The most critical issue your society is facing.

[hobbsyoyo]

Right, what you actually said is, it won't necessarily stop lobbying at all... which is worse.

So, let's just throw our hands up in the air and surrender to the corporations, resistance is futile

No I said it won't stop all lobbying. Presumably donations would go out, (if they were made illegal, otherwise who would turn them down even with public finance), but that's not all that goes on with lobbying. There's a lot more to it.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Oh yes its always existed, hasn't always been celebrated with public street parades though and thoroughly promoted as the state orthodoxy. Regardless the fact of the matter is that a profound ideological shift in society in key areas (particularly manifest from around the 60's after the chaos of the first half of the 20th century going on to this very day) has in turn had practical consequences on the ground, in law, in the way the state behaves and in moral standards of society.

This change "on the ground" ultimately rests in an ideological shift, which is commonsense considering if ideology had not profoundly changed fornication to name an example would still be frowned upon rather than glorified in the popular media. This being because how we act proceeds from what we believe and our overarching world-view, our mentality.



You should know by know I only advocate for theocracy in IAAR's and IOT's since its a surefire strategy to beating my opponents who are for some odd reason reluctant to wield the righteous sword of pious devotion. .

My view that the government should get out of just about everything doesn't make me personally any less moral.

Sure, I have my moral problems, but I had those when I was a hardcore conservative as well

I wish the popular media didn't glorify sexual promiscuity but they are going to do what they are going to do. Using politics to change hearts and minds is about the worst way when it comes to faith.

Of course, in Catholicism someone who doesn't commit some serious sin sin solely because they would be locked up for the rest of their lives if they did might actually go to heaven Evangelical Protestantism is above such legalistic things

And on you not being a theocrat, I thought you were rooting for Santorum?

 

[Jehoshua]

My view that the government should get out of just about everything doesn't make me personally any less moral.

No it doesn't, im not talking about libertarianism in general here. Im talking about the mentality that has led to the degeneration of the west in recent decades. This mentality in particular came about primarily as a dismissal of the patrimony of the past in favour of radical progressivism and a revolutionary rejection of any representative of authority and restraint in favour of a really dangerous individualism, ergo modernism. This rejection has led to a culture of infantilised "its all about me" people who feel entitled to whatever they want, and this is a bad thing and has undermined the social order in many countries and has had tangible effects even on the economy. So to make it clear its not like im saying this or that political ideology is the source of our woes, no its a much deeper problem than any one ideology.

Now to point to examples of the effects in aciton, lets look at Greece. tax evasion is the norm due to the low standard of social obligations, and now the people having fed on entitlement for decades the people are now rioting now that the chickens have come home to roost and people have realised that they and their children are now going to be worse off than before. Another would be Great Britain, which in addition to possibly becoming (as some analysts would argue) the worlds first "soft" totalitarian state, has self-admittedly on the part of its government gone to hell and high water socially with the social contract being utterly demolished as we saw in those riots a while ago that occured basically because some hooligans could act like that, in addition to the day to day decline of the motherland in general (something which every British person I know, or have spoken too has said or commented on when the topics come up).

And on you not being a theocrat, I thought you were rooting for Santorum?

I would of preferred Rick Santorum as the candidate since he would of provided an actual alternative to American voters (Romney wasn't really that much different from Obama). Being an Australian it would be erroneous to say I was rooting for him though, when I look at foreign elections its more an intellectual exercise for me, although I must admit I am not a fan of Obama due to his "disagreement" with the Church.

Incidentally on Rick Santorum say what you may about his moral views. I at least think he has more than most of your politicians a comprehension, even if his remedy may not be a perfect one, of the deeply problematic trajectory your country is going along . This really is why I would of preferred his candidature since it was at least an alternative to the current entrenched policies of decline.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Oh yes its always existed, hasn't always been celebrated with public street parades though and thoroughly promoted as the state orthodoxy.

That's the problem with a large, intrusive state. A state that can support your religion can also support another, or actively oppose your religion.

No it doesn't, im not talking about libertarianism in general here. Im talking about the mentality that has led to the degeneration of the west in recent decades. This mentality in particular came about primarily as a dismissal of the patrimony of the past in favour of radical progressivism and a revolutionary rejection of any representative of authority and restraint in favour of a really dangerous individualism, ergo modernism. This rejection has led to a culture of infantilised "its all about me" people who feel entitled to whatever they want, and this is a bad thing and has undermined the social order in many countries and has had tangible effects even on the economy. So to make it clear its not like im saying this or that political ideology is the source of our woes, no its a much deeper problem than any one ideology.

There are two separate things here that should be separated. I generally agree with you that radical individualism is dangerous on the social scale. People should be willing to help each other, and act selflessly for other people. My issue comes in when government tries to use force to institute change, and punishing moral vices that do not have clearly named victims, which is immoral in and of itself.

In other words, my contention is that it is immoral to use force against someone who has not in turn used force against you, or someone else.

I generally agree with you on what the problem is with society then. I'd probably disagree with the solution though.

Now to point to examples of the effects in aciton, lets look at Greece. tax evasion is the norm due to the low standard of social obligations, and now the people having fed on entitlement for decades the people are now rioting now that the chickens have come home to roost and people have realised that they and their children are now going to be worse off than before.

This is going to happen to America too, the problem is that the entitlements exist, doubly so when America cannot pay them. A government big enough to give you all you need is also big enough to take everything you have. We've forgotten that.

Another would be Great Britain, which in addition to possibly becoming (as some analysts would argue) the worlds first "soft" totalitarian state

How are we defining soft tyranny? Considering America has the world's highest prison population per capita and the surveilance state is basically out of control, I think we're definitely there, although we probably weren't before 2001.

I would of preferred Rick Santorum as the candidate since he would of provided an actual alternative to American voters

Did you ignore Ron Paul altogether, or just consider him a bad alternative? Because bad or good, Ron Paul was clearly more different from all of the other candidates than any of the other candidates were from each other (I wouldn't even have been surprised if Santorum had given endorsement to Obama in that case, even though he said he wouldn't have). In any case, Santorum has no conception of individual rights, and he clearly thinks that pervasive state action, even self-admittedly, into the "Bedroom" so to speak, is the best path for society. As such, I could never actually vote for him. Even without throwing his dangerous neocon foreign policy that has taken over the entire Republican party into the game.

(Romney wasn't really that much different from Obama).

Finally you realize this?

Being an Australian it would be erroneous to say I was rooting for him though, when I look at foreign elections its more an intellectual exercise for me,

Fair enough.

although I must admit I am not a fan of Obama due to his "disagreement" with the Church.

This may be one of the few political issues that I actually agree with you on (Other than abortion, although we still disagree on the life of the mother cases) but I absolutely agree with you here. Devout Catholics should have the right not to provide contraception, not to turn in criminals who confess to their priests, exc. Of course, I take the same stance towards all religions and just about anything else as well. Does it cause harm to another person? (We agree that fetuses in the womb are also people). If not, government should not apply force to prevent it. This includes Catholic health insurance providers not providing contraception, any other health insurance service providing or not providing contraception, or any other activity or lack thereof.

Incidentally on Rick Santorum say what you may about his moral views. I at least think he has more than most of your politicians a comprehension, even if his remedy may not be a perfect one, of the deeply problematic trajectory your country is going along . This really is why I would of preferred his candidature since it was at least an alternative to the current entrenched policies of decline.

I don't have a problem with Santorum's personal morality, from what I know of him he was far more moral than Romney or Gingrich. What I have his issue with is his view of the state. He puts things like "National Security" (Half of the problem which is our fault for provoking virtually every other country) or "Societal good" over individual liberty, which I consider to be a violation of our God-given rights. There's more than just a few random moral issues to this though. I'm not saying I don't like him because he doesn't want to legalize gay marriage (I don't want the state to recognize it either, although I am uncomfortable with the way the debate carries out in the US) or some other moral issue. Its because of his absolute dedication, like Romney and most other Republicans, to "USA #1" more than absolute freedom, and a disdain for the right to privacy (I'm not talking about abortion here, I'm talking about the government spying on its own people.)

 

[Mr. Dictator]

Religious people trying to stop the party.

 

[dutchfire]

I live in Europe. The most critical issue short term is the debt crisis, but there is a bigger long term problem which it touches. What do we want to become? A federal state? A bunch of loosely aligned sovereign nations, only in it for their own benefit? A single country? Many national politicians are afraid of giving more power to Brussels. There are good reasons to be concerned, but I think it is important to go forward with the European project. There are still many things that can be improved. I actually hope we don't go forward with the whole constitution/federalism too fast, since the later we do it, the less federal and the better it will turn out, I hope. The US is still suffering from having a constitution written with states rights in mind, I hope we won't make that mistake.

 

[WindFish]

nother would be Great Britain, which in addition to possibly becoming (as some analysts would argue) the worlds first "soft" totalitarian state

What the hell are you on?

 

[Borachio]

I don't know for sure what he's on about. But maybe it's a reference to CCTV?

As for the riots, the English have historically always rioted from time to time. It lets off a bit tension.

 

[WindFish]

I don't know for sure. But maybe CCTV?

Most of the CCTV in the UK is owned by Private Buzinezz not the state.

As for the riots, the English have historically always rioted from time to time. It lets off a bit tension.

Naturally, except in recent times we've done in foreign countries

 

[Traitorfish]

The inability of a degenerate capital to reproduce itself effectively, and the consequent assault on the working class in a desperate and frankly somewhat pathetic attempt to maintain economic growth.

 

[Cutlass]

No it doesn't, im not talking about libertarianism in general here. Im talking about the mentality that has led to the degeneration of the west in recent decades. This mentality in particular came about primarily as a dismissal of the patrimony of the past in favour of radical progressivism and a revolutionary rejection of any representative of authority and restraint in favour of a really dangerous individualism, ergo modernism. This rejection has led to a culture of infantilised "its all about me" people who feel entitled to whatever they want, and this is a bad thing and has undermined the social order in many countries and has had tangible effects even on the economy. So to make it clear its not like im saying this or that political ideology is the source of our woes, no its a much deeper problem than any one ideology.

Now to point to examples of the effects in aciton, lets look at Greece. tax evasion is the norm due to the low standard of social obligations, and now the people having fed on entitlement for decades the people are now rioting now that the chickens have come home to roost and people have realised that they and their children are now going to be worse off than before. Another would be Great Britain, which in addition to possibly becoming (as some analysts would argue) the worlds first "soft" totalitarian state, has self-admittedly on the part of its government gone to hell and high water socially with the social contract being utterly demolished as we saw in those riots a while ago that occured basically because some hooligans could act like that, in addition to the day to day decline of the motherland in general (something which every British person I know, or have spoken too has said or commented on when the topics come up).



I would of preferred Rick Santorum as the candidate since he would of provided an actual alternative to American voters (Romney wasn't really that much different from Obama). Being an Australian it would be erroneous to say I was rooting for him though, when I look at foreign elections its more an intellectual exercise for me, although I must admit I am not a fan of Obama due to his "disagreement" with the Church.

Incidentally on Rick Santorum say what you may about his moral views. I at least think he has more than most of your politicians a comprehension, even if his remedy may not be a perfect one, of the deeply problematic trajectory your country is going along . This really is why I would of preferred his candidature since it was at least an alternative to the current entrenched policies of decline.

I find it so ironic whenever I hear this line of reasoning. You always ignore that in "recent decades" the West has abandoned progressivism for a retrenchment of reactionary conservatism.

 

[CELTICEMPIRE]

I find it so ironic whenever I hear this line of reasoning. You always ignore that in "recent decades" the West has abandoned progressivism for a retrenchment of reactionary conservatism.

Sorry, in what way is the West moving toward the Right?

 

[Cutlass]

Sorry, in what way is the West moving toward the Right?

Essentially every issue except gay marriage. Or had you not seen the news in the past 30 years?

 

[Jehoshua]

I find it so ironic whenever I hear this line of reasoning. You always ignore that in "recent decades" the West has abandoned progressivism for a retrenchment of reactionary conservatism.

In a sense your right, considering the products of modernism are now engrained in the culture. Opposition to the broad social liberalism within society and to idealism in general (in the sense of ideology) is now profoundly counter-cultural.

What was once radical is the new conservative, which is perhaps why David Cameron said he supported gay marraige because he was conservative

-

Oh and I would disagree with you actually. Perhaps in the US the forces of conservatism have resisted certain aspects of modernist thought for longer than say Europe (which has for the most part gone to the dogs) but even if you look at them, the same underlying principles are shared even now despite the diffference in ideology. As I mentioned before its the underlying principles that matter, not this or that particular ideology this being pertinent in regards to the culture specifically (political effects of societal mentalities generally lag due to the fact politicians are usually a generation or two above the average population). In this respect it would be quite erroneous to say a rejection of modernism or anything of the sort has occured, on the contrary relativism, radical individualism, an entitlement mentality and modernism is roaring forward full speed ahead.

note: the far right is actually an ideological manifestation of the same underlying problem I am pointing out here. In fact I will also say that fascism in general is a progressive ideology, in the sense that it has a teleology and an end towards which its ideologues seek to see society head towards. The left-right spectrum is all well and good but its not really a useful political tool.

What the hell are you on?

*political studies*, it makes for some introspection when one academically studies the political state of the world and international relations.

Anyways, I was referencing the opinions of some political scholars who propose that Britain is the first in a new type of totalitarian state. I personally for one don't think its quite there yet, although I do think its trajectory is very troubling.

Heres an opinion piece from the Australian newspaper that shares the opinions of one such scholar.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...le-up-in-britain/story-e6frg6zo-1225700363959

 

[Synobun]

My society's most critical issue is that people exist.

 

[Cutlass]

In a sense your right, considering the products of modernism are now engrained in the culture. Opposition to the broad social liberalism within society and to idealism in general (in the sense of ideology) is now profoundly counter-cultural.

What was once radical is the new conservative, which is perhaps why David Cameron said he supported gay marraige because he was conservative

-

Oh and I would disagree with you actually. Perhaps in the US the forces of conservatism have resisted certain aspects of modernist thought for longer than say Europe (which has for the most part gone to the dogs) but even if you look at them, the same underlying principles are shared even now despite the diffference in ideology. As I mentioned before its the underlying principles that matter, not this or that particular ideology this being pertinent in regards to the culture specifically (political effects of societal mentalities generally lag due to the fact politicians are usually a generation or two above the average population). In this respect it would be quite erroneous to say a rejection of modernism or anything of the sort has occured, on the contrary relativism, radical individualism, an entitlement mentality and modernism is roaring forward full speed ahead.

Your argument really doesn't make sense in context though. The conservatism today is very much the conservatism of the 19th century on many, if not most, issues. Some things have changed irrevocably. But a great many things are going backward and abandoning the gains morality made in the 20th century. What you see as a revision to tradition is in reality an abandonment of morality. Because the abandonment of morality is very much the core of what conservative thought is. You need look no further than the budget battles the US has been waging. The conservative argument is that the poor must go hungry because the feel entitled to having more. And that more is never enough. Communities are being destroyed for this endless greed and selfishness that conservatism serves.

And this is why it is so ironic that conservatives are prophesying the death of society due to modern morals: Conservatism has no morals, and acts to kill society. If you truly think that the death of morals is the death of society, then you have to fight against the conservatives who are killing morals and society.

 

[Jehoshua]

@ Ghostwriter:

You are not getting the entire point of what I was saying, which has nothing to do with specific ideologies, or your presidential election or "people should do this" or anything like that. PM me with your last response before this if you want to talk about piddly little minutiae (I will address them there), however, since your response was exceedingly superficial, and really did not at all grasp at the key underlying point I am trying to make (being as it is unable to move beyond an ossified and dogmatic adherence to libertarianism) that has nothing at all to do with specific ideologies.

There is no point responding to you further on the thread. That said I suppose your only 17 or so, so I'll let you off without too much chastisement and pointing out of foolishness... for now.

 

[Kaitzilla]

....

Anyways, I was referencing the opinions of some political scholars who propose that Britain is the first in a new type of totalitarian state. I personally for one don't think its quite there yet, although I do think its trajectory is very troubling.

Heres an opinion piece from the Australian newspaper that shares the opinions of one such scholar.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...le-up-in-britain/story-e6frg6zo-1225700363959

Holy moly!

Every time I start to wonder why we fought the Revoluationary War, the British remind me. Isn't 1984 required reading there? It's not supposed to be a how-to manual ...

 

[Traitorfish]

Your argument really doesn't make sense in context though. The conservatism today is very much the conservatism of the 19th century on many, if not most, issues. Some things have changed irrevocably. But a great many things are going backward and abandoning the gains morality made in the 20th century. What you see as a revision to tradition is in reality an abandonment of morality. Because the abandonment of morality is very much the core of what conservative thought is. You need look no further than the budget battles the US has been waging. The conservative argument is that the poor must go hungry because the feel entitled to having more. And that more is never enough. Communities are being destroyed for this endless greed and selfishness that conservatism serves.

And this is why it is so ironic that conservatives are prophesying the death of society due to modern morals: Conservatism has no morals, and acts to kill society. If you truly think that the death of morals is the death of society, then you have to fight against the conservatives who are killing morals and society.

It's a bit ironic how much you sound like a Cold Warrior ranting about the Bolshevik menace, here.

 

[Jehoshua]

Your argument really doesn't make sense in context though. The conservatism today is very much the conservatism of the 19th century on many, if not most, issues. Some things have changed irrevocably. But a great many things are going backward and abandoning the gains morality made in the 20th century. What you see as a revision to tradition is in reality an abandonment of morality. Because the abandonment of morality is very much the core of what conservative thought is. You need look no further than the budget battles the US has been waging. The conservative argument is that the poor must go hungry because the feel entitled to having more. And that more is never enough. Communities are being destroyed for this endless greed and selfishness that conservatism serves.

And this is why it is so ironic that conservatives are prophesying the death of society due to modern morals: Conservatism has no morals, and acts to kill society. If you truly think that the death of morals is the death of society, then you have to fight against the conservatives who are killing morals and society.

I think, being non-american I have a different experience than you. Furthermore being a student of political studies myself Im really looking at more than just the USA, and the Anglosphere.

Regardless, now that you've posted this I think Im understanding where your getting from. To respond firstly what your calling conservatism is actually anything but. Your pointing out neoliberalism, perhaps in america with a dose of libertarianism which is actually a fairly modern trend as you say, and also one mostly confined to the United States at any serious level, its historical antecedents come from classical liberalism and the theory of social darwinism that was rampant in the period.

Ergo, and take it from someone who actually studies political theory, your confusing your political ideologies here and mistaking things for conservatism which actually aren't. (which is understandable since the Republican Party which contains those who espouse such views aforementioned is labelled conservative due to the moral conservatives within it. But it is a simplistic picture to label anything republican as conservative! indeed in many ways the republicans are quite radical in regards to certain forms of liberalism [the political ideology])

Secondly this is actually another facet of the underlying tendency which I outlined, and which I believe is the greatest issue in our society at the moment. Namely modernism in the sense of a rejection of authority, a radical individualism, and a "cult of the self". Im not caring really about liberalism, or socialism or all that but about underlying cultural shifts, and in this regard what your talking about far from being a reversion to conservatism is actually a facet (although from one end of the spectrum) of the same underlying problem. Do you deny that neoliberal economics is radically individualistic, dismissive of any authority, and is a reflection of a cult of the self that sees oneself as the centre of the universe?