Forum Post: Republicans and Libertarians – Their Common Values
Posted 12 years ago on Dec. 6, 2012, 4:35 p.m. EST by struggleforfreedom80
(6584)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Ron Paul has run on the libertarian ticket, but is now a republican; Gary Johnson has run as a Republican, but ran as a libertarian during the last election; Rand Paul, a big believer in many so-called libertarian values, is a republican and endorsed Mitt Romney half a year ago; Paul Ryan, the vice-presidential candidate for the Republican Party in the last election is also a great admirer of the libertarian ideology and the very similar Randism.
These are some examples which indicate that the line between republican and libertarian ideas and values seems kind of blurry – and to a large extent that’s true.
There are in fact great similarities between republicans and these so-called libertarians. Sure, there are differences when it comes to foreign policy and monetary policy for example, but they agree on a lot of policies as well – many of which are very important. Libertarians and republicans are as we know far to the right on the political spectrum and therefore share many of the same core values.
What the republicans and libertarians agree on – and which are pretty essential when it comes to politics and political philosophy – are things like property rights and what’s sometimes referred to as “economic freedom”: Private ownership of the means of production and individuals being able to invest, buy, or buy into the economic institutions in society. When it comes to these things, the kind of core characteristics of a capitalist/state-capitalist system, they more or less agree. Both these groups strongly advocate a system which is immoral, exploitative and undemocratic. Republicans and libertarians both think it’s ok to have a system in which your influence in society is based to a large extent on your access to recourses and money. They both advocate a society where the economic institutions are run like tyrannies, with the CEOs and the owners at the top, giving orders to the rest of the people involved, and dictating how the institution is being run.
It is these kinds of shared values and ideas which allow people Like Ron Paul, Gary Johnson and others to easily shift their positions from Republican to Libertarian or vice versa.
Both the republicans and the libertarians have the wrong ideas and solutions when it comes to the economy, because they don’t want to do anything about what is the root cause of many of the problems we see in society today, namely the concentration of wealth, recourses and power in the hands of the wealthy and the private owners. These shared policies are in reality a call for the continuation of the corporate dominance we have seen increasingly develop these last decades. A society which has these features is immoral, undemocratic, and unsustainable. That’s intolerable!
What we should do is create a real participatory democracy in which the economic institutions are run, not by wealthy business men, but democratically by the communities and the workforce. What we should strive for is a libertarian socialist society ; a sustainable, solidaric society where people get to participate and have a say in the things they’re a part of and affect them.
Capitalism, whether it’s the state regulated type republicans advocate, or the more or less non-regulated one the libertarians want, is intolerable and must eventually be abolished and replaced by a real participatory democracy in which people control their own lives and communities.
Links:
Libertarian Socialism explained
Libertarian Socialism explained II
Right-wing libertarian ideology: a call for Corporate tyranny
Corporations are Private Tyrannies
”Why should I have to pay for Your Welfare?”
"Why Libertarian Socalism is the best way to organize society"
The way they conned some economically confused but otherwise decent human beings was to offer a liberal position on several social issues to disguise the real agenda. What's important to conservative leaders is the preservation of the wealth and power of the elite ruling class of true capitalists. The Libertarians fell for that conservative con game all the way down.
There are two kinds of conservatives: liars and the fools who believe them. And then there are libertarians. They're the dupes of both and of the greatest fool of all. That would be Ayn Rand, though Ronald Reagan runs a close second, having been diminished by his taste for Rand's shit..
Milton Friedman is counted among the most cynical liars of all genres of cons.
Agree, but we don't vote on everything or read what congress is doing or has passed. The system might be the problem. We have a limited Republic where we vote for dooffuses who are supposed to represent everyone in his Ward. But with all the ass kissing and campaigning ... and taking donations, contributions & Lobbies ... They are just too distracted to go back and see how badly some voters are being hurt/getting hurt.
Representative Government was supposed to make it easier for supposely "educated people" ... to pass laws that were really needed.
But as you say Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, Barak Obama are pulled away to make bad decisions. ANd we agree Congress is all Swayed by the power of money and corporate Interests.
We the people can't run the government under the current political system...
Maybe we can all start to repeat deeper philosophies and Prinicpals to promote education. And keep the best Documents in Our Histories Alive .... and well known for having the highest Prinicpals.
Personally I want to tell people 1) We don't live in a Democracy 2) We don't have a pure Capitalist System 3) We do have Social Programs like Free Education 1-12 4) We should get Paid an Interest Rate in our Individual Savings Accounts 5) Everyone loves Social Security and it has a great Revenue Stream to keep it viable 6) Medicare is a very Popular US Social Program that can control costs and waste better.
[Deleted]
and what do you think about the forum post?
[Deleted]
The purpose with the text was to show how similar republicans and libertarians are when it comes to very important issues like property rights and not doing anything about the concentration of wealth, and with that hopefully contributing to some right-wingers abandoning their believes.
Rand Paul is an absolute phony. He voted yes on the NDAA. A bill that contains indefinite detention laws, prepares for war with iran.
Actions speak louder than words. 98-0 passes in the Senate. They're all phonies.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/112-2012/s221
Fun fact Iran is mentioned 207 times in this bill.
But what do you think about the article you've now commented on?
I commented more in a reply below.
[Removed]
Examples of libertarians and occupiers similarties:
I support all these things. I dont support the no regulations thing. I think its appauling that congress and politicians that accept all this corporate money and make all these fucked up rules, are the ones that appoint the people to monitor the very people they accept money from.
We need to be the ones electing these positions.
Libertarians support dismantling the safety net, and destroying the programs that benefit the 99%.
You support that too?
I've never seen him answer these kind of questions. He always skips the part about libertarians wanting to throw sick poor people who can't afford their medical bills out on the streets.
i'm not surprised. They never have a good answer for that.
s'ok, Libertarianism is not what Occupy is about, so they ain't here supporting Occupy in our effort to get progressive change that benefits the 99%..
I think Chomsky explained the so called libertarian ideology here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwQEgOKEEXI
It's just savagery, pure and simple.
Libertarianism is a retreat into the "you're on your own" mentality.
I know we are stronger adhering to the "we're in this together" mentality.
Exactly right.
[Deleted]
Yeah great, Libertarians believe govt should do nothing except national defense.
As a result they do not support regulating wall st (great recession anyone?)
Libertarians do not support environmental regulation! (remember rivers that burned for weeks?)
They do not support food regulations, (let's let corps get away with poisoning us for profit)
Libertarians do not support Social Security. Did you know what the elderly poor had to deal with before Social security? Destitution, dogfood, & death!
And more!
That sounds like "you're on your own" to me. ( I ain't mentioning Right or Left, that's you)
Keep your selfish ideology. I believe strongly that we ARE in this together, and that we are stronger as a group.
I do not support totalitarianism, I believe in controlling govt power, I believe we can do it without giving up the above critical functions that have evolved as a necessary function of the peoples govt.
Thanks
[Deleted]
I will try to answer you.
No!, No, No, Mostly, Nothing like the great depression until we weakened regs enough (repealed Glass Steagal), No.
I have never heard a libertarian whose positions were in support of any of these critical functions. I know the best approach is to maintain these functions but to be diligent in preventing govt overreach.
[Deleted]
This what happens when weak regs (libertarian/repub) only allow limited fines & no criminal charges or personal liability against execs.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/10/hsbc-money-laundering_n_2272855.html?ref=topbar
[Deleted]
That may be. I suppose I would then have to say that fin regs are too weak regarding the big guys. I mean if I have to get specific for you.
So perhaps we could agree to strengthen fin regs on the big guys?
Much bigger fines,& jail time for the corp execs?
That may be. I suppose I would then have to say that fin regs are too weak regarding the big guys. I mean if I have to get specific for you.
So perhaps we could agree to strengthen fin regs on the big guys?
I'm against "cradle" benefits, or abuse of the safety net. I support finding waste, fraud, & abuse. That is not govt overreach that is big govt budgetary spending issue, which sounds more tea party than libertarian.
But obviously I don't support cheats, no one does, I just think there are that many.
And the bankruptcy laws were also changed in the 90's (always R's w/ some D's) to make it harder for individuals, but easier for corps to declare bankruptcy.
I support helping the individual in this regard and forcing bankters to cut principle, high interest rate on working class Americans.
I'm not sure if many who are part of the Occupy Movement are advocating ending the fed, but things like gay marriage and ending war and imperialism are good causes. The problem with libertarians is that they're dead wrong about the big important issues (mentioned in the article above), and that they're putting a main focus on the things that are not important, like "ending the fed" etc.
The important issues - which the Occupy Movement correctly has understood and pointed out - is weakening concentrated private power, and organize to try to create a more democratic society with more social justice and equality. When it comes to these very essential issues, the libertarians fail miserably.
By end the fed I meant all the different solutions for it that everyone has come up with, either moving it or audits, or whatever.
I have to disagree though that the Fed issue isnt important. Its the central bank. THE bank. Its at the heart of all the war, the wages and capitalism in general. The belly of the beast if you will.
No, the main problem is capitalism and the concentration of private power. The fed issue is much less important than ending private tyranny.
It is creating a more democratic society based on equallity and social justice that's important.
Do you agree that people should be able to have control over their own lives, work, and community?
The Federal Reserve gave a trillion dollars to Bank of America. That's just one bank for example. Don't you think that ability plays a huge role in the concentration of wealth problem? Our current monetary policy is based on giving unlimited resources to Wall Street and the big banks. Then the banks spend money on government campaigns and their financed politicians told the American people giving Goldman Sachs 10 billion dollars and billions more at below market rates would save the economy. Even though the banks and the federal reserve's policies were a prime source of the problem with the economy in the first place.
And I'm not forgetting about the problems of outsourcing and corporate cutback theory, and my favorite occupy idea of improved and free education! Those all need to be addressed as well.
"End the Fed" or not... serious monetary reform is needed now. The libertarians are right about monetary policy being messed up, but their alternative is not a solution. A real solution for monetary policy is Dennis Kucnich's National Emergency Employment Defense Act, HR 2990.
There's lots of ideas in there that represent some of the occupy ideas. Job creation, real wealth, improving cities! It removes the stranglehold power the banks and the federal reserve have on the economy.
But why do you think the fed behaves as it does? Because the wealthy are in charge. They own and control, not only the corporations, but also the government to a large extent.
The root cause of most of the problems we see today is that private tyranny have enormous power:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYxGkFxb7f4
The important things we should focus on is creating a real participatory democracy, where the people, not wealthy business men, are in charge of the communities and the economic institutions.
totally agree with you about the tyranny. I'm just saying that the Federal Reserve's policies have been manipulated and turned into the money printer for the big banks.
We need to be specific about organizations that play their role, and yes they're run by tyrants. ie Federal Reserve, Goldman Sachs, etc. How are people supposed to know about the role monetary policy plays if we're not talking about it?
That monetary reform I was talking about helps lead to this "where the people, not wealthy business men, are in charge of the communities and the economic institutions."
I agree with you in your last sentence too.
So if I've understood you correctly, you want to end private tyranny - the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of the wealthy and private owners - and replace it with a real democratic society where the people control their own communities? Is that more or less accurate?
Then what do you think about Libertarian Socialsm?
It's sounds better than corporatism. I'd like to push for real and specific reform. What is your idea on starting that system? How does it begin?
"It's sounds better than corporatism."
But is that what you'd most perfer? Is that something we should strive for?
"What is your idea on starting that system? How does it begin?"
http://occupywallst.org/forum/how-do-we-fight-capitalism-the-1/
[Removed]
I totally agree. Im just saying that when you follow the money in that private power, it all ends at the fed. The banks. They are behind all of this. They fund the wars. They fund the corporations. They crashed the economy and they lobbied to get set up in 3rd world nations to exploit.
This current form of capitalism is all centrally planned garbage by them. They love consolidation and power grabs.
Im not sure what could happen first: Ending private tyranny or cutting off the head of the beast that funds the private tyranny.
These are the ones in charge, hchc:
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2012/full_list/
They have the overwhelming power, not just over the economy, but also government.
Let me again ask you:
Do you agree that the society we should strive to implement is one where people control their own workplaces and communities democratically?
[Removed]
The libertarians also want to end agricultural subsidies and they are for repealing the patriot act and strengthening individual rights. Capital is the problem, not capitalism or capitalists. It's so tempting to say it's just a few people that are to blame but it's not the 1% it's the other 50% the A-list , nice and warm inside and us out here on the black list, in the cold, with our faces pressed against the window. It's the police and the military, the prision service, the civil service, the shareholders, all government and state employees, the security industry Blackwater and those with lucrative government contracts. ( I forgot to mention the mafia thegaming industry and many more)
"and strengthening individual rights"
No they don't. They want to strengthen individual rights for the 1%, but weaken them for the workers and the poor. Libertarians advocate private tyranny.
"Capital is the problem, not capitalism or capitalists."
I have no idea what that means. What are you talking about?
"It's so tempting to say it's just a few people that are to blame but it's not the 1%"
Yes it is. What's causing most of the problems in society is the power of the wealthy and the financial elite - and of course the system in which they operate.
So do the libertarians want to restrict the rights of unions? If they do and that wasn't balanced with restrictions on employers then that would be hypocritical. Private tyranny? Could you give us an example? If there was no capital the human race would still be living an idyllic hunter-gatherer existence which came to an end when the early Agricultural societies began to grow more than they needed to provide for the lean years and the rest is history. So as we will always need to set a little something aside for the future and that little something is capital. Anyone with savings therefore is a capitalist. ICapital attracts thieves. The safest thing to do is put it in a bank. But you can't put corn or pigs in a bank. But your neighbour has gold so you swop pigs for gold. You get my drift. You work hard, you save, you deny yourself many little pleasures. Your friends laugh at you "Sure you never enjoy yourself, get a life" on Friday and tapping you for a loan on Monday. What do rich people do with their money? They buy luxury goods. They support the Art world, they create centres of learning and crafts that would have died away a long time ago. I cannot think of an art gallery or museum anywhere in the world That was paid for out of public funds and thank goodness for that because if socialist art is anything to go by..... No it is not just 1%. That figure just about describes percentage of the US population that belong to the millionaire class. But about 50% of the population live well. They have secure well paid jobs with good pensions. Their kids go to good universities, get good degrees and get good jobs "And so it goes on that thing of theirs" But now it is so easy, in a computerised society to maintain black lists not to mention the legion of spies that live among us watching our every move. If you have ever complained about anything or ever voiced an opinion about anything, or ever had an opinion about anything you are doomed. So you are well fucked. Have a trip around the suburbs one weekend. They stretch forever around the bay. Look at the homes with 2 or three cars and a camper. Go to the shopping malls, if you can get by the A list security guard and watch them waddling around in their designer clothes. It would be nice to think we only had 1% to worry about. Just a few old geriatrics. We could storm their palaces and string them up. No, they are big strapping people with shiny heads and huge biceps. They are armed to the teeth, trained in unarmed combat and keep savage dogs and despise losers like you. When you think of them then you don't walk so tall, then you don't talk so proud.
"Private tyranny? Could you give us an example?"
I talked about it here:
http://occupywallst.org/forum/abolish-capitalism/
And there's a video here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYxGkFxb7f4
"Anyone with savings therefore is a capitalist."
No, a capitalist is one who profits on other people's work by owning means of production etc. Capitalism must be abolished and replaced by a participatory democracy with communities and workers controlling the economy.
"But about 50% of the population live well."
Millions in the US live in poverty. That's unacceptable.
50% of the population live well and that is unacceptable, why? But at least you seem to accept that it's 50% and not 1%. "Capitalism is undermining democracy". No it's not. Capitalism thrives best in social democracies such as the Scandinavian countries for instance. It is not thriving in America at all at the moment and will continue to decline as democratic freedoms are eroded. "Capitalism is exploitative." They have to make a profit. They save their money, then they set up a business hoping to make their wages + what they would have earned in interest if they'd left in the bank and a bit more than that. Why on earth would they want to set up a business out of she goodness of their hearts. Why don't you set up a business? Save up a bit of money and start up selling hotdogs. Then invite a homeless person passing by to work with you and share the profits with him 50/50? "Capitalism is demoralizing and encourages greed" Who is demoralised and who are you to say they are? Why does it encourage greed?
"50% of the population live well and that is unacceptable, why?"
What? I didn't say that.
"Capitalism is undermining democracy". No it's not."
Yes it is. Read/watch the links.
"Capitalism thrives best in social democracies such as the Scandinavian countries for instance."
The scandinavian model is obviously better than american state-capitalism, but capitalism, in any way shape or form, should eventually be abolished.
"They have to make a profit."
That's one of the reasons why it has to be abolished.
"Why don't you set up a business?"
My perosnal affairs are not relevant for the political discussion.
"Who is demoralised and who are you to say they are? Why does it encourage greed?"
Read the article I linked to.
Please don't bother replying to this post if all you have to say " yes it is, yes it is, yes it is" You seem to be a prolific poster but you never have anything new to say. Please respond to what I am going to say intelligently and don't just pick on a few items. Of course they have to make a profit how are they supposed to live otherwise? Even state run agencies have to make a profic for gods sake. You say you never said that but it's in black an white right in front of you. I can't be bothered with this any more. You are obviously very young and you're mum and dad are proud of you and at least you can spell and punctuate well, but you are giving a very bad impression of socialism to everyone. It's great that you are taking an interest in politics now you need to move on and read some books. So I want you to find out for me how much the national wealth of the USA is Then find out what the population of the USA is. divide 99% of the National wealth by 1% of the population and work out what share each member of the 1% receive. Then do the same with the remaining 1/99%. Please do not reply until you've done this because I will not answer you. Get your Mum to help you with it.
"Please don't bother replying to this post if all you have to say " yes it is, yes it is, yes it is""
and then I said you should check out the links. You need to go thru the links again.
"You seem to be a prolific poster but you never have anything new to say."
What do you mean exactly. I'm just trying to convince people to embrace the ideas of libertarian socialism. If you don't like it, then don't read my stuff.
"Please respond to what I am going to say intelligently and don't just pick on a few items."
I'll pick whatever topics I want.
"Of course they have to make a profit how are they supposed to live otherwise?"
The most important thing is that production should be run democratically. Capitalism must therefore be dismantled.
"Even state run agencies have to make a profic for gods sake."
No, they don't. WHat makes you say that?
"You say you never said that but it's in black an white right in front of you."
No, I said it was unacceptable that so many live in poverty.
"You are obviously very young"
I'm not very young. I'm 32. But please leave my personal affairs out of this, that's irrelevant.
"but you are giving a very bad impression of socialism to everyone."
How so?
"It's great that you are taking an interest in politics now you need to move on and read some books."
That's it. I'm done with you.
Dont lie you are 14 at the most, female and you are doing great, for your age but although its kind of cute you dont have to agree with the grown ups all the time. Can't you be like that little girl who was the only one who said the emperor got no clothes. Somebody's got to do it.
If you someday into the future start behaving like a decent human being, then maybe I'll talk to you.
Bye!
OK you win. I thought you might like to know that I was just going to make my first post for along while yesterday when up popped your reply to my last post to you. That's definetely spooky. Say hi to mom and dad for me.
"government and state employees"? What have they done?
This individual is not going to be able to answer that. That would require critical thinking.
LOL. The comment seemed a bit disjointed and partisan but the govt employees just seemed out of place in their rant.
Well, you know, those that use that terminology can rarely decipher who does what. It ticks me off.
Their time is gonna come.
I feel a shift away from the right wing wacko, trickle down criminals, religious funemental cases. Slow progress yes, setbacks? unfortunately.
But every dog has their day and I take pleasure and comfort in that when I read some of these nonsensical, desperate, comments.
Does that mean you agree with me?
regarding what?
Am I the right wing wacko religious fundamentalist and what is a trickle down criminal? Did my post seem desperate and nonsensical? Please be frank.
I don't know what post you are referring to. but I do not immediately think of you as a religious fundamentalist, but I don't think of you as anything since I can't say I know you.
Trickle down is a criminal policy because it fraudulently asserts the wealthy will trickle down the money they make, when the reality is that they sit on it/hoard it for their own benefit alone. The truth is money naturally flows up, not down.
"desperate & nonsensical"?, Which post?
All government and state employees have to go through a vetting process. Do you think in this day and age that they are not going to weed out dissidents? You won't even even get a job as a bus driver now if there is anything on your record. I didn't mention the big corporations. OK Wal-Mart doesn't pay much but when they're hiring the queues stretch around the block and they employ an army of personnel officers to make sure they are not infiltrated by trouble makers. You have already blotted your copy book. The best thing you can do to save yourself is make a public recantation here on this forum and keep your mouth shut for ever. If it is already not to late.
Thanks.
Thank you for including more information in this version of your post. However you still need to research monetary devaluation.
Twinkle.
We’ve already been thru this. You have to stop obsessing about that topic, and start focusing on the important issues like democracy and social justice.
Now, what do you think about the article you now commented on?
Is there’s anything in the article that you disagree with?
I'm not obsessing. I could say the same about your view on captilsim. Am I? No. Be respectful and take the time to research devaluation, as I have with your information. In fact I'm working on injecting LS ideals into my local elections.
I agree with the majority of what was stated, however I disagree that it's the best way. We will always have a mixed economic society.
But you see, capitalism is a really important issue that we should focus on. What I've criticized you of is not focusing on the important issues.
It is things like democracy, social justice etc that should be the main focus.
What specifically is it that you like about Libertarian Socialism?
I don't see injecting a left/right paradigm into society as an important issue. As you pointed out socialist idealism can only be achieved when the people accept it.
Deregulation is an important issue, because any form of money is susceptible to censorship when you centralize the economy.
I specifically am utilizing open access to green technology, and collectivism to help my community self sustain itself. I have a plan if you'd like to read it I can email it to you.
There are many and often important differences between the ways of organizing society based on the core ideas of the left, and organizing society based on the core ideas of the right.
Deregulation is an important issue, yes. It's what's caused a lot of the problems we see today. Deregulation of the economy must be stopped and reversed. The economy is all encompassing, it must be controlled democratically by the people.
I don't see the purpose. I'm not a supporter of a left/right paradigm. Party wars has dismantled collectivism, to the point of where most conversations are focused on this issue. It's tiring. Unite, do not divide.
Agreed.
I'm talking about the fact that there are essential differences in the core values and solutions the left and right have. Capitalism and private ownership on the economic institutions is pretty different from participatory democracy and collective ownership, don't you think? These types of organizing society are incompatible.
Let me get this straight: so you agree that the economy must be controlled democratically by the people.
But you see you aren't truly seeing that our society isn't Captailist, it's Neo-fudelistic. We haven't had true capitalism in America. For example: barter and trade is a Captailist value. Do we end private property with the dying banking system?
Yes I do.
We don't have pure capitalism (that would be awful!); we have state-capitalism, but with private enterprise and capitalists having enormous power and control.
Private ownership on the economic institutions is not compatible with a participatory democracy and collective ownership, that was my point. And those pretty essential ideas are the kind of core differences between left and right.
I'm glad you agree that the economy must be controlled democratically by the people. So I assume you think that the economic institutions in society should be run democratically by the workers and the community, yes?
That's not what I was asking. I was referring to private property rights. Not banking control. I want the banking system decentralized in whole. But to get there I believe democratic banking would be beneficial. With that said I still believe that we must refuse the USD.
I didn't mention banks specifically. Private ownership on the means of production is unacceptable, obviously; Capitalism must be abolished.
But what do you think about democratic control of factories, industry etc? Do you think the workplaces in society should be run democratically by the workers and the community?
That again isn't what I was asking. I was speaking about personal property... IE(shirt, shoes, iPod, cars, ect.) are you seekingfor the dismantlement of that aspect as well?
I do think that democratic workplaces would be beneficial, only on the grounds society wants it this way.
"I can stand behind those ideas if and only if it is the will of the people."
Yes, you told me that already. But is that the society you'd most prefer?
Yes. I believe that a democratic control of workplace and economics is very beneficial to society.
It's the means of production/ the economic institutions that shouldn't be allowed to be owned privately, because its' undemocratic, exploitative, and immoral. Personal belongings, your sofa and Ipad, things that don't affect others, are of course yours to keep.
A libertarian socialist society can only become reality when the people and communities want it, obviously, but is that a society you personally and principally want to see come into place?
I can stand behind those ideas if and only if it is the will of the people.
My question is - who decides who gets what? The problem with social justice is that justice is an opinion.
jus·tice
/ˈjəstis/ Noun
Who defines fair and reasonable?
What is just treatment and just behavior?
Decitions in society should be based on that other thing I mentioned: democracy.
I don't agree that justice only is an opinion. I think we have some innate feelings of justice.
You just contradicted yourself in two sentences. You might have an innate feeling that you enjoy sexual encounters with men, while I have an innate feeling that I enjoy sexual encounters with men. This is called preference.
Preferences are the bases of opinions.
Therefor in my opinion it is not preferred to lay with men though innately you 'know' this to be whats JUST for you.
There are no contradictions.
There's no contradiction in advocating democracy, and at the same time acknowledging that humans have certain innate charcteristics.
Your example didn't make much sense.
So what happens when the natural greed of man intersects democracy? (Now mind you this hypothetical is way after the long list of implementation problems that are at the core of any paradigm changes that I have read proposed here)
Situation: A small 50 person company run democratically by its employees. 1/4 of the employees are new 1/4 are in the middle of their career 1/4 are in the ending years and 1/4 are of retirement age.
This said company makes, oh i dont know, fresh bread for local shops. It makes say 4,000,000 a year in profits. Split evenly thats $80,000 per person in wages and benefits. However, the company (factory, machinery, delivery trucks etc.) are worth 50,000,000.
The elder employees that are about to retire put a vote out that they want to liquidate the bread factory and split up the sales evenly. So the 1/4 that are about to retire vote yes, the 1/4 that are 10 years from retirement vote yes, and then one young guy figures hey, i can get a job somewhere else and have 1,000,000 bucks in my pocket. However, 49% of the company are not okay with this decision because they want to work for another 20 years (1.6 million left to make) and feel they will be screwed in the deal.
To bad, they vote to sell it and everyone is out of a job.
No put this into practice in virtually ANY company no matter how large or small. Human green + democracy = bad outcome.
In a real participatory democracy, the greed is at the minimum; as are greedy workers making alliences etc.
The details within the democratically run institution must be worked out by the workforce and the community in which they spend their time; it's not up to me to give some detailed explanation as to how people should control their lives and work. The point is that people should be able to be free, and have a democratic say in the things they're a part of.
That is best achieved in a society based on anarcho-syndicalist/anarcho-communist principles.
I disagree. SFF did have a great point concerning democratically run economic institutions. When you decentralize money, the citizens control the trickle. If alternative, non-centralized currencies are regulated by he citizens, prosperity and true wealth can exist.
Now this isn't the same wealth as in capitalist terms. I'm talking about mere self-sustainment.
Social justice in terms of economic terrorism must be corrected. Social injustice is seen everywhere: economic cabals, racism, sexism, anti-LGBT sentiments, ect. And so forth. These injustices are not mere opinions, but grievances against our citizens.
[Removed]
So what do you think would fix these problems? You can not just simply legislate 'fairness'. Affirmative action is a prime example.
af·firm·a·tive ac·tion
Noun An action or policy favoring those who tend to suffer from discrimination, esp. in relation to employment or education; positive..
rac·ism noun 1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others. 2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
By definition affirmative action becomes the monster it attempts sequester. The only hope for "racism, sexism, anti-LGBT sentiments, ect. And so forth." is the homogenizing of society through positive interaction, not by creating a system fosters difference and reinforces negative sentiments towards the favored class, race, sex etc.
We need to identify things that make us similar and constantly reiterate those similarities. At the same time we need to teach APATHY, yes APATHY towards that which makes us different. Indifference to difference allows cultures to co-exist without one trying to force their culture/beliefs upon each other.
The constant compartmentalizing and labeling of race, sex, gay, religious creates prejudges. If you know me as just another person without forcing an identity on me you can no longer 'pre-judge' me.