just because something is legal...it does not make it right.
The needs of the many far outweighs the needs of the few. It is wise to adhere to the needs of the many. Because if not heeded, justice will come about with bloodshed.
American Politics
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) and Imran (@Annihilate Now!) are here to discuss Amad saving our blushes in a win against Southampton as well as our now annual loss at home to Brighton. They discuss Amorim's post-match comments, revisit how mid-table we may or may not be, and discuss some transfer news.
- Status
just because something is legal...it does not make it right.
The needs of the many far outweighs the needs of the few. It is wise to adhere to the needs of the many. Because if not heeded, justice will come about with bloodshed.
I don't recall what I said, but it's a fool's game not be 'interested' in politics. I am interested, I just don't vote.
So what are you then, a laissez-faire liberalist or a communist?
Um.. okay.
A very laissez-faire liberalist.
Because you've read Atlas Shrugged?
I don't see why you are so smug about that fact when you could easily vote for candidates that you agree with.
Nope, I might get into it one day though.
Don't, it's shit.
tbf to Andrew..those lunatics normally don't get out of the primaries where he lives.
There aren't many, and they don't run where I live.
Where do you live?
Maybe, but it's a really influential book, might be worth reading for academic purposes.
don't misunderstand me. what you suggest would be a very big step in the right direction. I just think the powers that pull the strings now will fight tooth and nail to keep their power.
It may well have to come to revolution. But I think change will come as a by-product if you will more likely.
right..off to watch Mexico..
Oh definitely, it would take a true leader to suggest such a devolution for the politcal class.
In the UK, London and Manchester.
those Torries must seem like communists to you.
Indeed, most hardcore liberalists I know love that book (and are liberalists because of it).
Why are you a liberalist then (I hesitate to say "liberal" since that word is more commonly associated with leftists, at least in America)? Genuinely interested.
They're okay. The Tories have a few MPs who I've spoken to personally that are very much aligned with my views, but they are fringe figures like Steve Baker MP. If I lived in his constituency, I'd vote for him.
Randians are usually selfish idiots.
simpletons is more accurate...but....
Randians will find their wet dream in the third world
Also known as the "blame it on the black people" argument. If you're going to argue it has nothing to do with the colour of the skin, then you're going to have to agree that there is no problem in the US that it didn't create itself. In other words, using it as an excuse is pointless. Let's check some facts:
US: 13% foreign-born
Germany: 7.7% without citizenship (can't find a foreign-born statistic)
Netherlands: 11.1% foreign-born
Belgium: 12.9% foreign-born
Sweden: 14.3% foreign-born
Switzerland: 22% foreign (no foreign-born statistic)
There is always some American who will look at this and go "but foreign-born immigrants in Europe might be Europeans themselves." Which is true, if completely irrelevant. There is no reason why a Polish immigrant to the UK or a Greek immigrant to Norway will feel more cultural similarity than a Mexican immigrant to the US. And most black Americans in the US have roots stretching back as far as or further than most white Americans.
Most people like to call themselves libertarians, and I usually go with that. You've actually got me stumped on the 'why are you a libertarian' question - Do you want me to tell you how I came to the position I am?
Oh, ok. I used the word liberalist because I've noticed a certain rivalry between people who call themselves libertarians and people who adhere to Randian liberalism. Not sure what the exact ideological differences are though other than foreign policy, where libertarians seem to be a lot more isolasionist than Randians.
Yes, please.
Eh? I wasn't even thinking along that tangent. My point is that regional dynamics matter much more in the United States than in other countries. I'd wager a vast majority of the population in the United States (who happen to live in the liberal NE corridor and California) would like to move closer to an ideal welfare state, more restrictions on gun ownership and usage, etc. However... there is this large region between both coasts that contains a highly conservative, government distrusting, gun loving, individual attitude population. This base has been left untouched by the growing Latino population who are concentrated around urban areas. And it'll be difficult to push bills through both levels of Congress as long as this base has a disproportionate amount of representation (thanks partly to voter disfranchesizing and gerrymandering). Obamacare went through hell to get passed, and ended up as a castrated mutilated version of the original bill.
I don't think any countries in western Europe have to deal with this. I may be wrong.
Randians are isolationist if it doesn't affect American interests aren't they? But in this modern world very little doesn't impact American interests.
Randian liberalism? I'm scared to look that up, what liberal could like Rand's philosophy?
Socialist! I'll pave my own roads damnit, I'm an island!
Okay, I guess arguing with Americans who can't stop telling you how vast and diverse and heterogenous their country is on Reddit has made me a little quick on the trigger. It's definitely true that there is a large portion of people in the US who haven't been exposed to the "new US", nor do they want to be. Even if the "old" one hasn't exist for at least fifty years, if it ever did.
I hate wasting a good statistic, though.
The original kind, when liberal meant as little interference from the government as possible. Liberal parties in Europe (and most of the world) are still considered centre or centre-right parties, although those are usually more about social liberalism than traditional liberalism.
I can't have a discussion on reddit, the format is weird and conversations get lost in the ether. The downvoting system is some bullshit too. I just browse now and then.
Stats are good
No one I know personally talks much about Rand, we're mostly interested in economic issues so the whole moralist side of it never really figures into my thinking, although I suppose I can see the appeal.
I'm a libertarian because I believe economic freedom is best for society. My reasoning is based on the teachings of the so-called 'Austrian School' of economics. I don't really know much about Rand, but I will probably read her books at some point.
Would you say that Hayek was the man?
I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic here or not, but yeah; Hayek and his teacher, Mises, are among my biggest influences.
Last edited:
Squiggle, are you a genetic clone of Thatcher? Genuinely interested.
Growing talk of Romney running for President again.
Has that happened before? Someone running for President immediately after losing?
Adlai Stevenson. Won the nomination the second time too.
- Status