Reclaiming Liberalism

[ComradeDavo]

I don't think of it as a money tree, I just believe that our military spending could be cut by about 75% if we made it into a strictly defensive military. That money could do a lot of things.

What i'm trying to say is that to have a good, efficent military it can not be purely defensive.

For a start China could just go ahead and invade Taiwan! But on a less extrme note - it is sensiable to have the ability to strike back at your enemies, rather than just defend against their attacks.

And you are also forgetting that alot of that spenditure is on personals wages and on contracts and so forth whioch thus boosts the economy as a whole.......cutting it by that much would have devestating effects on communties that depend on that spenditure.

Sorry if this is just assumption - I would presume given your age your opinion on the military is going to be largely based on the Iraq conflict, one that has been handled very badly and wasted alot of money. Please don't let that influence your views about military spending too much!

 

[tomsnowman123]

What i'm trying to say is that to have a good, efficent military it can not be purely defensive.

For a start China could just go ahead and invade Taiwan! But on a less extrme note - it is sensiable to have the ability to strike back at your enemies, rather than just defend against their attacks.

And you are also forgetting that alot of that spenditure is on personals wages and on contracts and so forth whioch thus boosts the economy as a whole.......cutting it by that much would have devestating effects on communties that depend on that spenditure.

Sorry if this is just assumption - I would presume given your age your opinion on the military is going to be largely based on the Iraq conflict, one that has been handled very badly and wasted alot of money. Please don't let that influence your views about military spending too much!

I would disagree that a good, efficient military can not be a defensive one. And there are other things that can help the economy, this massive spending cut isn't the only thing I believe in. I don't think it would have devestating effects on the economy if done gradually, and if programs are created to help vets, and others.

For the most part, my opinion on the military is based on the fact that I am a pacifist. While I am strongly against the Iraq war, and to say it has not affected me would be to lie, I don't believe it has changed my stance on this area. I would believe in these cuts whether we (the US) went into Iraq or not.

 

[ibn sina]

In Europe the term liberal has more of it's original meaning. Although it doesn't mean libertarian (we have the slightly ironic neo-liberal for that) they're advocating smaller government.

And I agree it's a pity that the left calls itself liberals when they're really the opposite. I think that the in the 19th century the word liberal had such a positive "aura" of it that people who didn't believe started calling themselves liberals etc. Like Marx saying that the "liberation" would come through a communist revolution.

 

[ComradeDavo]

I would disagree that a good, efficient military can not be a defensive one. And there are other things that can help the economy, this massive spending cut isn't the only thing I believe in. I don't think it would have devestating effects on the economy if done gradually, and if programs are created to help vets, and others.

For the most part, my opinion on the military is based on the fact that I am a pacifist. While I am strongly against the Iraq war, and to say it has not affected me would be to lie, I don't believe it has changed my stance on this area. I would believe in these cuts whether we (the US) went into Iraq or not.

As i've already pointed out, the military can be used to help in disasters and distribute aid and so forth, it's not just about conflict.

Pacifism is a nice idea and all, but when there are people out there who want to kill along religious/idealogicla lines, it is best to have the ability to strike back at them, an ability which would not be possiable with a 75% cut in military spendature.

 

[tomsnowman123]

As i've already pointed out, the military can be used to help in disasters and distribute aid and so forth, it's not just about conflict.

Pacifism is a nice idea and all, but when there are people out there who want to kill along religious/idealogicla lines, it is best to have the ability to strike back at them, an ability which would not be possiable with a 75% cut in military spendature.

Well, yes, a defensive military could help out in times of disasters, or to provide aid.

(As for 75%, don't worry, I think my governments military spending could be reduced to about 1% of what it is now. )

 

[Mastreditr111]

I would disagree that a good, efficient military can not be a defensive one. And there are other things that can help the economy, this massive spending cut isn't the only thing I believe in. I don't think it would have devestating effects on the economy if done gradually, and if programs are created to help vets, and others.

For the most part, my opinion on the military is based on the fact that I am a pacifist. While I am strongly against the Iraq war, and to say it has not affected me would be to lie, I don't believe it has changed my stance on this area. I would believe in these cuts whether we (the US) went into Iraq or not.

i disagree with your view on this... really, modern defense requires a deterrent factor as well... noone with WMD's (China for example) will contemplate using them as long as their enemy can strike back. The same rule applies on a smaller scale. No sane person/country will contemplate attacking America or her allies if we can strike back. A purely defensive military is asking to face a death of a thousand cuts, as your enemies strike repeatedly, graudally crippling your citizenry while their own remains, unscathed, beyond the reach of your "defensive weapons." This is not to say that the American military budget is not overinflated. Frankly, we could probably cut it in half by removing several layers of bureaucracy in our procurement process. Most of our military budget is R&D, and most of that is spent on "feasibility studies" attempting to analyze the potential of next-gen technology, for obscene amts. of money, when much of it can simply be tested. About 35-40% of Pentagon administrative personnel have jobs that can be termed as "pork barrel projects." I wouldn't want to fire them all, but as many retire, we should just not seek replacements, as they are totally, utterly unneeded

 

[tomsnowman123]

i disagree with your view on this... really, modern defense requires a deterrent factor as well... noone with WMD's (China for example) will contemplate using them as long as their enemy can strike back.

Well then, prepare to disagree more. I believe the US should help lead the world in the removal of all nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons.

 

[Mastreditr111]

good lord yes, but as long as any so-called "responsible" country has them, all of these countries MUST. It's balance of power, and for now it is the only way we have to avoid nuclear war

 

[Mastreditr111]

i would love nothing more than to get rid of them all, but until you can tell me a functional way to ensure they are ALL gone, i cant agree with you. Lead by example wont work, there are just too many reasons for nations to want nuclear weapons, all the more if we dont have them
EDIT: perfect world- US defense spending- $0.00
EDIT: perfect world- worldwide military spending- $0.00

not to say firearms should be banned... i am a conservative after all, and enjoy hunting and target shooting... they also have their uses in ensuring that government remains "for the people, by the people"

 

[tomsnowman123]

Sign the CTBT and the NPT, reverse our withdrawl from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, create foreign teams that inspect countries anually to verify the removal of said weapons.

 

[Mastreditr111]

you can build a simple warhead with long range delivery system underground, away from overhead recon, in less than 3 weeks... picture 500 bunkers, 500 nukes... and an inspection thats still 6 months away

 

[Mastreditr111]

again, i would love to be rid of the things, but its pretty impractical in my views. what exactly do we do if we find them? we cant very well punish the country that has them, lest they kill a few million of our innocent citizens

 

[ComradeDavo]

Well, yes, a defensive military could help out in times of disasters, or to provide aid.

(As for 75%, don't worry, I think my governments military spending could be reduced to about 1% of what it is now. )

Well, looks like we are going to have to disagree here.

Don't get me wrong, I want to see military spending reduced, but by sensiable figures between 1-10%, not such huge amounts as you propose.

Guess i'm arguing the moderate liberal posistion, with you taking the extreme side.

 

[aneeshm]

The current "liberal" disease of Political Correctness , which essentially consists of ad-homimen attacks against anyone who does not toe the "liberal" line , is an elaborate form of intellectual oppression and censorship , and by not allowing differing ideas to flourish , the so-called "liberals" of today are sowing the seeds of their own destruction . Once the current batch of "liberals" have lost all intellectual legtimacy , the real liberals who hold the ideology of liberalism dear can come out and fix the current mess .

 

[MamboJoel]

In France beeing called a liberal is an insult too but on the freemarket sense. Buch saying "Kerry is a liberal" has the same effect as a Socialist in France saying "Sarkozy is a liberal", but the other way around.
Well, in both meanings it's an insult on either side of the Atlantic. What makes me smile about it is that both sides have halved the meaning of liberal and daemonized it's respective half.
IMO, participating in a Dem/Rep debate around here on this board doesn't make sense since I feel the participants are beeing dishonest in supporting only half of Freedom; their arguments are basically only about which half they don't support and often their reason not to is social, ethnic, religious in fact simply personnal or emotional.

 

[MamboJoel]

Well, I should add that while liberal in the states has both an economic and social meaning (economic state intervention and social individual rights), in France it only has an economic meaning (free market).

 

[Richard Cribb]

What makes me smile about it is that both sides have halved the meaning of liberal and daemonized it's respective half.

You might want to wipe off that smile.
Your very simple and IMHO not very convincing assertions seems to based on:
- A lack of appreciation of historical perspective.
- A shallow or insufficient knowledge about the classical liberals and Enlightenment thinkers.
- A confusion of means and ends.
- A conscious mystification for self-serving purposes.
- A combination of two or more of those mentioned above.
Judging from what you wrote in another thread and your quite post here, you (and the OP)seem to think that those classic liberals were freemarket- fetishists. They were not.
For them, the concept of free market was a liberating one in their time, in a pre-industrial, pre-mega corporation, pre-welfare state, pre-organized labour society. Indeed, Adam Smith seem to have envisioned that the free market would lead to equality, since it would be a redistribution of wealth from the landowning aristocracy. Today, however, he would most certainly have been more concerned of the power of corporations. His Wealth of Nations, which was only a part of his entire philosophic output, was however not at all hostile to government intervention in the economy, and I am sure he would be horrified about how he is (mis-)represented today.
Thomas Jefferson lived long enough to se the threat represented by corporate feudalism:

I hope we shall take warning from the example of England and crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations which dare already to challenge our Government to trial and bid defiance to the laws of our country.

Bottom line: when society change, so does the concept of freedom and progressive. Heck, even I would probably have been a free market partisan if I have lived back then.
You might also want to see section A4 of my FAQ.

IMO, participating in a Dem/Rep debate around here on this board doesn't make sense since I feel the participants are beeing dishonest in supporting only half of Freedom; their arguments are basically only about which half they don't support and often their reason not to is social, ethnic, religious in fact simply personal or emotional.

I agree that a debate between Republicans and Democrats is not very interesting, since they are just two wings of the same business-party.There are enough real problems in the US to be a bit less obsessed with gay marriages.
Your assumed definition of freedom though, is something I can do well without, I think it sorely needs an updating.

 

[MobBoss]

I'd like advance the notion, if I could, that at least here in America, there is no major political party with a cohesive, logically valid message. Republicans, typically, want less government involvement in their wallet but more in their bedroom. The reverse seems to be true for Democrats.

As a conservative republican...I could care less what you do in your bedroom.....its when what should be in the bedroom bleeds out into our schools and streets that I start to have an issue with it.

"Man should be free to act as he pleases, so long that his actions do not cause harm to others (and others abide by the same rule).

Well therein lies the crux of the matter. Personally, I think man is largely myopic in how his actions affect others. He sees the obvious ramification right in front of him...but often fails to see what happens years down the road. The old saying "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" is very, very true in such regard.

One with this view would, by logical extension, support free economic interaction (where pragmatic). One would also support social freedom (gay marriage would not be outlawed, and neither would some (or all) forms of drug use. It would, at least here in America, draw together concepts on the right and the left (and therein is the problem with the current system that this is possible).

So drug use is to be allowed. What happens when the addict is out of money to buy his next fix and he comes to rob me for more cash?

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

So drug use is to be allowed. What happens when the addict is out of money to buy his next fix and he comes to rob me for more cash?

That's certainly not a problem now, since drugs are illegal and thus don't have a negative effect on society . . .

 

[IglooDame]

So drug use is to be allowed. What happens when the addict is out of money to buy his next fix and he comes to rob me for more cash?

You draw your weapon and shoot until the threat to your life has ceased. Or you call 911. Or you run away. Or you hand him your money.

How is this related to whether drug use is allowed?