It is easy to talk about politics, just like it is easy to talk about everything. Words make sense or they don't, that's a matter of the whole fucking discourse.
But do you ever transform your words or other people's words into actions? Apart from words, apart from talking about the war in Iraq, the horrible social circumstances in your country, the Middle East, (ry... what do you actually DO with your political knowledge, your political convictions and theories? Do you do anything at all? Or is politics just a matter of talking to you?
Discuss!
Well, I was a founding member of my school's chapter of the College Republicans... what actions did you have in mind? Armed revolutions?
I've considered going into politics once or twice, but at this point in my life, I'm too busy trying to solve my own problems to be trying to solve those of others.
The pen is mightier than the sword.
I founded my high school's Youth Republican group and campaigned heavily for George W. Bush in the months leading up to the election...
Har har.
Young Republicans make me laugh.
Most kids want Dems until they grow up and get jobs. Then you have those kids that really have to be different and get all pseudo-fiscally-conservate / small-gubament / not-a-goth with their little club.
::shakes head::
> what actions did you have in mind?
No specific ones. Just generally speaking...
Myself, I have been on rallies numerous times but have stopped going to them a few years ago since I don't think anything is going to get accomplished by someone like me going to a rally.
I left.
Not US, but Australia. Howard can go jump a cliff.
<paranoia>
As for rallies and so forth, I've taken to heart what my mother, someone who lived under Stalin, once told me: don't stand out. The fact I post my political views on the internet is a weakness of mine.
Remember, just because the system is sane today is no guarantee it will always be the case. And your words and actions - they will be remembered.
</paranoia>
>>5: Are you saying conservatism is the next counterculture?
>>7: Well, at least you can recognize your own paranoia. Under a Stalinist regime, yes, one must avoid "standing out" Tiananmen-style if they wish to survive. But neither the US nor Australia is Stalinist... quite the opposite, actually, in terms of the political spectrum.
I voted, once!
>Most kids want Dems until they grow up and get jobs.
Rather ironic, because highest unemployment is during Republican terms. Thus, the Democratic default is logical. But it doesn't really work that way; hell if I could find a Dem in the poor neighborhood I drive through to school.
>>14: ASCII needs a "rolls eyes" emoticon. Conservatism (or, at least, the libertarian aspects of it) are all about removing all barriers to becoming, by your own power, whomever you wish to be. Why do so many equate that with conformity?! Someone explain this to me.
sXe conformist? Well, that depends on who you ask; there are far too many straight-edge sceners who do not follow straight-edge practices. What exactly sXe means depends from person to person, anyway; there are those who are vegan, those who also avoid prescription and OTC drugs, etc.
YL = ?
> ASCII needs a "rolls eyes" emoticon.
No, English just needs more subtle expressions soaked with sarcasm, using just regular words.
No, it really doesn't... English has too much sarcasm, actually. It's the only way some people know how to have a conversation.
There is only such a thing as too much sarcasm when you are aware of it and then it wouldn't really be subtle anymore.
Libetarians are a hazard and should be locked up.
All right, that was overly harsh. The more unusual political views do add some vitality and discussion to the political spectrum. However, I throw Libetarians in with the Anarchists and Communists - nice ideals, almost certain hell in reality.
Moderatism is the answer. But you need extremes to define moderate. Yin-yang at its finest...
> Moderatism
word
con·ser·va·tism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kn-sûrv-tzm)
n.
Hmm, that definition is somewhat broken. Imagine if, somehow, a conservative government suddenly came into power in a place like France, or even NoKo. Do you think they would have "respect for traditional institutions" or wish to "maintain the existing or traditional order?"
BTW, >>19, I by no means toe a libertarian line, but they do adhere to many of the ideals that America was founded upon and which continue to be radically successful worldwide; specifically, limited government power, and individual responsibility offset by opportunities for individual reward. If Berts, and Bert-inclined Dems and Repubs (more the latter than the former, usually), don't fight for these things, who will?
Yes, by defintion. They are conservative BECAUSE the have "respect for traditional institutions" and so on. "Conservatism" isn't a strictly defined political ideology like, say, communism. It's just the general tendency to leave things the way they are.
Radically successful? If define your life by a race to the bottom, then yes, it's successful.
I disagree. I know all my friends (Canadians) agree with me. Most people in Australia tend to see things a similar way. Europe definitely does, etc. As for New Zealand, well, the economy here is just plain strange, so I don't know.
Libertarianism and its ideals sound nice - I agree with a lot of them. What I disagree with is the limited government. It might have worked two centuries ago, but the technical advancement of society has rendered the idea ineffective. The problem is that there is too much infrastructure we're dependent on, and private industry has proven time and time again cannot be trusted to maintain it.
Unless you like being ripped off by private medical insurance companies, being in student debt for much of your life, having rolling blackouts and entire electricity grids shut down on you, possessing a telco system that is inferior in every way to Canada's, etc, etc, etc...
The right tool for the job. Anarchists and Communists can't seem to understand that, and neither do most US Libertarians.
>>24: So you're saying the current governments of NoKo and Cuba are "conservative" because they are not trying to change the government? You have a wildly different definition of "conservatism" than most, to say the least...
>>25: Government is a black hole of money and social progress. Clearly, we disagree on many fundamental things. I'll keep it at that.
I'd rather you specified your reasons why. It's more interesting to argue about it. Or am I a minority...? >.>;
And I disagree with both assertions. Democratic governments exist to serve the interests of the people, and all the money pumped into them comes out somewhere, even if inefficiently. The same cannot necessarily be said for private interests. How is ~67% of the wealth in the US being controlled by 10% of the individuals a good thing? That 10% isn't more productive than 90% of the rest of the population, nor is it in any way accountable.
Second, I'm sure most people would agree that NASA was a resounding success in its glory days, with an amazing amount of technical progress being made. Likewise, all the highways you travel on, as well as the electricity grids that power you, were made by the government.
Painting the government for all purposes with a black brush is short-sighted. As they say, the proof is in the pudding, and thus my assertion stands. Feel free to refute.
Whoops. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say "made at the government's behest". Deregulation is what has caused many of the problems.
Oh, sorry. New Zealand.
The place is expensive and people earn dick, but the nature sure is nice.
I'd like an opportunity to hunt hobbits though. God, after all the media frenzy and tourists I'd love a chance to shoot just one with an elephant gun.
>>27: You mean rich people have more wealth than poor people? Who'd uh thunk.
(See what I mean about sarcasm being a crutch in English? :/ )
Anyway, you make a good example with NASA, given current events. Remember SpaceShipOne? The project to put that into space cost up to US$30 million. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tier_One#Funding ) NASA has three space-worthy shuttles right now ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_program#Shuttles ) which they will spend $450 million on this year ( http://www.space.com/news/rtf_costs_040716.html ), even though no shuttles have gone into space since Columbia blew up.
I bet if there were to be a new space race between NASA and private enterprise to see who could get to Mars faster, there'd be no contest; NASA would be left back on the launching pad, horribly over-budget, while Ares Inc officials are practicing putts on the Martian soil.
Bad example. SpaceShipOne uses technologies that were primarily developed by NASA (and the prior Nazi government). The know-how they were using was not pioneered by them.
And I very much doubt that private enterprises will get to Mars first. The technical hurdles to be surmounted are huge, and no rational private enterprise is going to take that risk. Too much investment for no immediate return. Furthermore, there are very few corporations with enough surplus assets to be able to even consider it.
Sit down, and think like a CEO. You'll have to invest hundreds of billions of dollars over at least a decade. And what will your return be, and how many decades in the future? What is the likelihood of failure, and the likelihood of return? Will investors be happy? Are there better ways to invest the money elsewhere?
Most corporations are too small. A rare few are large, but they didn't become large by taking unreasonable risks. Most governments cannot either. The large ones aren't interested... unless they see a military and "national pride" advantage. And governments have the necessary mechanisms to mobilize the masses in means that no corporation can.
Now, NASA currently is wasting money. As I said, the right tool for the job...
BTW, it's not exactly fair to compare three giant technical marvels capable of actually reaching orbit with a heavy payload, and staying there for weeks, to a single small rocket that cannot.
The shuttles have their own problems, but that comparison just doesn't hold water. When private interests come up with the same machinery, and the same necessary supporting infrastructure, and then we'll talk dollars and cents.
It is easy to talk about politics, just like it is easy to talk about everything.
Point being?
Maybe I have a different view of "conservatism" than most people who try to take that label as some sort of coherent political ideology. My view of conservatism is the dictionary's view of conservatism, as you may have noticed.
Furthermore, it seems you, like many others, are confusing the inefficiency and failure of ONE government, namely yours, with the inevitability of failure of ALL governments.
Just because YOUR governement is inefficient and corrupt doesn't mean it HAS to be. And you are furthermore, as has been pointed out, turning a blind eye to the incredible benefits you are receiving and enjoying from your government all the time, such as the entire societal infrastructure.
And on the topic of government deregulation and the abilities of private enterprise, take a minute to reflect on the 20th anniversary of the events at the Union Carbide plant in Bhopal, India.
>>32: Private enterprises don't always function for profit. Again, with the SpaceShipOne project, the X-Prize that it won for its accomplishment was only worth about $10 million. It was not a for-profit venture. But enough wealthy funders wanted to see it happen, so it happened. This is also why I trust private charities to "redistribute wealth" more than I do the government.
>>SpaceShipOne uses technologies that were primarily developed by NASA
So do the space shuttles.
>> (and the prior Nazi government).
um, wtf
>>26: Then how do you label people like Michael Moore and Ralph Nader versus people like Neal Boortz and Sean Hannity? Was Rush Limbaugh a liberal when Clinton was in power, but now a conservative now that Bush is in power?
>>Furthermore...
You're backwards here. I view the (relative) efficiency and success of ONE government, namely mine, in the light of the failure of NoKo and the USSR and China before it decided to go with the whole capitalism thing. Our government, which is very limited in comparison, hindered progress much less than the governments of those places did/do.
>>37: And the Chernobyl incident under Big Brother's watch in the USSR. Sometimes bad things happen, no matter who is in charge. I don't blame NASA for the Challenger accident, either.
How many non-profit organizations do you know that have the clout to match NASA? Second, Scaled Composites isn't registered as a non-profit company, even with the benefits such registration can bring. Why? Third, look at some of the investors. But this is all besides the point.
Your space-shuttle comment is also dodging the issue. We're not discussing the space shuttles, although comparing some puny rocket to three far more capable monsters is disingenuous. Your assertion is that private industry can do everything better. Mine is that it cannot. Do you deny that SpaceShipOne would have been impossible at the current time unless all that research had been done by NASA first?
SpaceShipOne was riding on the cottontails of what NASA did. Now, why was it NASA who did all that research? What about the aerospace corporations who are heavily funded by the government, and why are they heavily dependent on the government?
And my comment regarding the Nazis was accurate. Surely you are aware of the V2? Much of the rocketry expertise that the US (and the USSR) acquired after the war came from German ranks. And who funded all that rocketry research the Germans had? Once again, a government.
Um, I meant coattails.
Scaled Composites were always clear that the X-Prize attempt was just a side project for them. It was promotion. They were always after making money on space tourism, and with their contract to build ships for Virgin, they're succeeding. I don't begrudge them this, I'm just pointing out that your not-for-profit argument holds no water.
> You're backwards here. I view the (relative) efficiency and success of ONE government, namely mine, in the light of the failure of NoKo and the USSR and China before it decided to go with the whole capitalism thing. Our government, which is very limited in comparison, hindered progress much less than the governments of those places did/do.
And you're turning a blind eye to highly successful socialist governements, like the Scandinavian ones, one of which I live under, and enjoy a lot. Particularly near to my heart is that the state pays me to study at university. I could probably not have afforded this otherwise, except by taking on crippling debt. And giving everyone the opportunity to higher education has payed off, giving us a very strong technology market.
> And the Chernobyl incident under Big Brother's watch in the USSR
After the Chernobyl accident, the Russian governement launched a huge rescue and clean-up operation. Union Carbide, and later Dow Chemicals, did pretty much nothing, and payed as little compensation as they could get away with, and only after being taken to court over it. They've also refused to ever admit responsibility, because that would open them to more lawsuits and money loss.
I think we've firmly established that we like to TALK now. And now this thread is INSTOPPABLE!
× And now this thread is INSTOPPABLE!
○ And now this thread is UNSTOPPABLE!
PS: I hate you
>>42: You probably could have afforded college, because your government wouldn't be taxing you to death.
Anyway, I tire of this argument, which I've had so many times before. And internet arguments convince nobody; none of you are going to wake up tomorrow and proclaim "by golly, that Albright fellow is right!"
You make some good points about the success of NASA, but I still contend that, if 1960s America had gone to private industry and said "Get us to the moon by the end of the decade" instead of creating a government entity to work it out, it would have been done faster and cheaper. So on that, I will agree to disagree, and hope you all will as well.
I declare the first person who converses the ideas expressed in his posts herein into the act of blowing something up or at least expropriating some middle-sized company of choice as winnar of thread.
Tax has never been a problem. My family has just done low-pay work. Like writing books, and many other forms of culture-related work. A lot of our day-to-day money has come from governemnt grants too. In return, I like to think we've done a lot more for society than working a high-paying nine-to-five job.
Nowadays I have a job, and I feel I could easily pay more tax on the money I make.
The amusing thing with Canada and the US is that whenever someone mentions the slightly more socialist system, someone else always mentions higher taxes.
I once went out and did all the calculations. Once you add all state/provincial and federal taxes from the US and Canada together, Canada's tax load is exactly 1% higher.
I, personally, am quite happy to pay taxes. The system benefitted me, now it's someone else's turn.
Of course, I do have student debt because I wasn't in Europe, but it's a lot lower than it would have been in the US. MIT told me way back when that they wanted $21,000US per year. Waterloo University, a Canadian university which is internationally regarded as having a better undergrad program, wanted ~$2,000US.
The real kicker is Germany. You can study there for free - even if you're a foreigner! I plan to get a second degree there, and I have no plans of leaving Europe afterwards.
> The real kicker is Germany. You can study there for free
Not for much longer. Our Supreme Court is soon going to decide on whether study fees will be legal and it is expected it will rule in favor of that. This is going to affect long-time students first but one can already see where this will eventually lead to.
>Waterloo University
Waterloo is THE University to be at these days. It's like the Canadian version of Oxford.
water loo
Pretty good article on the coming German studying fees:
http://www.ciao.de/Studiengebuhren__Test_2904545
It's in German, though, but I doubt anyone not speaking the language would be interested in the topic anyhow.
>>53
don't worry, the new EU-guideline forcing the doors of every university open for everyone, will allow German students to escape the looming german fee, for example in Danmark, Austria (they seem genuinely worried about that), ...
Oh, I am not worried about it. The only ones being worried should be those who considered studying in Germany and the German universities. But in Germany, everyone is worried all the time, usually about the wrong thing, unfortunately.
>> 57
why are you saging these posts? if you find the conversation sage worthy, perhaps you should not reply at all, or even just leave?
anyway, i wasn't replying to any comments on senseless bickering (where is that in this thread anyway? or are you merely suggesting that discussion of politics is senseless bickering? in which case, you really shouldn't be here). i was saying that everyone always seems to worry about the wrong thing, not just germans.
but anyway i think you're just being asinine.
He always sages. It's not a comment on what is worthy or isn't.
Actually, I think there's two or three permanent sagefied anonymous on 4-ch by now. You can still tell them apart if you know what to look for though.
sage has different implications on futaba-style and 2ch-style boards. On futaba-style boards where you have a low bump limit, sage is often used to show displeasure with the picture, since each sage will bring the picture closer to the bump limit. On a 2ch-style message board where the bump limit is much larger, or not existant at all, sage is used out of politeness, so as not to bump a thread if you don't think your reply is interesting enough to warrant the attention of everyone reading the board.
Har har.
Young Republicans make me laugh.
Most kids want Dems until they grow up and get jobs. Then you have those kids that really have to be different and get all pseudo-fiscally-conservate / small-gubament / not-a-goth with their little club.
::shakes head::
I think the most counterculture political movements are the third party movements like the Libertarian Party and the Green Party. Being a Democrat or a Republican in America is mainstream, as Deomcrats got more than 40% of the vote and Republicans got more than 50%. Compared with Greens and Libertarians, who count themselves lucky to win 10% of the vote, even the Democrats are mainstream, let alone Republicans who win most elections currently.