Total Posts:72|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Is our society degrading?

OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2012 1:43:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Do you think it is?

How is it?
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
1dustpelt
Posts: 1,970
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2012 1:44:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Yes
Wall of LOL
"Infanticide is justified as long as the infants are below two" ~ RoyalPaladin
"Promoting female superiority is the only way to establish equality." ~ RoyalPaladin
"Jury trials should be banned. They're nothing more than opportunities for racists to destroy lives." ~ RoyalPaladin after the Zimmerman Trial.
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2012 1:51:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Hard work is certainly degrading.

We are "progressing" towards the "perfect" nanny state which to me means we've dunked our society in acid and are laughing as it sizzles.
M.Torres
Posts: 3,626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2012 3:50:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Degrading? How so?
: At 11/28/2011 1:28:24 PM, BlackVoid wrote:
: M. Torres said it, so it must be right.

I'm an Apatheistic Ignostic. ... problem? ;D

I believe in the heart of the cards. .:DDO Duelist:.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2012 4:34:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/5/2012 1:51:41 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
Hard work is certainly degrading.

We are "progressing" towards the "perfect" nanny state which to me means we've dunked our society in acid and are laughing as it sizzles.

^this
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Aaronroy
Posts: 749
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2012 5:42:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I'm honestly not seeing a nanny-state in the making. On the contrary, I'm seeing more of an evolution from a big government to a smart government. Let's be honest; our government has always been f*cking huge. In some way or form, each politician who has held power has tried to increase the size of the Federal Government. Even Reagan (the pinnacle of neo-conservative figure-heads that every Bible-belt bearing rightist aspires to) exponentially increased the size of the Federal Government. Nixon increased the size of the Federal government. Bush increased the size of the government. TDR, Haft and Wilson increased the size of the government. FDR increased the size of the government, well, moreover the role of the government but nonetheless the size. Ever since the ratification of the Constitution after the Constitutional Convention, the Federal Government has only gotten larger. Even Jefferson (anti-Federalist) did his part in growth by buying land from the French and whatnot.

I don't see an effort in the conservative party to make the government 'smaller'. I do see an effort to make the government smaller when the opposition of said people are in power (more noticeably, the Obama administration), but you can bet your life savings on it that the next 'Conservative' President elected won't hesitate to increase the size of the government as long as it rules in his close-minded favor. The movie V for Vendetta is a wondrous example that the nanny-state can play on both sides of the coin.

Politicos as well as your average politically-involved joe doesn't want the government to get smaller. They all want big government, except they only want big government if they get to enforce their own ideologies and philosophies. Your neighborhood homophobic Scott Lively (extremely bigoted conservative @ssclown) would be more than happy to sign a bill banning the sexual orientation of homosexuality.

The difference between this field of thinking and my own is that I have a more morally-based liberal ideological mindset behind government. Rather than enforcing a lifestyle or philosophy (conservatives trying to enforce their 'family values'/McCarthyism and 'nuclear family' mentalities, and equally hippies trying to enforce their 'quaker-only' and 'let's wear baggy clothes and drive around in Volkswagon vans all day long'), we need to be focusing on an open-minded establishment that works in favor of overall pragmatism and the general good of the country. How big it needs to be is negligible, really; I honestly think it should adjust with the population rate or how big it NEEDS to be to fulfill it's goal (this is why I scowl at Confederate flags; the Articles of Confederation didn't work for reasons known.) Stop worrying about a 'nanny-state', it's not going to happen. People WON'T let it happen. Holster your guns and quit worrying about some mysterious boogieman that is ostensibly suppose to put a black bag over your head and throw you in some FEMA camp for questioning.
turn down for h'what
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2012 5:55:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/5/2012 5:42:27 PM, Aaronroy wrote:
I'm honestly not seeing a nanny-state in the making. On the contrary, I'm seeing more of an evolution from a big government to a smart government. Let's be honest; our government has always been f*cking huge. In some way or form, each politician who has held power has tried to increase the size of the Federal Government. Even Reagan (the pinnacle of neo-conservative figure-heads that every Bible-belt bearing rightist aspires to) exponentially increased the size of the Federal Government. Nixon increased the size of the Federal government. Bush increased the size of the government. TDR, Haft and Wilson increased the size of the government. FDR increased the size of the government, well, moreover the role of the government but nonetheless the size. Ever since the ratification of the Constitution after the Constitutional Convention, the Federal Government has only gotten larger. Even Jefferson (anti-Federalist) did his part in growth by buying land from the French and whatnot.

I don't see an effort in the conservative party to make the government 'smaller'. I do see an effort to make the government smaller when the opposition of said people are in power (more noticeably, the Obama administration), but you can bet your life savings on it that the next 'Conservative' President elected won't hesitate to increase the size of the government as long as it rules in his close-minded favor. The movie V for Vendetta is a wondrous example that the nanny-state can play on both sides of the coin.

Politicos as well as your average politically-involved joe doesn't want the government to get smaller. They all want big government, except they only want big government if they get to enforce their own ideologies and philosophies. Your neighborhood homophobic Scott Lively (extremely bigoted conservative @ssclown) would be more than happy to sign a bill banning the sexual orientation of homosexuality.

The difference between this field of thinking and my own is that I have a more morally-based liberal ideological mindset behind government. Rather than enforcing a lifestyle or philosophy (conservatives trying to enforce their 'family values'/McCarthyism and 'nuclear family' mentalities, and equally hippies trying to enforce their 'quaker-only' and 'let's wear baggy clothes and drive around in Volkswagon vans all day long'), we need to be focusing on an open-minded establishment that works in favor of overall pragmatism and the general good of the country. How big it needs to be is negligible, really; I honestly think it should adjust with the population rate or how big it NEEDS to be to fulfill it's goal (this is why I scowl at Confederate flags; the Articles of Confederation didn't work for reasons known.) Stop worrying about a 'nanny-state', it's not going to happen. People WON'T let it happen. Holster your guns and quit worrying about some mysterious boogieman that is ostensibly suppose to put a black bag over your head and throw you in some FEMA camp for questioning.

Federal government has dramatically increased over the years:

http://www.acton.org...

This is why I'm a libertarian. I believe the ideas of social liberals, while good intention, have increased the size of government which has led to unsustainable debt, crippling of economic growth, dependency, and increased barriers to entry in the market.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
sadolite
Posts: 8,837
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2012 6:05:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/5/2012 5:42:27 PM, Aaronroy wrote:
I'm honestly not seeing a nanny-state in the making. On the contrary, I'm seeing more of an evolution from a big government to a smart government. Let's be honest; our government has always been f*cking huge. In some way or form, each politician who has held power has tried to increase the size of the Federal Government. Even Reagan (the pinnacle of neo-conservative figure-heads that every Bible-belt bearing rightist aspires to) exponentially increased the size of the Federal Government. Nixon increased the size of the Federal government. Bush increased the size of the government. TDR, Haft and Wilson increased the size of the government. FDR increased the size of the government, well, moreover the role of the government but nonetheless the size. Ever since the ratification of the Constitution after the Constitutional Convention, the Federal Government has only gotten larger. Even Jefferson (anti-Federalist) did his part in growth by buying land from the French and whatnot.

I don't see an effort in the conservative party to make the government 'smaller'. I do see an effort to make the government smaller when the opposition of said people are in power (more noticeably, the Obama administration), but you can bet your life savings on it that the next 'Conservative' President elected won't hesitate to increase the size of the government as long as it rules in his close-minded favor. The movie V for Vendetta is a wondrous example that the nanny-state can play on both sides of the coin.

Politicos as well as your average politically-involved joe doesn't want the government to get smaller. They all want big government, except they only want big government if they get to enforce their own ideologies and philosophies. Your neighborhood homophobic Scott Lively (extremely bigoted conservative @ssclown) would be more than happy to sign a bill banning the sexual orientation of homosexuality.

The difference between this field of thinking and my own is that I have a more morally-based liberal ideological mindset behind government. Rather than enforcing a lifestyle or philosophy (conservatives trying to enforce their 'family values'/McCarthyism and 'nuclear family' mentalities, and equally hippies trying to enforce their 'quaker-only' and 'let's wear baggy clothes and drive around in Volkswagon vans all day long'), we need to be focusing on an open-minded establishment that works in favor of overall pragmatism and the general good of the country. How big it needs to be is negligible, really; I honestly think it should adjust with the population rate or how big it NEEDS to be to fulfill it's goal (this is why I scowl at Confederate flags; the Articles of Confederation didn't work for reasons known.) Stop worrying about a 'nanny-state', it's not going to happen. People WON'T let it happen. Holster your guns and quit worrying about some mysterious boogieman that is ostensibly suppose to put a black bag over your head and throw you in some FEMA camp for questioning.

"it's not going to happen."

If I had a dollar for every thing that govt proposed to do and every piece of govt regulation that someone said was never going to happen.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2012 7:03:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Of course it is. Haven't you heard? There are drunk people with tattoos all over the streets.
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2012 11:21:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/5/2012 7:03:48 PM, Maikuru wrote:
Of course it is. Haven't you heard? There are drunk people with tattoos all over the streets.

Lmfao.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2012 11:50:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
"Our earth is degenerate in these latter days; bribery and corruption are common; children no longer obey their parents; and the end of the world is evidently approaching. " --Assyrian clay tablet 2800 B.C.
Aaronroy
Posts: 749
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2012 3:42:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/5/2012 5:55:39 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 5/5/2012 5:42:27 PM, Aaronroy wrote:

Federal government has dramatically increased over the years:

http://www.acton.org...

This is why I'm a libertarian. I believe the ideas of social liberals, while good intention, have increased the size of government which has led to unsustainable debt, crippling of economic growth, dependency, and increased barriers to entry in the market.

....you didn't read my post at all, did you?

The policies of both social liberals and social conservatives (as well as those pesky, fruitless fiscal conservatives) have exponentially increased the size of the Federal Government.

My point is that it doesn't matter which direction your vote sways. The government will continue getting bigger. Most libertarians I know have stances on certain policies that would lead to a bigger Federal Government. It's a toss up.
turn down for h'what
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2012 4:12:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
If one wishes to shrink it
One must first expand it
If one wishes to weaken it
One must first strengthen it
If one wishes to discard it
One must first promote it
If one wishes to seize it
One must first give it
This is called subtle clarity

The soft and weak overcomes the tough and strong Fish cannot leave the depths The sharp instruments of the state Cannot be shown to the people
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2012 4:28:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/7/2012 3:42:59 PM, Aaronroy wrote:
At 5/5/2012 5:55:39 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 5/5/2012 5:42:27 PM, Aaronroy wrote:

Federal government has dramatically increased over the years:

http://www.acton.org...

This is why I'm a libertarian. I believe the ideas of social liberals, while good intention, have increased the size of government which has led to unsustainable debt, crippling of economic growth, dependency, and increased barriers to entry in the market.

....you didn't read my post at all, did you?

The policies of both social liberals and social conservatives (as well as those pesky, fruitless fiscal conservatives) have exponentially increased the size of the Federal Government.

My point is that it doesn't matter which direction your vote sways. The government will continue getting bigger. Most libertarians I know have stances on certain policies that would lead to a bigger Federal Government. It's a toss up.

Yes, I did. Your contention was:
On the contrary, I'm seeing more of an evolution from a big government to a smart government. Let's be honest; our government has always been f*cking huge.. Let's be honest; our government has always been f*cking huge.

I gave you empirical evidence demonstrating this was false. There is indeed an increase in bigger government. In fact it was not until FDR policies that the US government began to exponential grow.

I will agree that both parties did increase the size of government. However just because this is true, it does not follow that both political ideologies want to increase the size of government, since libertarians really do want to shrink the size of government and are willing to see programs like the military, medicare, medicaid and social security cut.

However, I disagree that Ronald Reagan necessarily wanted the government to increase under him and government did due to Congress, not himself. The president doesn't have all the power in government.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2012 4:39:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/5/2012 5:42:27 PM, Aaronroy wrote:

I don't see an effort in the conservative party to make the government 'smaller'. I do see an effort to make the government smaller when the opposition of said people are in power (more noticeably, the Obama administration), but you can bet your life savings on it that the next 'Conservative' President elected won't hesitate to increase the size of the government as long as it rules in his close-minded favor.

If you don't see any effort, you have missed the Tea Party movement, the bills passed by the Republican House (like the Ryan budget), and the enduing following of Ron Paul. Rick Perry couldn't remember which Departments he wanted to abolish, but plenty of Republicans can.

The Obama Administration is issuing new regulations at the rate of 10,000 pages per month. the new rules are flowing at two and half times the Bush rate. It's fir to point out that Bush didn't shrink government, but it's not accurate to say that Republicans are not now making an effort. The Tea Party was not happy with Bush.

I don't know if Republicans will succeed in reversing the trend of ever-growing regulation and government control. We may have reached the tipping point where so few people are paying taxes that the majority will vote themselves unending benefits from the Nanny state under the assumption that someone else will pay. Unfortunately, reality is not charmed by the delusion of unending free stuff.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2012 4:47:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
There are many metrics of society's advance or decline. There are literacy rates, tests of educational attainment, illegitimacy rates, drug dependency rates, and so forth. American society has been in steady decline since the 60s, as determined by the metrics. Of course, not everything is in decline. Things like medicine and technology have advanced dramatically, as they have almost everywhere in the world. However, the society as a whole is going downhill.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,250
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2012 5:54:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I think Geo would agree with this statement:

Society is becoming more and more unbalanced, especially with the way technology outstrips our wisdom on how to use it properly for all people.

As society grows away from balance and happiness, people will inevitably grow irrational and rush off the cliff like lemmings in a daze. We are fragile creatures after all.
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2012 10:24:38 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I think society is degrading in almost every way. Morally, our principles are becoming more hollow and dilute all the time. Take a term like "ambition" for example. You all would undoubtedly agree this is a positive trait, in fact an essential one of the highest degree of importance to an individual. There was a time when "ambitious" used to be a term reserved for tyrants, selfishly pursuing their own goals at the expense of others. We have no core ideals anymore, no guiding principles... the ideals we do have are almost wholly negative.

On the short term, I see us becoming enslaved by technology. I long for the life I had as a kid, before the communications tech took over. No FB, no DDO, no cellphones... things were so much more enjoyable. Hanging out meant getting out of the house and going over to a spot where there was likely people. I am so isolated and lonely these days I almost want to kill myself. This will be my fifth year on this website and I barely participate anymore because people turn over fairly quickly and leave after about a year, and every time I come on it seems like it's a whole new group of people I don't even know. I've met one good friend on here and never even seen her IRL. Socializing these days means sitting at home in front of a screen. You youngins think that things are better than ever because of your ability to press buttons and chat, but you are never going to know what a true sense of community feels like and your social skills are going to be suppressed because of it.

We are getting fatter (long-term trend), lazier, and weaker. While medical tech pushes further, we create new health issues out of thin air and are flooding ourselves with contaminants that we will need decades more to understand the full implications of. Our food is full of simple sugars, partially hydrogenated oils, preservatives, pesticides... We are caught in this vicious cycle of making things worse with tech and then making new tech to fix the problems we continually create. New psychological disorders are being created all the time that never existed before... my relationship recently failed because I was dating this girl who was so consumed by her modern lifestyle that she developed antisocial personality disorder and is essentially undatable. I had another ex who was anorexic/bulimic... Surely these are issues that previous generations did not have to deal with.

Immanuel Kant was one of the greatest historical thinkers yet he lived in a barbarically undeveloped society (compared to our own) and never traveled, in his whole life, more than a few miles from his home. It is incomprehensible to us how a man could be happy, nevermind great, with such limited technology and access to the rest of the world.
Rob
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2012 12:20:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
In a manner of speaking, yes. Something to which people have hinted without really giving a proper account, I think, is that all of the old categories--political, ethical, metaphysical categories, to name a few--are slowly being emptied out as they are revealed to be gross fictions. The notion of citizenship, for instance, which immediately ties natural life to politics through an identity claim, is becoming increasingly meaningless with the advent of anti-threat laws (PATRIOT Act, SOPA/CISPA, CALEA, NDAA, the n redundant security agencies, the TSA, the 2008 FISA amendments, zero-tolerance and police presence in schools, etc.) according to which citizens are always already potential criminals who have to be surveilled and policed. They are at once part of the body politic being protected and a potential threat to that body to be expunged. That America can now be considered a "battleground", recalling the sort of war rhetoric always employed to justify the intrusion of the exception, and that more and more citizens are withdrawing from the traditional forms of political participation, demonstrates the way in which "citizen" quickly becomes an empty signifier. More accurately, it is revealed as the empty signifier which it has always been, but which had never been exposed as such. Similar stories can be told for other political concepts like "sovereignty", "nationality", "human rights", and "Man" as some manufactured metaphysico-political entity.

Same stories also hold for the usual ethical categories, like "dignity", "respect", "moral worth", and all programmatic codes which tell you to do or not do X.

My argument, though, is that "degradation" is not necessarily a bad thing. Rather, I suspect that, while this degradation will continue for a time, it will be such that all of the remaining categories will be hollowed of content and discarded, providing a clear route for building something new--a politics without "sovereign power", an ethics without "human dignity", and a metaphysics without "Man". So, yes, we're degrading--but that's to be expected.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2012 12:45:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Man has lost his sense of self-hood and leaves consciousness at the door.

There's too many people that worry their whole lives about trivial things and when they do on occasion think beyond the trivial, they are way off base and focus on the leaf rather than the root.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2012 1:05:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Lasagna makes some good points about the rise of technology. I grew up before computers, and even television was a novelty. I think the advantage of technology outweigh the disadvantages by a very large margin, but that doesn't mean that its all a great thing. the enormous advantage of the internet age is the access to information. Back in the day, books could be ordered from the library system, but ti was really hard to figure out what relevant and who wrote it. Gadgets make life much easier too. How did people boil water before microwave ovens? I know, but it's nothing to brag about.

In a small community you not only have neighbors, you are forced to associate with them. that means you will associate with some really nice people, and also the sum of the earth. there are smart people, but the statistics mean there are not many. The great benefit of internet life is that you get to be more selective on who you associate with. The disadvantage is that you are unlikely to know as many people well.

I think one of the great attractions of the Nanny state is that it is a substitute for the tribe formed by local communities. Tribes fulfill a basic human need. Internet tribes are good for some things, but they are superficial. That's a real problem.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2012 2:50:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/8/2012 1:05:16 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
Lasagna makes some good points about the rise of technology. I grew up before computers, and even television was a novelty. I think the advantage of technology outweigh the disadvantages by a very large margin, but that doesn't mean that its all a great thing. the enormous advantage of the internet age is the access to information. Back in the day, books could be ordered from the library system, but ti was really hard to figure out what relevant and who wrote it. Gadgets make life much easier too. How did people boil water before microwave ovens? I know, but it's nothing to brag about.

In a small community you not only have neighbors, you are forced to associate with them. that means you will associate with some really nice people, and also the sum of the earth. there are smart people, but the statistics mean there are not many. The great benefit of internet life is that you get to be more selective on who you associate with. The disadvantage is that you are unlikely to know as many people well.

I think one of the great attractions of the Nanny state is that it is a substitute for the tribe formed by local communities. Tribes fulfill a basic human need. Internet tribes are good for some things, but they are superficial. That's a real problem.

I think that's largely true. One potentially interesting addendum is that, contributing to the superficiality of techno-socializing, interactions online are effortlessly moderated by the backspace key. It's difficult to say precisely whether that is "good" or "bad", because I don't think either is immediately true. Because the world is arguably dominated by extroversion (as a social norm), I think many individuals are therefore inclined to cringe at the idea that we live in a world in which we no longer have to respond immediately in conversation. For introverts, however--who tend to prefer thinking about what they want to say, even in live conversation, before they say it--the combination of written expression with technological access to immediate communication is a fantastic way of doing business.

I do think the harms of situating human interaction through digital media are also lurking just around the corner, though. I have the privilege of being a member of that threshold generation whose place is almost exactly between the explosion of digital technologies and the pre-information age. Certainly, there is something to be said for the development of radio, TV, automobiles, and microwaves, all of which my generation was born into; yet, we can at the same time isolate something really novel about the internet age (and, that we can even name something like an "internet age" bears sufficient witness to the fact) that wasn't present in the pre-internet years. Storage, networking, data transmission, access to information--these are all representative of the new integration of technology in our lives which will inaugurate, I suspect, a period during which the metaphysical distinction between "the human" and "the technological" will probably be erased. I think that's largely a good thing, because I don't think the distinction of "technology" as something outside and independent ever made much sense, but, like I said, I do understand the danger of a world in which human communication is mediated solely by social media, etc. Though, I have a fear, in particular, of the use, control, and inscription in politics of our information as a technology of power and domination. I don't think our capacity to control these things will be able to keep pace with the rate at which technology develops and information expands, but the fact that established power will try anyway is sort of frightening.
Aaronroy
Posts: 749
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2012 6:35:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/7/2012 4:28:33 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 5/7/2012 3:42:59 PM, Aaronroy wrote:
At 5/5/2012 5:55:39 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 5/5/2012 5:42:27 PM, Aaronroy wrote:

Federal government has dramatically increased over the years:

http://www.acton.org...

This is why I'm a libertarian. I believe the ideas of social liberals, while good intention, have increased the size of government which has led to unsustainable debt, crippling of economic growth, dependency, and increased barriers to entry in the market.

....you didn't read my post at all, did you?

The policies of both social liberals and social conservatives (as well as those pesky, fruitless fiscal conservatives) have exponentially increased the size of the Federal Government.

My point is that it doesn't matter which direction your vote sways. The government will continue getting bigger. Most libertarians I know have stances on certain policies that would lead to a bigger Federal Government. It's a toss up.

Yes, I did. Your contention was:
On the contrary, I'm seeing more of an evolution from a big government to a smart government. Let's be honest; our government has always been f*cking huge.. Let's be honest; our government has always been f*cking huge.

I gave you empirical evidence demonstrating this was false. There is indeed an increase in bigger government. In fact it was not until FDR policies that the US government began to exponential grow.

I will agree that both parties did increase the size of government. However just because this is true, it does not follow that both political ideologies want to increase the size of government, since libertarians really do want to shrink the size of government and are willing to see programs like the military, medicare, medicaid and social security cut.

Libertarians make up the least noticeable portion of US opinion. I actually hear more about the Green Party more than I hear about the Libertarian Party. It's completely negligible, to be honest.

I do believe the military needs to be cut; but Great Society programs? They should be really left alone until job development and per capita salaries reach a respectable rate. The lowest paying full-time job in the UK (in US dollars) was around $22,000, so we have some work to do before even thinking of considering cutting off aid to the disabled, elderly and the unfortunate (which I wouldn't even consider).
However, I disagree that Ronald Reagan necessarily wanted the government to increase under him and government did due to Congress, not himself. The president doesn't have all the power in government.

Drawing a fine line between his interests and his capabilities did not change the fact he was for the strengthening of the Central Government. I mean, come on, his entire 8 years was nothing but brinksmanship and debt ceilings. They're all like this. The one similarity between Progressives and Conservatives is that they are BOTH against strong central

By the way, there really is nothing empirical about the evidence you've presented. From the looks of it, it doesn't even appear to be adjusted for inflation. Even spike in Federal Spending on the chart is almost always during a time of war.
turn down for h'what
Aaronroy
Posts: 749
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2012 6:36:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
They are both against strong central government when they are not in power*
is what I meant to say
turn down for h'what
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2012 8:08:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Amg, look at this juicy contribution! Dont see this often these days... i will enjoy reading through it again and replying when im not on my phone. ^_^
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2012 1:43:14 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/5/2012 1:43:19 PM, OberHerr wrote:
Do you think it is?

How is it?

No, lol. I don't think that our society is degrading at all.

Humans are cyclic. We love circles and revolutions and such things.

If you'll notice, we've been following a sort of rhythm since time immemorial, reflecting a couple of generations ago in style and temperament, with a slight twist due to the advancements that have transpired between.

For example, we're entering another more politically active and socially charged age, reminiscent of the 60's and 70's. Occupy Wall Street is exciting, and hopefully, it's only the beginning. In terms of our style, it's very obviously in the nineties. Amg. Snapbacks and skinny jeans? You mean, 1992? xD

Lasagna --

That was a very interesting post. I usually agree with you, but with this one, I emphatically disagree.

As for enslavement to technology -- yikes man -- you paint a frightening personal picture, but in general, things are certainly not that way. From kids that I teach to my younger sibling, it seems they more incorporate technology into their everyday life to enrich it rather than replace it. Not everyone is pasty and lonely... :\ You should go to a bar or something, dude. They still exist.

I never boil water using a microwave. xD

The stove is where it's at.

This country is just as Puritainistic as ever, censoring our media more than most countries, collecting information on each and every one of us as we submit it time and time again into the public realm. Who we are, what we've done, what schools we attended, our jobs, our friends, our family, our interests, our hobbies, our idiosyncrasies, our thoughts throughout the day...

This country is still shocked and provoked by the silliest, most arbitrary and irrelevant things. Sexuality. "Race." The ersatz construct we know as American politics.

Our drop in IQ is negligible and likely undetectable on the larger scheme. Moreover, it's temporal. It's very likely due to malnutrition. Someone mentioned that we eat garbage these days. Well, this is true. And, the crappier we eat, the stupider we'll be.