What is communism?

[rainstorm]

another example is our govt schools, where excellence is actually discouraged, because liberals feel that would hurt the other students "feelings"
it is slowly speading through the govt schools. again, conformity is the norm for liberals. they dont like competition because it means some people win and some lose. conformity is the liberal doctrine


and of course, whenever competition is proposed in govt, liberals oppose it.
and the college campuses, where liberals generally rule. they are champions of censorship, as they write longer and longer lists of banned "hate speech"

[Derek Ortt]

Of course liberalism stifles a lot of people, espeially individual ambition. What liberalism has tended to do since the late 1950's is force their aganeda upon an unwilling population. I thought we had a democracy, not this quasi-socialist state that we have become

[rainstorm]

no doubt at one time liberals had good intentions, but it has been subverted to the lowest common denominator, and the love of state power over the individual

[WidreMann]

Of course liberalism stifles a lot of people, espeially individual ambition. What liberalism has tended to do since the late 1950's is force their aganeda upon an unwilling population. I thought we had a democracy, not this quasi-socialist state that we have become

Conservatives do the same thing and you know it. But that's the nature of the government. We don't have, nor did we ever, have complete control over the actions of the government. We elect people to make the decisions for us.

It's also important to note that what you claim that liberalism is doing now is no different than it has ever been. The government has always been forcing stuff upon an at least partially unwilling population. That's the nature of the game. You can't please everybody, and, it seems like, most of the time you can't even please half of the population, much less a majority.

[WidreMann]

another example is our govt schools, where excellence is actually discouraged, because liberals feel that would hurt the other students "feelings"
it is slowly speading through the govt schools. again, conformity is the norm for liberals. they dont like competition because it means some people win and some lose. conformity is the liberal doctrine


and of course, whenever competition is proposed in govt, liberals oppose it.
and the college campuses, where liberals generally rule. they are champions of censorship, as they write longer and longer lists of banned "hate speech"

While having a kernel of truth, a lot of this just isn't true. Excellence still is encouraged. Maybe not as much as it should be, and unfortunately, you can find cases here and there of well-meaning teachers and administrators doing downright stupid things that would fall under the category of discouraging excellence and intelligence for nonce to help low-achievers have better self-esteem. And I'm not defending the public school system either, because I think it has a lot of problems and a bloated bureaucracy that gets in the way of it doing what it needs to do (and let's not talk about unions...ugh). However, I think you are blowing the problem out of proportion and trying to indict liberalism in general.

[rainstorm]

thats why we need less govt and more choice

[Anonymous]

Of course liberalism stifles a lot of people, espeially individual ambition.

There has to be a compromise between individual ambition and the good of the population as a whole (including the less-fortunate and less-capable). Your view may be that individual freedom by means of unlimited or nearly-unlimited competition is the way to go, but just because some of us would rather put the comfort and good of the common people at the top of the priority list is not reason to say that liberalism is stifling and a bad point of view.

There are flaws in both liberalism and conservatism, of course. Liberalism may stifle ambition to some degree (though not as severely as some claim), but conservatism diminishes the importance of human rights and sometimes ignores the fact that all humans are not created equal with respect to capability and motivation. You guys often give the impression that you believe that the less fortunate often "deserve it" because they aren't contributing to society, but ability naturally varies, and I personally don't believe that natural/inherent variance should exclusively determine a person's right to an enjoyable life. Just my opinion on the matter; and you are right about one thing... our opinions as young people may change in the future, but right now this is how I see it.

[WidreMann]

thats why we need less govt and more choice

Well, that makes sense as a general principle, but I think across the board cutting of the government, regardless of the good or bad effects, isn't a good idea. I think what we really need to do is not be angry at having a government provide all these services but rather make sure that we get our priorities straight and make sure the government is taking care of them. There's nothing fundamentally wrong with social welfare or public services. There is something wrong with bloated bureaucracies, poor spending discretion, corruption in the programs, and just bad program design. I think even many liberals, if you don't insult them so much at first by attacking their ideology, would agree that we need more effective programs and perhaps less of them in some places.

Remember also that the government gives out almost as much in corporate welfare as it does in social welfare. I'm not saying that's bad, but it's just to point out that government services aren't just for single mothers with 10 children who don't feel like getting a job.

[rainstorm]

i dont mean to indict liberals, but i believe we have 2 choices, state power, or individual freedom. liberals want too much power to rest in the state, and i think that is dangerous. unions have done some good things, by the way, hehe

[Anonymous]

Well, that makes sense as a general principle, but I think across the board cutting of the government, regardless of the good or bad effects, isn't a good idea. I think what we really need to do is not be angry at having a government provide all these services but rather make sure that we get our priorities straight and make sure the government is taking care of them. There's nothing fundamentally wrong with social welfare or public services. There is something wrong with bloated bureaucracies, poor spending discretion, corruption in the programs, and just bad program design. I think even many liberals, if you don't insult them so much at first by attacking their ideology, would agree that we need more effective programs and perhaps less of them in some places.

Remember also that the government gives out almost as much in corporate welfare as it does in social welfare. I'm not saying that's bad, but it's just to point out that government services aren't just for single mothers with 10 children who don't feel like getting a job.

Agreed 100%.

[WEATHER53]

no doubt at one time liberals had good intentions, but it has been subverted to the lowest common denominator, and the love of state power over the individual

Liberals still have good intentions but eradicating injustices through developing and furthering personal liberties somehow got translated into personal irresponsibility, everyone is a victim, no one can take stock of how they actually got into the situations they are in-someone else must have caused it, then the schools become not for readin, writin, and rithmatic but instead a social cleansing agenda designed to foster and further a collective guilty conscience about misdeeds of the past and soon the circle is back to "it's not my fault I am a criminal, your great graddaddy did things to my great graddaddy that made me turn out that way"

[rainstorm]

thats why we need less govt and more choice

Well, that makes sense as a general principle, but I think across the board cutting of the government, regardless of the good or bad effects, isn't a good idea. I think what we really need to do is not be angry at having a government provide all these services but rather make sure that we get our priorities straight and make sure the government is taking care of them. There's nothing fundamentally wrong with social welfare or public services. There is something wrong with bloated bureaucracies, poor spending discretion, corruption in the programs, and just bad program design. I think even many liberals, if you don't insult them so much at first by attacking their ideology, would agree that we need more effective programs and perhaps less of them in some places.

Remember also that the government gives out almost as much in corporate welfare as it does in social welfare. I'm not saying that's bad, but it's just to point out that government services aren't just for single mothers with 10 children who don't feel like getting a job.

i am against corporate welfare. i was opposed to the govt throwing money away to the airlines. i am opposed to the govt paying people to have babies, whether its a welfare mom, or an upper middle class mom getting a child tax credit.
heres one idea to eliminate the buearacracy. just send people a check each month and let them do anything with the money they want. you could eliminate a ton of programs that way, and there would be no overhead. i believe both parties use govt to control people, not to help them. liberals just do it a touch more.
what amazes me is why everyone doesnt get on board a flat tax, or better yet, a national sales tax. eliminating the irs and its countless volumes of regualtions would go along way to restoring economic freedom.

[rainstorm]

no doubt at one time liberals had good intentions, but it has been subverted to the lowest common denominator, and the love of state power over the individual

Liberals still have good intentions but eradicating injustices through developing and furthering personal liberties somehow got translated into personal irresponsibility, everyone is a victim, no one can take stock of how they actually got into the situations they are in-someone else must have caused it, then the schools become not for readin, writin, and rithmatic but instead a social cleansing agenda designed to foster and further a collective guilty conscience about misdeeds of the past and soon the circle is back to "it's not my fault I am a criminal, your great graddaddy did things to my great graddaddy that made me turn out that way"

thats a good point. what scares me is that the teachers unions get to indoctrinate kids 8 hours a day. no wonder they oppose any attempt at competition in education

[WidreMann]

thats why we need less govt and more choice

Well, that makes sense as a general principle, but I think across the board cutting of the government, regardless of the good or bad effects, isn't a good idea. I think what we really need to do is not be angry at having a government provide all these services but rather make sure that we get our priorities straight and make sure the government is taking care of them. There's nothing fundamentally wrong with social welfare or public services. There is something wrong with bloated bureaucracies, poor spending discretion, corruption in the programs, and just bad program design. I think even many liberals, if you don't insult them so much at first by attacking their ideology, would agree that we need more effective programs and perhaps less of them in some places.

Remember also that the government gives out almost as much in corporate welfare as it does in social welfare. I'm not saying that's bad, but it's just to point out that government services aren't just for single mothers with 10 children who don't feel like getting a job.

i am against corporate welfare. i was opposed to the govt throwing money away to the airlines. i am opposed to the govt paying people to have babies, whether its a welfare mom, or an upper middle class mom getting a child tax credit.
heres one idea to eliminate the buearacracy. just send people a check each month and let them do anything with the money they want. you could eliminate a ton of programs that way, and there would be no overhead. i believe both parties use govt to control people, not to help them. liberals just do it a touch more.
what amazes me is why everyone doesnt get on board a flat tax, or better yet, a national sales tax. eliminating the irs and its countless volumes of regualtions would go along way to restoring economic freedom.

But you must admit that there are things a single person can't do, but a group of people can. After all, that's pretty much what civilization is about. So too is it with the government. It is this entity we created to do what we all as individuals, or even individuals occasionally cooperating, cannot do. It is a force we created to keep ourselves in line, and to do things that we ourselves couldn't accomplish alone. You can quibble over exactly what the government should be doing, but I think it is very hard to argue that it is unnecessary or fundamental wrong for the government to take up responsibility for things, which, as I see it, what you are doing.

[Lindaloo]

This is great debate you all!! Very interesting!

[WidreMann]

i dont mean to indict liberals, but i believe we have 2 choices, state power, or individual freedom. liberals want too much power to rest in the state, and i think that is dangerous. unions have done some good things, by the way, hehe

You're creating a dichotomy that doesn't need to be created. We don't need to have complete individual freedom, nor do we need to have complete state power. We need a healthy mix of the two, with an emphasis on individual freedom. This is, believe it or not, pretty much what we have. I know conservatives are often first to point out that we have a great country with a lot of freedoms (I'm not disagreeing with this, by the way). But I find it interesting that here you are saying that we are basically oppressed by the government. Both liberals and conservatives alike try to get the government to take more power into its hands in some things and give it up in other places. Conservatives often want the government to legislate religious values, or be much stricter on certain crimes, or...there's the Patriot Act. And then liberals want the government to be tougher on businesses and have more regulation in general. This is pretty standard stuff here. No one side in this country is more guilty than the other.

Also remember, the far right and the far left agree in one thing: totalitarianism.

[GalvestonDuck]

Helen -- you're actually posting your views! No offense...but dang, how refreshing to read YOUR thoughts...a lot.