Has participation on this forum changed your political views?

[ReformCollege]

When I 'nah', and mutter 'money doesn't solve problems', they get all self-righteous like that. I tell them that we need to own poverty to solve poverty, and it's not something one can buy. Oh course, they get all "what have you done" and then it's talk about me time (end game, win).

Some monetary aid does help. I don't mean to end our involvement in projects abroad entirely. I think it's best one finds an organization they can trust, preferably grass-roots.

I believe on aid for things they have no way of doing for themselves. Like aids education, contraceptives, building schools, wiping out child slavery, training doctors etc
But some of it is also providing employment with "sweatshops" and easing the dependence on substance farming and injecting self sustaining buying power

I firmly believe in "teach a man to fish." I ask myself this question on aid, "is this money today making them need it any less tomorrow?" if it's not moving them towards sustainability then I see it as something mutually harmful.

 

[ecofarm]

I believe on aid for things they have no way of doing for themselves. Like aids education, contraceptives, building schools, wiping out child slavery, training doctors etc
But some of it is also providing employment with "sweatshops" and easing the dependence on substance farming and injecting self sustaining buying power

I firmly believe in "teach a man to fish." I ask myself this question on aid, "is this money today making them need it any less tomorrow?" if it's not moving them towards sustainability then I see it as something mutually harmful.

I believe in a neo-exodus of developed world educated to the developing world, to reverse the brain drain and finally own and solve poverty. I live it, and I hope there are others behind me.

 

[radcen]

To the bolded: thus the reason for having a strong system of laws in place to protect the rights of the individual.

But that's not libertarianism, in its purest form. Laws to protect individuals invariably overstep their legitimate bounds and begin to thwart one's own ability to do what they want.

 

[Fisher]

But that's not libertarianism, in its purest form. Laws to protect individuals invariably overstep their legitimate bounds and begin to thwart one's own ability to do what they want.

This logic is why Libertarianism will never be anything other than the playground of rednecks, history majors, and disgruntled constipated republicans. It is essentially a better dressed movement toward anarchy.

 

[ReformCollege]

But that's not libertarianism, in its purest form. Laws to protect individuals invariably overstep their legitimate bounds and begin to thwart one's own ability to do what they want.

Pure libertarianism isn't anarcho-capitialism. We believe in law enforcement, what we don't believe in is the politicization of it.

 

[Henrin]

This logic is why Libertarianism will never be anything other than the playground of rednecks, history majors, and disgruntled constipated republicans. It is essentially a better dressed movement toward anarchy.

Really? How does maintaining a minimalist state a better dressed movement towards anarchy?

I swear people know as much about libertarianism as they do socialism or fascism.

 

[ReformCollege]

When I 'nah', and mutter 'money doesn't solve problems', they get all self-righteous like that. I tell them that we need to own poverty to solve poverty, and it's not something one can buy. Oh course, they get all "what have you done" and then it's talk about me time (end game, win).

Some monetary aid does help. I don't mean to end our involvement in projects abroad entirely. I think it's best one finds an organization they can trust, preferably grass-roots.

My goal is when I'm a doctor and have been in the industry for some years and am free of debt is to provide concierge medicine for a reasonable rate directed at lower-middle class households, and attempt to donate a month out of every year to medical charity.

First I have to get into med school though

 

[iliveonramen]

Not really. Not because the debates aren't of great quality on this site but because I'm a Liberal living in a vast swath of southern conservatives/Tea Partiers. My views get challened constantly. I can see how someone's views may change if their a liberal living in a staunchly liberal area or conservative in a staunchly conservative area.

It's always good to hear actual Liberal or Conservatives debate their views rather than depending on Liberals telling you what Conservatives think or Conservatives telling you what Liberals think.

 

[radcen]

Pure libertarianism isn't anarcho-capitialism. We believe in law enforcement, what we don't believe in is the politicization of it.

When you say "we" you presume to speak for everybody, as if everybody thinks in lockstep, and would act accordingly... which is exactly part of my point regarding the disconnect from reality.

 

[Gardener]

My time on political message boards began well before I joined here, and while my actual views on the world have changed little, I have observed that my assumptions as to which people share those views has changed quite a bit.

If I were to generalize at all, I would say that my time on message boards has led me to view complete and utter dogmatism as being more pervasive than I once believed possible, and that there is a stupid, conformist knee-jerk portion of the left every bit as mindless as that of the right. I see precious few liberals posting compared to lock-step leftists, as most people operate from the principle of conforming to group think instead of understanding concepts.

It's weird, but it is almost as if people are trying to confirm that all the things the radio demagogues keep saying about those blasted "liberals" is true. Of course, most wouldn't recognize a liberal principle if it smacked them along side the face, but with far too many of the illiberal leftists posing as liberals, the entire notion of what IS liberal has become so muddied as to be almost meaningless.

When I first started posting on message boards, I self-identified as liberal. I am now loathe to do so because actual liberalism is now a moderate position, the illiberal nature of the dogmatic left having shifted the goal posts as to the perceived meaning of the terms.

 

[radcen]

My time on political message boards began well before I joined here, and while my actual views on the world have changed little, I have observed that my assumptions as to which people share those views has changed quite a bit.

If I were to generalize at all, I would say that my time on message boards has led me to view complete and utter dogmatism as being more pervasive than I once believed possible, and that there is a stupid, conformist knee-jerk portion of the left every bit as mindless as that of the right. I see precious few liberals posting compared to lock-step leftists, as most people operate from the principle of conforming to group think instead of understanding concepts.

It's weird, but it is almost as if people are trying to confirm that all the things the radio demagogues keep saying about those blasted "liberals" is true. Of course, most wouldn't recognize a liberal principle if it smacked them along side the face, but with far too many of the illiberal leftists posing as liberals, the entire notion of what IS liberal has become so muddied as to be almost meaningless.

When I first started posting on message boards, I self-identified as liberal. I am now loathe to do so because actual liberalism is now a moderate position, the illiberal nature of the dogmatic left having shifted the goal posts as to the perceived meaning of the terms.

Good post. I feel like "liberal" and "conservative" principles have been lost in the rhetoric and each term no longer means what it used to mean.

 

[ReformCollege]

When you say "we" you presume to speak for everybody, as if everybody thinks in lockstep, and would act accordingly... which is exactly part of my point regarding the disconnect from reality.

I'm saying libertarians in general in terms of what it means. Of course, that's usually my exact criticism of collective ideology.

 

[Fisher]

Really? How does maintaining a minimalist state a better dressed movement towards anarchy?

I swear people know as much about libertarianism as they do socialism or fascism.

Because a "minimalist" state would people living back in Little Houses on the Prairie. No thanks.

 

[Henrin]

Because a "minimalist" state would people living back in Little Houses on the Prairie. No thanks.

WTF is that supposed to mean?

 

[Smeagol]

Has participation on this forum changed your political views?

It has mine. When I first was here, I was a stauch Obama supporter, what I would call Independent Democrat and more views leaning left than right. My early messages clearly were "pro-Democrat." "anti-Republican" and "pro-Obama." I had been a Democrat election judge for my precinct.

However, reading so many messages by members "on the left" and "on the right," OTHER THAN SOCIAL ISSUES - I find my self going further and further "right" and "Republican." However, I disagree with Republicans vehemently on nearly all social issues (gay marriage, abortion).

I am stunned at the extreme bigotries of many on "the left" - economic, gender, race, by their almost rabid opposition to free speech, the mass number of messages calling for people of different views to be imprisoned in extremely harsh terms - and then causing them to lose nearly all rights including the right to vote, and overally contempt of individuality, private citizenry rights, and demanding goverment control-freakism. I have learned that "liberal" mostly now is the anti-thesis of "personal freedom."

Has your views changed, hardened, or ? by participation on this forum?

Not so much this one but others prior to my participation here. A republican nearly all of my adult life, witnessing the complete meltdown of many Republicans over the election of Barack Obama in 2008 over the most ridiculous reasons you can imagine has caused me to be offended, embarrassed and lose much of the esteem I once had for the GOP. The group I once thought of as the "looney left" I learned were no more looney than those on the right and loss of political power is seemingly what causes basket case tendencies in either party to come out. I learned that although there are differences in the parties, they are in a practical sense very minimum and what really drives people politically aren't for the most part policy differences but the fact that they see their side as powerless. With the exception of social issues, something the GOP as practically officially abandoned, you can cite historical facts of Republicans working to advance the exact same things they more recently charge Democrats with as things that are destroying America but when Republicans were doing them few complained. The conclusion: the issues aren't really the issue, rather its their side isn't driving the ship.

I've also learned emotionalism can be dangerous and prevents people from being able to think rationally. I've learned that human beings are innately tribal. Thankfully we (at least in America) have for the most part moved past tribalism based on race (at least wrt black and white) but sadly we've replaced it with political tribalism with similar animosity and hatred based this time on political party affiliation. Those who have tolerance for those of other political persuasions experience a unique type of tribal animosity; democrat lovers or RINOs on one side, or defining those with political/social disagreements as hate-filled or bigots on the other side. Political correctness is alive and well and that both democrats and republicans alike make use of the tactic in efforts to silence those who disagree with them. They define various speech as somehow immoral but in reality that is only a PR tactic/opportunity either in hopes of marginalizing their voices in the public square or to shut them up entirely motivated by reasons having to do with their positions on the issues, not concern over morality. A heck of a lot of news is nothing more than propaganda and the scary part is most don't realize it when it comes to the so-called news they consume the most. More scary is propaganda works, not just on the viewers of Al-Jazzera but the viewers of American political media outlets as well.

I've learned that the "nuclear option" in shutting people up from discussing race relations even when legitimate is to accuse them of "using the race card". Race relations are something many Americans, especially those of us on the right for some reason want to never acknoweldge. To that end, minor racisim gets a pass and the only race issues we can discuss under the rules of right-wing political correctness are the major horrific stuff and racism where blacks are the offenders.

Lastly, the most effect tactics in shutting people up on political/social discussions is by making use of what I call the "outrage card" where the person acts like they are too boiling mad to even address one's comments and more importantly, others should be as well. And the use of humiliating personal insults directed toward the person with the opposing view point. Fortunately, not so much here but I've seen this elsewhere.

 

[Fisher]

WTF is that supposed to mean?

Libertarians have a misguided belief that federalism is not a huge factor in the development of society. Without it, we would quickly run into chaos. We would have almost half the nation unable to support itself, we would have food filled with who the hell knows what, we would have no reliable electric supply within a generation, there would be toxic crap running through must water supplies, etc.

 

[Henrin]

Libertarians have a misguided belief that federalism is not a huge factor in the development of society. Without it, we would quickly run into chaos. We would have almost half the nation unable to support itself,

*Looks around* Sure seems to be half of the population that can't do that now. Anything else?

we would have food filled with who the hell knows what,

We have courts for that.

we would have no reliable electric supply within a generation,

Entirely erroneous and unneeded drama. Though I admit some transaction period would have to take place.

There would be toxic crap running through must water supplies, etc.

Again, courts.

 

[radcen]

*Looks around* Sure seems to be half of the population that can't do that now. Anything else?

We have courts for that.

Entirely erroneous and unneeded drama. Though I admit some transaction period would have to take place.

Again, courts.

Yes, because that all worked soooooo well in the past.

 

[Henrin]

Yes, because that all worked soooooo well in the past.

Because we soooooo had the laws to make it work.

 

[ttwtt78640]

I started off here as a hard-lining right-libertarian, but after a year here I've been pulled over to the middle in economic matters. I still don't believe that the government should be master market manipulator, but I am in favor of a small social safety net, socialized health care (with an opt-out ability like Germany), and free education. I still however believe that people can handle their money and their lives far better than a bureacrat.

As far as social issues go, I haven't really changed at all. I believe everybody should be able to live their lives absolutely any way they choose, so long as it does not prohibit someone else from doing the same. It is absolutely none of my business who someone marries, what they smoke, or what they believe.

That bolded alone takes income redistribution off of the table, IMHO. In order to pay Peter you must first rob Paul (or simply borrow in his name).

 

[AreteCourage]

My views are pretty much the same as when I joined. However, I have enjoyed learning more about views that differ from mine. I like to learn more about it without getting into a flame war or anything.

 

[Paschendale]

For me it was actually the previous forum before I came here. I had much looser positions that weren't as clearly defined. I actually used to call myself a libertarian, though much more from social perspectives than economic ones. But then I spent about six months debating with an economic libertarian, and found myself arguing more and more from the socialist perspective. I followed where my arguments were taking me, and discovered that a socialist model really is the best way to go. It includes the same social freedoms that I championed before, but includes enough control over economics to prevent private power from amassing too much and oppressing everybody else.

One of the big realizations for me was that the monarchies and aristocracies of the middle ages did not involve anything like what we call "government" today. There were no checks and balances, and those systems far more closely resembled private power run amok than any kind of public institution. Even the fascist and communist regimes of the 20th century were following this "consolidate power into a few private hands and then do everything possible to keep it there" model, rather than any system oriented toward the public good.

One area where I am always learning new things from this forum is international relations, however.

 

[OhIsee.Then]

I don’t understand a political view myself. Political views seem like a religious view religious ‘views’ to me. In fact they seem to be rolled up together by many. What I want are solutions that will work. I guess my political view is Design Engineer.

 

[earthworm]

Philosophical views.....political leanings.....
Depends on the exact area...some have been hardened, others softened.
I am an advocate of states rights, not that they know better than the feds, but that there always seems to be many different ways of doing the same thing....
So what I do favor is a high level of communications between states and people..
There are some mighty smart cookies here on DP.

 

[earthworm]

Has participation on this forum changed your political views?

It has mine. When I first was here, I was a stauch Obama supporter, what I would call Independent Democrat and more views leaning left than right. My early messages clearly were "pro-Democrat." "anti-Republican" and "pro-Obama." I had been a Democrat election judge for my precinct.

However, reading so many messages by members "on the left" and "on the right," OTHER THAN SOCIAL ISSUES - I find my self going further and further "right" and "Republican." However, I disagree with Republicans vehemently on nearly all social issues (gay marriage, abortion).

I am stunned at the extreme bigotries of many on "the left" - economic, gender, race, by their almost rabid opposition to free speech, the mass number of messages calling for people of different views to be imprisoned in extremely harsh terms - and then causing them to lose nearly all rights including the right to vote, and overally contempt of individuality, private citizenry rights, and demanding goverment control-freakism. I have learned that "liberal" mostly now is the anti-thesis of "personal freedom."

Has your views changed, hardened, or ? by participation on this forum?

Extremism exists on both sides of the fence...and I believe that this is the major problem...Identifing this is not as easy as it seems.