@Cole: Thanks for the response. One thing I notice (and again, this isn't mean as taking a shot at you) is that you view your opinions as obvious absolute truths that everyone should know and agree with. And while I hesitate to make a sweeping generalization about you when I don't even know you in real life, I strongly suspect that part of that stems from the fact that you aren't overly exposed to opposing views from any source that you would consider reasonable. By that, I mean that in your age group, your political philosophy is the majority view and you aren't regularly exposed to others in your peer group who can rationally explain an opposing viewpoint. Or, to be more blunt (and to unfortunately come across more condescending than I intend this to be), it is a naive set of views in that it doesn't take into account the fact that there are a LOT of people who rationally disagree. Anyhow...
I find myself both agreeing and disagreeing with this. No, I don't feel that my views express universal truth any more than you think yours do. The thing is, they are my views, so I am obviously incredibly biased toward them. I understand the opposing view; I just happen to disagree with it. Naturally, I think my views are "best" while others are...not as good.
This isn't meant to sound mean or anything, but if this weren't the case, they wouldn't be my views. I also understand your view that at this point in my life, I am a sheep who is following the herd that is my generation (*wicked bass solo*.) I would agree that my views are similar to many of my age who have somewhat of a decent where with all when it comes to thinking in this vain, however, many of my views differ from the norm. I understand there are a lot of people that disagree, but that doesn't make my views any less..."right?" in the sense that I feel they would work. I appreciaite the well articulated opinion though and reading it helps me interact with those who don't see my view.
1. Strongly disagree with this on many levels. First, I do not believe that capitalism is a cause at all. It is merely one of MANY systems that allow such a disparity--a disparity I must point out that exists in literally every single political system on earth that has ever existed. Second, I disagree that the "lower percent suffer miserably." Not that there aren't some how do. But if you believe the poor in this country are worse off, or even comparable, to the poor in other countries, you are mistaken. But it's hard to know and appreciate that fact if you haven't experienced poverty first hand, including poverty in other places.
I agree there is a rich/poor gap in every country in the world. I just so happen to believe that in a capitalistic system, the odds of the gap being bigger are much greater. My problem with free market capitalism is that is goes against many of my moral codes. In a complete free market capitalistic society, those who can't do for whatever reason are left to suffer because of it. I'm not that naive to know that those with higher IQs will most likely make more of themselves with lower IQs but that does not mean that we should brush off the people who aren't as gifted in ability. Another thing that bothers me is the idea of the "American Dream" when it comes to capitalism. As much as right wing libratarians want to say that anyone can achieve anything with hard work, it is a fallacy. There are many mitigating factors and we can't sum up a system with "work hard and you'll do fine." Personally, I like Lenin's NEP. He had the government take control of big bussiness and industry, yet let free market capitalism reign with small stores like smoke shops, resturants, etc.
2. Maybe. I think I partly agree. But again, I'm not 100% sure I understand exactly what you are arguing.
I'm not really making an argument here. I'm merely stating that this is a way the government has failed. Making it hard to do something is one thing. Making it impossible is another. Here, we have to deal with the innate selfishness of man. If people cared about their country, they would pass the bills they think would make their country better. There are democrats out there who are pro-life. There are republicans out there who are pro-gay marriage. The issue is, they won't vote the way they feel so they can continue being reelected and continue receiving lobbies and the like.
3. I'm not sure it's outdated. Maybe it is, but I'm not sure. And it is "used," but I think you mean if it is used to elect someone that does not reflect the "popular vote," that there would be massive uproar. Yeah, there would be. And that is one of the important checks and balances against the electoral college acting arbitrarily.
You and I both agree that if the electoral college elected someone who did not win the popular (well...you get what I mean) votes, there would be chaos. You then say that our checks and balance system against them would prevent that from happening. If that's the case, what's the point?
4. Not true at all. The vast majority of domestic political issues have been solved through nonviolence. And as far as foreign affairs, it's a mixed bag. There is plenty of diplomacy. And there is plenty of...what you would refer to as "diplomacy at the barrel of a gun." But, as with the poverty issue, that is something that is present in almost every society. And those that are exceptions to the general rule function in a way that is so different from how the U.S. functions that I don't believe those nations can serve as viable models for how this country could run. You may disagree with the extent of it, but that's different than arguing that we are simply a bloodthirsty nation of conquerors. Really, I personally don't believe that is the case. But the bottom line is that while we can disagree over the specifics, even in general, you can't say we don't use diplomacy to solve problems. You are focusing on the conflicts vs. the vast majority of issues that are solved without conflict.
Explain to me that if we did not have this violent nature (you could even call it a MIC, tying it back to a capitalistic system) why is it that we have been around as a country for less than 240 years, yet we have participated in as many wars as we have? Maybe it's just the people I'm around, but I've become increasingly cynical and jaded over the "We need to fight for democracy" people. I constantly talk to a friend of mine who is of the opinion that "If men did not have the courage to fight a war, we wouldn't be here today." This...is true. Why I think it's true and why he thinks it's true are completely different, however. To me, if there was no war, well...I don't know what it would be like. It wouldn't be
this. Now, I'm not saying that this is all bad, but I'm saying something needs to be done. Since the cavemen, we have settled our problems using violence, and because of the amazing thing called Darwinian evolution, that has been injected into our genes. I am not so naive to think I can change human nature. All I want, is to try to get people to understand that their impulses might not be the best thing to follow. If we start thinking non-violently, down the road, we will become non-violent.
It is nice to have a real conversation with you by the way.
Topic: Wall Street Protests (Read 73587 times)
