The Smiley Smile Message Board

In the U.S. at least (which is all I can even fake being knowledgeable about), political discussion strikes me as little more than ever-louder name-calling, generalizing, and demonizing (if possible without using any specifics, ever, or acknowledging any nuance, ever). It makes me sad. Do you think the world is truly as black/white (red/blue?) as the media yellers yell? Do you really think the other side (from you) is malevolent? Do you find it easy to yell-debate? If so, do you do it for fun? In the hope of somehow converting 40-whatever percent of the population? Of getting back-slaps from your team? I understand and enjoy disagreement and debate, but I wonder if the way we devolve when discussing political matters reflects particularly well on our species. For the record, if possible, this isn't intended to be a thread about politics, so much as about how people view and discuss politics. We'll see if that's possible (or remotely interesting to anyone else).

I generally view people with distrust and mild disdain... I think those who blindly support any political party without thinking about why they do so (much like religion, when some  people worship their chosen deity because they are told to do so, or by peer pressure, rather than because of their true beliefs)...I think those people are a sign that the gene pool needs some additional chlorine.

And now that I've likely pissed off a good majority of the board, I'll hit post, get up, and drink my Jones Soda and eat my organic vegetable chips.

Yay me.

I can't imagine that post offending anyone, in that all it did was imply people ought to consider their thoughts. I think most people would say they do not blindly accept their political beliefs. What I do find interesting is how often those people--and I mean across the political spectrum, with me able to cite examples from my far-right wing family to some far-left friends and everyone between them--seem to demonstrate otherwise. You know "I'm too smart to fall for that kind of thing ... but THOSE PEOPLE just [xyz]..." (For the record, lest anyone take it wrong, it's my most liberal friend of all whom I blame most of that last quoted demonstration, as if liberals were thoughtful, considered, measured, skeptical, but conservatives were either evil or stupid, and possibly both. This is not my belief.)

This post is probably going to look like I wrote it for Stormfront, but it's not the case.

The Jewnited Strokes of Americunts. Encyclopedia Dramatica and George Carlin got that right.

As an American, I see, in the flesh, the stereotypes that the "rest of the world" collectively love to launch at Americans on a daily basis. Stupidity, gross ignorance, total lack of regard, total lack of common decency, and general arrogance. This is by no means representative of the whole American populace, but it's a growing plurality of the population. And it's not like said American plurality is alone with these traits; you'll find people like that all over the world. Except for the arrogance issue.

People, in my opinion, fit into two categories - citizens of a nation and citizens of the world. Now of course, that may sound like a ludicrous concept, since obviously we're all on the same planet. But the difference between citizens of a nation and citizens of the world is that citizens of the world are, in my opinion, less prone to exhibit the tendencies stated in my piece about "stereotypes". Citizens of the world are endowed with the intelligence to know that their geographic location, religion, race, political leanings, ideas, and economic status do not make them any more or less valuable than anyone else in the world. Citizens of the world can be found everywhere on the planet. It's just that I firmly believe that the smallest concentration of citizens of the world can be found in the United States. Those in the United States who are not citizens of the world are a serious problem. Ignorance may be bliss, but don't bad-mouth the rest of the world because they're calling you out for your bullshit.

As far as politics are concerned, the Obama/McCain election was a cause of great hilarity to me. We had a total display of race vs. gender in this election. If you voted McCain, "you're a racist" and if you voted Obama,"you're sexist". And it became plainly obvious that a lot of people voted for Obama because of his race just like a lot of people voted for McCain due to his running mate's gender.

Some friends and I conducted a little experiment when we were in Philadelphia around election time. We asked a group of black individuals what they thought of Obama's policies. We each took turns reeling off a policy. "We love it, man, we love it! We'll DO IT!" What they didn't know, however, was that my friends and I were naming McCain's policies. Of course, that said it right there. We snickered as we walked away from them, confident that a good majority of the black population in the United States couldn't give a f*** about what Obama's policies are. As long as "one of them" was in office, they couldn't be happier. I am by no means overly prejudiced against any race or religion, but when said races or religions try to live up to the stereotypes thrust upon them by their persecutors, then there's a problem. We're talking whites, blacks, Asians, Latinos, Middle Easterners, Christians, Jews, Muslims, Ericclaptonites, Brianwilsonians...every one of them. And that to me is a sad state of affairs. No one, by virtue of their race or religion, is inherently inferior or superior to any other race no matter how much Josef Mengele might have tried to convince people. The common perception in the United States is that whites are all great, everyone else just makes the streets unsafe. I'm sorry to say it for all you religious right and hard-right conservatives out there, but a person's race does not predetermine their urge to commit crimes. That, friends, is the failures of a pyramid capitalist structure in a democratic republic. And it doesn't just extend to so-called "minorities". Whites are just as prone to that kind of sh*t. I'm not saying crime is the answer for the less fortunate of American society, but like all forbidden fruit, it tastes good when you have a bite.

I guess what I'm trying to get at is this. We're not perfect. Let's all get together, love each other, have a good shag, smoke a cigarette after the fun is over, and make the best out of this ball of confusion we happen to share. Nations divide people; not race or religion.

Nice.

Very well put.

Very well put indeed. Pretty much sums up my opinion.

So do you all (all three of you!) think that the divisive tenor of debate is effective? (You'd almost have to believe it is, in that it continues or increases. If behavior is Darwinian...) If effective, in what way: it wins elections for the [either] party, or that it gets things done? My thinking is that it's a good way to win an election: for better or (in my opinion) worse, people like a hard-liner who won't compromise; the further you can be from compromise, then, the stronger message. But isn't that concept offensive to the general population? Are we really so stupid as to fall for what is obviously just an election strategy (and grow a baseless hatred for "the other" in the process)? I'm too old to hope the answer is no, I guess.

Politics is about dividing people up ; left/right, black/white, gay/straight, etc.
Tends to keep folks from paying attention to the big picture; economic ruin, endless war, police-state.
Mostly people seem uninformed about anything other than sports and weird celebrity trivia, something I believe is neither accidental nor innocently accomplished.
No need to go into 'conspiracy theories' to point out the political class loves to use/create disasters (oil spill, war with Iran, drug war, Korean peninsula, 'health care', 'climate change', ad infinitum) in order to further whatever agenda they have in mind (usually stealing wealth and supressing human rights), a tactic known as the Hegelian dialectic or problem, reaction, solution. That's pretty much all politics has to offer.
To me, voting is the sleight-of-hand that makes the State appear legitimate. Their legitimacy rests solely on their ability to say "The people have spoken." Why give them power? I possess greater intellect than to believe anything so preposterous as the notion that anyone else has the right to run my life or manage my property without my explicit consent – consent I refuse to give by voting.
 Oh, I could go on and on, but you get the picture 8)

Would you propose an absence of government, then? Or purely localized government (which would of course have less money involved and is easier to keep tabs on)? For those of us in developed countries, lack of government would also mean lack of quite a few services we take for granted. Water, roads, trash collection, police, and such. So while on some levels I like a good anti-government rant as much as the next guy, I can't imagine such a thing as reasonable.

An relevant coincidence: while reading a collection of essays on a different subject, I came across this just now: - Leonard Susskind, "The Good Fight"

Yes! World citizenship, baby! :afro :hat :3d

I think any distinguishing feature divides people when the people of one of those features is threatened or sees benefit to exploiting it.

I don't consider anything that is imposed on me a service. And the roads...always with the roads. The first roads in the US were private roads. Now we have a government imposed monopoly where the state takes your money (by threat of force) and may or may not use it for these so called services. Same with police, or firefighters or anything. Just because the state says they are the only ones who can possibly provide these services doesn't make that a fact. But, in case you really want to look into the ideas I (and many others) think are the only logical way of looking at government, may I direct you to the following link... http://www.strike-the-root.com/91/allport/allport6.html (http://www.strike-the-root.com/91/allport/allport6.html)
Hopefully some of your very understandable and common questions can be answered.
I gotta go back to work (so I can pay the tax man 1/3rd of my earnings with the promise of many more amazing 'services' that, if I don't pay for them, will get me thrown in jail or killed if I were to resist! yay.)
Keep an open mind, and good luck!

My mind is always open. As for roads (and anything else I mentioned or failed to mention), I didn't imply there weren't ever, aren't now, and can't ever be alternatives. I'll go to your link and read.

I read the essay your direct link led to, as well as the "About." Because this thread was intended to avoid specific political beliefs and focus on how or why people get to those beliefs, I won't go further than to say I don't agree. That said, I agree with a small part of its aim, "de-mystifying government." I don't see that happening at that site, though; quite the opposite.

Well, in that case, I'd say twelve years of forced government schooling might be a good place to start looking for why people believe ANYthing about the government. Government schooling is essentially twelve long years of child abuse; it is a scheme designed to turn healthy, inquisitive, confident, free-minded children into pliant corporate drones, mindless consumers, and diminished, servile citizens who know their place: under the thumb of the state.
 I'm happy you checked out the link. Also, I see what you mean about sites like that not 'de-mystifying' the state, but it has a point of view that seems consistent morally, which is more than I can say for war-mongering sites like CNN of Fox. If you want more info on how public schooling molds (in both senses) our minds check out http://www.schoolsucksproject.com/ (http://www.schoolsucksproject.com/). It's done by an ex-public school teacher and may be a little better at that whole de-mysitfying thing.
Sorry 'bout always pointing to links, but it seems faster than me rambling, and you can easily skip it if you think it blows.
Good topic though, even if I have a hard time staying on it.

grillo, I think I'd like to sit down with you, have a few (dozen for me) drinks, and discuss exactly how you'd propose to implement and maintain your ideas of a functioning society. But not in this thread.

Sounds good. I also have this fixation with the Beach Boys for the last twenty-five years that we could discuss...

I kinda like that group, myself.

.

.

I feel that Government and Political Leaders are a necessary evil. Yes the majority of them are buttholes and only the most brainwashed can fail to notice their prime objective is to look after themselves and their fellow elite. They have become the masters of keeping the masses just complacent enough and in awe/fear of them so they don't revolt, but can anyone here seriously picture a feasible alternative? Government provides the means to maintain law and order within a developed society. Without that there would be anarchy in the streets within hours. I feel VERY few people in this world live a good honest life 100% because they have a good strong moral fabric. Let's face it without the deterrant of fines, imprisonment and in extreme cases death how many of us would NEVER commit crimes?

As for questioning the services our Governments provide:  Food, shelter,roads,medicine,sanitation,energy/fuel resources and Police Protection are things we have come to take for granted from our Governments. Without them we be up shitcreek very quickly. Grillo makes the point that these 'services' can be handled by anybody not just exclusively through the state but without a Government to regulate them and make them accountable we would be at their mercy.

Just in case this post looks like it's becoming a love letter to the Powers that Be, let me stress I never vote. Never have, I doubt I ever will. Doesn't matter who you vote for the BIG PICTURE is always going to remain the same.  Americans you may think you get stepped on the worst well try being a Brit!! England is still chained by Aristocratic class devisions dating back 100's of years. Nearly all of our MP's come from this High Society background.(A quick sidenote- in the States it's much different,as anyone with enough cash can bankroll his/her way into the political arena. That's what made me laugh about Obama. Senators don't care squat about skin colour these days, I doubt they have for 30 odd years. The only colour they see is green- as in the number of Greenbacks in your wallet of which Obama has many. All a black President shows is that rich politicans now come in more than one variety of colour!) As a result of this our politicians here haven't a clue what the average working class guy thinks.  At the same time we must get things into perspective and be thankfull that we are not under the rule of some third world Dictatorship. Those are the ones that really get it bad. In some countires much of what has been stated in this thread would get you a bullet in the head. At least we have the right to free speech. It's just a shame no one who really matters is listening.  If I can meet the Tim Robbins and Bonos of the world halfway, it's in that I too believe its the Leaders of The Free World are the ones who really have the power and means to sort out the planets problems if they really wanted to.

I hope this post hasn't been too rambling or unfocused. No doubt Luther will take great delight in pointing out the flaws in my above points.

Not at all: I'm not looking to argue in this thread, actually, and I appreciate your views. (Arguments about politics and religion are tremendously fun for me, but only when I either know my friendship with the other person can take it, or when I don't give a f*** about the other person and have no qualms really truly offending them on a deep level, as those topics can do. I don't feel I'm in either situation on a message board. Plus the opportunity for misunderstanding on a message board is just too great.) Now I will ask you to comment: how is it that the people so quickly and completely follow segments of that "necessary evil" of "buttholes"? Or--what I think they are doing more than building followers--to so quickly and completely despise some other segment? Do you think it's a particular set of weaknesses or vulnerabilities they prey on intentionally? Or that the populace is just especially stupid and needs heroes and villains? (  ;) ) Or what?

In answer to your last question Luther -

To paraphrase Al Pacino in Scarface many Americans (and others but particularly them) need someone to point to and say "That's them! There's the bad guy!"  Those with the most have the most to lose and I feel that's why so many Yanks are fearfull of others. Politicians in USA have become experts at using this to their own advantage. Time and time again they will hold up a picture of "The Foreign Bogeyman" and say "This person wants to threaten you and your way of life". A good example would be the Iraq war. How else could they get away with bombing the crap out of a country just to steal it's oil reserves? The war on Iraq was the biggest masterstroke of modern times in that the USA went in there blatantly for one reason and one reason alone in front of the entire world and managed to justify itself to its countrymen by saying they were preventing another 9/11.

Why did so many Americans swallow this lie?

Bush was able to twist the American public's still fresh post 9/11 shellshock together with their inability and ignorance to distinguish between the separate countries of Iraq,Afghanistan, Iran, Egypt etc... and their differing religious/political agendas. He achieved this mostly through the Media's increasing right wing stranglehold.

I could ramble on but its easier just to say people will agree to just about anything if they can be convinced its for their own protection and yes at least 1/4 of the world population is just plain stoopid.  ;D

It is often said that the state is a necessary evil and there is nothing that can be done about it. Why any type of evil would be considered necessary by so many people always puzzled me. The primary reason put forth for having a state is that in order for men to achieve a just society, a monopoly on the use of force is required to deal with the "bad guys"--to protect the sheep from the wolves. The state thus comes to be respected under the guise of offering order and security to an otherwise (supposedly) lawless and violent society.Those who run the state continuously claim that they need more treasure, more strict obedience and an ever expanding scope of control to make the people more secure. Law is no longer discovered by reason but dictated by rulers. The general population is continually pandered to at the level of a beer commercial: "It don't get no better" than the state, so "trust us" and enjoy your bread and circuses.The state may be evil, but it is not necessary. If men were not able to organize a society where peaceful exchanges, as well as respect for property and persons are generally recognized, then the human race would have died out long before the elite discovered the controlling mechanism that is the state.
just sayin...

The nation-to-nation villainizing is easy, though. It's our internal stuff (and I assume other countries have it similarly) that really bothers me even more. (On Iraq, though, I will say this: most Americans I knew were against it even then, and did not believe the official line on it. That's not to say some or maybe even most didn't, but it was more commonly disbelieved even here--by a mile--than the media let on. Because every network and almost every politician went along with it all.

But that organization of society is government. Not the formal, gigantic, international, uber-wealthy, militarily omnipotent version of it we have today, but that's what it is. When people organize themselves to a society, that organization is government.

Oh the human race would be alive and well but only the strongest and smartest would survive. A byproduct of 'Civilised society' is that it has pretty much done away with the natural selection element of Human existence. Whether that is a good or bad thing ultimately, is a debate I haven't got the brass ones to enter....   ;)

It's the monopoly on the use of force that makes a government.
All other interactions are humans VOLUNTARILY interacting with one another. Most daily aspects of your life are free of government, why not strive to make ALL of them so?

Both of your last two posts bring the same thought to me, which is why I don't agree with your (a-)political ideology. (And I know I said a few times I don't want to actually talk politics themselves in this thread, but I guess I'm a failure.) The idea that only the strongest survive isn't attractive to me; and why not strive to free all aspects of your life government-free isn't for that same reason. People "socialized" for group protection, either in terms of against violence, or food-sharing, or social company, or whatever else. They were stronger banded together than individually, even though that meant an absolutely equal division of effort and benefit was virtually impossible. Someone, inherently, is not carrying his own weight. Still, for the idea of the benefit of society to work, even the strong carry on in this fashion. This is why I want government in my life. I believe the U.S. government does a pretty poor job of protecting those who can't support themselves, but I also believe it's better than doing no job at all. It does not bother me that some mentally ill homeless person has a meal and place to sleep on my dime even though he will almost certainly never pay me or society back. And I do not want to depend on people's goodwill to help the helpless or hopeless because people (even if well-meaning) are lazy and greedy. I want societal regulation that says we all chip in, and this (with "this" obviously changing over time, but hopefully suiting societal needs) is what we get for it. It is horribly, horribly imperfect. But it's better than stepping over a homeless guy passed out on the street and thinking, "oh well, he was weak...maybe some kind-hearted dipshit will give him a blanket."

As concerned humans we care enough to discuss our frustrations on a board where we all have at least one thing in common- the Beach Boys.

To all the good hearted souls on this board who care about the less fortunate, all I have to say is- 13,000,000,000,000$ national debt, up to 19,000,000,000,000$ in 5 years. Where has the money gone, why do we still have homeless? The damn government has wasted more responsibility and trust than it can get back any time soon. I make 12$ an hour, try to sell art, and try to make a living and nobody has any $ unless your in a union or work for the government. My family is taxed for fixing up their own damn home, and its such bull merda. People came to America to escape all that merda, and now we are experiencing it here.

13,000,000,000,000$$- why do we still have homeless? Keep your damn government if you want it, it works so well doesn't it? Do you know where your $$ goes? There is nothing it does right, and the bigger it grows the more fodaed we get.

Our Constitution explicitly says gov't is to promote the general welfare, not to provide it. Ask the homeless person where the shelter is- the local church or the town hall. America gives more out of pocket to charites privately than the govt does, and now we have big-time politicians trying to get rid of tax deductions for charitable donations. Well by golly ain't that a smart idea. Just what we need. That's really going get rid of the homeless.

Give me my own $$ back and I can do better with it than the gov't will. It adds up. Several thousand has been taken out of my paychex. Thats $$ I earned and I can use.

That is approaching the kind of content and tone this thread was begun to discuss.

Don't want to get anymore political than the last post. I truly feel we are not divided in our goals, just on how to get there. When I say "we" I mean most of us, there some real scumbags out there.

One of my favorite things about the BB's is how they really didn't get too political, as say John Lennon did. They just wrote good music, and sang Happy Birthday America... :lol
As we share a mutual love for the BB's it is healthy to discuss other ideas that are relevant, such as an occasional political rant, much as we do other ideas. As long as we keep it cool, and in perspective. Add in a joke or two, and there is much fun to be had.

I know, as I often do I thought about what I posted and tried to clarify or amend it. I don't want to go there, but to me it is really important as there are too many people struggling to make it. I want to be passionate without maniacal, and with my last post I tried to get back to topic. As long as I keep getting ripped off though, I will occasionally vent. It is hard not too sometimes.

I guess what this debate boils down to is does the many cons of bring ruled by a Government outweigh the undeniable pros it also brings? Is never truly being completely free to live and shape one's own destiny a fair trade off for the relative (and I must stress relative) comfort and security an all seeing omnipresent system provides? 

The answer is no. Give me 12 years of indoctrinating you and I'm pretty sure I can convince you that we can all be free, and even the unfortunate can be cared for without the use of coercion and force. If you are taught that you need to be lorded over in order to maintain your freedom, well that doesn't say much for what the rulers think of you. You can be free, you just nee to open your mind to the possibility, and believe in yourself and your fellow man/woman. Government is a leech, and that's putting it mildly!

Despite wanting to keep arguing points, I'm reminding myself that isn't what the thread was intended to be; but instead that what I really want to get at is less what people believe than what makes people so entirely dismiss the possibility that someone else is something other than an idiot or mad scientist for believing something different. That said, I read a NYT essay that had a few interesting things to say about what's being said here as related to one current, well-publicized brand of yeller, Tea Partiers. http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2010/may/27/tea-party-jacobins/

I think the key word here is 'brand'.
Is anybody out there really listening to or getting their info/news from only the mainstream media?! These are the same folks that propagandized us into TWO completely fake wars where actual real humans are having their lives destroyed, and that's just in the last ten years! The mainstream media has the blood of millions on their hands. Why would anyone ever trust them? Articles like that are pure arrogance and dis-information, making the idea of freedom seem absurd, while making a one-answer-for-all, top-down government solution look rational. For a good refutation of above article please look here:http://mises.org/daily/4463 (http://mises.org/daily/4463)

(Brand is always a key word; if I may turn that back to some of your earlier posts, let's admit that a government-free world would hardly be free of branding.) I think your error is assuming a single bloc of government, and of mainstream media, and a conspiracy resulting. The latter, as gatekeepers and creators of content, obviously have tremendous power. (As someone whose degree is in journalism, I do understand the history, the workings, the benefits, and the weaknesses of media, mainstream and otherwise.) Why would I take an article such as the one I posted seriously? Because having read it, I thought a lot of it made sense. Not all. I'm not mindless, and I won't take something as gospel because it appeared in [insert publication of choice here]. I'll read your response-link.

I enjoyed that. I thought it was mostly reasonable, and its tone (remember? THE THREAD!? I'm convinced my thread idea is dead. Nobody cares. Waaaa cries the baby me.) is decent, more or less. I think the author makes a few mistakes, too, however. For example, I don't think Lilla intended to say that the Fox News crowd truly represents any sort of intellectual or theoretical libertarianism, but that the current Tea Party screamers look to them as blabbers of libertarian-tinged rants. And I don't think there is any doubt of that. But obviously--it IS obvious, right?--the candidates-in-waiting and their toadies aren't trying to minimize government or its power; they want to be in the best position to either enforce their ideologies or (more commonly) to put themselves in position for extremely lucrative post-public service careers. The other flaw I'd find is that I do not read Lilla's article as him saying he knows more than you do; I read it that he's saying you (the average person--not YOU, grillo) don't know as much about X/Y/Z as you seem to think, and sometimes experts really are experts. A healthy cynicism is just that, but there is a point where it's just plain silly to think you're individually supremely suited to find the answer (about whatever).

Once again, I'm impressed you read my link and I love the open-mindedness of the posters in this thread!

I have my opinions, but I'm too young to have final conclusions. At that point, what would be left to do but die? (As a nonbeliever, I'm not looking forward to that last step.) I enjoy thinking about anything that strikes me as intelligent and respectful, really. (It's the lunacy of certainty, particularly at high volumes, that bugs me. Hence the thread.) Actually I just finished another article on that site, the Erhard article linked from the home page. Since we're so far into the weeds anyway on this thread and nobody except a few people cares anyway (and so we're not annoying them by getting off topic), can I ask you to clarify this: do you believe in literally no government? Or just extremely limited government? Can you briefly explain?