Is this necessary?

Joe,

Good points, post 18.

jt

Post 21

Thursday, April 2, 2009 - 1:00pm

http://rebirthofreason.com/Spirit/Blogs/8.shtml

Post 22

Thursday, April 2, 2009 - 2:44pm

Joe would you say there is no net difference at all between the Republicans and the Democrats on degrees of Statism?

For example Carter's administration was a series of government interferences into the market that lead to high inflation and high unemployment. Reagan came into office and pledged to do nothing for the economy, and said the biggest problem was the government, and the economy made a recovery. As badly as Republicans have behaved in the past 8 years, as a whole, historically, I believe they are less statist than then Democrats. Of course since there are so many variables involved it largely depends on how much mileage one wants to get out of their own analysis of the parties (which particulars to look at), for instance there have been many Republican and Democrat Presidents and Congressman that have behaved in very contrasting ways even within their own party ranks.

Also I'm not aware of Republicans generally favoring the rich over the poor or campaigning on any kind of class warfare platform. That's usually the M.O. of the Democrats.

Post 23

Thursday, April 2, 2009 - 6:52pm

John, I wouldn't say there isn't a difference. Obviously there is a difference. And I agree with your analysis. But I don't think the difference in statism is the essential difference between the parties. It's not big government vs. small government. Republicans don't represent capitalism the unknown ideal by any means.

I agree also that the Republicans don't push the class warfare. They would lose if they tried, but also I don't think they think of it that way. Nonetheless, the false dichotomy could just as easily describe the voter's beliefs. Too much free enterprise makes corporations too powerful, so we have to help the poor. Too much welfare encourages lazy parasites and we have to keep our businesses competitive. But there are any number of false dichotomies in politics today. Right vs. Left. Liberal vs. Conservative. Atheist socialists vs. religious capitalists???!?!?

Moving away from one evil does not mean moving towards something good.

Post 24

Friday, April 3, 2009 - 8:31am

Joe:

I agree also that the Republicans don't push the class warfare. They would lose if they tried, but also I don't think they think of it that way. Nonetheless, the false dichotomy could just as easily describe the voter's beliefs.

But which voters? I believe this thought is mostly relegated to voters who traditionally vote for Democrats, not Republicans. You are pushing this view of a false dichotomy of rich vs. poor that was purely constructed by the Democrats, and the label that the Republicans are "for the rich over the poor" is something only Democrats believe to be true. But I don't believe this dichotomy actually exists and it's not something a great deal of conservative voters believe to be true either.

And while it is certainly the case moving away from one evil may not necessarily mean moving towards something good, it also works the other way, moving away from one evil also may not necessarily mean moving towards something equally evil or more evil.

As far as the religious aspect of the Republican party, as far as I can tell, the only direct impact this has on any of our lives is the issue of abortion. But this impact pales in comparison to the kind and level of control the Democrats want over the economy. How many people are affected by the issue of abortion, and how many people are affected by the desire to stifle the economy even more? I believe concretely, the religious aspect of the Republican party has little effect on our lives and our happiness, concretely the impact of the Democrat's desire for a socialist utopia is far more harmful. Economics is far more important to our lives and our happiness, and also to our liberty. And even on the issue of abortion, at least the Republicans are internally consistent in their logic. They believe a fetus is an individual, and while their premise may be wrong, their conclusion from that false premise is logically sound. You don't sanction murder. How do the Democrats view abortion? As a woman's right to choose, yet they don't believe a woman should be free to choose anything else. The right to own a gun? Nope. The right to choose your own health care and health insurance? Nope. The right to home-schooling or private education? Nope. The right to hire whom you want to hire? Nope. And on an on the list goes.

So while I wholeheartedly agree, the Republicans don't represent capitalism the unknown ideal, but they represent something better than the Democrats. Given my own life as my own standard, I choose the party that is willing to respect more of my economic freedoms than the other. I can't live unless I have some economic freedoms, and the more the better.

(Edited by John Armaos on 4/03, 8:42am)

Post 25

Saturday, April 4, 2009 - 12:52pm

John wrote,

And even on the issue of abortion, at least the Republicans are internally consistent in their logic. They believe a fetus is an individual, and while their premise may be wrong, their conclusion from that false premise is logically sound. You don't sanction murder.

John, if you think the Republicans are consistent on this point, you need to read George Reisman's article, "If Abortion Really Were Murder." See here: http://georgereisman.com/blog/2007_11_01_archive.html.

If abortion were murder, it would be premeditated murder. So what penalty do you suppose most Republicans support for an act of premeditated murder? The answer is, the death penalty. Do they advocate the death penalty for women who have abortions?

Back in 2007, there were eight candidates contending for the Republican presidential nomination. To a man, all of the candidates who opposed abortion said not only that women who have abortions shouldn't receive the death penalty for this act of "premeditated murder," but that they should receive NO penalty for it.

So much for consistency!!!

Moreover, laws against abortion, which you seem to think are a relatively trivial violation of individual rights are in fact far worse than an increase in taxes or regulations on business that your Republican allies claim to oppose. Even though Republicans don't enforce the logical implications of their opposition to abortion on women who have them, these anti-abortionist legislators are nevertheless willing to outlaw abortions and to punish doctors who perform them. Such laws have a devastating affect on parents who are forced to bear children they neither want nor have the resources to support:

Quoting Reisman,

"Seeing a human being where there is none and consequently murder where there is none, serves to destroy the lives of women, and of families, who cannot afford the burden of an unwanted extra child, which they are nonetheless forced to accept because the possibility of abortion is denied them. Because of this distorted conception of things, a woman has only to become pregnant, and ownership of her body is immediately claimed by the State. Whatever plans she may have had for her future, such as gaining an education, pursuing a career, or simply enjoying her youth, are forcibly thrown aside, as she is made to live with no more choice in her own destiny than a pregnant animal. She is compelled to defer whatever hopes, dreams, and ambitions she may have had until she has completed what is tantamount to serving a twenty-year sentence in going through an unwanted pregnancy and then raising an unwanted child."

So much for the Republicans so-called opposition to government intervention and their alleged support for individual rights.

- Bill
(Edited by William Dwyer on 4/04, 12:54pm)

Post 26

Saturday, April 4, 2009 - 2:07pm

Hey Bill,

Shouldn't the question be whether Republicans want the death penalty for the doctors who perform the abortions? Seems like the women who get the abortions would just be guilty of conspiracy and accomplice to murder. I'm not sure what punishment Republicans think accomplice to murder should have.

Jordan
(Edited by Jordan on 4/04, 6:24pm)

Post 27

Saturday, April 4, 2009 - 4:34pm

Bill thanks for solidifying my argument. Even on abortion, Republicans don't want strict punishments. My point was that whatever concrete impacts Republican agendas may have on our lives, they pale in comparison to what the Democrats want. Soft punishments for abortions compared to socialized health care, nationalized banks, etc. Which would you think has the greater impact on liberty? And of course, you'll get a variety of opinions from candidates within the same party, but still essentially, Republicans favor less restrictions on the market than Democrats. So what's left? How are they just as bad as Democrats? Would you like to have more economic freedoms or less? It's a simple choice.

And what I meant by their logic being internally consistent was that they regard a fetus as an individual, and as such think that individual deserves protections against force. What you have demonstrated is their logic is not internally consistent with regard to punishments for murders, you did not demonstrate that their logic that abortion is murder because a fetus is a person is unsound logic. It's just a faulty premise, but the conclusion is still logically sound "you don't sanction murder".

And please don't patronize me Bill, I don't claim the Republicans are my "allies". And if they are I do so only reluctantly. I claim I vote for the candidate that will be the most optimal for preserving my freedoms and values. I'm not saying that particular candidate is the Platonic ideal, none of them are. I can only do a benefit/cost analysis on the one that I think will do the least amount of harm/most amount of good.

And I don't see any argument you are giving for some alternative. So the Republicans are not perfect, so you get to hide behind not making any kind of choice? Are you more interested in striking a moral pose and evading the reality of making a difficult choice?

Also ask yourself how many times has Rand endorsed or spoke highly of on any occasion a particular candidate or politician? Was it a Republican or a Democrat?

EDIT:

By the way your argument that the violation of rights is greater on outlawing abortion as opposed to mitigating restrictions on the market is not very convincing. How is it greater? Do you think having less wealth is better than some women carrying a child to term and possibly giving the unwanted child up for adoption? How much resources is 9 months of pregnancy compared to killing an entire life saving industry like health care?

Even with abortion being legal, abortions are very rare in our society. The economic impact the entire issue of abortion has is in fact trivial compared to socializing our major industries.

(Edited by John Armaos on 4/05, 7:55am)

Post 28

Sunday, April 5, 2009 - 10:05am

Jordan wrote,

Shouldn't the question be whether Republicans want the death penalty for the doctors who perform the abortions? Seems like the women who get the abortions would just be guilty of conspiracy and accomplice to murder. I'm not sure what punishment Republicans think accomplice to murder should have.

Think of it this way. A woman decides to kill her husband, so she hires a hit man. She instigates and plans the murder and simply uses another person to carry it out. Now if we punish premeditated murder more severely than murder that is not premeditated, then shouldn't we punish more severely the woman who planned and paid for the murder than the hired gun? But if so, then we should also punish more severely the woman who instigated and planned an abortion than the doctor she hired to perform it.

If abortion truly is murder, then it is a premeditated murder by the woman herself, in which case, it is she, as the primary instigator, who should receive the harshest penalty. At the very least, the penalty should be no less severe than the one imposed on the doctor. Would you punish a woman less severely who hired a hit man to kill her husband than the hit man himself? I wouldn't.

- Bill

Post 29

Sunday, April 5, 2009 - 10:34am

Hi Bill,

Would you punish a woman less severely who hired a hit man to kill her husband than the hit man himself? I wouldn't.

Probably not. But I would charge her for conspiracy and accomplice to murder, not murder itself. I'm not a criminal lawyer, so I could be wrong on this point. In any case, you're undoubtedly right that most Republicans will equivocate on a woman's punishment for her role in a murder versus her role aborting her fetus.

Jordan

Post 30

Wednesday, May 6, 2009 - 9:04pm