Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: What Liberalism is & is not

  1. #1
    Senior Member Satara's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    78
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default What Liberalism is & is not

    What Liberals Stand For

    Freedom...

    ...of conscience

    You have the right to think as you wish.

    ...of religion

    You have the right to worship as you please. The government has no business either supporting or opposing religion.

    ...of speech

    You have the right to express your views, whatever they may be. Only in the free marketplace of ideas can truth emerge.

    Civil rights

    All people are equal under the law. Any type of discrimination based on the immutable factors of race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or gender is not only inconsistent with a free society, but is immoral as well.

    Universal public education

    Equality of opportunity requires all Americans to have access to a basic education consistent with maintaining informed citizenship and the ability to participate fully in society.

    Tolerance of Differences

    Because we are all unique beings, with different skills, needs, and wants, we must respect the life choices of others as long as their life choices do not infringe on the rights enjoyed by other citizens.

    A Social Safety Net

    Recognizing that circumstances beyond mortal control play a part in all our lives, a basic social safety net shall be available to all who need it, not as a permanent lifestyle, but rather as a helping hand to get back on one's feet.

    Employees' Rights

    We spend most of our lives working. Work is the foundation of our economy and a major part of the glue holding together communities. The employee is an equal business partner with the employer, and as such, has the right to collectively bargain for terms of employment.

    Environmental Protection

    Contrary to some people's opinions, it is possible to both protect the environment and sustain economic growth. We support taking all reasonable and responsible steps to protect the environment and the species contained therein.

    Strong Families

    The family is the primary social unit in America. It must be respected, and encouraged in all its forms. Government should make policy with this in mind.

    Responsibility

    With rights come responsibilities. Exercising our rights means taking responsibility for our actions, and their effects on others.

    Free Enterprise

    The capitalist economic system is the most efficient solution to providing for peoples' wants and needs. Government's role is that of a regulator, not a controller of industry, and any regulation must only be for the good of society as a whole, and not for the benefit of any one entity.

    Rule of Law

    Law is the framework in which society operates. There can be no society without justice. Justice means that those who commit crimes must be made to answer for them, and that the criminal code is fair and wisely constructed. When criminal actions go unpunished, respect for the law weakens. The law applies to all, including all agents of the government.

    ...most importantly, Progress

    Progress is what Liberalism really means; moral progress, economic progress, and social progress to benefit all humanity. This represents the path towards a better world. At its heart, Liberalism is an optimistic philosophy




    What Liberalism is Not

    Liberalism is not socialism
    ...socialism is the Government owning everything. No liberal would ever advocate such a disastrous idea!


    Liberalism is not communism
    ...communism is everybody owning everything equally, without any government at all. Nobody advocates such a wild experiment!


    Liberalism is not collectivism
    ...collectivism is simply a group of people acting towards a common goal. Interest groups are a form of collectivism, so are the Boy Scouts, the Army, and a football team!


    Liberalism is not statism
    ...statism can be defined as strong central government . Every political group (other than Libertarians) advocates some form of statism.


    Liberalism is not big government
    ...Big government is nothing more than a convenient straw man that conservatives use against liberals. Somehow social programs are defined as big government, while corporate welfare and religious indoctrination are not!


  2. #2
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: What Liberalism is & is not

    Along the lines of 'equal time' ...




    an overview ...

    Conservative Principles

    I don't want to go through all of them, but if you read Russell Kirk's great work, The Conservative Mind, he talks about conservative beliefs and a transcendent order in the following terms:

    * No single mind or no collective group of geniuses today can fully understand the design of the complexities of inner relations and the mysteries of a higher law, meaning a God;
    * Freedom and property are inextricably linked, and it can never be otherwise;
    * Custom, convention, and tradition are to be preferred over some radical change that some visionary thought up yesterday; and
    * We ought to be very careful about throwing out the things that bind our society together.

    It is fundamental not to think that even brilliant human beings today can simply reinvent the complex human order that binds our civilization over a country and over time. Burke basically said this, and I use it as a reason why I think it is important to approach legislating from a principled basis. Without principles, all reasoning in politics, as in everything else, would be only a confused jumble of particular facts and details, without the means of drawing out any sort of theoretical or practical conclusion. Principles become important because they are a guideline--both in the short run and the long run--for how we ought to govern ourselves.

    The following six principles are those that the Republican Study Committee (92 principally conservative free-market, socially conservative members of the U.S. Congress) have adopted for evaluating legislation. These principles were taken from ones we used in the Florida House of Representatives. They serve as a prism through which we can assess any amendment or proposal, any constituent request, any colleague's request for support, and certainly any votes cast. These guiding principles allowed us to do some important things in the State of Florida that would not have been accomplished without a principled approach to governance. These principles are:

    1. Less Government. Does the bill tend to reduce government regulations, size of government, eliminate entitlements, or unnecessary programs?
    2. Lower Taxes. Does the bill promote individual responsibility in spending or reduce taxes or fees?
    3. Personal Responsibility. Does the bill encourage responsible behavior by individuals and families and encourage them to provide for their own health, safety, education, moral fortitude, or general welfare?
    4. Individual Freedom. Does the bill increase opportunities for individuals or families to decide, without hindrance or coercion from government, how to conduct their own lives and make personal choices?
    5. Stronger Families. Does the bill enhance the traditional American family and its power to rear children without excessive interference from the government?
    6. Domestic Tranquility, National Defense. Does the bill enhance American security without unduly burdening civil liberty?

  3. #3
    Senior Member Satara's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    78
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: What Liberalism is & is not

    I believe in human dignity as the source of national purpose, in human liberty as the source of national action, in the human heart as the source of national compassion, and in the human mind as the source of our invention and our ideas. It is, I believe, the faith in our fellow citizens as individuals and as people that lies at the heart of the liberal faith. For liberalism is not so much a party creed or set of fixed platform promises as it is an attitude of mind and heart, a faith in man's ability through the experiences of his reason and judgment to increase for himself and his fellow men the amount of justice and freedom and brotherhood which all human life deserves

    I believe also in the United States of America, in the promise that it contains and has contained throughout our history of producing a society so abundant and creative and so free and responsible that it cannot only fulfill the aspirations of its citizens, but serve equally well as a beacon for all mankind. I do not believe in a superstate. I see no magic in tax dollars which are sent to Washington and then returned. I abhor the waste and incompetence of large-scale federal bureaucracies in this administration as well as in others. I do not favor state compulsion when voluntary individual effort can do the job and do it well. But I believe in a government which acts, which exercises its full powers and full responsibilities. Government is an art and a precious obligation; and when it has a job to do, I believe it should do it. And this requires not only great ends but that we propose concrete means of achieving them.

    Our responsibility is not discharged by announcement of virtuous ends. Our responsibility is to achieve these objectives with social invention, with political skill, and executive vigor. I believe for these reasons that liberalism is our best and only hope in the world today. For the liberal society is a free society, and it is at the same time and for that reason a strong society. Its strength is drawn from the will of free people committed to great ends and peacefully striving to meet them. Only liberalism, in short, can repair our national power, restore our national purpose, and liberate our national energies.

    What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "Liberal?" If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of "Liberal." But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."

    John Fitzgerald Kennedy

  4. #4
    Jay Zeno
    Guest

    Default Re: What Liberalism is & is not

    President Kennedy, for all his invoking of God, for his military forays into the Bay of Pigs and Vietnam, and for his economy-stimulating tax cut, would be in peril of being called a conservative today.

  5. #5
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: What Liberalism is & is not

    I'm trying very hard not to stir up any additional controversy or hard feelings. However, IMHO when a thread is started which centers on a topic which is polarized to begin with, be that a particular political viewpoint or a particular politicized issue, or any topic where there are two or more very distinct views and two or more sets of pertinent facts, attempting to allow free discussion of only ONE side of that issue while squelching the mere mention of the other side of that issue is a violation of 'free speech' and a de-facto denial of any rebuttal argument.
    i
    Rules to this effect may exist on college campuses (i.e. hate speech' topic discussion limited to certain areas) and on the floor of the US senate (filibusters), but IMHO they shouldn't exist on a supposedly politically neutral BBS.

    If my interpretation of the rules regarding on-topic posts versus off-topic posts are incorrect, please inform me of that and I'll gladly abide by whatever official interpretation comes forth. Just remember that any such rules limiting opposing viewpoints and rebuttal arguements will cut both ways ~~~

  6. #6
    Veteran Member myssi's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    341
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Default Re: What Liberalism is & is not

    It must be hard to be a liberal... you're supposed to stand for freedom of thought and speech and
    religion... rights...tolerance of others. Yet if someone is a bigot and exercises their freedoms
    and rights.... liberals are intolerant of them. Hate speech not allowed. Homophobia not cool, etc.
    Or whatever is un-PC. Religious... Christian... anti-muslim??? Not okay. Atheist? Anti-christian? So that's cool. Liberalism is all about judgement, not tolerance.
    But Christians would say, "Judge not, lest you be judged."
    Or "Love the sinner, hate the sin" (In other words, accept the rights of the bigot, or those
    whom you don't agree with, but don't accept any bad actions.") ...Tolerant. Yet, some liberals here equate 'Christian' or 'religious' with intolerance. Ironic. They've flipped everything
    upside down.
    "Civil rights" and "collectivism" are mentioned.... and NO, collectivism is NOT just group action...
    it's 'The principles or system of ownership and control of the means of production and distribution by the people collectively, usually under the supervision of a government.'
    Once you stop thinking about individuals and individual rights, that's where you get to
    collective rights, like state (collective) ownership.
    Sure, corporate welfare is part of big government spending... and should be stopped...
    Conservatives can agree on that. But how is "religious indoctrination" a part of big
    government? But a social safety net is somehow NOT part of big government??
    Goofy... This thing is so badly written... but even so it proves why liberalism is a study
    in contradiction...
    Now, Libertarianism on the other hand is very simple. Anti-gay? Pro-gay? whatever.
    It's cool. It's your right! If it doesn't involve force or fraud, then it's allowed. No one's
    thoughts or hate-speech are going to hurt me... violent ACTION on the other hand, not
    allowed. No force or fraud. Very simple. No contradictions. No political correctness.
    Only problem is when your right against force conflicts with another's as in abortion.
    Safety net? Your responsibilty. Why force someone else to pay for you? Simple.
    None of this "social safety net is not big government" nonsense yet we supposedly
    accept responsibility for ourselves baloney. "You have the right to think as you wish"...
    but don't say something that might hurt my liberal feelings. Liberalism may sound all
    sublime like its ideals are lofty... examine in closely and it falls apart from its inherent
    contradictions. Liberalism has changed significantly since the days of JFK.

  7. #7
    Featured Member discretedancer's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2004
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    1,004
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: What Liberalism is & is not

    Mel....VERY glad to see another conservative taking this one to task. I define "The Stereotypical" liberal and "The Stereotypical" Conservative as (Liberal) Everything is a gray area, some things may be more appropriate for most than others, but all things should be protected equally...and (conservative) there is a right and a wrong, defined by some and accepted by most. Rigtht and wrong are basic items, mostly shown through a religion or faith


    . Not saying all are this way...just the ones that started and perpetuate the sterotype...

    BUT....we disagree in 2 places:


    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie
    * No single mind or no collective group of geniuses today can fully understand the design of the complexities of inner relations and the mysteries of a higher law, meaning a God;
    A God? Or the Judeo-Christian God?
    * We ought to be very careful about throwing out the things that bind our society together.
    ABSOLUTELY AGREE - in fact I wish more conservatives would accept that our environment - which we all depend on for life -should be protected and used carefully, to avoid throwing it away.


    I think it is important to approach legislating from a principled basis.
    Yes, but too many conservatives (and as many liberals) substitute THEIR principles in private life for public principles and the impose them on others. Typicaly, Libs want to tell others how to act - legislating tolerance and creating support systems for people in "minority/underprivileged" groups. Cons want to legislate a morality - unless of course that morality prevents business from doing as it wishes or protects environmental or cultural resources that might turn a profit


    1. Less Government. Does the bill tend to reduce government regulations, size of government, eliminate entitlements, or unnecessary programs?
    This is why the department of Homeland Security, the department of privatized social security (whatever that new bureaucracy will be called) were created by our conservative administration, and why conservatives typically resist the concept of a flat tax, which would all but eliminate the IRS bureaucracy

    2. Lower Taxes. Does the bill promote individual responsibility in spending or reduce taxes or fees?
    Biggest deficits in decades...need I say more?

    Oh yea, giving $300 "surplus disbursements" to citizens of a government that was (even then, we've had running deficits for decades) in debt TRILLIONS of dollars.

    3. Personal Responsibility. Does the bill encourage responsible behavior by individuals and families and encourage them to provide for their own health, safety, education, moral fortitude, or general welfare?
    Does it make sure they have the training, opportunities and ability to do so (meaning not working at WalMart and Target part time (making full time employment) for a total salary of $20,000?

    4. Individual Freedom. Does the bill increase opportunities for individuals or families to decide, without hindrance or coercion from government, how to conduct their own lives and make personal choices?
    Legislating gay and lesbian relationships/marriage as unconstitutional SO does this!


    6. Domestic Tranquility, National Defense. Does the bill enhance American security without unduly burdening civil liberty?
    Detaining "suspected terrorists" indefinitely with no charges or evidence
    requiring protesters be in a special area, far from the actual debate/speech site
    national ID cards, GPS tracking on every car, etc.

  8. #8
    Featured Member discretedancer's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2004
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    1,004
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: What Liberalism is & is not

    To a larger issue, do we as a society really need labels - especially those of us in this business that get enough labels as it is. I'm not Liberal, not Conservative - I'm ME. Willing to live and let live, believing that there needs to be a safety net available to help people get on their feet (read: limited time use) and that there are many clear things that are right and wrong. Every action has consequences, and some (illegal) actions will result in jail, while other (less popular but not illegal) actions may make your life more challenging. It's not wrong for every life-choice to have different consequences....For example, if you insist on being a nudist 24/7,. don't expect your local bank to hire you as a teller without requiring clothes.

    So, my life is a mix of conservative and liberal -as I guess most of ours are. Why then do we need the labels - are stereotypes that comforting?
    Last edited by Lena; 03-06-2005 at 01:57 PM.

  9. #9
    God/dess
    Joined
    Feb 2005
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    2,210
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: What Liberalism is & is not

    Republicans grow the government faster than democrats do.

    The Republican party has ALWAYS been the party of big government, since the time of Saint Abe. At least modern day Democrats promise big government and give you big government. Republicans use the rhetoric of small government and do quite the opposite.

    JFK got what he deserved, it was just that other evil people killed him.

    The smallest government guy in recent memory was Jimmy Carter(not that he didn't try his best to grow it as much as possible)

    I believe people own themselves and any deviation from that is statism. I don't care too much about the other labels.

    Somehow social programs are defined as big government, while corporate welfare and religious indoctrination are not!
    Interesting point, especially considering WEALTHfare is a much bigger than welfare.

    The capitalist economic system is the most efficient solution to providing for peoples' wants and needs. Government's role is that of a regulator, not a controller of industry, and any regulation must only be for the good of society as a whole, and not for the benefit of any one entity.
    The regulatory state is a form of corporate welfare and always has been. When "liberals" figure this out, I will be very pleased, but it doesn't look good.
    The idea of a "public good" or "good of society" is a joke as well. Anything good is good to an individual and the best regulator of business is the profit/loss test along with torts for damages to third parties. Pushing for the "good of society" means somebody else will decide what is good for everybody.

    To a larger issue, do we as a society really need labels
    They make things convenient sometimes, but politics has an incentive to obfuscate so the terms become jumbles.
    I think my politicial philosophy is very neatly summed up in the term "anarcho-libertarian" or "anarcho-capitalist" but once you leave something as clear as that, things get hazy.

    discretedancer makes some good points. She was far too kind however

  10. #10
    Featured Member discretedancer's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2004
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    1,004
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: What Liberalism is & is not

    Quote Originally Posted by Sh0t
    The idea of a "public good" or "good of society" is a joke as well. Anything good is good to an individual and the best regulator of business is the profit/loss test along with torts for damages to third parties.
    What in there protects the public's right to have an environment we can live with, maintaining open space we all enjoy and need (where do you think clean air and water come from?) and what provides incentives for people to improve how they live/do business so as to have a less detrimental affect on others (if it's good for me and my business to spray DDT on my crops that you end up buying...is that really good?)

    Other than that, agree with much of what you said.

  11. #11
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    735
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: What Liberalism is & is not

    lib and con are both just divisionary diversions

    but in theory/definition
    liberalism is helping out so to speak with welfare and other social programs
    and conservatism means leaving people be to their own devices
    but its all on the lower level/working class reality tip anyway
    so fuck it
    cos were all just slaves on the grand plantation either way
    so why the hell not cop welfare hahaaa

    but theyre really just there to further define and divide
    and essentially
    divide and conquer

  12. #12
    God/dess
    Joined
    Feb 2005
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    2,210
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: What Liberalism is & is not

    What in there protects the public's right to have an environment we can live with, maintaining open space we all enjoy and need
    Plenty. For one it was the abridgement of property rights to begin with that lead to the current pollution problems. around the 1860s and beyond, the courts started making rulings "for the public good" and abridging the property rights of farmers and such when factory smoke started hurting groups. As a result, heavily polluting technology was encouraged and ran amok.

    Another issue came from the lack of allowing private property to function in things like mining and forrestation. The government would lease the land a mine was located on, thus encouraging "over drilling" instead of preserving the capital value and maximizing profit over the long turn, as occurs with owning the capital resource itself instead of just the usage of it.

    where do you think clean air and water come from?


    The biggest polluters of the air and water is the government itself and it's monopoly power companies, such as the government sewege plants. The problem with water(as in masses of water) come from the fact nobody(in most cases) owns the water body itself, which sets up the problem mentioned above. Some of the biggest air polluters are the coal burning electrical plants(usually operating as stated-granted monopoly providers of energy) which are usually subsidized by government, especially for construction. Because of the regulation and the public domain issue, there is also little economic incentive to pursue non-polluting technology in certain sectors.

    Also with water, let us not forget that we have a MAJOR program of intentional water pollution going on, namely the dumping of tons and tons of aluminum-industry waste into our water for the obstenible goal of preventing cavities. Of course, here I am speaking of the flouridization of the water supply.

    "Airborne fluorides have caused more worldwide damage to domestic animals than any other air pollutant." - US Department of Agriculture. Air Pollutants Affecting the Performance of Domestic Animals. Agricultural Handbook No. 380. Revised. 1972. p. 109.
    The food crop issue as you bring up is also directly caused by government through various means such as the Department of Agriculture and it's subsidies, the attacking of more efficient producers(especially via tariffs by keeping out goods produced elsewhere more economically and enviromental-friendlier, and then subsidizing farmers here such as giving farmers in the desert 206 dollar per unit water at only 6 bucks[taxpayers make up teh rest] thus wasting tons of water).

    The military and the law enforcement agencies also huge polluters. The campaigns of deforrestation to fight the War on [some] Drugs, the Vietnam War[agent orange et al], and so forth, have taken major tolls on teh enviroment. The DU issue is another major enviromental disaster, as Serbia and Iraq are finding out.

    The war on drugs is also an enviromental disaster for another reason, namely it prevents marijuana from being used commercially. For one, hemp could easily replace nylon, which is petro-chemically derived. The ban on marijuana is a direct subsidy to a polluting industry and this was not accidental(Dupont). Secondly, the ban also prevents marijuana from being utilized as a material for paper, also encouraging envirmental damage(deforrestation). This was also not an accidental subsidy to the wood-pulp paper industry(Hearst). In addition to nylon, hemp also competes with cotton and the cotton industry uses 50% of the petrochemcial pesticides used in the country, causing a signifant portion of the soil damage. This was also not accidental. The War on drugs can be looked upon as a major subsidy to pollution-causing industries: cotton, manmade fiber, and the wood-pulp paper industry.



    Things like property taxes and eminant domain of also played a major role in undermining the enviroment. Property taxes penalize those who would like to keep land pristine because they provide an "incentive" to commercialize the land just so one can afford to pay the taxes.

    if it's good for me and my business to spray DDT on my crops that you end up buying...is that really good?
    A side issue but relevant:





    Further reading on the initial question:


    You may like perc, you sound like an Enviro-Capitalist

    I don't agree with everything he says here, but Woody brings up some good points:




    I urge you to take a listen:

  13. #13
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    735
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: What Liberalism is & is not

    reality is obselete

  14. #14
    Featured Member discretedancer's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2004
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    1,004
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: What Liberalism is & is not

    Quote Originally Posted by Sh0t
    abridging the property rights of farmers and such when factory smoke started hurting groups.
    But the factories making the pollution were private enterprises working on private property. What gives anyone the right to abridge their rights (under your statement that abridging private ownership rights is our problem).

    Too bad for the farmer - too bad for the thousands of people who had to breathe that sh**

    instead of preserving the capital value and maximizing profit over the long turn, as occurs with owning the capital resource itself instead of just the usage of it.
    1keep in mind I work in land conservation, so I see alot of landowners

    1. Very few are interested in the long run, especially since natural resources are seen as limitless. Give someone and oil field, tell them they can run it out fast (and the inventory will be bought) or run it slow (and pay more labor cost) and it's gone ASAP

    2. If that were true, then the companies given the lease would work at a slower, more sutstainable pace...and would make petition of the governement if needed . The company moves fast because (as much, at least) if they deplete the resources and move on...in the long run (more jobs accomplished) profits will be higher. Not saying there aren't other pressures, but a private company will maximize profits by working quickly. This does not protect the greater good, nor does it mean resources are removed slower or more sustainably.
    [/QUOTE]

    The biggest polluters of the air and water is the government itself and it's monopoly power companies, such as the government sewege plants. [/QUOTE]
    Water in my area (along with electric, natural gas, and even cable TV) are carried by private companies who may or may not be regulated governmentally. Meaning: most of the services that are government protected monopolies are NOT governent operations....whatever damage they create is at least PARTIALLY the reponsibility of private industry not working "for the greater good"

    The problem with water(as in masses of water) come from the fact nobody(in most cases) owns the water body itself, which sets up the problem mentioned above.
    Usually the body is either owned by landowners, or the water company (again, private industry). In any case, (for my state) it's the private water company's responsibility to manage the water resource...meaning corners cut are the company's responsibility

    Some of the biggest air polluters are the coal burning electrical plants(usually operating as stated-granted monopoly providers of energy) which are usually subsidized by government, especially for construction. Because of the regulation and the public domain issue, there is also little economic incentive to pursue non-polluting technology in certain sectors.
    Believe me, I'm no fan of government..it is as much to blame here as the companies...my only point is that private motivations alone don't protect resources either - people are greedy....often by necessity.

    Also with water, let us not forget that we have a MAJOR program of intentional water pollution going on, namely the dumping of tons and tons of aluminum-industry waste into our water for the obstenible goal of preventing cavities. Of course, here I am speaking of the flouridization
    I always wondered how the flouride industry got that contract! What a sweet deal, hope the government overseers got bonuses as well as the manufacturer

    e attacking of more efficient producers(especially via tariffs by keeping out goods produced elsewhere more economically and enviromental-friendlier,
    Uhhh...you think that chilean crops (for example) are more environmentally friendly? They're trying (as any business would) to make as many pounds of perfect fruit they can as fast as possible...to satisfy and endless market here.No environmental or labor laws to worry about...WHOO HOO

    seriously, the only knd of agriculture that works is local, family farmers...they can usually implemnet environmentally friendly practices if people insist on eating locally grown foods...everything else does damage to jobs, environmetnt or both. Certainly, shipping our food sources overseas sweatshops isn't good for homeland security, our health (since who knows what was sprayed on that apple) or anything else, I feel.

    and then subsidizing farmers here such as giving farmers in the desert 206 dollar per unit water at only 6 bucks[taxpayers make up teh rest] thus wasting tons of water).
    no argument, subsidies are stupid. Let the consumer pay what it costs. Provided all suppliers (even overseas) are playing by the same rules or are excluded from selling in the US>



    The war on drugs is also an enviromental disaster for another reason, namely it prevents marijuana from being used commercially. For one, hemp could easily replace nylon, which is petro-chemically derived.
    Agreed, just watch the using of the M word when you mean hemp, just to avoid anyone thinking were trying to force pot legalization to support industry. I'm for both, but believe Hemp is economically necessary...and has virtually no "stoner value" so it's a safe product to legalize. Weed has that damn other use that I love!



    . Property taxes penalize those who would like to keep land pristine because they provide an "incentive" to commercialize the land just so one can afford to pay the taxes.
    1. Those who want to keep land pristine have had the option of MAJOR tax savings by donating a conservation easement. Lower the value of your land (lowering the property taxes) and getting a possible write off on your income tax....equal to the value of the conserved property. You still own the land. (still can, until Congress changes this and takes away people's rights....visit www.lta.org for more info on TAX LAW CHANGES). Call your legislators TODAY and protect your rights

    2. Commercialization of land increases its value, and therefore the property taxes...how does that make it more affordable? Conservation easements are a better option. See above.

Similar Threads

  1. Gr's ultimate guide to safety & privacy & preventing stalkers!
    By GlamourRouge in forum Camming Connection
    Replies: 77
    Last Post: 08-23-2016, 07:49 PM
  2. Botox & eye drooping (advice needed & warnings)
    By leogirl876 in forum Body Business
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 08-11-2008, 01:08 AM
  3. Sexy M & F Exotic Dancers & Feature Entertainers All Parties
    By centerfolds1 in forum General Board
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-09-2004, 07:54 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •