Republicans and marijuana

[SpasticGramps]

The entire country is a welfare state rife with entitlements.

Crumbs thrown down from the elite to pacify the masses is how it reads at the end of all entitlement states. You just don't get everything forever in the real world. You have to produce something.

 

[xfargox]

The entire country is a welfare state rife with entitlements.

Crumbs thrown down from the elite to pacify the masses is how it reads at the end of all entitlement states. You just don't get everything forever in the real world. You have to produce something.

The exact reason I don't agree with socialism (democrats lean towards socialism... I don't dislike socialism, but I don't like how welfare and other things we get from socialism work).

However, I have a bigger problem with the republican's point of view that "we know what's best... we know what's moral and immoral. If we think it's immoral, you aren't allowed to do it either." It's the opposite of tolerance; a notion our country was founded on.

Peyote was an integral part of Native American culture, and mescaline (its psychoactive chemical) hasn't killed anyone to my knowledge. It was banned by our government. It is a victimless crime... which means it's not really a crime.

Marijuana was an integral part of the Jazz era in America, as well as a substance used by lower class workers to relax from work. Marijuana hasn't killed anyone. We all know about hemp's benefits, as well as that of hemp seed oil. Banned by gov't...same deal.

Shit like that offends me more than wasted money. Besides, if you wanna talk about wasted money... look at the war! Do you know how much we spend annually on military-related things? It's ridiculous!

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

You're right, gramps. We should never subvert the system.

Unfortunately, new ways to subvert the system by elected officials happens regularly. Our progressive ideological gains might differ but the last house passed almost 90 bills the senate parked or even dropped altogether. I've heard the analogy that if the house is the accelerator, the senate is the brake. IMO, the house operates more like a cohesive accelerator while the senate enjoys too many individual brake levers. Again, IMO some of our senators aren't as connected to their constituents as their state representatives.

That said you're right, once again. There's a self-correcting mechanism already in place at the state level, our right to vote the bums out. Too bad that's one of our greatest difficulties as a county. It's just coming at us from so many directions. A dumbed down electorate and big money in politics is a tough row to hoe.

 

[Trichromedout]

Libertarian is the only way to be IMO. You do what you wanna do, I'll do what I want to do, just don't hurt anyone including yourself. Government provides National Defense. States do what they want and can choose to be conservative or progressive in Nature, overtime people move to areas that share common beliefs. The vision the founding fathers had in mind. Our Federal Government republican and democrat is exhausting our financial resources at an unreplenishable rate. I have children and would like to think that the USA as we know it will still be around when they are older and have their own. Right now our whole economy is propped up on unstable investments and foreign debt. Democrat, Republican, or whatever we need to learn how to rely less on government support and more on ourselves. There is no money to spend on alot of things we spend on at the moment. We should all be willing to make some serious changes to lifestyle and be willing to live a little more frugal and wise. If we have to balance our checkbooks so should our government. Vote out the incumbent (no matter what party) and change the system....

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

IMO, one only have to look back at the dawn of the industrial revolution to get view of a libertarian society. There were no regulations in place to control standards of industry. Workers were exploited, long hours with minimal pay. Indentured servitude where poor workers lived in the homes their employers owned, keeping them in debt and paying the master with decades of cheap labor. Innovative ways to increase the bottom line at the expense of the individual were the norm.

States couldn't regulate these behemoths because big business has more money and political influence than states can match alone. If one state regulates, business moves to anther state that looks the other way.

Again this is just my opinion but libertarians seem to gloss the positive aspects of individual liberty and personal responsibility, both attractive and moral. What they don't tell you is big business will enjoy far less controls and states will be no match for their influence. Just the same way municipalities and rural areas barter away their businesses taxes to attract employers, libertarian influenced government would invite relaxing safety and product quality laws and the result would hurt the individual.

I read in the paper the other day that big bank lawyers have already loopholed 8 of 10 recent regulations put in place. Imagine 50 entities to exploit legal loopholes as some parts of the country don't have the legalese to protect themselves from big money interests. I think the author of the rise and fall of the roman empire overlooked a key ingredient to destruction. While selfishness is cited, greed isn't. Selfishness is when you want to keep what you've got for yourself. Greed is when you want your neighbors riches too and we have it on a global scale. Libertarian government would wash the bonfires with ether.


I'm not associating Libertarians with greed. Where greed is present in every society, it would flourish in a government that shuns regulation over individual freedom and greed will take care of itself, free and clear of their noble and moral libertarian government. Where's the responsibility? Libertarian government allows for big business to decide for themselves. The greed only intensifies in that kind of system.

 

[SpasticGramps]

However, I have a bigger problem with the republican's point of view that "we know what's best... we know what's moral and immoral. If we think it's immoral, you aren't allowed to do it either." It's the opposite of tolerance; a notion our country was founded on.

Brother I couldn't agree with you any more. The Republican point of view is the other side of the coin for progressive philosophy. It's the whole concept that the Federal Government can legislate every part of your lives.

Washington was not constructed for this purpose. The state apparatus is what was supposed to give many different ideas to live from. One could have universal the other free market, but the crux of the Constitution was to leave the power in the hands of the states where the people reside so that many ideas could exist and you could vote with your feet.

Not in Washington where only the elites live. Once that system fails we can't move anywhere.

 

[SpasticGramps]

States couldn't regulate these behemoths because big business has more money and political influence than states can match alone. If one state regulates, business moves to anther state that looks the other way.

These massive companies that rival states need to be broken up somehow.

I'd have to go revisit my thoughts on anti-trust issues, but the system is currently not working as is.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

I probably got a little carried away on my view, Gramps.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/02/26/liberals.atheists.sex.intelligence/index.html?hpt=C2

Evolutionary psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa at the the London School of Economics and Political Science correlated data on these behaviors with IQ from a large national U.S. sample and found that, on average, people who identified as liberal and atheist had higher IQs.

The reasoning is that sexual exclusivity in men, liberalism and atheism all go against what would be expected given humans' evolutionary past. In other words, none of these traits would have benefited our early human ancestors, but higher intelligence may be associated with them.

"The adoption of some evolutionarily novel ideas makes some sense in terms of moving the species forward," said George Washington University leadership professor James Bailey, who was not involved in the study. "It also makes perfect sense that more intelligent people -- people with, sort of, more intellectual firepower -- are likely to be the ones to do that."

The study takes the American view of liberal vs. conservative. It defines "liberal" in terms of concern for genetically nonrelated people and support for private resources that help those people. It does not look at other factors that play into American political beliefs, such as abortion, gun control and gay rights.
"Liberals are more likely to be concerned about total strangers; conservatives are likely to be concerned with people they associate with," he said.
Given that human ancestors had a keen interest in the survival of their offspring and nearest kin, the conservative approach -- looking out for the people around you first -- fits with the evolutionary picture more than liberalism, Kanazawa said. "It's unnatural for humans to be concerned about total strangers." he said.
The study found that young adults who said they were "very conservative" had an average adolescent IQ of 95, whereas those who said they were "very liberal" averaged 106.

None of this means that the human species is evolving toward a future where these traits are the default, Kanazawa said.
"More intelligent people don't have more children, so moving away from the trajectory is not going to happen," he said.

 

[SpasticGramps]

I probably got a little carried away on my view, Gramps.

I don't think you got carried away. Our system is such that we have American Companies that are countries onto themselves. That is not sustainable at all. We end up right where we are. A nation owned and sold as products by the banking elite.

But, in order to be sold on a national level they must have control of the national politicians who must have control over you.

How does one control greed? Unfortunately I think the answer is we must be shown the error of our ways by catastrophe. It seems it's the only way we learn anything. Paradigm shifts do happen, but they are never pretty.

Off Topic: I think it's a fallacy to believe we are more peaceful and civilized than we were at the outset of WWII, if anything we are much more selfish and quick to cause pain to others for personal gain.

I can't help but feel this is a dangerous mentality to be entering a multi-polar global condition with.

 

[SpasticGramps]

None of this means that the human species is evolving toward a future where these traits are the default, Kanazawa said.
"More intelligent people don't have more children, so moving away from the trajectory is not going to happen," he said.

Idiocracy is one of my favorite movies. I think it offers great social commentary.

 

[ijimunot]

Ive been a registered republican since I was 18. Been growing herb since 14. Have long hair never thought as myself as a hippie. Believe in god never always felt spiritual never religious. Done some crazy wild things but consider myself mellow. Never called myself by a title or put myself in a box. My mind is always open to new ideas and horizons. I vote every election butt for who I think can stand up to people with closed minds. Its not a war of Democrats and Republicans its the system that is wrong and the media hype that fuels it. Turn off your tv, screw the blogger and wipe your arse with the newspaper. Get out in the world talk to all. Straight and stoner. Think for yourself don't let the system and media do your thinking for you. Peace

 

[SpasticGramps]

I heard a decription of our fucked up system that I liked the other day.

We are a socialist state for the poor and the for elite. They all get bailed out at the expense of the Capitalist system that the middle class lives under. The poor get poorer and the rich get richer. And the working class is destroyed in the process. You can't squeeze blood out of a turnip. It just simply will not. It's an illusion of government concealing deep institutionalized corruption.

EPIC FAIL.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

The entire country is a welfare state rife with entitlements.

Crumbs thrown down from the elite to pacify the masses is how it reads at the end of all entitlement states. You just don't get everything forever in the real world. You have to produce something.

Yep, we need a strong manufacturing base and we also need fair trade negotiations for the industry we haven't yet lost. I'm not an isolationist but I'm willing to pay a little more for locally produced stuff. My area mostly limits these choices to food but I still help local merchants where I can afford.

I'm not a fan of trickle down economics but gave it a chance as I never before experienced in my relatively short life. I may have it wrong but was under the impression the economy would be strong enough to take care of inflation. The idea that employers, enjoying sustained periods of growth would in turn pass this along and bolster the poor to lower middle class and everyone above would prosper as well.

I guess where I'm more left than some us is my acceptance of the government filling in where business fails, like troubled economies and poor sections of the country that have generations of poverty, poor education and a more obvious hole to climb out of. But it's a slippery slope and unfortunately, we have folks that absorb help and still choose to live in the red, making life more expensive for us all. Just my opinion but the swing to the top hurts us all more than helping the bottom. Helping the poor isn't as expensive as allowing business more freedoms when they use these freedoms to move jobs out and benefit the executives and shareholders at employee detriment.

I also understand that freedom is all inclusive and where government draws the line of interference in business is very important. This is pie-in-the-sky thinking but patriotism could give our economy a much needed shot in the arm and might even thwart excessive regulation. There are still many employers that not only recognize their bottom lines but the economic well being of their employees and the communities they operate and serve.

Last time I checked, regulation isn't a patriotism producer, lol. But if corporations had the same degree of incentive to remain domestic, we might see less employment-flight to other countries. Corporations can and still choose to move abroad but could give up a degree of profit where they deplete economies and communities, even regions. I realize that's just more regulation but spreading the pain more evenly is better than blunt force regulation or leaving alone the brutal economic results of free trade. If nothing else, maybe a percentage of their profit could go toward the communities that suffer economically when their major employer pulls out, at least temporarily. Things such as soup lines, reeducation in a trade or degree could fall at least partially in the laps of corporations that move and taxes wouldn't have to shoulder the burden 100%. In turn, communities could help business by diversifying employment opportunities in their respective areas, leaving them less vulnerable to the global trade and the move outs less vulnerable to responsibilities to the communities they leave.

 

[SpasticGramps]

Good post DB.

Our philosophical line in the sand, if you will, would be the failure or success of Keynesian economics.

If this plays out like I think it probably is going to, I believe it substantiates the arguement that governments can't control economies because they end up controlling them for their own personal means and to the detritment of the public in the end.

My isolationism stance revolves mainly around military foreign policy. I'm a proponent of free trade. It's a difficult philosophical stance to reconcile with actual policy.

How you get around the exploitation of people is another tough one because it's natural in Capitalism.

Anti-trust laws need to be enforced heavily, but they have not been because it is too the elites benefit that they aren't.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

I don't think you got carried away. Our system is such that we have American Companies that are countries onto themselves. That is not sustainable at all. We end up right where we are. A nation owned and sold as products by the banking elite.

But, in order to be sold on a national level they must have control of the national politicians who must have control over you.

How does one control greed? Unfortunately I think the answer is we must be shown the error of our ways by catastrophe. It seems it's the only way we learn anything. Paradigm shifts do happen, but they are never pretty.

I agree. Economic doom isn't totally unlike the potential doom of war. Nobody wants to fight unless we have to and nobody wants economic pain, even with the potential of return to good times. Fortunately, we have economic history to review and policy can be steered toward what works best in the most sustained ways. Too bad corporations have a short term profit mentality that doesn't lend toward long term viability. Too many booms and busts.

Off Topic: I think it's a fallacy to believe we are more peaceful and civilized than we were at the outset of WWII, if anything we are much more selfish and quick to cause pain to others for personal gain.

I can't help but feel this is a dangerous mentality to be entering a multi-polar global condition with.

I think we have the MIC to thank for part of our post WWII meddling. Not only does the CIA influence international policy, MIC lobbies lawmakers for projects that ultimately aid our global ambitions, whether through CIA or DOD. Maybe we could be less of an international meddler and work on our domestic selfishness with all the spare time we'd gain, lol.


One thing is for sure though. We'd all benefit from education of governance. I can certainly speak for myself on this one and have folks like Gramps to thank for pointing it out. I tend to look at policy too much with the political eye and not the original (and) historic sense good governance requires.

 

[SpasticGramps]

tend to look at policy too much with the political eye and not the original (and) historic sense good governance requires.

The MIC is another institution that is eating the country up. I agree 100%.

The Rand Corporation may as well just appoint the Commander in Chief these days.

The way I was taught to think about politics is one must define their philosophical stance on the human condition first and then move onto finding a collective form of government that accounts for that condition.

If I believe men to be naturally corruptible then I must seek governance that restricts their power. If I believe men to be virtuous then I would seek government that gives them power.

Political stances is always derived from philosophy viewpoints. I try and define my base points first before moving onto the party stuff.

I find I'm able to keep my political philosophy and policies more consistent that way. I often find people that argue strict party lines are totally inconsistent because they haven't solidified their foundation, which is philosophy. Their argument often ends up being a philosophical paradox which is the same as building a house with no foundation.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

I can honestly say my philosophical foundation was formed before my political leanings, even if my education in constitutional governance isn't stellar. My folks were teachers and were paid so little, my sisters and I wouldn't have been able to afford an education without government intervention. We didn't get assistance growing up. The tax rate then wasn't much different than today for folks in the lower middle income level. If anything, my parents paid a little more then then we do now with higher incomes. In other words, we didn't get welfare. I'm not proud, I'm just laying that out.

What we did get was grants and low interest government loans to go to school. When I went to school, the only educations that bankrupted you early in life were medical and law degrees. Now the government allows the private sector to loan all that money at high interest rates and make a profit. I'm a capitalist and not against making profits. But we've seen a 180 degree turn in income disparity. I don't feel like I want a slice of the fat cats. IMO, I want back was has been taken over the last three decades. Kids graduating today are so far in the hole, they have the equivalent of a home mortgage or three before their first day on the job.

I guess I need to look less at the party politics I associate with bad governance and look at the real pic. I also feel I'm not alone in this regard. As a country, we're not taking the bull by the horns, we're preoccupied with the rodeo clowns.

 

[SpasticGramps]

I can honestly say my philosophical foundation was formed before my political leanings,

Bro. That's the most beautiful thing I've heard in this thread. We have to start being honest with ourselves before we can start fixing this country. I certainly shoulder my fair share of all this.

I'm not saying my philosophy is ideal. It's far from that. It needs to be balanced out or it becomes tyranny in and of itself, but I really believe the real answers to this crisis we are facing lies within what makes us, us. As Americans and as humans. The parties are never going to tell us that. They only place I've found it is in the likes of Plato, Aristotle, Hobbes, Locke, Marx, and The Founders.

It's obvious to me that neither party is here to help us, but to rather to exploit to no end. Knowing that, I really feel we need to start looking elsewhere for our answers. If they've all been exposed as tyrants then I naturally look to what the Founders wrote in the Constitution and the Federalist Papers that argued for the creation of the Constitution against the premise of nations run by men rather than the laws of nature. The experiment has been lost IMO.

That conversation won't be found anywhere today because it's slowly been eroded away.

Your parents did a great job. They gave you brain to work with and an open mind.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

IMO, public education could do us all a favor and make civics a requirement to graduate. Philosophy and the classics are important too but at least constitutional government should be mandatory.