea, and perhaps (MAYBE) subsidizing eco-friendly solutions is nessicary, but I am not sure.

Who wins and who loses- is the business of politics. What government does is centralize the decision making process and thus limit the ability of society to utilize self-help- and in doing so provides domestic tranquility and peace.

Government....'s.....role...is...to...limit...self....help?

Que?

Governments must do this because it is, in part, the reason for their existance. In providing for domestic security- higher levels of inequality and unemployment may lead to higher rates of crime. Subsidies militaries may allow for greater military expansion abroad. People often participate in government because government looks after their individual wealth- thus the top10% of the top 1% of our population were also the major contributors to the current administration in DC.

Do you have any alternative to this? Besides an 'Autocracy of the Over-Educated and Snobby'?

John- for a quick read- check out Robert Bates- Prosperity and Violence.

I'm reading Anna Karenina and some Leo Strauss at the moment, sorry but that won't happen for a little while.