Why I'm a Democrat (Long)

[W in 2004]

Thank-you Nym90.  It is very interesting to peer into the inner workings of the mind of a liberal.  I think that you are more sensible than most liberals, and if more Democrats were like you, they would do even better in elections.  That said, I still strongly disagree with the liberal ideology.  I do not trust the government to make economic decisions for me.  Time and again the government has proven its inefficiencies.  For example, if the money paid into Social Security were privately invested, each of us could have so much more money for retirement.  Liberals do not trust the individual to invest that money.  They think that if the government does not confiscate the money and hold it until we retire, we will all go out and spend the money on something stupid.  

Even if the government were a good steward of our money, should the American taxpayer’s be held responsible for my decisions?  Whether its welfare, the farm bill, prescription drugs, is it really other people’s problem if I spend the money in a way they deem to be unwise?  Should you be held accountable for the decisions of others?  This is what I believe is the biggest problem with liberalism and socialism.   The crowning glory of liberalism is that people should not be held responsible for their actions, instead other people who have not committed those actions should be held responsible for those actions.  I do not want to be punished for other people’s actions.  We can see this ideology spread to the area of affirmative action.  Liberals would enforce social equality by having the government give different segments of the population preference.  In the process legal equality is trampled upon and governmental impartiality is abandoned.  Do we really want governmental rulers to have the power to rule that one group of people is more deserving of the rewards of hard work than the people who worked for it themselves are?  People who do not value legal equality, but instead want everyone to be separated into ethnic and social categories and given different rights based upon what governmental rulers deem to be fitting, are racists.  This is what Adolph Hitler did.  He ruled (without a trial or any recognition of legal equality) that all the Jews had committed wrongdoings against the Germans.  He ruled that, because these alleged wrongdoings, the Jews did not have legal equality with the Germans.  He ruled that, because of the alleged crimes committed by the Jews, they did not even have the right to exist.  Liberals allege that crimes have been committed by the ancestors of certain groups.  I would ask them, assuming that without a trail, a father of two children is ruled guilty by governmental rulers should a son or daughter of this man be thrown into jail for the crimes that their father committed?  Should all Americans be punished for the crimes against African Americans that the ancestors of some have committed?  What about those whose ancestors fought to liberate the enslaved African people?  Should they be punished also?  What about those whose ancestors did not even arrive in America until the 20th century?  Even if people should be punished for the alleged crimes of their ancestors, how can people who have committed no alleged crime and whose ancestors have committed no alleged crime be punished solely on the basis of the color of their skin or the country of their origin?

I have already given two reasons for my position against liberalism and socialism.  The first reason is that government has proven itself inefficient compared to the private sector.  My second reason is that people should not be held responsible for actions over which they have no control.  Now I will talk about a third reason.  I believe that even if the first two reasons did not exist, the third would be sufficient.

I believe that individuals have the right to make their own decisions as long as they do not harm others or infringe upon the freedoms of others.  I do not believe that those decisions should necessarily be endorsed by the government, but the government should not prohibit them.  I believe that no human ruler should suffocate the fire of liberty from oppression that burns in us.  Across the ages humans have shown that, rather than suffer under the slavery of others, they would live free or die.  The American Revolution was fought over the issue of economic freedom.  This nation was founded upon the principles of economic and religious freedom.  Now we have forgotten what so many have died for.  We would trade the freedoms bought with blood for the empty promises of liberalism and socialism.  I fear a dark day when we will wake up and look at our shackled wrists and ankles and wonder what our chains have bought us, but by then it will be too late.  The liberal master demands that we trade our liberty for equality and the payment, by others, of the consequences for our actions. Some may wonder how these beliefs are compatible with my pro-life views.  I will explain.  I believe that no one can infringe upon an innocent human beings freedom to live.  Some say that an unborn child is not a life, so the mother should have the right to control her own body, but if the unborn child is a life (as I believe) then the unborn child’s freedom to live cannot be denied.  I do not take this stance on the abortion issue because I want to deny liberty, but because I do not want the liberty of the weak and undefended to be taken away.  I my view on abortion is not inconsistent with my other views; it is consistent with my belief that, “individuals have the right to make their own decisions AS LONG AS THEY DO NOT HARM OTHERS OR INFRINGE UPON THE FREEDOMS OF OTHERS.”

[Nym90]

Free Market Capitalist—

You make some good points, and I would agree that you too are more sensible than most conservatives.

First of all, economic reforms that allow equal opportunity for all do not take away from freedom, rather they enhance it. Does the couple who both have to work 60 hour/week jobs in order to come close to making ends meet, with no money to afford child care for their kids after school so that they are out on the streets getting into trouble, and no money to send their children to college even though the children are plenty smart enough, have any freedom? I would say no, not much. The problem with unrestricted capitalism is that it only gives freedom to those who have money. The amount of freedom you have is dependent on how much money you have; if you are poor, you don’t have much freedom at all, because you have very little opportunity to get ahead. Our economic system does not permit people to get ahead on the basis of hard work alone, and that I feel I am a liberal, because I support equal opportunity for all regardless of the size of their bank account or their family background. How successful you are should depend on how hard you are willing to work (both mentally and physically) and your intelligence and ingenuity, not on circumstances beyond your control. Government redistribution of wealth thus actually enhances freedom for most individuals, while only restricting it for a few, and not by much (the wealthy have slightly less money, but they will still be very wealthy).

I believe in greater freedom for all, which I feel can only come through enhanced opportunity for those who currently do not have the opportunity to get ahead due to circumstances beyond their control. Freedom is NOT being exchanged for economic security; rather I would argue that a basic level of economic security is required in order for freedom to exist. Poverty takes away more freedom than taxation.

On racial affirmative action, you are absolutely right. That’s why I don’t support it. No one should be punished due to the actions of their ancestors, nor should people be rewarded due to them either. That, I feel, is a philosophy that is consistent with my economic views as well. I do not support any preference or discrimination whatsoever on the basis of race. Racial affirmative action takes away from equal opportunity, thus I do not support it.

As far as the argument about trusting “the people, not the government”, you can’t really separate the two, because the people elect their government. We have the power to change it directly. Business, however, is NOT beholden to the interests of the people, only those of its shareholders (or if it isn’t publicly traded, it isn’t beholden to anyone at all except the direct owners). That’s another key difference; the people have much more power to change the ways of government than they do of business. Now, it’s true, with business, you can “vote with your wallet” by choosing to buy or not to buy the products and services that a business offers, as a way of expressing your approval or disapproval, but again, the more money you have, the stronger your vote is. In governmental elections, all votes are counted equally to each other.

I agree completely that we should allow economic and religious freedom. I simply disagree that government always hinders the free market; rather, government intervention makes the market more free by not allowing big business to dominate over small business and over consumers. Government is needed to level the playing field to ensure a truly free market; free markets work best, but we won’t get a free market if we allow big business to dominate.

Regarding religious freedom, many in your party choose to try to limit it by imposing their religion on others. I do not put you in this category, as I have seen no evidence that you support this, but it’s still something to be considered when voting.

Regarding abortion, I too have qualms about it, but I fail to see how throwing people in prison solves anything; I believe that the fetus should not have the rights of a human until it can theoretically survive physically outside the womb (which occurs at about 5 months or so). I believe that we should trust the individual to decide, and that the best way to reduce abortion is to reduce poverty, not to ban abortion outright. You must persuade the people through education, and reduce the necessity for abortion, rather than focusing on putting people behind bars. Go to the source, and cure the problem at its base; most women who have abortions do so because they can’t afford to keep the child, not because the women are evil or don’t care about the fetus. Reduce poverty through the reforms that I have advocated (see the thread about Socialism in the US to see my proposed reforms, if you are interested) and the need for abortion will be greatly reduced. Also, attempt to persuade women not to have abortions through education, but do not interfere with the ultimate choice. Most people will listen to reasonable arguments, and have indeed thought through the abortion dilemma quite extensively before they get one; women aren’t out there having abortions just for the fun of it.

[W in 2004]

I am glad I am having this discussion with you, Nym90.  I dub thee one of my favorite liberals on the forum.  I still disagree with liberalism and socialism just as strongly as before.  If more Democrats were like you, I think we could all get along a little better.  It seems that we disagree on the definition of freedom.  You seem to define freedom as what products and services people can obtain.  I define freedom as being free from the control of others as long as it does not harm others or infringe upon the freedom of others.  

You mention, “my” “argument about trusting the people, not the government.”  I do not make this argument.  I make the argument that no one should pay for the consequences of my decisions or anyone else’s decisions because they did not make the decisions in the first place.  Only I can be held responsible for my choices, and only I can make those choices.  Do you want to have to pay for my retirement, because I wasted the money on something?  Do you want to have to pay my medical bills because I did not bother to save any money?  I trust NO ONE to make decisions for me, and if I make a wrong decision, only I should be held responsible for the poor choices I make.  

Before I go on I will tell you a little bit about myself.  I am a college student.  I work part time mowing lawns, weeding gardens, trimming bushes, spraying lawns, and removing trees and bushes.  I try to provide my customers with high quality service.  Because I provide high quality service at a decent price, my business has taken business away from larger businesses.  I own my own equipment.  I have no employees other than myself.  The lawn service business works out well with my college schedule because the most intense part of the lawn mowing season is in the summer.  In the winter I shovel snow for some of the same customers that I provide lawn service.  I expect to take 5 to 6 years to obtain my bachelors degree.  I plan on graduating with a major in political science and a minor in business.  I am also interested in economics and history so it is really hard to be sure about the political science major.  I guess I could still change my mind.  You can read more in the “Who I am” thread.              

You seem to believe that America is held captive by big business.  I do not understand this.  When I applied for jobs and was not hired, I started my own business.  Because I work hard, I have actually put others out of business.  You could say, “Oh No!” but maybe those people will find employment at some of the places that turned me down.  Even if they do not, should their inferior lawn service be supported by the government?  I believe that they should not.  They had the choice to work as hard as I do, but they did not.  Should I be punished for my hard work by having my income given away to others who did not work for it?  I am not against being taxed, but I believe that Americans are currently far too heavily taxed and that tax money should not be redistributed except for education.  Liberals would say that the money from my hard work should go to those who did not work as hard as I did.

My one exception to being against the redistribution of income is education.  I believe that government must provide us with an affordable education.  The government should give us the tools to do the work, but it should not do the work for us.

I am also a strong proponent of the preservation of undeveloped land.  I believe that national parks, state parks, and national forests are important.  The preserve an untainted natural environment and provide recreation for us all.  I am against obsessive environmental regulations.  I think we should have some areas that are preserved and some areas that are free for individuals and businesses to operate.  

[W in 2004]

What type of job do you have, Nym90?  If I remember correctly, it had something to do with government.

[Nym90]

FMC--

I work for the Engineering Dept. for the city of Marquette, MI, and am currently pursuing a Masters of Public Administration. My undergrad degree was in Industrial & Operations Engineering. I will have a more lengthy reply to your post either later tonight or tomorrow, but alas I don't have time right now. I haven't forgotten about it, though.

[W in 2004]

You say that, “government intervention makes the market more free.”  Are you saying that control equals freedom?  This is definitely not the commonly accepted definition of freedom.  We can disagree about whether or not people should have freedom, but surely less freedom does not equal more freedom.  

You seem to think that not being held responsible for your own actions is freedom.  You seem to think that the person who has the inferior lawn service should not be held responsible for their choice to spend less time working and more time on their own personal pleasures.  I submit to you that liberalism and socialism punishes the hard working and rewards the slothful.  Liberals call this giving of other peoples money away “freedom” because those who do not work as hard are NOT BEING HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR OWN ACTIONS.

My definition of freedom is, “freedom from the control of authorities.”  Your definition of freedom seems to be that the authorities should free you from the results of your own actions.  Quite Astounding!


I hope you do not get angry at me.  Just because I disagree with your ideology does not mean I don’t like you or don’t think you are very intelligent.  I think that you want what is best for America but are misguided in how to attain that end.  I very much enjoy having discussions with people who disagree with me and I hope you have a rebuttal of what I have written.    

[W in 2004]

I posted this in another thread where I found Nym90.

Hahahahaha!!!  I found you, Nym90.  You can run, but you can’t hide.  Come on buddy we need to have a talk in the “Why I’m a Democrat” thread in Individual Politics.  Everyone who wants to should come and check out that thread.

[Nym90]

Yeah, yeah, I'll respond, I promise. I've just been very busy.

[W in 2004]

The positive results of morality cannot be created without morality itself, and no government can change the morality of its people.  The government cannot create the positive results of morality, only individuals can. The government should not legislate morality, but it should protect people from the immoral acts of others IF, IF they do not desire those acts.  So I am not saying that we should have a lawless nation, but that the laws should protect people who do not desire those acts to be performed on them.  This is why “I BELIEVE THAT INDIVIDUALS HAVE THE RIGHT TO MAKE THEIR OWN DECESIONS AS LONG AS THEY DO NOT HARM OTHERS OR INFRINGE UPON THE FREEDOMS OF OTHERS.”  I also am not saying that I endorse those actions, but right now I am talking about the government’s attitude toward those actions.  Some may wonder how these beliefs are compatible with my pro-life views.  I will explain.  I believe that no one can infringe upon an innocent human beings freedom to live.  Some say that an unborn child is not a life, so the mother should have the right to control her own body, but if the unborn child is a life (as I believe) then the unborn child’s freedom to live cannot be denied.  I do not take this stance on the abortion issue because I want to deny liberty, but because I do not want the liberty of the weak and undefended to be taken away.  I my view on abortion is not inconsistent with my other views; it is consistent with my belief that, “individuals have the right to make their own decisions as long as they do not HARM OTHERS OR INFRINGE UPON THE FREEDOMS OF OTHERS.”  

I would like to add to this post that on a personal level I would try to convince people to accept my views about what is right and wrong.  In the paragraph above I am not saying that I have no opinion about what is right and wrong, but the government is not the tool to force your ideology on other people.  The government should protect people from the immoral acts of others IF, IF they do not desire those acts.  If the government did not protect people from the immoral acts of others if they do not desire those acts, THEN THE IMMORAL WOULD BE FORCING THEIR MORALITY ON OTHERS.

[W in 2004]

This is a reminder to never take liberalism too seriously.  


ABCD… NEWS
By staff writer John Biased



     Many Americans are aware of the discrimination that takes place in our country.  People are denied opportunities because of their race, gender, sexual orientation, and general demeanor and disposition.  What many Americans are unaware of is that atrocities committed against an unrecognized but growing minority have been ravaging the nation.  Against whom, you may ask, have these atrocities been committed?  Against Uglo-Americans.  Until recently the plight of the ugly has been ignored.  A group called Uglo-Americans United for Change has petitioned Congress for a redress of grievances.  A recent ABCD… NEWS poll shows that as many as 20% of Americans consider themselves ugly, and their numbers are increasing every day.  Nowhere is the discrimination felt more than in the film industry.  A heavy set woman named Thelma Rodgers said she was discriminated against by “big film.”  “I tried out for the part played by Angelina Jolie in Tomb Raider, but was turned down.”  Bill Johnson, spokesman for UAUC, called on Congress, yesterday at a news conference in Hollywood to, “Bring down the walls that prevent Uglo-Americans from starring in major films.”  Democratic House Minority Leader Nancy Pelooooooosi passionately argued for Uglo-Americans.  “Discrimination is rampant in big film!”  “The government must stop this violence by taking control of the film industry.”  The Republicans have yet to propose a solution to this problem.  One thing is for sure, the government must act immediately.

-- The latest installment of In Search of Liberal Utopia by Me

[A18]

Socialism sucks.

[Alcon]

Socialism sucks.

Socialism does indeed suck for America.

[FerrisBueller86]

John Ford: I noticed that you are in the lower left quadrant of the political spectrum (although near the center), yet you are Republican.  Why?  I would think that you would agree with the Democratic Party more than the Republican Party.

[Gabu]

John Ford: I noticed that you are in the lower left quadrant of the political spectrum (although near the center), yet you are Republican.  Why?  I would think that you would agree with the Democratic Party more than the Republican Party.

He's said before that he probably would be a Democrat were it not for foreign policy.

[A18]

Erm, he is a Republican...

[Gabu]

Oops.  Democrat.

[Хahar 🤔]

Thought the McCain-related stuff made this worth bumping.

[Nym90]

Wow, thanks for bumping this. I had almost forgotten about it. Certainly one of the best threads I've ever started....kind of a shame it didn't get more replies than it did.

I'm too drunk right now to post a cogent followup to this, but I promise that I will soon! I definitely want to reread some of this and see how it relates to the modern environment.