For Conservatives Only
Is the current form of Liberalism destroying America as we know it?As we know it, yes. The "old" America, where people took responsibility for themselves and made their own decisions about their actions and lifestyle is dying. The "new" America is joining Europe in the ranks of modern socialism, with an enormous government structure making more and more decisions for everyone while at the same time trying to "equalize" economic wealth for everyone without regard to the individual effort, ability, motivation or anything else.
You are such a cynic bud. Your thoughts are just dinosauric, (Ha! I made -up a new word). But, since I mostly agree I suppose I am a dinosaur too.
However, I would offer a different term for you to use; modern [L]iberalism in place of "modern socialism." While many of the things I think you are speaking of may be socialistic in nature, they are not socialism per se, so it would be easy to discredit the thought attached to that term.
GAYou're right - it is not the historic definition of socialism we are moving towards. I just don't have a better term than "modern socialism". Perhaps "marxism" would be better - " From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs (as long as we equate 'want' to 'need' "?
Although Marxism rather ignores the growing tendency towards "take what I can" in preference to "earn what I can".Modern Marxism . . . That would work too.
GA
They are sure making an effort to do so. It is very apparent America's society has changed due to many adopting different ideologies. Ideologies that are most definitely foreign to what we took pride in for many decades. We are leaning toward socialism. We the people let it progress this far, did we not?
I was considering offering this thought to Wilderness, Sharlee, and considering your comment, I will toss it to both of you.
Could the modern changes in liberal thought have something to do with our, (the U.S.) society evolving beyond the need for such Darwinism as our early days needed?
By that, I mean that as our government grew so did avenues of support. For instance; in our early days if you didn't hunt or farm you didn't eat. Then, as mercantile and service trade increased, (because the numbers of our society grew), a new way to eat became available—you could buy food. This took just a little less of the need for strict Darwinistic attitudes.
Another example would be churches, (aka charitable organizations), and the expansion of towns. In the early days you might find small religious groups or small churches every so often in your travels. Then, as our numbers increased and towns became more standard than camps, the number of churches increased, (probably every town had at least one), and so did the availability of a helping hand for the indigent and non-productive.
And so on and so on until we took enough baby steps away from the days where Darwinism was pretty much the only choice of survival to our current days where it, (Darwinistic principles), doesn't appear to be a need at all.
I think this thought might contribute to our current direction. I also think that the appearance of evolving beyond Darwinism is misleading. In order to continue evolving to an equitable, (and I don't mean equal), society, we will always need the traits that Wilderness mentioned and that we both think are being lost.
Sorry for the rambling. It's a lazy Saturday afternoon and I have some slack time. ;-)
GAOMG, I could write a book on this subject. So pleased to see this very interesting topic, almost missed it. Darwinistic principles IMO are needed today more than ever. I think what we have today is a breakdown in "psychological evolution" due to the lack of many not fit to survive in a society that worked for centuries and was evolving as one would expect it to.
"Could the modern changes in liberal thought have something to do with our, (the U.S.) society evolving beyond the need for such Darwinism as our early days needed?"
It would well appear in the past maybe 20 years we have veered away from Darwinism, the survival of the fittest or fight or flight. It would seem some became tired of the fight, and turned to an alternative way to survive. Government... Why? Because some have evolved to veer away from standards we held, that seems to work for most. One important standard that has changed over time is how we chose to raise our children. I think the change came with the baby boomers. Many BB were raised with very standard values, morals. The children were offered an upbringing of what would be expected of them to become individuals that could succeed in society and thrive if they heeded their parent's teachings.
At this point there appeared to be a split in child-rearing. Some followed the teachings of their parents when raising their children. Some did not. At this point, there was somewhat of a split. Some rebelled and took a more liberal view of bringing up their children. Perhaps for phycological reasons, they did not find their parent's method's suitable. They began to stray away from the traditions, the values they were raised with, and let their children become more involved in decision making at a very young age. What do you think about children having the burden of decision making at a young age? Could they become fatigued as they face adulthood, and look for others to lean on for decision making? Could a group, a Government become very attractive to them? Could this become a new norm for our younger generations? Could evolution have brought us gently into this very apparent new norm? If this remains true, we will no longer need to fight or be the fittest. We can choose a form of a psychological flight for our survival. But, what kind of society will have if we veer away from Darwinistic basic principles?
Evolution took a turn, fight or flight was being done away with. Parents were more or less bringing up children that did not need to fight to survive if they chose not to. They could be excused if they continually made the wrong decisions because they had the right to make their own decisions right or wrong. Whether it aided their survival or not it did not matter. But did these children thrive as some that were brought up with more rigid standards of what the world would expect of them?
From my experience, I say no most do not. They blend in and in turn, brought up their children the only way they knew from their own experience. IMO, the fittest still survive better and thrive. The ones not as fit need the aid of the Government to provide for their survival, their well being. It's so much easier not to become overburden with decision making, and not responsible for making mistakes.
It would seem liberals through ongoing psychological evolution have discovered they have no longer a need to fight or take flight. They just move along with what is psychologically comfortable for them to survive. Example --- groupthink. Is it not more comforting to have a group behind you when you veer away from norms? Conservatives have also somewhat psychologically evolved, and never before have they taken more pride in being self thinkers, individualists. It would seem their common sense attribute has become stronger than ever before. They are at this point willing to fight to be heard. They no longer are satisfied with being the strong silent human being.
As a rule, liberals are accepting of what is provided by those they trust to make decisions. I find this is one of the differences between liberals and conservatives. As a rule, conservatives pride themselves in being in charge of their every thought, they appreciate the freedoms of decision making. They take pride in being "fit to survive in their surroundings" --- to control every aspect of their lives and are proud to stand alone if necessary. Very hard to get around a true conservative once they have made up their mind they have made a sound decision...
The split has left us with a very divided duel society. So, will the fittest survive or will we become a society that psychologically won't be able to function on our own? One thing for sure evolution will not stop in its tracks. Where will it lead us? Consider what natural selection is capable of giving us through time. With enough accumulated changes, natural selection can create an entirely new society.
IMO, we have a choice, free to thrive if we fight, or fail by taking psychological flight?
"I think this thought might contribute to our current direction. I also think that the appearance of evolution beyond Darwinism is misleading. In order to continue evolving to an equitable, (and I don't mean equal), society, we will always need the traits that Wilderness mentioned and that we both think are being lost."
If we give up the traits Wilderness spoke of we will be lost. We will be left with society not worthy of survival.
This subject is so diverse, with so many avenues to travel down. I could go on and on."Perhaps for phycological reasons, they did not find their parent's method's suitable."
Sharlee, may I as an oldtimer inject a thought here? I believe the driving force for the lax parenting was Dr. Benjamin Spock. My children were born in the 1960s, both of them. His era seems to be the time period in which those decisions you mentioned were made. My kids dad and I, of course, bought a copy of his book. It contained modernistic, don't hurt the child's feelings, "be a friend, not a parent" type of child-rearing theories. We didn't go for it and raised our children the old fashioned way by using a spank every now and then. We laughed twenty years later when Dr. Spock came out publicly and said that the best thing a parent could do with his book was to use it on the seat of the child's pants. No joke, he really did. He refuted his child-raising advice and said he regretted he's never published it. In the meantime the new wave of "child psychology" caught on, and today we all see the deplorable result. Survival of the fittest, indeed. A Dr. Spock raised child ruled the roost with little discipline. We see the results today. I think that's why we see so many Facebook posts from my generation bragging that "I got spanked; I got told "no", etc. and I'm okay.There is the phenomena of overprotective/helicopter parenting which creates overly dependent young adults who are not capable of accepting responsibility & wanting others to take care of them. This is transferred to believing that the government should provide for them. Also there is the premise of everyone getting a trophy. Well, the real world isn't like that. There are winners & there are losers.
I do agree with you, and I had forgotten about the rise of Dr. Spock that took us all by storm. His teaching was a very big part of how parenting took a sharp turn. I remember my mom's dislike for Spock. She would say --- These kids will have their parents living in the garages.
I don't need a long response for this one MizBejabbers. A simple Amen! says it all.
We never bought the book or into its concepts for our kids. I admit we pampered them more than we should have, but there were no participation Trophies in our house.
GA
I can see this is a topic you have strong thoughts about. I agree with much of your comment. Your "decision making" direction is an interesting one that I think has some truth to it.
I see that MizBejabbers added a very good point about Dr. Spock's writings that also seems to tie in with your decision-making idea.
You might be onto something here.
GADo we not generation after generation raise our children. Has it not changed drastically over the past 50 years? I raised my children differently in some cases than many of my peers. This has provided me a live case study, and enabled me to determine somewhat how the different methods in rearing affected the children as adults. I realize this a simplistic and non-scientific study, more of a view. But, in my small circle, it was amazing to make the comparison and the correlations of the different parenting styles, and how these styles clearly affected the children as adults.
The methods used to raise our children have changed from generation to generation and I think they always will. Different methods work for different situations, but the goal—teaching our children good values shouldn't change.
Unfortunately, from my view, many of those "good values" have changed.
GA
I think you are onto something GA, and I agree to a certain extent. But what really caused that? I think overpopulation had something to do with it. Live in the suburbs or the middle of town, and you can't pick up your gun and hunt for your supper. You can't raise cotton or the sheep to get the wool for your family's clothing, but you can (or at one time could) go to the fabric store and buy materials to make them. Now it has evolved to the point that raw materials are not available. You must earn the money to buy the clothing ready made. The clothing factories moved to China because the corporations could make more money there. The breadwinner was out of a job or making inferior wages slinging hamburgers instead of putting together a car or the shirts in a local factory. As long as we were a tribal society, we could provide for ourselves, but not anymore. And then there is always the parasite on society. Parasites have been with us since the dawn of history, so as population grows, so do the number of parasites. I won't go any farther because I think you've got the picture.
There are plenty of people who will say that the U.S. has loads of room for more people and that we are not overpopulated, however, they aren't thinking of where to grow food, water for irrigation and potable water, fuel supplies, waste removal, and things like that.Your tribal and over-population thoughts do tie in with my original comment. As our numbers increased so did the size of our "tribe" and that increase, by the very nature of its size, diluted the abilities of both the individual and the tribe.
GA
- PrettyPantherposted 3 years ago
0I think we have to completely adjust our thinking about how individuals are valjed within a society because the days of every able individual being able to support themselves through a paying job are slipping away. It is becoming counter productive to judge this as "bad" and try to resist it above all else. Change is occurring due to many factors, including those already mentioned here, and we must cope with it or the world will be perpetually at war over resources. It will, in my opinion, require changing some basic ways of thinking about work, the value of a human beibg, and how we want to exist in this world. Andrew Yang gets it. ;-)
Why do you say the days of every able individual being able to support themselves are slipping away?
While it is certainly true that at some points that is quite true (thinking of the recession), in normal times it doesn't seem that way to me at all. Is it because we continually raise the bar as to what "support themselves" means? Is it because some individuals refuse to obtain skill sets required? Is it because in our greed we want more than we earn?+10000000000, hate to say this but I agree with Wilderness. There are many entitled people out here (barring the COVID-19 fiasco) who vehemently contend that they should have a comfortable lifestyle on other's dime. They believe that certain things should be granted i.e. healthcare. Well, no. If people want something, they should educate themselves with relevant skill sets & work in a lucrative field.
The government doesn't owe anyone anything. Since the so-called Great Society of the 1960s, America has progressed more to a welfare society. People have to learn accountability & responsibility for their lives & actions. There is nothing wrong w/greed as long as one can support themselves, not depending upon nor expecting things from others.No, it is simply because technology and invention will solve so many problems that fewer people will be needed to feed and provide us with all the commodities and services we need or want. I'm not saying we're anywhere close to that, but it will happen. And as we transition, there will be fewer and fewer jobs that provide a decent living.
Well, I would certainly agree that fewer people will be needed to produce the commodities we all need. We're already at that point.
But the things we want? Only if the inventors stop inventing new things. No one used to want a computer, or a cell phone. No one wanted a tablet or a microwave oven. No one wanted an electric car, and no one wanted a 65" TV. No one wanted a heart or lung transplant, and even artificial limbs better than a steel hook were only a far off dream.
No, PP, we are nowhere near the point of insufficient labor. One day perhaps true robots (as opposed to automatic machinery) will produce what we want, but that's a long way in the future.
In my opinion, we can expect to pay more and more for simple hard labor. Want a sprinkler system in your yard? $200 per hour. Want your house painted? $150 per hour. A plumber to clean out your plugged toilet? $300 per hour.
I see the time where such labor is going to be at a premium and pay more than highly skilled jobs...simply because no one wants to do them.Yep. There have been attempts at discussions on this thought before.
I agree that we are headed in a direction that will reach a point where there just aren't enough necessary jobs—as we think of jobs now, for folks that need them.
GAThis is true and this issue will multiply in its problem on society.
This is compounded by a system, that rewards those without jobs for having as many children as possible (our welfare system as it has been more or less for the last 50+ years). Each child a welfare recipient adds increases the amount of money and benefits they receive.
Over 100 years ago a large family made sense, they were needed to work the farms, there were billions less people in the world and for productive nations every worker mattered and this was the reality into the 80s or 90s.
Today, this is not the case, technology is replacing the need for workers in almost every field, and we have the largest population ever, with the least need for such.Thank you Ken. Large families DON'T make sense in a postcomputerized society. In fact, it doesn't make sense in an advanced industrialized society yet the poorer & less educated people have large families. It isn't only welfare mothers who have humongous families, there are poorer married couples who have large families, much to the detriment of the children in those families. While there are welfare women have humongous families to increase their welfare checks, there are married women who have humongous families because of incessant baby hunger or they have deep psychological voids in their lives. Large families aren't normal in advanced societies. In fact, couples i.e. the affluent & highly educated have 1-2 children. It is the poorer i.e. lower middle, working, & lower classes & the less educated who opt for large families.
Does a large family (say, 3-4 children) make sense if children are valued and loved more than nice vacations or trips to the local bar/restaurant? If children are valued more than a large bank account or hobnobbing with the rich and famous? If love from children are worth more to the couple in question than a mansion full of servants?
Wilderness, 3-4 children is considered a medium sized family. As we all know, in large families, children are FAR LESS VALUED than children in small families WHO ARE HIGHLY VALUED. In large families, children are objectified, dehumanized, & even abused. Intelligent, educated people KNOW this. Please read some sociological books.
Wilderness, THIS is what IS CONSIDERED a LARGE FAMILY according to sociological constructs:
According to sociological constructs, a large family is a family of 5 or more children in a household. Yes, large families have been quite unnecessary since the 1920s where societies have become more urbanized. In the 21st century, large families are beyond unnecessary, even aberrant. It is totally abnormal for any couple to have large families in the 21st century. Intelligent, educated people DON'T have large families. It is the UNINTELLIGENT, LESS EDUCATED who aim for large families.No, it doesn't.
The world cannot sustain on a continually expanding human population.
We would be no better than locusts that strip away the ground bare, only we are doing it to the entire planet, and all of humanity will suffer a poorer existence for it in the future, if it survives at all.If industrialized nations were expanding their population, without immigration, you would be correct. But they aren't; nearly all of them are shrinking their population, maintaining and growing in size only because of immigration from other countries. Personally, I do not find that my country should limit the number of children because other countries do not.
Given that, I can only repeat: does it make sense for an American family to intentionally limit the number of children in it when that family values children more than wealth; when children have a higher priority than living a lifestyle of luxury?Ken, WOULD YOU PLEASE REASON WITH HIM? I have tried incessantly so many times & this is the result......
It is irrelevant where they come from, large families are a problem, and those cultures or those government programs that promote them, need to be eliminated.
THANK YOU, KEN!!! +1000000000000000000000000000000000000
Ken, +10000000000000000000000000000000000000, preach my man. PREEAAACH.......... Unfortunately, Wilderness has typical LFL. There are those who argue that people should never limit their families but have as many children as possible although such children will have dearth cultural, educational, & socioeconomic opportunities. Wilderness sadly believes in quantity over quality as many people from large families do. Intelligent, logical people believe in family planning, limiting the number of children to 1 or 2 as such children will have more cultural, educational, intellectual, & socioeconomic opportunities than those in large families. Large families as defined by sociological construct consist of households of 5 children or more.
Also, what people omit to acknowledge that children from large families have wants. They envy children from small families who have what they don't have. So they bully the children from small families because the latter have the opportunities that they don't have. They live in impoverished conditions while their small family counterparts live in more affluent surroundings. Many children from large families HATE their children for bringing them into struggling, impoverished conditions. Children from large families have the poverty & struggle mindset which children from small families don't have. Children from large families are brought up in the premise that POVERTY AND STRUGGLE is GOOD WHILE AFFLUENCE is BAD, EVEN EVIL.Ken, to reiterate, large families were fine in less modern times when people were needed to work the land & when life expectancy was much shorter. As societies become more industrialized, large families became a liability. Also there was not efficient birth control so families were large by happenstance. With urbanization & the event of more efficient birth control, families became smaller.
In the 21st century, having large families is totally illogical, if not ludicrous in scope. There are advances in birth control & life expectancy. In societies, where there is a preponderance of large families, there is a higher percentage of socioeconomic poverty while in societies where there is a preponderance of small families, there is a large percentage of socioeconomic affluence. Why doesn't Wilderness see this? He sees it but REFUSES to admit it, believing that it is good to raise a large number of children in poverty!
And it is propagated by government programs that reward those least capable of caring for children, for having as many as possible.
This incessant belief by those that run the nation, essentially, the think tanks and retirement gurus that say the population needs to increase or there won't be enough people to support those in retirement, etc. etc.
The incredible ignorance of wanting a bigger population, shows how completely disconnected from the big picture realities we face our "leadership" is.
We should be doing everything possible to encourage a smaller population and limit the amount of people migrating into the nation, and instead we promote the exact opposite.
Also, it takes common sense to raise children and the less common sense and ability to reason, the worse will be the parenting.
Love is not enough (to parent).
It (parenting) takes a strong sense of logic
- and wisdom.
Who has either of those any more?It also takes money to raise children properly. That is why couples should be ESTABLISHED financially, emotionally, & psychologically before having children (1-2 children). One should be established financially before having children in order to afford children the best cultural, educational, & socioeconomic opportunities. Children should be exposed to the higher human needs, not just the rudiments. The upper middle & upper classes have such resources, less so the solidly middle class.
However, the lower middle, working, & lower classes DON'T have the aforementioned resources & hence they SHOULDN'T have children as they HAVE ABSOLUTELY nothing to offer their children culturally, educationally, & socioeconomically. They would merely condemn their children to a purgatorial to infernal existence. Studies show that children born into impoverished situation have an academic & intellectual disadvantage over children born into affluent situations. Love means FAR LESS than finances in raising children.
- PrettyPantherposted 3 years ago0
I am not comfortable telling people how many children they can have. And this idea that poor people should not have children is elitust. Some rich people shouldn't have children, either
No, it isn't in the slightest bit elitist that poor people shouldn't have children.
Poor people can't afford to have children. They can barely take care of themselves. Let's apply inductive & deductive logic here. Poor people have very little means. They live in the worst neighborhoods. Why bring children into such dire environments.
Poor people are also the least educated. Why can they teach their children? Their children will be just as disadvantaged as their parents will be. There is LESS social mobility now than ever. Social mobility, as we know, is become more tenuous. Most poor children will become poor adults. It is downright irresponsible for any poor person to have children. To use the old, outmoded term- for poor people to have children is a .....SIN.There should be no government support for it.
In fact, there needs to be government repercussions for having children you cannot support or provide for.
Our government today supports people having children they cannot support, it supports providing for immigrants, legal, illegal, it doesn't matter, the government is happy to provide in abundance for those that cannot provide for themselves.
This only compounds the problems, it does nothing to alleviate them, quite the opposite, it ensures a greater socio-economic collapse will come in the future... which America is on the precipice of and why we are seeing such chaos in the country today.
Which is good, the world needs the West's Liberalism to collapse, the “liberal format” of Europe was never sustainable, as it is based on sovereign inequality and the support of America both militarily and economically... America attempting to become like Europe will fail in epic fashion because China will never support America to live in comfort at it's expense the way America did for Europe.
China’s economic success undermines the West’s claim that there is a necessary link between capitalism and liberal democracy, China will subjugate the world much the way it subjugates its own people, or worse, how it devourers its neighboring states.
America is entering into a new future, a "woke" future, where liberal ideals have shriveled away, replaced by Climate Justice, Social Justice, and being part of the Global Community that will be headed by (controlled by) China and International Corporatism.re: governmental support for people having children they cannot provide for. While I agree with you 100% I am unable to see any solution. Seems to me that the only two options are to allow those kids to starve, or at least lead a life of abject poverty, or to create massive "kid's towns" where children are cared for by government without any parent present - only government caretakers.
Neither is acceptable at all, IMO, leaving us with what we have. I suppose mandatory sterilization of women giving birth too many (whatever that number might be) might help, but that is not acceptable, either.Correct, the Western outlook on this, the "socially acceptable", the "humane" or even the "Christian" way, does not allow for suffering so it propagates and magnifies the problems by "helping" those in need.
This is why America and Europe are unfit to handle the issues facing humanity and the world today. There is no will to do what must be done, there is no place in the "Western Liberal" mindset to make the hard choices.
China has shown quite the opposite, from how it is willing to stay true to a decades long plan to achieve dominance, to how it can subjugate both a free Westernized society (Hong Kong) or purchase and infiltrate it (Canada) or outright occupy it (Mongolia).
China has entered into its expansionistic stage, or its 'empire building' stage, it will be global, it will be totally encompassing in ways that no prior "empire" has ever been, the technology available today combined with the numbers of Chinese available to encompass the globe are like nothing that has come in the past.Ken, the first paragraph is spot on. People should be responsible parents which means a judicious application of family planning principles. People who have large families should be PENALIZED through taxes & other means. Yes, there should be mandatory sterilization after couples have 2 or at the MOST 4 children. There is a saying that if one refuses to be responsible, we will be responsible for you.
What some people fail to acknowledge that large families aren't self-sustaining in the least. Large families receive OUTSIDE help & support. All large families whether it is recent immigrants, welfare mothers, & working Americans receive OUTSIDE support. It is totally ridiculous that there are "parents" who insist in having large families that they can't support. Look at the Duggars, if it weren't for their television show, they would be impoverished. People in their right minds DON'T have large families. You are right, Ken.
Oh yes it is acceptable, there should be mandatory sterilization of women who gave birth irresponsibly.
There SHOULD be government repercussions for having children that one can't afford nor provide for. There should be COMPULSORY birth control & sterilization. I am 100% for such.
I think the left has gone insane. Children are being taught that anything and everything is white supremacy. In Oregon, and other places, Mathematics is now considered white supremacy. There are too many stories on this circulating on the web from many different sources, I fear many people who would laugh at it may take this serious.
"Oregon promotes teacher program that seeks to undo 'racism in mathematics'
A toolkit includes a list of ways 'white supremacy culture' allegedly 'infiltrates math classrooms'
Part of the toolkit includes a list of ways "white supremacy culture" allegedly "infiltrates math classrooms." Those include "the focus is on getting the 'right' answer," students being "required to 'show their work,'" and other alleged manifestations."
https://www.foxnews.com/us/oregon-educa … -supremacy
"Brooklyn College Education Prof. Claims Math Is ‘White Supremacist Patriarchy’
According to a report by Campus Reform, Brooklyn College Professor Laurie Rubel, who teaches math education, tried to make the case this week that basic math is “white supremacist.” The tweets are part of a larger trend in recent scholarship by American academics, many of which have argued that “objective truth” is a social construct."
https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2020/08/ … atriarchy/Yes, what the left is doing regarding education is beyond insane. Now, there is a proposition to teaching LBTQ culture to pre-schoolers. Let's return to basics & teach solid subjects without the nonsense added. Now we wonder why America is getting more behind that other developed nations as far as education goes. And we wonder why when people graduate from college & can't find a job. Shall I continue?
The problem is that many of American children can't compete because they are disadvantaged due to their familial environment. Their parents are uninterested in educating them, feeling that it is THE TEACHER'S job, NOT THEIRS, to educate their children.
These are the same parents who don't participate in their children's PTA meetings. They are also uninterested in their children's education. Some of these parents maintain that education is so-called a Caucasian purview. Parents w/such attitude inculcate this negativity into their children & it's no wonder that their children are struggling or even failing school. There are some people that are anti-achievement which reflects on their children's lackadaisical attitude towards educational attainment.
Related Discussions
- 48
Democrats------->Socialism?
by Grace Marguerite Williams 2 weeks ago
Why do Democrats contend that government should take care of its citizens instead of letting citizens make their own decisions? Why do Democrats lean more towards socialistic policies in terms of implementing social/socioeconomic programs? Do you think that Democrats have a history of...
- 37
The case why I am compelled to vote against the GOP/Conservatives
by Credence2 3 years ago
A great article that speaks for me and my opinion regarding the aforementioned topic in the Atlantic. How much of it concurs with your own?https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi … te/616808/Patience, it could be seen as a long read.Your thoughts, please.
- 266
Clarity Please Conservatives
by Charles James 13 years ago
As some fellow hubbers will know, I am involved in writing hubs for a Socialism 101 series.There are a few issues raised by the conservatives where I do not fully understand what they are saying. Before I address these in a hub or hubs I really would like clarity on what exactly the conservative...
- 223
Tax question and Socialism
by Brian 14 years ago
I was talking with a group of friends the other day. and I suggested that there should be a national tax, where the money collected should be distributed evenly among every U.S. citizen, and I was labled as a socialist.I don't understand what would be so wrong about distributing that kind of money...
- 48
SC says no more faithless electors in the EC- what say conservatives?
by Credence2 4 years ago
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi … gK1iPD_BwEThis nice reassurance ruling from the Supreme Court may well give the Electoral College a new lease on life and make the institution less troublesome in my eyes than before.No more happenstance, if you don't want something to occur,...
- 65
Aren't Socialism and Communism more Conservative than Liberal?
by Scott Belford 6 years ago
Commonly, those people who call themselves conservative hold socialism and communism as being the end-state of liberalism. I would argue that there is nothing "liberal" about socialism and communism. Think about it, the fundamental engine behind both is the need for the...