| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| apl4eris |
Posted - 07/09/2004 : 11:46:07
"Independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader and Howard Dean, the ex-governor of Vermont and former Democratic presidential candidate, debate the role of third parties in U.S. elections. Dean argues that Nader's candidacy could help re-elect President Bush in November. Nader says both parties are too beholden to corporate interests."
You can listen live now. You can hear the archived (knock down drag out) debate here:
New Link:
http://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wfId=3262027
And since Nader's voice doesn't get equal play, here's a link to his stand on issues.
http://www.votenader.org/issues/index_home.php
 RIP Little Bucharest: Yuppies. They don't eat goulash. |
| 26 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| VoVat |
Posted - 07/12/2004 : 11:05:30
I don't know that Americans, on average, are any dumber than the inhabitants of any other nation. On the other hand, begeegs never actually said that the Brits are any smarter than we are.
Cattle in Korea / They can really moo. |
| Erebus |
Posted - 07/12/2004 : 10:15:22
quote:
Originally posted by Scarla O
"Frankly, I don't think capitalism needs to be extolled to remain "dominant" simply because it is consistent with basic, selfish human nature (and with ALL nature, for that matter). Another significant distinction to be made is between "top-down" ideologies like socialism, fascism, and even universal altruism, which MUST be promulgated from the top precisely because they are against human nature, and "bottom-up" ideologies like capitalism which derive from human nature."
Erebus, you talk about the dangers of an inflexible ideology but your talk of re. human nature seems pretty entrenched...some might even say dogmatic. On what do you base your assessment of human nature? How can you disassociate human nature from the social fabric in which the individual is woven? You speak as though there is some intrinsic human nature? You have ever wondered whether there really is any such thing?
My view of human nature derives from Richard Dawkins' "selfish gene" theory, to the effect that the DNA of those organisms that have evolved to behave so as to best selfishly replicate their own DNA, and enhance the replication the DNA like their own, will become more numerous in the gene pool than will that of organisms less successful at such "selfish" replication. Consistent with that, we would expect that any altruism exhibited by such selfish replicators will have evolved to be focused on those possessing DNA like their own. Conversely, those organisms that exhibit altruism toward organisms with DNA unlike their own will be "wasting" their resources enhancing the replication of competitor DNA, thereby reducing the replication of their own DNA. I realize that within a species individuals are more similar than different, but by this theory it is the differences that matter when it comes to making discriminations regarding where to altruistically distribute one's resources. I also realize that culture does play a large role, but I would suggest that, all other things being equal, those cultures which inculcate less discriminating altruism will be at a disadvantage to those who more efficiently target their altruism.
This is a quite "quick and dirty" outline of where I'm coming from but that's what I mean when I refer to nature, human and otherwise. Yes, it is rather dogmatic, but if the basic principles are valid then there will be very little variability, in regard to organismic impulses to selfishness and altruism, in that nature that resultingly evolves. An additional implication of the theory is that analysis of organismic behavior, to include human behavior, will be most accurate when it is conducted at the level of DNA, as opposed to at the level of individual organisms. The gene, not the organism, is the unit of selection. Unless you are already on board with where I'm coming from, I guess this will be clear as mud, simply because this account doesn't come close to connecting all the dots or meeting most basic objections. I await correction and/or clarification from darwin and others, should they care to get into this. |
| darwin |
Posted - 07/12/2004 : 09:52:56
quote:
Originally posted by begeegs
Unfortunately, I don't think that you will ever see a popular 3rd party in the US until they actually dump their winner takes all system and come up with a more of a European approach with the form of electoral government (percentage based). Big-money must also be eliminated as the McCain-Feingold bill is still not enough.
Also, a more informed electorate would help a great deal, but perhaps I am hoping for too much.
I'm no burning patriot, but it irks me a bit to have someone from another country basically call us dumb. Many of us are very well informed and I'm willing to bet that on average we aren't any less informed than the people of most other countries. |
| begeegs |
Posted - 07/12/2004 : 09:18:08
Unfortunately, I don't think that you will ever see a popular 3rd party in the US until they actually dump their winner takes all system and come up with a more of a European approach with the form of electoral government (percentage based). Big-money must also be eliminated as the McCain-Feingold bill is still not enough.
Also, a more informed electorate would help a great deal, but perhaps I am hoping for too much. |
| Scarla O |
Posted - 07/12/2004 : 08:59:46
"I agree that children will be brainwashed under any system. My preference would be for all children to be taught how to think, not what to think."
Yep, i hope we'd all agree with that one
"Frankly, I don't think capitalism needs to be extolled to remain "dominant" simply because it is consistent with basic, selfish human nature (and with ALL nature, for that matter). Another significant distinction to be made is between "top-down" ideologies like socialism, fascism, and even universal altruism, which MUST be promulgated from the top precisely because they are against human nature, and "bottom-up" ideologies like capitalism which derive from human nature."
Erebus, you talk about the dangers of an inflexible ideology but your talk of re. human nature seems pretty entrenched...some might even say dogmatic. On what do you base your assessment of human nature? How can you disassociate human nature from the social fabric in which the individual is woven? You speak as though there is some intrinsic human nature? You have ever wondered whether there really is any such thing?
|
| Erebus |
Posted - 07/12/2004 : 08:39:47
quote:
Originally posted by VoVat
[quote:
Additionally, socialism and communism inevitably involve brainwashing of children, again robbing them of their individuality.
I don't see how this is any more inevitable in a socialistic society than in any other. I would imagine there's a certain amount of brainwashing in ANY society, inasmuch as extolling the virtues of the dominant system can be considered brainwashing. There are quite a few myths that are prevalent in a capitalistic society, like "work hard, and you'll get rich," and "you can have any job you want." And I think a lot of children are led to believe these myths. Is that brainwashing?
I agree that children will be brainwashed under any system. My preference would be for all children to be taught how to think, not what to think. Frankly, I don't think capitalism needs to be extolled to remain "dominant" simply because it is consistent with basic, selfish human nature (and with ALL nature, for that matter). Another significant distinction to be made is between "top-down" ideologies like socialism, fascism, and even universal altruism, which MUST be promulgated from the top precisely because they are against human nature, and "bottom-up" ideologies like capitalism which derive from human nature.
Incidentally, regarding the brainwashing issue, nothing riles me so much as hearing a five year old, or a fifteen year old for that matter, who already "knows" what he thinks, whether it involves faith in god, ideas on abortion (pro or anti), race, politics, or anything that properly belongs within the province of adult thought. To my mind, any adults who infect children with full-blown ideologies or intellectual conclusions before those children are able to at least somewhat think for themselves are guilty of nothing less than intellectual/cognitive child abuse.
Please do not think that I am trying to chastise you or attribute to you any of the positions above with which I disagree. As is usually my intent, I am simply trying explain my position. I know that I tend to come off rather dryly, to put it mildly, but in fact that is usually precisely my intent. I try to express myself clearly, in as few words as possible, but often I seem to fail to get my meaning across, possibly because I am usually thinking against the flow of the forum culture but more probably because I have hardly mastered the art of clear expression. |
| Scarla O |
Posted - 07/12/2004 : 02:35:13
quote:
Originally posted by Erebus
quote:
Originally posted by VoVat
I fail to see what an economic system has to do with individuality.
Cattle in Korea / They can really moo.
Socialism FORCES those who do not endorse its premises contribute, via taxes, to socialist ends. One's individual resources have been stolen, thus negating one's individual will."
Oooh that must be hard mustn't it? Funny though because you know? i don't feel any less free because of the taxes i pay...though i do resent the fact that the property-owning classes can sit on their fat asses whilst the propertyless are obliged to do their dirty work.
|
| VoVat |
Posted - 07/11/2004 : 16:30:29
quote:
Charity should be voluntary.
Perhaps so, but that's very idealistic. What if people don't contribute to charity? Should the less fortunate be forced to die in the streets?
quote:
And if one has the misfortune to die too young to collect benefits and without a sanctioned beneficiary, one completely sacrifices the money one has been forced to contribute. One's individual resources have been stolen, thus negating one's individual will.
So someone who doesn't have individual resources doesn't have an individual will? In that case, is free will a privilege of the rich?
quote:
Additionally, socialism and communism inevitably involve brainwashing of children, again robbing them of their individuality.
I don't see how this is any more inevitable in a socialistic society than in any other. I would imagine there's a certain amount of brainwashing in ANY society, inasmuch as extolling the virtues of the dominant system can be considered brainwashing. There are quite a few myths that are prevalent in a capitalistic society, like "work hard, and you'll get rich," and "you can have any job you want." And I think a lot of children are led to believe these myths. Is that brainwashing?
All-out socialism probably gives too much power to the government, so I can't say I'm all for it. SOMETHING should be done to distribute the wealth a little more evenly, and make sure the number of destitute people is kept to a minimum, though.
Cattle in Korea / They can really moo. |
| Erebus |
Posted - 07/11/2004 : 15:59:26
quote:
Originally posted by VoVat
I fail to see what an economic system has to do with individuality.
Cattle in Korea / They can really moo.
Socialism FORCES those who do not endorse its premises contribute, via taxes, to socialist ends. Charity should be voluntary. Similarly, risk "pooling" as in Social Security, Medicare, etc., forces all to contribute to it. And if one has the misfortune to die too young to collect benefits and without a sanctioned beneficiary, one completely sacrifices the money one has been forced to contribute. One's individual resources have been stolen, thus negating one's individual will. Additionally, socialism and communism inevitably involve brainwashing of children, again robbing them of their individuality. A dominant collective will fears freedom of thought and action and will actively seek to repress them. |
| Monsieur |
Posted - 07/11/2004 : 15:22:15
I don't believe in democracy anyway...
Aliens will come and rescue us... |
| VoVat |
Posted - 07/11/2004 : 15:12:04
I fail to see what an economic system has to do with individuality.
Cattle in Korea / They can really moo. |
| Erebus |
Posted - 07/11/2004 : 14:16:03
quote:
Originally posted by VoVat
I don't really see much similarity between socialism and fascism, at least in theory.
Both mandate universal compliance with the collective will. Both suppress and punish individuality. |
| VoVat |
Posted - 07/11/2004 : 14:05:34
We've discussed this issue on here before, and I can sort of see both sides. I guess this is another case where I think the system is flawed, but, in the short run, it's better to get the best possible result out of the system than to challenge it. I hope the day will come when everyone can vote their conscience, and the two-party system is a thing of the past. This day will not come this year, though.
I don't really see much similarity between socialism and fascism, at least in theory. I mean, it played out that way in some countries, but that's not what's supposed to happen. I don't know that I take the socialistic viewpoint in every respect, but I do think universal employment and health care should be high priorities for the government. If people are dying just because they're poor, I'd say the government isn't doing its job.
Cattle in Korea / They can really moo. |
| apl4eris |
Posted - 07/11/2004 : 12:18:04
I think it's an interesting idea TOTIPOTENT, to be sure, but there are a few things that could make it less than what you are aiming for. I think fewer people here are political than it seems -a small percentage post frequently, and a small percentage of those posters talk about politics. It might also drive a lot of people away, because it's not FB or Pixies-related. People come here primarily for fun, not politics. Also, I don't think it would be a good way to get meaningful polling results. It's way too easy to rig and "vote early and often"; I mean, how else would Dean have won the "Stupidest Person in the World" title, without the crazed vote-rigging in the extreme? Uh, except for the little fact that he happens to be the stupidest person on Earth.... Pure happenstance, I dare say. 
RIP Little Bucharest: Yuppies. They don't eat goulash. |
| TOTIPOTENT |
Posted - 07/10/2004 : 23:57:38
This is the stuff I am talking about.http://forum.frankblack.net/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=8861
The third example is perfect for this thread.
Probably the second example is perfect for all of the threads
 "I joined the Cult of Frank / I thought it would be educational / In the end it turned political" |
| apl4eris |
Posted - 07/10/2004 : 21:42:56
quote:
Originally posted by SpudBoy
Am I the man below, now?
And above as well, it seems (happy 500 Spudsy). Are you running? Write in? How's that manifesto coming along?
RIP Little Bucharest: Yuppies. They don't eat goulash. |
| apl4eris |
Posted - 07/10/2004 : 21:39:49
quote:
Originally posted by Little Black Francis
I adore this man.
Even though he's shilling for Bush now? Sorry, but I've lost my respect for him. He's become just another gutless pawn in my book.
RIP Little Bucharest: Yuppies. They don't eat goulash. |
| SpudBoy |
Posted - 07/10/2004 : 12:03:28
Am I the man below, now?
*festoon* |
| Little Black Francis |
Posted - 07/10/2004 : 11:53:13
I am a registered Democrat, I voted for Nader in 2000...
I am voting for Kerry/Edwards this year in all likelihood
But everyone needs to email the man below and beg him to run for president, even though he is republican.
I adore this man.
suce ma bite enculé de ta merehehehahhahehehaha |
| realmeanmotorscutor |
Posted - 07/10/2004 : 10:47:05
I hate to say it, because you should vote for your desired candidate, but Bush has to go. This is one time not to fuck around. I know I know, people will always say that but I believe it's true this time. When we get Bush out and any dangerous future is uncertain, then you should vote for the likes of Nader. For now, do you part and save some lives by getting Bush out! To hell with your ideals.
 |
| twist |
Posted - 07/10/2004 : 09:13:27
These are wierd times. This primary was the first time in my 49 years that I've walked into the booth without knowing how I was going to vote (picked Edwards).
Last night after Spiderman Ralphs' neice Nadia walked up to a group of us asking for signatures so he could be on the ballot. There was a full 5 seconds of silence then we all signed. I've seen Dean and Nader speak, now as well as picking lessers of evils I have to pick lessers of nice guys. In the words of the immortal Joey Ramone, my brain is turning upside down. Missed it live, Thanks apl4eris, will check link . |
| SpudBoy |
Posted - 07/10/2004 : 08:11:54
I have actually been contemplating starting my own political party. Trouble is, I hate politics - so I would not want to be a candidate. This poses a problem. I think the Libertarians have a lot of things right, but just about as many disastrously wrong. I like a lot of Nader's platform, but his running mate (candidate for president in '76 on the Socialist Workers' Party) scares the crap out of me. There is such a fine line between socailism, communism, and fascism, I really don't see why the theoretically freedom loving left loves the first two so much. I am strong on personal freedoms, but think that the federal system has some advantages (defense, but not oppression) and should be supported, but with some large-scale changes to stop the bloat, maintain fiscal responsibility, encourage real innovation from the grass roots, and return the checks and balances to the field. Corporations can be regulated without stifling capitalism, and the entire lobbyist structure needs to be wiped out. "This bill brought to you by Archer Daniels Midland" is the next step. Too much detail to list here...maybe I need a manifesto or something.
*festoon* |
| dogjones |
Posted - 07/10/2004 : 03:06:04
ah...poly ticks!
being a hardcore unabashed boarderline fanatical liberal i gotta break me off a piece of this action...
there is NO such thing as a wasted vote..none..period..anyone who says to you a vote for nader/etc. is a wasted vote you have my permission to beat them silly (just tell them in court 'dogjones' says its okay and you'll go free..trust me)..if bush or kerry or etc. won your vote they would get it.
this year we had Dean and Kerry running neck and neck...4 years ago guys like Dean and Kerry wouldnt be a blip..they'd be considered "too liberal" and joke candidates...we'd have gepharts and leibermans thrown at us...middle of the road uselessness...if it wasnt for nader shaking things up the dems would have never abandoned the "middle of the road" stance theyve tryed to take or emulate since the 80s...it's played out...
american political shows like Crossfire and etc. are there to serve and reinforce something that americans find very comforting to the point of pissing me off...sports for geeks...
you got side 1 vs. side 2...you pick a team and root them on til death...you stick to your side and if you cross the line you make a huge ass deal about it.
this is a dangerous way to think about the people who control our laws, our money, and what we do with both of them.
guys i respect like m.moore (dont even step until you research his 20 years+ of work, this man is a patriot) understand this concept but really wanna see W gone...i'm split on this myself because while im not too fond of kerry/edwards, this freedom hating bush administration has to go...personally, im still thinking my next move through. |
| The Holiday Son |
Posted - 07/09/2004 : 13:50:49
There's definitely a difference between the two. And your priority is to get rid of W !
But once W's gone, I think you should vote for the person you want president (Nader in that case). |
| darwin |
Posted - 07/09/2004 : 12:58:42
I go with 2) and I think there is a large difference between the parties. Would we have stem cell research going on right now if Gore had won? Would we have attacked Iraq? Pretty big differences, I think.
If we had proportional representation, then I think multiple parties would work. But with winner takes all, I think it's usually going to collapse down to 2 parties. |
| apl4eris |
Posted - 07/09/2004 : 12:55:16
So what do you think of having a 3-party system?
There is a lot of spun-up violent anti-Nader sentiment promulgated by the media. I'm not saying I agree with everything he says, but I do prefer his stand on a lot of issues, and I think a third party could do a lot for this country. I'm still not sure who I will vote for.
So here's my question: If you are unhappy with the current administration, or the current two-party system's offerings, do you:
1. vote your conscience, come what may,
OR
2. continue to vote for the lesser of "two" evils, as the system dictates? (to me, it seems there isn't a true difference between the parties -it's a Good Cop/Bad Cop routine)
Seems like there won't be possibilty for change until enough of us go against the lab rat maze.
RIP Little Bucharest: Yuppies. They don't eat goulash. |
|
|
