Liberal Pussies Part 3

Posted: October 1, 2010 in Politics

I thought I was done with this. I did. But I got a lot of passionate responses from Republicans. I thought it was cute that none of them identified themselves as Republicans. I think maybe, that’s a sign you should re-evaluate.

This started out as a response to my friend. A man I very much respect, and have frequently described to strangers as, “One of the Nicest Men I know.” If I didn’t love him so much. If I didn’t want him on my side. I wouldn’t be as passionate in this argument.

So I’m a Liberal. You’re a Libertarian. I want to take your money and give it to people who don’t deserve it. If we wanted to save America, we’d let rich people keep all their money and things would fix themselves. Social ills will be corrected, and Capitalism would make people prosper.

I think your argument is…


I’ve had several Libertarians respond to me on this post. They tell me I’m wrong and how big government isn’t the answer; that big Government’s never done anything right.

I disagree a bit. I think our Interstate Highway System is Pretty Badass. And demanding the enforcement of Civil Rights was a pretty good move too.

I mean. I had a black girlfriend and I REALLY enjoyed eating with her in restaurants. We also really enjoyed not being dragged behind a truck.

Still, let me state as clearly possible. I LIKE THE IDEA OF SMALLER GOVERNMENT.

It is a better idea. And THAT is why you’re a Libertarian.

Good luck with that. We live in a 2 party system. And that sucks. Just sucks. But we do.

The Power Struggle in America is between The Democrats and the Republicans. Nobody else. 

What’s the Libertarian Mascot?

Is it a Unicorn?

It ought to be a Unicorn.

Because its fucking imaginary.

Those of you that are saying the Libertarian Party is the real American Party, Maybe you’re right, but you’re arguing Ideals, while I’m trying to present a pragmatic solution.

We have two parties to vote for. Republicans, and Democrats. And neither party is going to run on the platform of

“Give Us Less Power!”

If you say they’re just two sides of the same party; The pro-corporate party. I’d agree with you. And then say,

“Until you’re ready to start a revolution, who you voting for?”

Idealistically, maybe you are a Libertarian. But with the passion in your arguments, I’m assuming that you vote Republican. What’s that gotten you?

Are you happier with the war in Iraq or the Government listening to our phone calls?

Are you more pleased that Gay American don’t have equal right or that science teachers have to teach Magic in school?

I don’t love the Dems, I don’t. I’m just less afraid of them than I am of the current Right Wing.

Do I trust the Dems? No. Career Politicians are scumbags. But at least I don’t HATE everything my sides done. To be fair, it would be hard to. They haven’t done much. But at least I can support them in theory. For instance I think the idea of Universal Health Care is a good idea.

Will it be mismanaged? Yes. The Government fucks stuff up. But at least I LIKE that idea of Universal Health Care. I think it’s an admirable pursuit. I think every American should be allowed to get sick.

I wouldn’t trade free healthcare for a war in the desert.

Hell, I wouldn’t even trade it for 2.

People have also said to me after my earlier posts that capitalism is what made America lead the world in technology, and that my beliefs sabotage that. Let’s understand something. I don’t think innovation comes from greed. I think it comes from pride. Some of my readers have argued that if people can’t make money, they won’t make progress. That Capitalism spurs invention.

I think that’s a logical assumption. But it’s wrong.

Our greatest Inventors were not our wealthiest Americans. Tesla died almost broke.(He became an American Citizen so don’t so don’t waste your time trying to show me how clever you are.) He continued to push scientific boundaries because HE LOVED SCIENCE, he was still making shit at the end of his life, when people had essentially forbade him to do so.

Those who were better with finances still didn’t invent as a means to pay the bills. Most continued to invent long after they made their money.

Ben Franklin made bifocals because he wanted to be able to read and see at the same time. Not because he was looking to make that scrilla.

I would even argue that greed as a virtue has inhibited progress. In the last few years America has fallen out of the lead in scientific innovation. Because our smartest people are trying to be the “Best” Americans (by your profit motivated standards) that they can be; by making the most money, by figuring out ways to Break the Stock Market, or squeezing more money into some corporation so that can make obscene salaries as a CEO.

Our “World Changers” are going into the wrong fields. They’re becoming simply “Money Changers.”

My Biblical Allusion there is by design (I’m not certain how intelligent.)

I’m not a religious man, but I think christianity got that lesson right. The idea that worshiping profit is detrimental to society.

It’s a shame some people’s take on that Good Book is hindering our progress in other fields. If you want to let some people’s belief in magic impede scientific progress. You can got fuck yourself. Period. Allowing the Christian Right ban stem cell research is Embarrassingly stupid, and has drawn some of the best medical research AWAY from America. How can we Embrace NOT advancing intellectually as virtue?

Allowing Fundamentalists on the Right to prevent the teaching of evolution is saying…

I don’t understand science, we probably shouldn’t learn it.

It makes me think of when English mathematicians said negative numbers “darken” the natural world. And refused to teach them or acknowledge their existence. During, Ironically, the Dark Ages.

But if you’re really a Libertarian, you’re probably saying, “I’m not on board with that nonsense.”

But if you’re voting Republican… yes you are.

But let’s get back to money. You say everybody should pay the same. I don’t think so. I think the rich have more say in our government, and they should have to pay to have it. (And not just pay the government, which is what they do, but pay FOR the government, which is what they should do.)

When I say rich. I don’t mean Doctors and Lawyers and Scientists. I commend their dedication and pursuit of truly noble endeavors. I don’t hate rich people. Make Money. That’s awesome. I hate the idly rich. the Pro-Athlete, Movie Star Rich. And even then, I don’t hate them. I just want them to help those with nothing. So I don’t have to. When I say Rich I mean the wealthiest <1%.

And Do I say tax those folks? I sure do. It was different even a generation ago. Then, the millionaires still made their money in America. And invested it there as well. Even then, they paid WAY Higher taxes than they do now.

Now the world is Global. And the insanely rich can ship entire businesses to poorer countries and still live here. They are no longer part of their communities, they are no longer reinvesting money in America.

I think we ought to get it from them.

So that’s my position on that. And here are some direct responses to people’s questions or statements.

On me giving Reagan too much blame. I’m not an idiot that thinks that Greed started with Reagan, I know it didn’t. I said it started for my generation with Reagan, and that he was the first to treat it as an American Value. And that Phenomenon did NOT start in Greece.

On States Rights. I’m with you, for the most part. I know that is not a facet of the Democratic Party. I disagree with them here. Not as much as I disagree with starting wars. Not as much as I disagree with institutionalized bigotry. Not as much as I disagree with dismissing environmental conservatism. Not as much as I disagree with more Americans being in jail for drug possession Every Year.

On Unions. I agree with you on Unions as well. They’ve become voting blocks that plug into a failing system. Their true spirit has been corrupted. Not as much as the GOP’s. I thought I made it clear that I’m Anti-Union. Or rather, Anti-Today’s Union. 

On 1/3 of America receiving all the assistance. I don’t think poor people have it made because they don’t pay income taxes. If they do. If you Really think they’ve got it better because everything is given to them.

Then be poor.

Just quit.

Suck on that government tit if the milk is so sweet. Nothing’s stopping you. But I’ll bet you find out you’d rather have nice things than no taxes.

I also agree with you that not all people are civic minded. I’ll even agree that most are lazy. But I think education and opportunity sure helps the poor folks who aren’t. And again, it’s a better endeavor than more jails in my book, which is another option on what to do with poor folks.

On getting money to extreme Rural Areas. Places where even Wal-Mart won’t go. I think taking some folks money is the only option. It shouldn’t be hard really. We’re still rich. We sent a BILLION dollars to Haiti. We can spare some cash for East Kentucky.

And Finally. To the idea that the Government shouldn’t run any institutions. That it should all be run by the free market and capitalism will provide the best services. I think you’re wrong on both ends. Some that are being Privatized shouldn’t be, and some that have been taken over by the government work great.

The Privatization of Prisons going on in America right now is disgusting. You should not be cutting corners on keeping criminals away from society. Neither should you be focused on turning a profit by keeping jails full and crowded.

I really like knowing that if my house catches on fire, the Fire Department HAS to at least try and put it out. I’m really thankful there’s no credit score inquiry before they send their wagon.

There are some excellent services provided by this government, Not just ones protecting our borders from foreign invaders. (Something our government hasn’t done in a century, even though our spending for it goes up annually.)

I don’t love our government. But I’m not willing to junk it. I’d much rather just try and fix it up, because even though this vehicle NEVER ran right. It’s taken us to some pretty good places.

You want to know how I got to college? My mom worked at the Post Office. It paid a livable wage to essentially an unskilled laborer. The U.S. Post Office helped her get everyone of her kids straight teeth and glasses. Now, 2 of those kids make a lot of money. 3 are doing okay. And me. Well. I’m a bum. But I’m chasing a dream. And if I ever make a lot of money. I’ll pay my taxes.

  1. Steven Garner says:

    My comments about what conservative politics should be are just as wishful as your comments about what the democratic party should be. Both are equally-wishful thinking, so there’s no harm in debating the issues that represent what the two ideals strive for. But… point taken: with respect to your comments about the shortcomings of politicians on all sides. Fortunately, as I see it, the old-guard is going through a change of hands. The republican party is completely regenerating from grass-roots. It’s the dreaded and bemoaned Tea Party that is chock full of libertarians and small-government people that could reshape conservative politics. We’ll see… Besides, I don’t vote exclusively republicans as you asserted. I vote on the issues, for the lesser of two collective evils, for whatever party that falls on. Truly.

    Wire-tapping? That point is neutral between parties. It started under Bush, but it has continued in full force under Obama. By some accounts, it has increased. So one party can’t claim privacy issues more than another, in my humble opinion. You can only go on what the next candidates promise to do. I hope that both can agree that the status quo is distinctly un-American. If I was running, I would publically compare it to the KGB and the SS, because people to listen and vote accordingly. I hope that someone does.

    War? The republicans definitely screwed the pooch on Iraq. God only knows what the real motivation for that war was. Some geo-political posturing to be sure. But again.. looking forward, neither party is going to be advocating war in the near future. We can’t financially afford it, and the electorate has no taste for it. Our troops are tired. Not a big decider for the coming elections.

    Embryonic stem cell research.. well.. I personally think it’s wrong. And I’m pretty much an aetheist. This is a huge debate and not likely one that can be addressed without going to far off topic. But my best assessment of the biology tells me that if a fetus is deemed worthless, then so is a walking breathing human being. So I see harvesting of cells from a fetus as being on par as harvesting organs from a newborn. It’s just wrong, because it diminishes the individual rights of that life (which I think it is). If you could save the lives of two people by taking the kidneys from one, it does not mean you have a right to do so, because of the individual rights of the one. Besides… this whole morality problem is circumvented by the fact that stem cells can be harvested from other sources, including umbilical cords and epidermis cells. That’s where the research needs to be focused: where there’s no ethical dilemma. The big med research companies just want access to the multitude of embryos on ice (also wrong) because it’s easy and cheap. And they are BIG contributors to democrats. Our government should rightfully tell them to go find another way. Again… in my personal opinion.

    So, back to small government. Specifically: a smaller, smarter military. A lot of republicans these days are thinking this way: so desperate are they to stop the financial bleeding. The problem is: America doesn’t WANT a smaller military. Talk about the biggest government hand-out ever… cushy government jobs for the masses (which pay more than private jobs now, based on averages) and big military contracts for the industrial giants. This is how government gets its little fingers into everything. They make huge swaths of the populace dependent on their graces for wages, business, and financial assistance, such that the people become reluctant to vote big government away, because their personal lives will be impacted so significantly. People will compromise their freedoms to keep their jobs (systematic urine testing, for a real world example). So that’s when the government really gains control over people: when they aren’t just the law, they’re also the bread and butter.

    Which is not to say that government doesn’t have a role.. equal protection laws, freedom of speech, hell yes.. police, fire, road construction, border patrol, military, prisons, AMEN! Education is arguable, but probably an acceptable role for government, AS LONG AS it’s still legal to seek alternate privatized education if the propaganda gets too thick. Post Office? Again.. arguable. If there was no post office, don’t you think that someone like FedEx or UPS would fill the gap nicely? The post office runs like a business anyways. As I understand it, the USPS receives no tax dollars and makes all income from postage income. Weird that it’s a government operation at all, since it’s fully self-sufficient.

    Healthcare? God no.. if there was ever a place where government involvement hurts the people, it’s here. Already, things are going south because of the new legislation. Because government healthcare is promised to everybody for free (prepaid actually.. disproportionately), businesses are now deciding that they will stop offering healthcare coverage to their employees. Just last week, McDonalds joined the bandwagon. So now, millions of people who would otherwise be getting insurance through the freemarket will now be turning to the government. Government healthcare will run in a continual deficit, like social security does now, such that no private industry can compete in the market without going out of business. Meanwhile, as all private options disappear to the common American, more and more will people go on government healthcare, and it will get ridiculously over-budget and service cut-backs will begin. You think it sucks now that new medicine costs a lot now? Just wait until you’re asking the government to pay for it… because they won’t have the money. That’s why people from Canada come to America to pay for surgeries out of their own pocket. I know a Canadian who had cancer and was told by the government to come back when the cancer had spread a little further before they would operate. Worst cancer strategy ever! The government bureacracy doesn’t care if the life expectancy falls a year or two, or if people have bad knees, or if they go blind after they retire. But companies and individuals that can make big profits by fixing these problems DO care very much. But if there is only one major customer (the government), on a tight budget, they may decide the financial venture is too risky. I’d much rather stick with the current situation, where if my daughter got sick I could get her fixed up even if I had to sell my house, my car, my clothes, and beg on the street. At least I would still have an avenue towards getting her healed, instead of an insurmountable government bureaucracy that tells me to go home because the budget has dried up for the year. Making sure I can pay for such unexpected tragedies is why I have worked so hard to put myself in a position to be capable. I will vote for repeal of the government healthcare initiative, because I think it leads down a dark road.

    You’re right that some people invent for pride. You’re right, Sir. But I think they are the minority of inventors, because most invent to get rich. I think if we leave pride as the only motivation for innovation, we’re leaving a lot of horsepower on the table. Maybe money is not the big motivator for the inventor, but it IS for the investors that financially back his idea. Most inventors are not like Bell, or Franklin, or Newton. They aren’t independently wealthy, and cannot alone support their ambitious goals and ideas. They’ve got bills to pay, just like us.

    Your comment about me choosing to step down to live in poverty is a little off the mark. I didn’t say that the poor had it better than me: that’s why I’ve choose to work to get where I am. But let’s be frank.. according to the US census bureau, a typical person under the poverty level actually owns a home (a three-bedroom house with air conditioning and a dishwasher), has more living space that the average Parisian, Londoner, or Athenian, owns a car, has two TVs, and pays for cable service. These are not Somalia-poor people, and they are obviously spending beyond their means while subsidizing their grocery bill with government hand-outs. That’s why conservatives think they’re weak, because they want hand-outs that they don’t absolutely need. I hate to sound uncompassionate, because I genuinely want people in this country to live and eat well. But the government giving money to people who already have houses and cars is not the answer. They have the means to feed and clothe themselves, but they have chosen instead to spend their money on commerical stuff. That’s their choice, but they should not be rewarded for those choices with money from other Americans. Please.. understand I’m not against all government assistance. At a certain level, it does belong, and we can’t let people starve in the streets. It’s just that the threshold is currently set wayyy too high. The government should be cutting hand-outs to people who really could buy their own food, while lowering taxes to foster a business environment for these people to make more money. Sometimes even a few percentage points makes a big difference in a business being profitable vs. not profitable, or rather existing vs. not-existing . Human dignity depends on the feeling of being self-sufficient and self-made. It’s a tough-love thing: people must be free of hand-outs to be truly free, because hand-outs always come with strings attached. And the thought that many people being so dependent on the government makes me worry about the future of individual rights.

    And about my vote supporting the religious right… that’s not entirely true, because i don’t live in Georgia where the crazy evangelicals are. If I lived there, i would agree about my representatives. But here in Utah, where the mormons are a lot of things, at least they aren’t scientifically backwards.

    I’m sure there are unwritten rules about a reply being longer than the original post.. but i hope you’ll recognize that I’m just enjoying our debate.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s