Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel
Opinions can be stupid, but it's not an opinion to say that one is being taxed without representation when the individual is, in fact, represented. That can be verified as being factually incorrect very easily, and it's the ease by which one can verify how incorrect that statement is that I use to judge the ignorance of the individual. I see no fault in my conclusion.
It came off like you were trying to make fun of me as a red herring. If it was intended simply as jest, then I apologize for misreading it.
I take no issue with disagreement, pan, which is why I was hoping that this movement was libertarian. I'm not libertarian and am fundamentally opposed to most of the ideologies of the modern American libertarian movement, but I oppose those ideologies respectfully because at least there is an attempt at contributing positively to society. Libertarians believe that they're doing what's best and they have a consistent set of ideologies and principles. The neoconservatives are contrarians with no tangible set of principles and ideologies other than what they're told to have by their leadership. It's that leadership that seeks to exploit and does so often by fostering or reinforcing ignorance. Without that leadership, as I said before, these Tea Parties would not have been anywhere near as big or stupid as they were.
I honestly didn't ignore anything because I went purposefully looking for libertarians. I went looking for people that knew about Ayn Rand or Ron Paul or Ludwig von Mises. I went looking for people like you and Dunedan and dk; principled libertarians. I can tell you in no uncertain terms that I found none. Not one in the 60 or so people I spoke to. The closest thing to a libertarian I found was a man in his 60s with a "Don't tread on me" sign, but he didn't feel like talking.
Let me ask you this: have you ever met a libertarian that was unwilling to share his or her political philosophy? And if so, do you think this is the kind of person who will spend 4 hours on a weekday protesting?
"Elitism" used to mean something to me, as a negative. It doesn't anymore. I reserve the right as an educated and intelligent individual to use my intellect and education as a tool to judge whether a person is or isn't correct and even is or isn't stupid. When an individual uses some of the language from the Boston Tea Party in a modern Tea Party that has nothing to do with taxation without representation, it's not unreasonable for me to conclude this person has actively refused to learn about American history or current evens, not to mention the English language and basic government. Making that statement lacked intelligence and common sense, fitting the very definition of stupid.
My question is, why are you unwilling to admit that someone saying "no taxation without representation" while clearly having representatives is stupid or at the very least incorrect?
|
Your experience was somewhat different than mine. It's easy to see all the negatives and can be hard to focus and find what you consider the positives.
You seem to want to focus on "taxation without representation" I tend to agree with that statement. I feel we are being taxed without representation, in that our elected officials are by majority partisan, corrupted by power, who do not represent the people that elected them but the vocal extreme minorities that raise campaign funds for them to get re elected.
Just saying "taxation without representation" in and of itself is not wrong, it's the person who says it's perspective. The other side of the coin could be, "well you elected them". But the truth there is many people are so disenfranchised with the system they don't vote because there truly is no choice or they don't see anyone to truly vote "for" so they take the lesser of 2 evils.
If people feel they are taxed and their voices are not being heard, that by virtue of their thought processes is taxation without representation. Now, if you ask them what they want and they say fiscal responsibility to the people and investments into building a long term working tax base where the standard of living doesn't regress.... then they have done more than just parrot Beck/Fox/Limbaugh etc. There was a lot of parroting on both sides.
As for the Librarian/GOPher speak.... it honestly was meant as humor, sometimes my humor is very dry and only I get it. Sorry about that.
---------- Post added at 02:12 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:04 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by dippin
Oh, Im most definitely an elitist when it comes to ideas (let me stress this: ideas, not people or sources).
I think better ideas should have more space than worse ideas, and I think that we know what ideas are good and what ideas are bad by looking at their internal consistency and their evidence.
As such, more consistent ideas with better support are more valid than incoherent ideas with less support.
Democracy doesn't mean all opinions should be equally valid and valued.
|
We are all elitist (to differing degrees) in aspects of our ideas and beliefs.
Better ideas should have more space, as they inspire true debate and solutions.
Not all opinions and ideas are equally valid or feasible.... but if the person espousing such a view is listened to with respect valid ideas may come from them. If you just say, "that's stupid/ignorant/uninformed etc.. people tend to hold beliefs very close to them and those ideas/beliefs become part of their identity. So when you put those ideas and beliefs down they take personal offense and take a defensive stance and hunker down for a long battle where there is absolutely no chance for the compromise needed to advance. By looking at it this way we should at least value that belief/opinion for no other reason than respect for the person giving it. In doing so they may become more flexible and open minded to changing their views.