Economic or Social Restrictions

[Danneskjold]

Ok, so the title is a little bit of a hyperbole/slippery slope, but oh well. Got your attention didn't it?

Anyway's heres the way I see it. The two most prominent parties in America are the Republicans who are increasingly controlled by the Religious Right, and the Democrats who are increasingly socialist and restrictive towards business in general. Leadership by only one side for a long time will destroy America, or at the very least the America that we remember/used to have. Also, both will, the way I see it, lead to the other no matter what. If the business is bad then government comes to control everything economic, if the government controls everything economic then there are very few things that you can do with whatever freedoms may be left. On the flip side if the government controls everything social/cultural then there is very little use for your economic freedom because the government restricts what you can do with it.

So the question is, if one of the two parties was in power and chipped away at one of the freedoms which they hate so much (supposing every member voted based solely on party lines) , which one would turn America totalitarian faster? (I am quite aware that this whole scenario probably has about ten logical fallacies in it, but that's why it's hypothetical)

[Chris Grieb]

Jeff; Which party is more dangerous? Peikoff in the last election said the GOP was. Others take the postion that both are equal. A few say the Democrats. Both parties have mixed elements. Both parties include members who are willing to give subsidies to some of their voters. There is sadly no strong pro-freedom person in either party who has a national following. Let's have more discussion and see where things turn out.

[Danneskjold]

I would love to have more discussion, but it seems like the whole politics forum is dead. I personally think that you would be very hard pressed to find a large number of immediatly at risk (not in Bill of Rights) freedoms that you can take away that dont involve economics. Since big businesses give so much to campaigns, amongst other reasons, it will take much longer for the social restrictions to move into the economic area. So Republicans, being backed by business as they are, will be reluctant to move away from their base.

Also, Americans as they are today are far more willing to take away from business. The majority of people have selfish intent whether or not they will admit it, because of this they are reluctant to remove their own freedoms and are far more willing to take away freedom of business. Short sighted as people are, they don't realize that this will eventually only make it so they have less freedoms themselves.

Of course these are all based on party platform, things vary from individual to individual. Also this whole situation is slippery slope but we're applying slippery slope to both sides so it's fair.

[Chris Grieb]

Their is some anti-business feeling but you should consider that in 1960 at the end of a GOP administration the Justice department was willing to send electical company executives to jail. You might also consider that only public person to condemn this outrage was Ayn Rand. No one thought Bill Gates was going to jail in the Micro-Soft anti trust case. I think the big problem continues to be entitlements espically Medicare and Social Security. The biggest new cost to government is of course the prescription drug benefit.

[jack9f]

“Republicans who are increasingly controlled by the Religious Right” and “Republicans, being backed by business as they are”

Well, which one of these pieces of propaganda do you subscribe to?

and “The majority of people have selfish intent whether or not they will admit it”

I will admit it! And what wrong with that?

[Danneskjold]

Gay marriage, abortion, stem cell research. Which of those is not against the Republican party line? Which of those has a non-religious reason behind the opposition. I may be making the mistake of mixing up Bush with Republicans in retrospection.

Backed by big business? I personally don't have a problem with it. Really I was trying to present it as one of their upsides. (It being the reason that they will not be quick to place regulations on big business)

As for the selfish intent I was not representing that as a bad thing either. Only trying to make the point that they will be less likely to deal with restriction to their own freedoms to a point (or it will take much more to push them to the point where they will give them up), as opposed to big business where people are more than willing to restrict the freedoms of big business and businessmen. This I was presenting as a reason that the democrats are more dangerous than the republicans. Nothing is wrong with selfish intent. I did not mean it as a bad thing, just a statement of fact.

[Chris Grieb]

Jeff; James Taggart and Orrin Boyle were both big businessmen. Businessmen have been both victims and executioners over our long history.

[Danneskjold]

Which businessman is trying to be the better businessman? The one who puts restrictions on himself (Democrat party line) or the one who tries to reduce them (Republican party line)?

[jack9f]

"Gay marriage, abortion, stem cell research."

Many Republicans support those things, but they do not get my vote. On stem cell research I'll remind you it was "Embryonic stem cells” and the ban was only on Federal spending for such.

Ayn Rand was not a supporter of homosexuals and I don't think that was a religious view.

All I was trying to point out is that the simple view of Democrats being for the working people and the GOP being for big business is outmoded at best and pure propaganda at worst. Since I’m nearer Genghis Khan than George W. Bush that type on thing jumps out at me and I have to challenge it.

Thank you for your comments

[mikelee999]

Bear with me, this is going to take a minute....

A few years ago, I married into a Southern, Bible-belt/thumping family. They're so conservative, they think Phyllis Schlafly is hot. Gay marriage is the legitimation of abomination. Prayer belongs in schools, said in unison next to the 10 Commandments plaque.

My new stepson got married in a small church in a smaller town in Kentucky. The guy who did all the food and who did the American Idol serious contestant impression at the wedding was openly and flamboyantly (for Kentucky) gay. Other openly gay couples were in attendance, and were treated warmly, and not in that Southern "Bless your heart!" way either. They were part of the community.

Racially, it was 90% white, but the other 10% was a real rainbow coalition, including a mixed-race couple or few. Nobody could stop snapping pictures of the 7-year-old black ring-bearer and the 6-year old little blonde flower girl hugging each other.

I'm sure there were some sourpusses grousing about the degeneration of decent standards, but they didn't do it overtly. I talked to a lot of people, and I'm the kind of person people know they can say mean stuff to too, and I couldn't elicit one single banjo-pickin' comment all day.

My in-laws think I'm going to hell and they treat me very well. They pray for me non-stop. We had one frank talk and since then they cheerfully tolerate my infidelity and I've learned to respect their piety. I mean, seriously respect it, not tolerate it. They are very good people, kind and charitable and involved in a way that makes Mayberry RFD look like Detroit. I think their faith is bunk, but it really is at the center of their lives and organizes and motivates them. Their opinions appall me and their actions inspire me. Here I am, so much more morally sophisticated than they are, proving that sophistication carries you only so far.

I live in Seattle, where we all know we're smarter, better, faster, stronger than those benighted troglodytes in the tornado states. Since moving here, my wife, a Vanderbilt graduate, has had to deal with more than one "Bless your heart!" moment from the liberal ladies who lunch too munch. Except that here in Seattle "Bless your heart!" is replaced with an interrogatory charmlessness and gracelessness that nobody in the South could ever muster. I'm learning the real meaning of provincial while watching my wife elegantly slice and dice these self-inured graduates of Wymyn's/Environmental/Fluffer Studies programs.

The liberal ladies don't even know they've been sliced or diced because my wife's Southern shigawire is so delicate that the lurching lunching ladies coalesce back into harpy form unaware that their bodies were momentarily like their minds, a random collection of floating pig parts held together by nothing but inertia.

Here's my point: I'm not surprised the Right is going for Guiliani. Unlike the whackjob luftmenschen who form the fund-raising core of the Democrats, the Right is mostly composed of people who have served in the military, built successful businesses, raised families and learned something about how the world works and the trade-offs it forces on you. They may not like it, but they deal with it. Most of the Democrat base are a bunch of jackoffing jackasses who've never done a thing but demand things.

People on the right recognize a fellow traveler in Rudy. He's not full of shit, and that's what really counts if you want to win the conservative base. This is why McCain's resume can't save him.

This post could come back to haunt me, but I don't think so. I've been to right-wing territory a lot the last few years, and I like them way more than I ever thought I could. They don't care if Guiliani got once, twice, three times a lady--kick Islamist butt is what they care about.

Bottom line: Democrats and Leftists are a far bigger threat to real freedom than guys who love NASCAR and wouldn't think twice about taking a swing at a cop if he got out of line.

Mike Lee

Christianist atheist

[Danneskjold]

Well, I definitely agree with you to some degree. However, I just got a taste of what everyone calls the fascist side of the Republican Party when I was at Oregon's unofficial Republican Convention last weekend. We were talking about real ID, a system that would put a whole bunch of fun stuff in your driver's license including something that could be used as a tracking device. It would be necessary to enter certain buildings and such as well. It passed, narrowly, but it passed. It was confusing to me, how could people ever vote for that?

Also, I was looking at my Rome unit in History of Western Civilization, and the teacher was talking about how redistribution of wealth saved the Roman economy. He was right. The thing is that the need for the economic laws redistributing wealth were caused by restrictions on social freedoms.

As far as Guiliani goes, I'm really not sure about the guy. I don't trust him not to try to take everyone's gun away so long as he has a democrat congress.

[reason.on]

Ok, so the title is a little bit of a hyperbole/slippery slope, but oh well. Got your attention didn't it?

Anyway's heres the way I see it. The two most prominent parties in America are the Republicans who are increasingly controlled by the Religious Right, and the Democrats who are increasingly socialist and restrictive towards business in general.

I have to say that I think the above impression is little more than a stereotype, and not very accurate. The actual impact that any sort of organized "religious right" has in American politics is blown way, way out of proportion (their are several statistical studies which detail their impact in both the 2000 and 2004 elections), and it is the Democrats who more and more appropriate religion into their plainly socialist campaigns and politics (which extend FAR, FAR beyond "business" in their scope). The religious left is just as, if not more, influential in American politics as the right. Observe how BOTH Obama and Clinton cited bible passages in their speeches in Selma recently....

Obama is overtly religious (more so than Bush, even), and Clinton will certainly use Jesus as she believes she must to serve her megalomania and quest for power.

RCR

Edited March 6, 2007 by R. Christian Ross

[reason.on]

On stem cell research I'll remind you it was "Embryonic stem cells" and the ban was only on Federal spending for such.

Thanks Ivan for point that out here, it is rarely acknowledged even in libertarian circles, where, btw, no one should be for Federal funding of any science initiatives, what-so-ever.

RCR