Home Main Category Second Amendment/Politics

Fascist/Socialist/Communist descriptors...

2»

Replies

  • beartrackerbeartracker Senior Member Posts: 3,116 Senior Member
    I've always found 1 dimension far to limiting to effectively describe the spectrum of political beliefs. 2-dimensions is still pretty poor, but it's closer. I've always been a fan of this diagram as an improvement over the traditional Right vs. Left:

    PoliticalSpace.jpg

    I do not think your graph and diagram is as accurate as Mikes which was based on the Constitution and a reading of the Federalist Papers and Antifederalist Papers as means to determine how far democrats republicans, liberals, conservatives or any political philosophy for that matter have moved away from the original intent of those who founded our new government.

    Mike has a controlling base line for his graph and diagram which is objective and limited to what our founding fathers worked from. Your graph and diagram is very subjective without a standard of any kind to appeal to for a basis of control. Yours is based on a generalized point of view that avoids the specifics allowing for a subjective interpretation, view or understand of the philosophies you allude to in your diagram. Mike's graph allows us to see just how far we have moved today from the premise the originators of our Constitution intended. Yours really tells us nothing or significant in this matter.
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,457 Senior Member
    Mike,

    Honest question....is it possible for a democratic, capitalist system to converge on your description of a communism if in fact an elite emerges that gains total control over industry, production, and distribution through economic means and uses their economic power to capture the government and become a ruling elite that now has complete control over both the government and the economy?

    Depends on a few factors. Before that situation could take place, the government's anti trust laws would kick in. This assumes that the politicians haven't already been bought. And politicians that stray too far afield are easily replaced at the next election. Then the cycle of buying off the politicians would have to start all over again. The two and six year staggered election cycles of the House and Senate respectively don't allow for enough time to capture a ruling majority. And the population wouldn't stand for it, yet. The economy is too big for even the richest of the rich to combine their resources and take it over. But a few greedy pigs can make the big banks and stock market take a huge dive, and take the housing market with it, with the help of Fannie, Freddie, and the Federal government. This is already a fact, and we're still picking up the pieces.

    But your point is valid. Take, for example, the seed suppliers that supply all the corn and soybean seed stock. Used to be quite a few separate companies supplying the farmers. Monsanto and Archer Daniels Midland are the two biggest ones now; they have bought out all the other major brands. Monsanto has a near chokehold on the herbicide market. Don't even think about saving some corn or soybeans for planting next years crop. They will have you bankrupted in court if you do so. There is a growing opposition to their genetically modified feed stock, though. And that backlash is growing. You might control the market on something, but consumers may just kick you to the curb in an unintended consequences factor. Funny how people are rediscovering the heirloom varieties of produce, and paying a premium for the higher quality product.

    What could, and to some extent, is happening is that certain industries are being consolidated under one name with buyouts and hostile takeovers. And without competition, prices necessarily rise due to the greed factor. And that brought on the anti trust suit. That caused the breakup of AT&T into the Baby Bells, but they are again consolidating under the same AT&T banner. Another example is Verizon Wireless. They bought out several competing wireless companies to grow into what they are now. Things go in cycles, and if you live long enough, you will see the cycle repeat itself. As a whole, people are a fickle lot, and will stand in line for the next new thing, and reject it in a few months, or next year, when the next new thing by someone else hits the market with more features and, hopefully, more bang for the buck.
    Not factoring in people and their fickle nature has killed quite a few businesses. Danged near tanked IBM back in the early 80s.
      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
  • casinoroyalecasinoroyale Member Posts: 68 Member
    I do not think your graph and diagram is as accurate as Mikes which was based on the Constitution and a reading of the Federalist Papers and Antifederalist Papers as means to determine how far democrats republicans, liberals, conservatives or any political philosophy for that matter have moved away from the original intent of those who founded our new government.

    Mike has a controlling base line for his graph and diagram which is objective and limited to what our founding fathers worked from. Your graph and diagram is very subjective without a standard of any kind to appeal to for a basis of control. Yours is based on a generalized point of view that avoids the specifics allowing for a subjective interpretation, view or understand of the philosophies you allude to in your diagram. Mike's graph allows us to see just how far we have moved today from the premise the originators of our Constitution intended. Yours really tells us nothing or significant in this matter.

    You are too harsh on alphasigmookie. His spectrum is a global one - it encompasses ideologies and individuals from across the world. Mike's is very American-centric. That does mean that Mike's is more applicable for US politics, however, it is also less applicable for academic analyses. For example, the democrat and republican labels are virtually meaningless outside of American politics - they lost their meaning quite a long time ago. Also, personally I feel as if the line for the Constitution on Mike's spectrum should be much closer to the center. The Constitution as passed was very different from the Articles of Confederation. It is still definitely less big government than what mainstream politicians today advocate, though.
  • beartrackerbeartracker Senior Member Posts: 3,116 Senior Member
    You are too harsh on alphasigmookie. His spectrum is a global one - it encompasses ideologies and individuals from across the world. Mike's is very American-centric. That does mean that Mike's is more applicable for US politics
    /QUOTE]

    No I am not, in fact not harsh enough, I thought I was rather kind. And no, it means it is more applicable to Obama's politics. Alpha's does encompasses ideologies and individuals from across the world and I reject the global and world views that have no real clue to what it means to be an American, nor will I consider the philosophies that are contrary to the intent of our founding fathers plain a simple, there is no compromise with me on this. We are to consider this country from only the founders intent, at least that is all I will ever view it from.

    The founders put their property and lives on the line and I will not yield to the world or to a global world, I will not as an American give up or surrender the sovereignty of my country because the world wants are thinks we should do it different than this country was established for.
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,457 Senior Member
    The Articles of Confederation and the Constitution are actually quite close. The Constitution was written to repair the defects in the Articles of Confederation that made the Articles too ineffective for governance. Problem with the Constitution is that it did not effectively reign in the powers of the Federal government. This defect with the Constitution is not the framer's fault, though. They could not have foreseen the abuses that would spring from the 'interpretation' of what they wrote in clear and simple English language. Nor could they have foreseen that in a half century a president would eviscerate a major part of the Constitution by making it a 'death pact' that the states could not escape by secession, a right written down in several state constitutions. At that point, the Federal government ceased to serve the states; the states were subjugated by the Federal government. In that one dismal few years time, the servant became master.

    So, in fact, the linear graph is accurate, unless one judges it by 'modern' standards and not the standards and understanding in which it was written. As the Constitution is written, the only ones needing it interpreted are those to whom English is not a comfortable second language.
      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
  • AiredaleAiredale Banned Posts: 624 Senior Member
    I'll tell you what.

    Let's agree to hate everyone that you do.
    Never mind different opinions, you are right.
    How does that make you different from other meglomaniacs in the past??
    Remember, you're right all the time.
    Look inside.
    Jim
  • TeachTeach Senior Member Posts: 18,428 Senior Member
    Of course, it's also possible to hang out on the political off-topic page of a gun-related forum, stir the pot, pontificate a bunch, and never have anything to say about guns, ammo, hunting, or shooting in general. People who do that probably need to get a life.
    Jerry
  • NNNN Senior Member Posts: 24,861 Senior Member
    Airedale wrote: »
    I'll tell you what.

    Let's agree to hate everyone that you do.
    Never mind different opinions, you are right.
    How does that make you different from other meglomaniacs in the past??
    Remember, you're right all the time.
    Look inside.
    Jim
    Of course I'm right!
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,457 Senior Member
    Airedale wrote: »
    I'll tell you what.

    Let's agree to hate everyone that you do.
    Never mind different opinions, you are right.
    How does that make you different from other meglomaniacs in the past??
    Remember, you're right all the time.
    Look inside.
    Jim

    To whom, or what post are you referring? :uhm: Only peeps I hate are those trying to steal my stuff, or trying to harm/kill me. They deserve a good hatin'. :tooth:
      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,798 Senior Member
    Airedale wrote: »
    I'll tell you what.

    Let's agree to hate everyone that you do.
    Never mind different opinions, you are right.
    How does that make you different from other meglomaniacs in the past??
    Remember, you're right all the time.
    Look inside.
    Jim

    It didn't take you long to play the 'hate' card. I mean, it's expected from lefties, whenever they can't change the rules to benefit their 'canned' arguments, but the more gifted ones don't play it until all of their other tricks have failed.

    At least our favorite liberal has enough sense to just disappear when his position is indefensible, or avoid discussions about obvious screw-ups his guys make. It's much more 'manly' than calling anybody a hater that you can't keep up with in a debate.
  • beartrackerbeartracker Senior Member Posts: 3,116 Senior Member
    Well said bisley and so true of any liberal I have ever had the opportunity to engage in a discussion when their back is against the wall. I mean, don't confuse them with having to deal with the facts of the truth of the premise of any proposition that is being debated.
  • AiredaleAiredale Banned Posts: 624 Senior Member
    Bear,
    I don't "hate" anyone.
    I said, in a response, "let's hate everyone that you do"
    That doesn't mean that I hate the person that made the statement.
    I may disagree with them, but I don't hate them.
    We're too quick to "hate"
    The only thing our Lord hates is sin.
    Is it a sin to disagree??
    There are folks here that actually hate the politician in power.
    The Libs hated Bush, the conservatives hate Obama.
    How can we hate a man for his politics?
    We may disagree with his thoughts, but why the hate.
    Paul said "live in the heavenlies". Not the things in this world.
  • beartrackerbeartracker Senior Member Posts: 3,116 Senior Member
    Airedale wrote: »
    Bear,
    I don't "hate" anyone.
    I said, in a response, "let's hate everyone that you do"
    That doesn't mean that I hate the person that made the statement.
    I may disagree with them, but I don't hate them.
    We're too quick to "hate"
    The only thing our Lord hates is sin.
    Is it a sin to disagree??
    There are folks here that actually hate the politician in power.
    The Libs hated Bush, the conservatives hate Obama.
    How can we hate a man for his politics?
    We may disagree with his thoughts, but why the hate.
    Paul said "live in the heavenlies". Not the things in this world.

    I don't recall saying I hated anyone? I do not like what some do or stand for philosophically or politically, but I don't hate them. I may hate their policies and actions but I do not hate people nor want any ill to befall them. If I said that I hated anyone please remind where? Nothing wrong with disagreeing on anything.
Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.

Advertisement