socialist vs. democrat vs. liberal vs. conservative vs. republican vs. anarchist
Posted 1 year 48 weeks ago byI have a question for ya'll on here...
Facts:
- We have two major parties in this country, the republicans and the democrats.
- There are many gradations of these parties including liberal democrats and conservative republicans.
Understandings:
- Liberals lean towards socialism as they are proponents of socialized medicine, govenment-sponsored education, and more taxpayer money to fund these ventures
- Conservatives lean towards anarchism, effectively, proposing very little federal sponsorship of these same ventures and an emphasis on the federal government imposing very little on the citizenry
Yet, Republicans sure seem to muddle their focus of less federal government with some very strange things. For example,
- Federal Government sponsorship of private churches under what veil of republicanism would this make sense?
- A massive Federal army to venture into other people's governments and take them over even though we want our own federal government to be small?
- Federally imposed "No abortion" laws which means we need to regulate a group of people who want to have abortions, not to mention why isn't this a state's right?
- The use of Chinese money to fund our Federal tax-cuts, rather than down-sizing the federal budget this is a doozy! This is so strange, the logic here is let's give money from another government to our people so they will spend the money on the other government's products so that we can give the money back later to that government including an interest rate.
- Gay Rights / Marriage ya'll stick with me on this one, cause I have two points.
- why would a group that wants to downsize the amount of regulation of it's citizenry be in favor of regulating a subsection of the population's interest in sharing in a consensual relationship that ultimately still acts as a part of the basic unit of our culture; the family.
- in a similar vein, why would the government (republican or democrat-run) think it okay for the government to regulate what is, in many cases, a church-oriented system. (Furthermore, why are we, the people, sancitifying the private ritual of some churches and not others?)
And I'm sure plenty of other things that I'm not even thinking about now...but it would seem to me that the major paradigm shift is between social issues and taxation, but if you are going to cut down on taxes, how are you going to fund investment in churches, paying for the army, regulation of abortion laws and the disparity of the tax-cut-funding while spending is going overseas?
So here's my question, did I so misjudge the party's ideologies, or their stances? (or both?) that my arguements are wrong, or is this just a silly way to approach the federal government?
And just so everyone knows, I actually am looking for comments here. It's really been bothering me
Thoughts
You are right that most of
Submitted on July 11th, 2009 by T.JaradYou are right that most of republicans are conservatives and there thoughts are very much rigid.When I was in my college for 646-363 exam coaching classes I have met many people who are republicans and I found them not pretty very awesome in thoughts.On the other hand Democrats are very much liberal and dynamic.One of my 70-643 exam
teacher who had remained part of many political organization described about realities about many organizations.
???
Submitted on October 9th, 2008 by AnonymousWhere are the democrat negatives, I really doubt they are the perfect party. And your doubts make no sense. Conservatives are also more traditional than liberals. Thats why you have the Church being so important.
Gay rights and abortion go with the traditional church way of thought.
Come on man, make a better arguement.
Now do I think it should be like that no, (exception of abortion, its murder.)
Church and state should be serparate.
Have you ever thought about this issue with gay marriage, if they get married their taxes go down. Our taxes go up. Just a thought.
mp3ultima.com
Submitted on September 13th, 2008 by AnonymousHere you can download a lot of your favorite music
Buy PROPECIA Online
that would be the hope
Submitted on April 20th, 2008 by John 2000as frustrating as it seems in terms of decades and generations.
I have envision, naturally, the left and the right as being a set of goalposts. Sometimes the set edges one way or the other, but it is usually a self correcting mechanism. There is a pretty wide range of perception where a ball can be kicked and still be to the good. Balls outside the uprights are no good. pretty simplistic, yes. I like to see balls kicked smack down the middle.
responsive, rather than responsible governance
Submitted on April 20th, 2008 by dem_lucasValid point - and that H.G. was probably onto something suggesting that the world's reaches for higher levels of governance would one day lead to a truly anarchistic government that more adequately represents the views and goals of the people is, i would venture a response, insightful...
However, your post suggests that it is the natural order for democratic values to one day lead to an anarchy, and I am concerned that it is also the trend of republican values to lead in the same direction - naturally then, it would be the course of government to collapse.
Maybe, then, this is the reason that our parties lean toward centrism - not just out of need within our political system's "duality gone wrong" but rather as a balancing act for government to subsist?
Thank you for your post...
A worthy post, dem_lucas
Submitted on April 19th, 2008 by John 2000Those are all interesting observations, viewpoints and questions. I cannot pretend to say that I understand these apparent republican paradoxes, particularly #2 and #4.
Although, I will not offer them here, in this response, I am absolutely certain that I could offer equally egregious paradoxes within the democratic behavior.
The Conservative/Liberal thing is the same way. Ditto for the Anarchy/Socialism thing.
HG Wells "New World for Old" 1908
convolutes your 'Understandings' a bit where he says:
"That Anarchist world, I admit, is our dream; we do believe - well, I, at any rate, believe this present world, this planet, will some day bear a race beyond our most exalted and temerarious dreams, a race begotten of our wills and the substance of our bodies, a race, so I have said it, 'who will stand upon the earth as one stands upon a footstool, and laugh and reach out their hands amidst the stars,' but the way to that is through education and discipline and law. Socialism is the preparation for that higher Anarchism; painfully, laboriously we mean to destroy false ideas of property and self, eliminate unjust laws and poisonous and hateful suggestions and prejudices, create a system of social right-dealing and a tradition of right-feeling and action. Socialism is the schoolroom of true and noble Anarchism, wherein by training and
restraint we shall make free men."
Perhaps, at heart, both major parties tear each other apart trying to get to the same destination.
For some time now, I have believed that politicians are reactive to History. Politicians are the parasites that pretend to be steering a course that is already charted. They fight for the wheel and have to define themselves with differences. Humanity is the food of History. Coke/Pepsi ? History doesn't care.
The mind of History, I would wager, is set on the fight for World Governance. Note: I do not say World Governance, rather the FIGHT for World Governance. Technology is the enabler of History in this century, incomparable to none before.
I would add that my studies lead me to the conclusion that History will say that the attempt fell short because, as usual, Humanity was not ready.
I fully expect by then, however, that there will be no Democrats and that there will be no Republicans.
(for what it's worth)