User Tag List

First 12

Results 11 to 15 of 15

  1. #11
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    His policies were more Socialist overall than most presidents, which is why I didn't call hima Socialist, I was refering to some of the policies he pushed.
    That's built upon the basic assumption that big government = socialism. That's not necessarily so. This issue was even addressed in 1912 by Hilaire Belloc in The Servile State.


    The opposition to these policies came from specific politically minded factions, they did not represent the country well enough to keep FDR from winning in a landslide, even before the war was an issue.
    It was more of an issue that after the assasination of Long, there wasn't anybody who had the skill to oppose Roosevelt.

    It's kjind of like Eisenhower said, the people who attempt to change FDR's new deal policies will never succeed, because they are immensely popular, and anyone who tries is, he did in fact say, "stupid".
    Do you have the source for that? I'd really be interesting in reading that.

    There are several problems with this form of argumentation, but I can't be bothered at the moment.

    Sure, so did Bismarck, but doing so effectively made Bismarck one of the most substantial figures in the history of state Socialism.
    We certainly saw the final results of Bismarck's scheme now didn't we? As one commentator put it, "We're all Prussians now".

    The reason why the policies were adopted don't really matter.
    Actually it does.


    Maybe the blame falls on those failed attempts to change it. That's a very complicated debate, and it's not really important to this topic. I'm not asking if Roosevelt was good, this was about comparing the present/future with the past.
    You brought up the analogy to Roosevelt, and how popular his policies were. So you opened up the discussion, whether you intended to or not.


    And no, we are not necessarily living under the same system, certainly not in entirety.
    I never said we were living under the same system in entirety. I said it's still the same basic system as the one set up under FDR. Just like the Soviet people were still living under the same system set up by Lenin and Stalin when they were ruled by Brezhnev.

    The problem with idealists (which I assume you are) is that you don't have a realistic amount of patience, or enough appreciation of details.
    Hmmmn that's very interesting. I tend to take the long-term view of things, and know that things don't change overnight.

    As for details, yeah well I tend to focus on the big picture. I could say you lack appreciation for that.

  2. #12
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    That's built upon the basic assumption that big government = socialism. That's not necessarily so. This issue was even addressed in 1912 by Hilaire Belloc in The Servile State.
    No. I'm building my idea of Socialism on what it does for people. The government could be big or small, and still be Socialist regardless.

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    It was more of an issue that after the assasination of Long, there wasn't anybody who had the skill to oppose Roosevelt.
    I'd argue that FDR had circumstances well on his side either way.


    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    Do you have the source for that? I'd really be interesting in reading that.
    In case you want to nitpick, I know that I paraphrased, and I also know that Eisenhower disliked a great deal of the concepts of large government, in a very Republican way, but the point was acknowledging that FDR brought about things that should not reasonably be undone.

    Here you go.
    snopes.com: Eisenhower on Social Security

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    There are several problems with this form of argumentation, but I can't be bothered at the moment.
    I suppose you would firstly suggest that I was committing a fallacious appeal to authority?

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    We certainly saw the final results of Bismarck's scheme now didn't we? As one commentator put it, "We're all Prussians now".
    Way, way too many factors there. I think it would be a severe case of questionable cause to use Bismarck's whole career, and perhaps even the effects of his career, as an example of things that happen because of Socialism.

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    Actually it does.
    It could only matter in that it might give us an idea of what a person will do in the future, based on intent.

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    You brought up the analogy to Roosevelt, and how popular his policies were. So you opened up the discussion, whether you intended to or not.
    I did not bring up if he was good or bad. I said his policies were popular at the time, which does not imply good, nor would it imply that his policies are necessarily right or effective.

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    I never said we were living under the same system in entirety. I said it's still the same basic system as the one set up under FDR. Just like the Soviet people were still living under the same system set up by Lenin and Stalin when they were ruled by Brezhnev.
    That still leaves "basic" up in the air. Never the less, societies truly don't change over night (or when they do, it usually hurts more than it helps), and instead many small changes are the path to changing the over all, basic foundation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    Hmmmn that's very interesting. I tend to take the long-term view of things, and know that things don't change overnight.
    Well there you have it. As I said, many small changes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    As for details, yeah well I tend to focus on the big picture. I could say you lack appreciation for that.
    I appreciate the big picture, but I know that it is the sum of its parts.

    Anyway, I think this thread is being taken in the incorrect direction.
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  3. #13
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    No. I'm building my idea of Socialism on what it does for people. The government could be big or small, and still be Socialist regardless.
    True, there are various forms of socialism. I myself favor more non-statist forms of socialism. I follow in the footsteps of men like Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, William Morris, George Orwell, and of course Charles Peguy - among many others.

    I'd argue that FDR had circumstances well on his side either way.
    You can certainly argue that, but it's still debatable.

    In case you want to nitpick, I know that I paraphrased, and I also know that Eisenhower disliked a great deal of the concepts of large government, in a very Republican way, but the point was acknowledging that FDR brought about things that should not reasonably be undone.

    Here you go.
    snopes.com: Eisenhower on Social Security
    I always like to see the greater context in which such statements are made. Anyways, thank you, this certainly brings Eisenhower's comments in more perpsective.

    Even here Eisenhower is warning about the over-concentration of power in the Federal government; which is a grave concern on my part. I'm not here to defend "Texas oil billionaires", but rather the dignity of the common man and his ability to stand on his own feet.

    Does that mean I'm against welfare in toto? No, but I believe it should implemented in accordance with the principles of Federalism and subsidiarity. That means welfare programs are first and foremost managed and implemented at the lowest levels: in the private sectors and/or local governments. The main task of the Federal government should be to mainly supplmenent these endeavors.

    See I believe in welfare programs and "socialism" that flows from the grassroots up, not imposed from the top down. That's why I am against the welfare state and FDR's legacy.

    So in many ways I can now accuse you of misusing Eisenhower to set up a strawman.

    I suppose you would firstly suggest that I was committing a fallacious appeal to authority?
    No, actually I would firstly suggest you're using sophistry to try to paint FDR's welfare state as an inevitable and unalterable fact; which is it not. Appeals to inevitability is often the last resort to failed ideas.

    Secondly, we could bring up the larger argument about FDR's policies fitting perfectly well with the nature of mass society, and how the masses often enjoy their bread and circuses. The Roman mob loved Caesar as he usurped power and destroyed the foundations of the Roman Republic.

    Of course, this need not lead one to upholding an elitist attitude like that José Ortega y Gasset, author of Revolt of the Masses. I take a similar position as Proudhon and Kierkegaard, of critiquing the nature of mass-society for the way it destroys any geniune sense of human individuality and community. Democracy and socialism can only built upon a firm foundation of actual concrete communities. The mass welfare state firmly wishes to destroy this foundation, and govern over a mass of atomized people.

    As Carl Jung himself stated:
    "The mass State has no intention of promoting mutual understanding and the relationship of man to man; it strives, rather, for atomization, for the psychic isolation of the individual. The more unrelated individuals are, the more consolidated the State becomes, and vice versa...The question of human relationship and of the inner cohesion of our society is an urgent one in view of the atomization of the pent-up mass man, whose personal relationships are undermined by general mistrust."
    --cited in The Knowledge of Man: Selected Essays, pg. 16
    This viewpoint is also addressed by numerous other accross the spectrum, including but certainly not limited to: Ferdinand Tönnies, Robert Nisbet, Michael J. Sandel, Christopher Lasch, Hilaire Belloc, GK Chesterton, Ernst Jünger, Georges Bernanos, Jacques Maritain, Emmanuel Mounier, Martin Buber, Wilhelm Röpke, and numerous others. I'll be more than happy to present the particular views of many of these writers in this discussion if you wish.

    There's plenty of legitimate arguments against the welfare state that delve deep into issues concerning political and social theory.


    Way, way too many factors there. I think it would be a severe case of questionable cause to use Bismarck's whole career, and perhaps even the effects of his career, as an example of things that happen because of Socialism.
    You brought Bismarck up as an example of state socialism, not me. I agree Bismarck is a good example of such, and also a good example of what often happens with such a system. Of course there are many factors involved here, but right now we're touching on the general facts here.

    I did not bring up if he was good or bad. I said his policies were popular at the time, which does not imply good, nor would it imply that his policies are necessarily right or effective.
    Nevertheless, the ethical and moral implications of such policies need to be addressed in order to gain a more comprehensive perspective on the issues.

    Well there you have it. As I said, many small changes.
    That's very cute. You've already made numerous false claims and assumptions about me; in this particular case claiming I'm impatient for change. Then you decide to go on a lecturing tour of why gradual change is better, all of which of course is a strawman since I never argued otherwise. Then here, when it becomes clear I'm in favor of gradual changes, you claim "Well see, I was right all along."

    Very dishonest on your part.

    Anyway, I think this thread is being taken in the incorrect direction.
    Discussions often take unintended directions, and you need to be able to go with the flow. The larger implications of the welfare state have not given the proper attention they deserve, and I wish to address them.

  4. #14
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,909

    Default



    There's something funny in you accusing me of using a strawman argument. In order to make that accusation, you had to go out on a limb and assert all these things about me, my stance, or my intentions that were not ever stated. In other words, you had to build a stawman to accuse me of using one myself.

    So... In general, I'm not responding to that post point by point, because I think I can give a pretty summarized response. You are trying much too hard to determine what I'm not saying, as oppose to what I am saying. You're trying to fill in all these blanks about my ideas, based on what, I don't know. It's almost like psychoanalysis, and it's not necessary, nor even constructive. The way you are handling this conversation reminds me of a joke. "I know what he was doing, he was testing to see if I was paranoid, but I didn't fall for that trick!". Get it? You seem like you are trying too hard to figure out in advance what my beliefs and intentions are. It results in you arguing gainst your personal concept of what I represent, rather than arguing against me.

    Additionally, I don't think the things you talk about have to be discussed here. Why not somewhere else? And you say one has to follow the flow of the discussion, but determines the flow? You seem to be acting as if you do. You are hijacking the thread at this point, because even after I say "I don't really want to talk about this, this wasn't my purpose for the thread" you keep pressing it anyway. And no, the two subjects are not inseperable. determining whether the present repeats the past, or how the future will unfold, does have to involve determining what philosophies are good or bad.
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  5. #15
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Ask me again after we find out whether Obama gets a fillibuster-proof Senate. I certainly think he'll try to be the next FDR, though. I don't think he'll be able to achieve, and certainly not maintain, that kind of popularity, but a government thoroughly dominated by the radical wing of the Democratic party is capable of doing a lot of long-term damage in just two years.

    Barring unforeseen health problems from the "center-right" majority on the Supreme Court, his potential damage to the highest echolon of the judicial system (my primary concern) should be limited, but his other appointments will give left-wing judges superficially greater experience/qualifications than their originalist counterparts.

Similar Threads

  1. Who Is More the Buffoon: Obama or Bush II?
    By Mal12345 in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 11-01-2014, 12:42 PM
  2. Some people say that you are unlikely to vote in the next election. Is this true?
    By ygolo in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 48
    Last Post: 07-26-2012, 04:31 PM
  3. How well is Obama doing with the economy?
    By Giggly in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 06-11-2009, 01:30 PM
  4. Is Obama the Messiah?
    By booyalab in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 77
    Last Post: 11-06-2008, 02:01 AM
  5. Why is Obama ahead in the polls?
    By Jack Flak in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 88
    Last Post: 10-28-2008, 05:43 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO