Dem, Rep, etc - What are your basic assumptions?

[forecg]

My basic assumption is that rational thought is something worth pursuing. True, people are NOT rational all the time, but rational thinkers are perfectly capable of taking that into account and dealing with it as best as they can. Even though a lack of reason in others poses a challenge to people like me, I have seen nothing to suggest that there is any other strategy that's superior to reason.

For two people to carry on a rational debate, they need basic axioms that both agree on. Trying to debate without these axioms is a waste of time because the two sides are working based on assumptions that they don't necessarily share. They talk past each other, and they can't understand why the other person doesn't see it their way. Their time would be much better spent trying to figure out which assumptions they disagree on.

If you feel that the Democrats or the Republicans most closely represent your views, could you please tell me what your most basic postulates are? I've tried to understand Dems and Reps in the past, but they always get flustered and walk off before I can figure out which principles they're using (if any). Libertarians and Greens are better, but I think that has a lot to do with the fact that they don't get elected and can afford not to chase public opinion.

[syracusa]

Very interesting question and very nicely formulated.

I could try to think of a few axioms I believe in ...but I am not sure I qualify as a "Democrat" 100%. I may be just a tad more to the so-called "left" (on this abstract political continuum we use) than the mainstream Democrats in this country...so this might make me more like a "Green", I don't know :)

But let's see:

1. Humans are not necessarily born "good" but they have the capacity to get "better" via education, communication, cultivation of empathy, being with one another, etc. By "good" I mean NOT trying to constantly outdo, put down, win over, upman, keep in check, exploit - and at the extreme, exterminate your fellow human beings.


2. TRYING to get better is worth it.

3. Greed is inherently bad and ultimately - sadly unuseful.
(contrary to what that 80's slogan suggests).

4. Constantly nurturing and inflating the human ego is bad.

5. Essential good and essential evil DO exist (but these notions are easily perverted, manipulated, abused and used as weapons by people in the process of cultivating their own egoes while attempting to anihilate the others').

6. God exists but we create our own heavens and hells.

8. Winning is overrated.

9. The material DOES take away from the spiritual.

10. Above the level of physical survival, the spiritual DOES matter more than the material.


Well...that's all I can think of for now...

[syracusa]

Oh, yes. And one more:

11. The "itch" to OWN (not simply USE) is the most sickening of human habits.

[RebelWithanAK]

One need only look at any of the other threads to see what assumptions people have on either of the two parties, though they may bear repeating for posterity's sake:

Democrats:
Other than being the party of Stalinesque totalitarianism-type hyperboles, it is exclaimed (too often) that Democrats have a bleeding heart for lazy, shiftless people who are not White, and will tax the living daylights out of the country to give these and only these people a lift. Beyond that, Democrats love immigration, sodomy, and massive cuts to the military. They blame the rich for not being poor, yada yada yada.

Republicans:
Being the party of millionaire WASPs, evangelical hypocrites and White supremacists (or any combination of the above, Pat Robertson), it is said that Republicans are self-serving leeches on society that love small government and large businesses, large militaries, and absolutely no social services that aren't connected to their church (and it is a church, not a mosque or a temple). They blame the poor for not paying more in taxes, yada yada yada.

Needless to say, both have kernels of truth hidden under decades upon decades of mudslinging and namecalling.

Democrats are, in fact, favorable for the most part to social services, but liberals being as individualistic as they are, Democrats are not solid on how to implement them. The Democratic agenda has always held health care, housing, education and the arts as the front runners of every plan, as plainly seen by the New Deal and the Great Society initiatives - Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, HUD, NEA, FDIC, etc. Democrats themselves run a very wide spectrum, hence the problems with the primaries: Moderate conservatives on one end to radical liberals on the other. (And no, Dean and Kerry are not radical liberals. Kucinich and Sharpton would more be the touch, and then not even.)

Democrats are attacked for charging too much in taxes for such services, but ironically so they are attacked most in places that get more in federal benefits than they pay in taxes. Most Democratic-leaning states are actually part of the rust belt, subsidizing the economic growth of the Republican-voting South. Democrats are attacked for being morally loose, but there hasn't been a single act of infidelity a prominent Democrat has done that can't be turned around and pointed straight at a corresponding Republican, not to mention that in terms of First World nations on the whole, we're a rather conservative and uptight country. But most of all, Democrats are attacked for being fiscally irresponsible, and I'll get to that in a moment.

The Republican platform has always been the economy until late. They got most of their votes by people who wanted a burgeoning job market that rewarded entrepreneurialism, but ever since Reagan it has not been delivered. Most people in the country work in small businesses, yet the largest tax exemptions go towards the corporations, in the name of seeing a return based on economic theories. The return has not resulted in new jobs, and the two Bushes have overseen a great decrease in the number of jobs for the average working man. Also, while the Republican platform has expounded fiscal responsibility and reigned-in government spending, Reagan and the two Bushes have put the government into an incredible debt spending more than the Democrats, but at the same time slashing social services.

More disturbing is the co-option of the Religious Right into what was essentially a primarily economic party, and this has resulted in a mixed message when it comes to the policies and a divide in the Party. Much like the Democrats disagree on how to fix the problems of society, the Republicans are at odds as to what is considered a problem in society. From Libertarians to Neo-Conservatives, the plan is blurred. Bush starts a "crusade" (then retracts that statement) on Iraq on the basis of terrorism, but not the right country, because Saudi Arabia is a great boon to our oil industries. Bush stands against immigration until he gets flak from half his party because service-sector jobs can't be exported, then flipflops on the issue at which point he gets flak from the other half of his party for allowing Mexicans in. The Republican party of small government and libertarianism starts the Homeland Security Department with more funding than most Departments and sends through bills that allow the government to spy on its people.

Obviously, I side with the Democrats, but I still can sympathize with moderate members of the old Republican party - the party of fiscal responsibility. It was GAAP and the FASB that got NYC out of bankruptcy in the 1970s. But this new shit is pretty bad.

[Locke]

I do believe that the Title of this thread was "Dem, Rep, "ECT" - What are your basic assumptions?" Well I am an ect.

Both the Dems and Reps have rational assumptions and decent arguments, but they lack consistency or any categorical imperative. In the end that is what Democratic politics are about. If one wishes to be a Philosopher King or Religious Dictator that is one thing but if you claim to be Democratic your assumption is that "What is good for the one is good for the many."

This is where I go on a Philisophical rant for a bit. The World has lost any hope of the Dems. or the Reps. finding some kind of philosophy. All they have left are their political panderings which amount to bubkiss if your anywhere other then Capitol hill; sadly, the people of this country couldn't care less about politics, and in effect their own future, so that these two parties continue to lead. The politicians doing what they think the people want, the people are doing what the politicians are saying they want because they think everyone else wants that. It is the old cliche of the blinde leading the blind.

The Libertarian party is the third largest party in the U.S. with neartly a tenth of registered voters as members. It is the only Party of consistancy and the strongest supporter of Individual rights. The wisest of the Dems. and Reps. have seen the rise of the Libertarians as a new hope for politics and possibly a new begining.

Out of this trainreck the Dems. and the Reps. have made of the American Political System will rise a stronger Green Party, a more popular Libertarian Party, and the old honest core of the both the Democratic and Republican Parties. A Four Party system where pandering is seen as weekness for a new party to rise from the bottom.

[Locke]

Oh, and Libertarians are not Republicans RebelwithanAK

[syracusa]

But I thought you guys were going to write your own "axioms": basic philosophical views that YOU believe govern human nature (if there is even such thing).Well...the responses ended up more like descriptions of what you think the Rep and Dem parties do today.
But I liked RebelwithanAK's view on both parties - I thought he did a nice job emphasizing the negatives in both. :)

I thought the part about the Dems being the party with a "bleeding heart for lazy, shiftless people who are not White" was interesting.

I do agree that this is a widespread (yet, dare I say, twisted, spinned and exagerated) view of the Democratic party in some parts of America.
They are not supposed to "bleed" just for the non-whites, but for all the disadvantaged people who way too often are called "lazy" simply because it is convenient. This also continues to justify an oppressive system in which the big fish exploit the small ones; calling the vulnerable "lazy" makes it all right.

As for the "lazy" whites and non-whites - it may put things in perspective if we considered that the majority of poor/disadvantaged people in this country are WHITES. Yes, there is a higher percentage of poor people within the black population compared to the white one, but numbers-wise, there are a lot more poor whites to deal with. They may be less visible because the majority are concentrated in rural areas - while the poor blacks are in urban areas, "into your face"; but that doesn't change the facts.

I do not buy the argument that the Dems strive to keep the poor white people - poor while striving to make the poor black people - better off.

However, considering the history of race relations in this country and the nasty disadvantage that a thing like "slavery" can cause to an entire population for generations in a row, it only makes sense that the blacks will feel more loyal, more helped and more protected by the Dem party whose platform deals with disadvantage and oppression - something that the Rep. party conveniently brushes off.

One thing I can say in all honesty: I have arrived in the US 7 years ago from a European country. I am by definition "an immigrant".
I am also white and I have personally EXPERIENCED, FELT and UNDERSTOOD on many occasions how the simple fact of BEING WHITE has opened the kind of doors, smiles and POSITIVE prejudices for me that a black American citizen (born here) could only dream of.

I enjoyed reading all posts.

[forecg]

Syracusa is right - I AM asking what each of YOUR basic assumptions are, not what you assume other people's assumptions are. Your list is exactly the kind of thing I was looking for too, because most of my own trouble has been with understanding people with "left" tendencies.

I'd like to better understand them:

1. I also think people aren't born "good" or "bad" but get better through education. My "good" is very different, however: to me "good" is pursuing your own personal happiness while recognizing and making use of the benefits of cooperating with your fellow human beings. It's "good" in the Objectivist sense of the word.

2. "Trying to get better is definitely worth it." Absolutely.

3. "Greed is inherently bad and unuseful." I think we disagree here. I think that envy, spite, and self-CENTEREDNESS are bad and unuseful, but that self-INTEREST is good and very useful. Individuals work for the self-interest of themselves, relatives work for the self-interest of their family, party members work for the self-interest of their political cause, and patriots work for the self-interest of their nation. It's all about how each person identifies him"self". Is "greed" more like envy, spite and self-centeredness for you, or more like self-interest?

4. "Constantly nurturing and inflating the human ego is bad." "Inflating" the ego is bad, yes. When you say "nurturing" do you mean encouraging individualism is bad, or that permitting it to survive is bad? Or something else?

5. "Essential good and essential evil DO exist . . ." What do you think they are? I suspect we see them differently (axiom #1).

6. "God exists but we create our own heavens and hells." Completely agree here. I believe in a non-personified God (the laws of physics) with absolute faith. Heaven and Hell certainly do appear to exist on Earth.

8. "Winning is overrated." Winning is essential, but many games (those not related to happiness and survival) are overrated.

9. "The material DOES take away from the spiritual." Sometimes, but not always. Material objects are best used as means to spiritual ends, and quite often can be.

10. "Above the level of physical survival, the spiritual DOES matter more than the material." Yes, but we may or may not agree on what it means to be spiritual. For me, it's being happy and having the sense that you have a life well-lived. Even then I guess we are bound to disagree on what "well-lived" means (axiom #1).

11. "The itch to own (not use) is the most sickening of all human habits." For me it's more short-sighted than it is sickening. What really makes ME sick is the appeal to emotion over logic, although spitefulness and cruelty aren't far behind.

Thank you for understanding and answering my question. I think it will be useful to understand the specific axioms we do and don't agree on.

[syracusa]

Hi Forcecg,

I think that by addressing this question you made it clear why left-leaning and right-leaning people often engage in endless and negatively charged discussions (often using offensive words and getting all emotional about their viewpoint) - when they actually depart in their thinking from FUNDAMENTALLY different assumptions about what is good/bad.
Or what is essential/what is not, what comes first/what comes second, what is important / what is not, how is "human nature" / how is not.

Regarding our fundamentally different assumptions (I assume at this point that you play the role of the right-leaning party and I would be the left-leaning party, right"?)..OK:
I have noticed a theme in your posting: appeal to "rationality/logic".

This also reminded me of the fact that we are probably of different genders as well (you Tarzan and I Jane) :))))) ...and this simple aspect is going to have a huge impact in the way we see the world (not just the left/right espoused ideologies). Your advantage here would be that the male viewpoint has always dominated human knowledge because it has simply been imposed as "the standard". The female viewpoint has been seen as the "deviant", not the standard - so that will automatically put you in an easier to defend position. :)

Notice our disparities:

You: Rationality, logic
Me: Empathy, not overpowering the other.

You: winning is important
Me: winning is not important (NOT beyond "winning in order to stay alive")

You: read "greed" as in "self-interest" (more like "taking care of yourself, your kid, your wife, etc and wanting your country to look like a flower").

Me: when I said "greed", I mean GREED!!! The kind that has nothing to do with taking care of yourself or loved ones, but more like "I have put my dirty paws on so many resources that I could actually buy the solar system, but I still want more; or the kind where you've acquired all the great things that you dreamt of for yourself and your dear family ...but now you want ever more, NOT for the protection of your family...but for overpowering others.

THIS is not "self-interest", forcecg; it is "OTHER-ORIENTED-INTEREST" - interest in choking others, keeping them in check and placing yourself above their backs so you can gain a false sense of security and control over situations, people and things.
Weeemember: animals DON'T do that!!
'Cause I know the traditional/conservative theorists often appeal to this idea that "ultimately, we are all self-interested, ferocious animals and we should just leave it at that".

You obviously sound very, very intelligent - but don't disappoint me by equating "greed" with "survival-related self-interest" - for yourself and those you love.
Greed (in my view) has more to do with the relationship between you and the strangers and much less with the desire to protect yourself and those close to you. It goes waaay beyond that.

What else...

Oh, the "rationality/logic" thing. I am all for it - especially when people try to communicate - but only up to a certain point.

I could come up with many, many things that people do/believe in and which have absolutely NOTHING to do with rationality/logic - but boy...they are SOOO worth doing and they SOOOOO make life worth living!! Also, I do not think that emotions should be ignored, especially not the positive ones. The negative ones - which are in essence destructive - should be kept in check, but not ignored in the name of dry, empty rationality. There are ways to deal with the negative ones in constructive ways.

History DOES have quite a few examples where horrible attrocities have been commited in the name of rationality and where emotions have been unnaturally suppressed just to "get the job done".
Plus - positive emotions are goood! Better than rationality.

But then again, I am a girl. :)
Now...I am not a "feminist" in the way that is interpreted in the popular culture's consciousness, but I HAVE studied feminist theories (when you are in the social science field, you must study them, like it or not).
And I have to say that they DO make a darn OBJECTIVE point about us living in an androcentric world: the male experience/point of view has always taken priority and used as the STANDARD FOR TRUTH.
The typical experience/viewpoint of the other half of the human population (actually more than half) has just been dismissed throughout history.

Well, that's all. Thanks too for the great inputs!

[forecg]

Syracusa,

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
I think that by addressing this question you made it clear why left-leaning and right-leaning people often engage in endless and negatively charged discussions (often using offensive words and getting all emotional about their viewpoint) - when they actually depart in their thinking from FUNDAMENTALLY different assumptions about what is good/bad.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>Thank you. It frustrates me to no end when people don’t recognize fundamentally different assumptions and waste their energy talking past each other.

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
(I assume at this point that you play the role of the right-leaning party and I would be the left-leaning party, right"?)<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>That’s a perfectly reasonable assumption to make based on what I’ve posted so far, but I’m actually not right-leaning either. I’ll let you form your opinion of my views based on my posts rather than giving you a label because the there really isn’t any label I can think of that wouldn’t get in the way more than it would help.

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
This also reminded me of the fact that we are probably of different genders as well (you Tarzan and I Jane)<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>Yep, I’m a guy, but my position is anything but standard, so I probably won’t have any advantages over you there. If you can point out any assumptions I make that are false from a woman’s point of view (and explain them), though, then I’d be very grateful.

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Notice our disparities:

You: Rationality, logic
Me: Empathy, not overpowering the other.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>I think that rationality and logic are HOW we should live our lives, but I still think that emotions like happiness or love or empathy are WHAT we should live for. I’m just saying that I don’t think emotion has any place in the decision-making process except as the goal. Empathy, for instance, is an emotion that makes you feel connected to your fellow human beings so that you share their happiness and pain. From my perspective empathy is worthy as a goal, but not good to use as a decision-making criterion. I suspect this might be where our most fundamental differences will lie.

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
You: winning is important
Me: winning is not important (NOT beyond "winning in order to stay alive") <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>Here we’re probably much closer to agreeing than we might think. From my perspective EVERYTHING that matters is about staying alive (not just physically but also culturally – rock n’ roll and folk music may not seem very alive but as cultures they have mechanisms that constantly fight to keep them going, or they’d die out), so the ONLY winning that’s important is winning in order to stay alive. I could care less about winning when it’s not related to personal or cultural survival, but that’s only because I could care less about contests that aren’t related to those things.

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
You: read "greed" as in "self-interest" (more like "taking care of yourself, your kid, your wife, etc and wanting your country to look like a flower").
Me: when I said "greed", I mean GREED!!!<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>I checked a dictionary, and you’re right here. Greed is “excessive or reprehensible acquisitiveness.” The problem with that definition, though, is that somebody has to define what’s “excessive” or “reprehensible”. I don’t think it’s at all excessive to earn 10 or 100 million dollars if a person can do it without force or fraud (writers, musicians, athletes and actors do) and they think it makes them happy, while you may disagree. Even if people really are excessive and work themselves to the point of being unhappy, that doesn’t bother me as long as they’re not trying to do it through force or fraud. It’s not the amount of wealth they accumulate that matters to me – only the justness with which they acquired it.

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Oh, the "rationality/logic" thing. I am all for it - especially when people try to communicate - but only up to a certain point.

I could come up with many, many things that people do/believe in and which have absolutely NOTHING to do with rationality/logic - but boy...they are SOOO worth doing and they SOOOOO make life worth living!! Also, I do not think that emotions should be ignored, especially not the positive ones. The negative ones - which are in essence destructive - should be kept in check, but not ignored in the name of dry, empty rationality. There are ways to deal with the negative ones in constructive ways.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>I agree completely; emotions are definitely very important and should be dealt with constructively rather than ignored. While keeping this in mind, I think logic is a great way to be constructive.

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
History DOES have quite a few examples where horrible attrocities have been commited in the name of rationality and where emotions have been unnaturally suppressed just to "get the job done".<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>All rationality is only as good as the assumptions it’s based on. If you accept the right false axioms (as the Nazis did) then you can do some pretty horrific things and still call it rational. The key to preventing things like that is exposing the falsehoods in their axioms.

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Plus - positive emotions are goood! Better than rationality.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>Positive emotions are great!, but I usually don’t compare them with rationality. Logic is pretty pathetic as a goal in and of itself (especially compared to positive emotions), while positive emotions don’t really help much when it comes to making decisions. They’re great goals, just not good methods.

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
And I have to say that they DO make a darn OBJECTIVE point about us living in an androcentric world: the male experience/point of view has always taken priority and used as the STANDARD FOR TRUTH.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>Ignoring the views of half the world’s population definitely sounds like a recipe for trouble, but how much cohesiveness is there in the way that women or men think? Given that many women think differently from each other (as do men), does an androcentric view explain things better than the alternatives? I’ve found very few men who come even close to seeing things the way I do (and even fewer women), so I’m also used to having my views dismissed. Of your views, which do you feel are more likely to be dismissed because of your gender?

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Well, that's all. Thanks too for the great inputs!<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>Thank you!

[RebelWithanAK]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (syracusa)
I do not buy the argument that the Dems strive to keep the poor white people - poor while striving to make the poor black people - better off.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>Syntax aside, the Democratic party has helped poor Whites even at the expense of poor Blacks, especially in the first half of the last century. FDR did nothing about racial issues, but he did do a lot of stuff about poor Americans.

That said, it was always the cities that voted Democrat. Poor rural Whites tend to vote Republican. Any smart party knows where their constituency lies. After all, why do you think that the Republican-voting Sunbelt's getting the majority of the rewards of federal taxation under a Republican administration when their platform says they hate federal taxes?

[Stigmata66]

Hate to shoot everyone's Democratic high horse but what party freed the slaves again? What party did Govenor George C. Wallis belong to?

[RebelWithanAK]

The only reason Republicans gave Blacks the right to vote was because they were sure the Blacks would vote Republican. Not like, say, right now in the District of Columbia...

And if you're going to pick the last Dixiecrat to serve as "representative" of the party as it stands now, then might I (1) suggest "The Politics of Rage" by Dan Carter, and for that matter (2) ask if this gives me free reign to dig up the skeletons of Senator Strom Thurmond?

[Stigmata66]

Go ahead I'm not a republican...

The democrats bitched and moaned when we got rid of slavery and now their bitching and moaning at the notion of a smaller government. They're just a bunch of sleezy pigs that want a huge government that dominates life so they can keep their jobs.

P.S. Forgot to mention they'll do anything for votes even it means destroying the very foundation of this country.

[RebelWithanAK]

You're making a very eggregious error in assuming that the Democratic party of the 1850s is the same Democratic party of the 1930s is the same Democratic party of the 1970s. The same goes for the Republicans. Teddy was a Republican, yet FDR was a Democrat (and had suspiciously leftist Republican Fiorello LaGuardia under him). Strom was a Democrat, then was a Republican (yet his views stayed oddly similar). If you think the politics haven't changed any in all these years, you're a very, very simple man.

[Pyackog]

I am a Libertarian and some of my basic premises are:

We are all ultimately responsible for our own actions and stations in life. Too many people refuse to look at their own decisions and want to blame others when things are aren't as good for them as they would like. This, fostered by the political system in this country, is more or less responsible for all the divisions we have.

I think in terms of the individual. Group associations are nothing but a way to avoid thinking and judging people for themselves. People think in terms of groups and the associated stereotypes of those groups and wind up missing a lot of what people are trying to say because of their pre-conceived notions. I look at what a PERSON says and thinks, nothing else.

I believe the "two-party" system in our country doesn't work well. Too many people don't realize that there are more than two solutions to any given issue and that they don't have to be diametrically opposed to one another. It results in the two major parties not needing to be responsible to their constituents, basically making them failures at their intended purposes, aka representation.

Coddling people too much is bad for the individual and bad for society. People need to suffer for their mistakes in order to learn from them. The more society coddles people, the more they ultimately wind up relying on others, therefore "needing" more coddling, etc. The welfare state perpetuates itself by creating more people to rely on it, therefore making all those people the personal bitches of whoever supports them...not good for anyone except those in power.

Hockey is far and away the greatest game on the face of the planet!!

[Stigmata66]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
RebelWithanAK Posted on 02-12-2004 05:46 PM
You're making a very eggregious error in assuming that the Democratic party of the 1850s is the same Democratic party of the 1930s is the same Democratic party of the 1970s. The same goes for the Republicans. Teddy was a Republican, yet FDR was a Democrat (and had suspiciously leftist Republican Fiorello LaGuardia under him). Strom was a Democrat, then was a Republican (yet his views stayed oddly similar). If you think the politics haven't changed any in all these years, you're a very, very simple man.
<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

You're right politics have changed but the party still holds the same name.
But this still stands:

They're just a bunch of sleezy pigs that want a huge government that dominates life so they can keep their jobs.

P.S. Forgot to mention they'll do anything for votes even it means destroying the very foundation of this country.

[forecg]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Pyackog,)
I am a Libertarian and some of my basic premises are: <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Thank you for your post Pyackog; I'm personally just ignoring all the posts on this thread that ignore the starting question.

Personal responsibility: I'm right there with you I think - I have very little sympathy for people who want to blame their problems on others.

Thinking in terms of the individual: I mostly agree with you here. I happen to be an individualist, but I don't have anything against people who decide to define themselves in terms of groups (like Society) as long as they don't forcibly include me in their group and use that as justification for bossing me around. Like you, I also am warry of pre-conceived notions.

Two-party system: I don't care for "first-past-the-post" either (IRV is much better!!!), but this is more of a conclusion for me than a fundamental axiom.

Coddling: I may or may not agree with you depending on what you mean. Forcibly taking responsibility for people who aren't your children and preventing them from making what YOU think are mistakes is bad, yes.

Here are the kind of things I was thinking of when I asked about axioms:

The Non-Agression Principle (don't initiate force or fraud against others, only use force defensively)

Survival of life-like things (people, governments, companies, religions and cultures all continue to exist because they employ mechanisms that allow them to perpetuate themselves; these survival/expansion mechanisms are the reason why people, governments, religions and cultures are always hungry for more power.)

They're just things that you accept and that you base all your other views on.

[RebelWithanAK]

Stigmata, this is a place for debate, not name-calling.

Pyackog, I agree with you at least when it comes to the two-party system, and believe that our electoral college needs to be overhauled, if not abandoned, to make this possible. A government should rule representative to the wishes of the people. If 40% of the people vote for party A, 30% for party B, and 20% for party C, that should be reflected as much in the demographic makeup of Congress.

[Suburbanite]

I have a guilt confession. I am pretty embarrassed by it because this might destroy my credibility but this election term I fell for the trap. I actually was rooting for a Democratic Candidate. I thought not one but two of them might have actually changed how politics worked. I thought that maybe people in the Democratic Party weren’t all corrupt, and that there was a group inside that was trying to reclaim it. I was wrong. It is the same old lies and rhetoric. Exploiting me and millions of Americans who actually think they represent their values… or values at all. This two party system has become corrupt. Trading of leaders and the “press” behind them every step of the way. American is at the edge of the cliff, and if this nonsense continues, it will make that final leap, within two more presidencies at best. This is too bad, I love this country, I love the people in it, I love what it stood for. It’s a damn shame, a god damn shame.