Far Left vs. Far Right

[Slave to God]

Whether it's National Syndicalism or Nationalized Synods, new and improved radical political ideals seem to be becoming more vocal with the Obama administration, both from the opposition and from wishful idealists within his support base. I've heard everything from Neo-Nazi plots to harm the Commander-in-Chief to voices loudly advocating his policies and in fact demanding that they go one step further and advocate total "Euro-Socialism". Obviously, I believe any extremist ideology is crazy, but my question is what are your thoughts on the sudden "rise" (or perhaps vocalization) of these extremist ideals? Are Obama's politics of change making people polarize against one another rather than uniting respectfully in the name of democracy? Let's all weigh in.

[Pilgrim]

If you think the rise is sudden or recent you haven't been paying attention.

[Paintbucket]

There have always been elements on the extreme edges of the political sector. The difference is nowadays, it is easier for them to communicate and get their message out.

[Darth Executor]

Moderates are the reason why we're constantly ruled by idiots. If an extremist won he'd be considerably more competent. Possibly crazy or evil, but competent.

[Jedidiah]

If you think the rise is sudden or recent you haven't been paying attention.

What part of "seem to be becoming more vocal" do you fail to recognize?

[Pilgrim]

What part of "Sudden rise" don't you recognize? Given the entire post my comment was on target.

[ChemMJW]

My thoughts are that I dislike them both equally. Extremists are labeled as such not because of how fervently they believe, but rather because of how forcefully they go about spreading and defending their beliefs. This is another example of the ends not justifying the means. That is, one side has to be right, but if they go about promoting and defending their right ideas with abhorrent means, they lose all credibility and the claim to the moral high ground.

On the other hand, the notion that people might suddenly get around to "uniting respectfully in the name of democracy" made me giggle.

[Conductor42]

Moderates are the reason why we're constantly ruled by idiots. If an extremist won he'd be considerably more competent. Possibly crazy or evil, but competent.

Hardly. If this country didn't have moderates we'd have a 3-way fight between near-anarchists, fascists, and communists. The liberals would make Nancy Pelosi look conservative and the conservatives would make Chuck Norris look like a commie.

[Jedidiah]

What part of "Sudden rise" don't you recognize? Given the entire post my comment was on target.

Given the context the "sudden rise" pretty clearly referred to the "becoming more vocal ."

Slave To God, how about clearing up this confusion.

[Darth Executor]

Hardly. If this country didn't have moderates we'd have a 3-way fight between near-anarchists, fascists, and communists. The liberals would make Nancy Pelosi look conservative and the conservatives would make Chuck Norris look like a commie.

You're right. Because when you remove the 40% that represents the middle, all you're left with is communists and fascists. :lolo:

[Slave to God]

Well what I meant by "sudden rise" was actually "sudden vocalization" by some groups who seem more desperate now that they feel as if they've "lost" in a sense by having a black president elected. In the past we've seen racist groups spread their propaganda etc. but never plotted to kill the commander-in-chief. Maybe I'm wrong on that issue, but what is for certain is that these groups are becoming more vocal and they are getting a lot more coverage by the media.

[Jedidiah]

Thanks, Slave.

[Conductor42]

You're right. Because when you remove the 40% that represents the middle, all you're left with is communists and fascists. :lolo:

Perhaps not now, but extremism breeds ugly things when it doesn't have anything to keep it in check.

[Darth Executor]

Stupid moderates sending the country to ruin don't "keep extremists in check". Quite the opposite.

[joel]

What bugs me though is when truth (or even belief that there exists truth), or the good is considered extremism. For example, I think the classical liberals (e.g., John Locke, Thomas Jefferson) were very close to the truth and it was once the majority belief in the U.S. But now those who espouse classical liberalism are considered "extremists." Or thinking we should follow the constitution and that the federal government should not step outside its constitutionally enumerated powers is right-wing extremism.

[Conductor42]

Or thinking we should follow the constitution and that the federal government should not step outside its constitutionally enumerated powers is right-wing extremism.

Everyone agrees with that principle, in theory.
What constitutes those powers is a matter of opinion.

[joel]

Everyone agrees with that principle, in theory.
What constitutes those powers is a matter of opinion.
I suppose, if you include all those who take an eisegetic view of the constitution.
We haven't been able to pass the Enumerated Powers Act, which would require the Congress to cite in every bill the provision in the Constitution that grants the Congress the power to pass that bill. I would think everyone would think that is a good idea.

Perhaps I should have been more specific that I was referring to the view that the Constitution limits the government to those powers specifically enumerated. As opposed to the view that the government can do pretty much anything not specifically prohibited--that the enumeration(s) in the Constitution are meant to be a non-exhaustive list of examples.

[alatheist]

I suppose, if you include all those who take an eisegetic view of the constitution.
We haven't been able to pass the Enumerated Powers Act, which would require the Congress to cite in every bill the provision in the Constitution that grants the Congress the power to pass that bill. I would think everyone would think that is a good idea.

Perhaps I should have been more specific that I was referring to the view that the Constitution limits the government to those powers specifically enumerated. As opposed to the view that the government can do pretty much anything not specifically prohibited--that the enumeration(s) in the Constitution are meant to be a non-exhaustive list of examples.

The U.S. Supreme Court has struck down numerous acts of Congress - some quite recently - for not being within the specific enumerated powers of the Constitution. I challenge you to find any court case that has ever held that Congress can in fact do pretty much anything unless specifically prohibted by the Constitution. You won't find it. Nor will you find any serious Constitutional Scholar arguing such an interpretation of the Constitution.

What you will find is serious disagreement on the extent of those enumerated powers. You will find a rigorous debate going back to the founding of this country on what those are.

Alatheist

Alatheist@yahoo.com

[Stabbytheclown]

What do you mean by "Euro-socialism" and why do you think it's extremism?

[joel]

The U.S. Supreme Court has struck down numerous acts of Congress - some quite recently - for not being within the specific enumerated powers of the Constitution. I challenge you to find any court case that has ever held that Congress can in fact do pretty much anything unless specifically prohibted by the Constitution. You won't find it. Nor will you find any serious Constitutional Scholar arguing such an interpretation of the Constitution.

What you will find is serious disagreement on the extent of those enumerated powers. You will find a rigorous debate going back to the founding of this country on what those are.

Alatheist

Alatheist@yahoo.com
A quick google search came up with an example of a law professor arguing this very thing:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb3086/is_1_22/ai_n29239686/

'As Chief Justice Marshall said in McCulloch v. Maryland, "Let the end be ... within the scope of the constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consistent with the letter and spirit of the constitution, are constitutional."'
And isn't that the whole point of the "living and breathing" doctrine? That it frees the government from being restricted by an (unchanging) constution.

The general welfare clause and the commerce clause have been interpreted to allow the government to do pretty much whatever it wants.

[benny]

I think as a country we've just become complacent and lazy when it comes to freedom. The founders would definitely be considered extremists now, not the Fred Phelps kind of religious extremist, but extremists in their views on what government should do. They experienced the tyranny of the British first hand, not from some bored public school history teacher. It was the same with Ayn Rand, she experienced communism and she became a pretty extreme capitalist. Over the years the arguments for freedom and capitalism have just become theoretical and socialism and tyranny are not as imminent a threat.

I would say we need to experience those threats again to scare us straight, but you'd think it wouldn't take that much. There are so many examples of socialism not working that it's surprising there aren't more extremists against it already. Socialist leaning politicians have to cling to crisis and say "look at what the banks/insurance companies/corporations are doing, we have to regulate!" to get people to slowly go along with the agenda.

[alatheist]

A quick google search came up with an example of a law professor arguing this very thing:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb3086/is_1_22/ai_n29239686/

'As Chief Justice Marshall said in McCulloch v. Maryland, "Let the end be ... within the scope of the constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consistent with the letter and spirit of the constitution, are constitutional."'
And isn't that the whole point of the "living and breathing" doctrine? That it frees the government from being restricted by an (unchanging) constution.

The general welfare clause and the commerce clause have been interpreted to allow the government to do pretty much whatever it wants.

You misunderstand both the article and Marshall's opinion in McCulloch (a landmark case on this issue btw). The key point is in the quote: "within the scope of the constitution" and not prohibited thereby. It is two key principles - not one. The McCulloch opinion simply stated the basic fact that Congress does have the implied power to carry out the express powers enumerated in the Constitution. Marshall found that the law in question came under the taxing and spending clauses of the Constitution. While that conclusion may indeed be debatable (modern Supreme Court Jurisprudence does not usually find congressional enactments valid on the basis of that clause much anymore), the point is clear that all Congressional enactments are required to come under one of the specific enumerated powers listed in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution.

A quick google search also finds further support for this position from one of the key founders, Alexander Hamilton who said: "If the end be clearly comprehended within any of the specified powers, and if the measure have an obvious relation to that end, and is not forbidden by any particular provision of the Constitution, it may safely be deemed to come within the compass of the national authority. " As long as a law can be comprehended within any of the specified powers and is not violative of some other provision of the Constitution, it is going to be found Constitutional.

Also this has issue has little to do with the notion of a "living, breathing" Constitution. I also don't care for such a notion. Constitutional jurisprudence is not so simplistic as between a living or a dead document. It is we who are alive. The founders though are all dead. But as Jefferson said, the Earth belongs to the living. We have a complicated structure of interpretation that should incorporate a lot of elements into the mix - the language, the founders intent (what can be discerned), our history, the problems that our jurisprudence has created, logic, philosophy, and what we perceive is best overall for our society. The founders left us with a broad vaguely worded document. It can be interpreted in a variety of ways. They themselves disagreed on what it meant (witness the Alien and Sedition Act).

Additionally, the General Welfare clause is generally not used as an enumerated power by the Court - although that is what this law professor argues. You are correct that the Commerce Clause interpretation has been expanded in the last 80 years or so. But that expansion actually reflected a more traditional approach used by Marshall in some other cases. Even with this expanded interpretation, the Court has not in fact allowed Congress to pass whatever they like - witness U.S. v. Lopez striking down the Gun Free School Zones Act, and U.S. v. Morrison invalidating portions of the Violence Against Women Act.

Do you have a specific law in mind that you think is an unconstitutional usurpation of Congressional power? If so, maybe we could figure out where the disconnect is further.


Alatheist


Alatheist@yahoo.com

[joel]

You misunderstand both the article and Marshall's opinion in McCulloch (a landmark case on this issue btw). The key point is in the quote: "within the scope of the constitution"

Whatever it means, that phrase is clearly restricting only the ends, not the means.



A quick google search also finds further support for this position from one of the key founders, Alexander Hamilton
I tend to lean Jeffersonian in opposing Hamilton.



Do you have a specific law in mind that you think is an unconstitutional usurpation of Congressional power? If so, maybe we could figure out where the disconnect is further.
For a few examples, say, minumim wage laws, labor laws, the Social Security Act, and most of Federal outlays, including bailouts and so-called "stimulus". The Department of Education. Hate crime legislation. Conscription. Arms restrictions and registrations.
We might throw in paper (fiat) money and the Federal Reserve for good measure.
For a great historical example, consider the Congress being allowed to restrict how much wheat an individual can grow on their own land for their own consumption (as in Wickard v Filburn).

[alatheist]

Whatever it means, that phrase is clearly restricting only the ends, not the means.

I tend to lean Jeffersonian in opposing Hamilton.



Jefferson was not involved in the drafting of the Constitution. While I think his views on it are important, if one is going to argue only for a view of "original intent" (whatever that means) then one should ignore him.

Also once he took over the presidency he was more than willing to see Federal power expanded as he saw fit. See David Mayer's "The Constitutional Thought of Thomas Jefferson" describing his views while in the Presidency as downright Hamiltonian.





For a few examples, say, minumim wage laws, labor laws, the Social Security Act, and most of Federal outlays, including bailouts and so-called "stimulus".



Economic regulation clearly falls under the Commerce Clause. The original view of the Supreme Court was that economic matters that were purely intrastate but had an impact on interstate commerce came under the provision. This view was overturned after the Civil War. Of course it was reinstated during the Great Depression and that is the view that we have today.

How far the drafters envisioned the extent of that clause is simply unknown. There was little debate over its provision and little was said in subsequent years by any involved. It was not a real issue for the most part until much of Roosevelt's New Deal legislation was repealed - plunging the economy into further crisis and depression. As I said, our history is important in interpreting the Constitution - especially when you have no sources for some sort of "original intent." The heart of the law is history not logic. Siince the enactment of many of these laws our country has undergone enormous economic growth and had long periods of stability. Before then we lurched from economic crisis to depressions at dizzying rates. A great book describing this is Jackson Lear's Rebirth of a Nation.





The Department of Education. Hate crime legislation. Conscription. Arms restrictions and registrations.



Indeed these are more problematic. Clearly though education has an enormous impact on the overall flow of interstate commerce, but I agree that it is largely a state issue and don't see the strong need for overfunding such a department. As to Hate Crime legislation, I would agree that the tie to Interstate Commerce is dubious. Actually, I think the Federal Government should signficantly minimize its criminal laws. Drug laws, Felons in possession of Fire Arms, and a host of other federal laws should be revoked. Those types of things are best left up to the states for prosecution. As it stands right now if you go home and find your wife in bed with another man and shoot him you could be prosecuted in Federal Court - if he was a federal chicken inspector for example. I question the rationale here to a federal jurisdiction. If you were a chicken farmer and killed him because he was going to give you a low grade - then OK - there's a tie in. But a garden variety murder of someone who turns out to be a federal employee should not invoke federal jurisdiction. I also find it interesting that the Court was willing to strike down the Violence Against Women act, but found some dubious connection between a convicted felon who just happened to be in possession of a firearm to be within the purview of the Commerce Clause. We are needlessly overpopulating our prisons with convictions of such matter. Interestingly enough though, most of these criminal acts were enacted under Republican Administrations - not democrats.





We might throw in paper (fiat) money and the Federal Reserve for good measure.
For a great historical example, consider the Congress being allowed to restrict how much wheat an individual can grow on their own land for their own consumption (as in Wickard v Filburn).

The paper money issue really doesn't have anything to do with Congressional power (although it might be unconstitutional).

The Wickard case did not just involve wheat grown solely for the farmer's own consumption. Filburn actually grew most of his wheat for sale. He kept some for consumption - claiming that was the excess over his allotment. The Court made one of the most important decisions upholding the allotment, recognizing that even though the extra wheat never entered interstate commerce (or any commerce) it still had a profound effect on interstate commerce (cumulatively) and therefore regulations on such wheat growing were legitimate exercises of Congressional power under the Commerce Clause. Again, this reflected the earlier view of the Commerce Clause as espoused by the Marshall Court which had held that interstate commerce does not mean stuff that just crosses the border of a state.


Alatheist


Alatheist@yahoo.com

[joel]

The original view of the Supreme Court was that economic matters that were purely intrastate but had an impact on interstate commerce came under the provision.

Hm. There is probably no human action that does not have an impact on interstate commerce.



until much of Roosevelt's New Deal legislation was repealed - plunging the economy into further crisis and depression.
When was that? I have actually heard the opposite.



Siince the enactment of many of these laws our country has undergone enormous economic growth and had long periods of stability. Before then we lurched from economic crisis to depressions at dizzying rates.
And that changed?



The paper money issue really doesn't have anything to do with Congressional power.
Why not? Legislation declares Federal Reserve Notes (and only them) to be money and legal tender.



The Wickard case did not just involve wheat grown solely for the farmer's own consumption. Filburn actually grew most of his wheat for sale. He kept some for consumption - claiming that was the excess over his allotment. The Court made one of the most important decisions upholding the allotment, recognizing that even though the extra wheat never entered interstate commerce (or any commerce) it still had a profound effect on interstate commerce (cumulatively) and therefore regulations on such wheat growing were legitimate exercises of Congressional power under the Commerce Clause.
Again, by that reasoning, every human action has a profound (cumulative) effect on interstate commerce.

[alatheist]

Hm. There is probably no human action that does not have an impact on interstate commerce.



Perhaps. But the Supreme Court hasn't gone that far. Economic regulations though are going to have an impact on interstate commerce and will be upheld. We live in an integrated economy today - we are not the nation that we started out as. But our Constitution is frankly flexible enough to absorb this.




When was that? I have actually heard the opposite.



In the early 30's the Court struck down a variety of New Deal Legislation - using the older interpretation of the Commerce Clause but ignoring some earlier musings on the subject by Marshall. The economy had been recovering, especially unemployment, but soared back up in the mid-30's after those decisions. Here's a graph showing a double swing in employment: http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2009-02-16-USUnemployment_1930_1950d.jpg When Roosevelt won reelection in 36, he threatened to pack the Court in order to help the old Justices with their work load. The justices got the hint and two of them changed their opinion on the Commerce Clause in 1937 - the switch in time that saved nine.







And that changed?



Sure did! The great depression was only the last in a long line of economic crises that stretch back before the Civil War. Our economy during the period of 1866 - 1920 was a series of bizarre economic crunches and few booms. The Great Depression was arguably not much worse than those - it just came after such good times in the 20's that it seemed worse. There's a lot of good books on our history during that time. Fascinating time period.




Why not? Legislation declares Federal Reserve Notes (and only them) to be money and legal tender.



The prohibition on paper money is in section 10 of Article I, and reads as if it applies only to the states: "No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility." It really doesn't apply to Congress - if read literally. Congress's powers are really discussed in Section 8. In that section, they have the power to coin money and regulate the value thereof. Nothing though requires that only gold and silver coins be issued.

Alatheist


Alatheist@yahoo.com

[Duder]

Whether it's National Syndicalism or Nationalized Synods, new and improved radical political ideals seem to be becoming more vocal with the Obama administration, both from the opposition and from wishful idealists within his support base. I've heard everything from Neo-Nazi plots to harm the Commander-in-Chief to voices loudly advocating his policies and in fact demanding that they go one step further and advocate total "Euro-Socialism". Obviously, I believe any extremist ideology is crazy, but my question is what are your thoughts on the sudden "rise" (or perhaps vocalization) of these extremist ideals? Are Obama's politics of change making people polarize against one another rather than uniting respectfully in the name of democracy? Let's all weigh in.

Greetings, Slave -

I don't see a rise, sudden or otherwise, in extremist ideologies. I do see a rise, however, in the tactic of calling the other fellow's point of view extremist. This is done to frighten people away from the other fellow's ideas.

Let's take as an example the suggestion made by President Obama that we adopt a "public option" in health care. In the continuum of all possibilities, this idea is just about dead-center. Consider: Those of us who are heavily influenced by liberal ideology say that there is no place in a good health care system for private, for-profit insurance. Others who are enthusiastic conservatives say that in health care there should be no government involvment whatever. The "public option" sits between these extremes and says, have a govermnent plan if you want it, and keep your private plan if you don't. That is about as moderate as you can get. Liberals like me see it as half-hearted and lukewarm.

But the tendancy nowadays is to treat such moderate proposals as the "public option" as if they were the ravings of slavering ideologues. "Socialists! Fascists! Nazis! Grandma killers! "

I do not know why this has happened. The art of understanding and respecting the other fellow and his beliefs is sadly out-of -fashion in the national arena. I have to be always on guard against my own tendancy to make demons out of reasonable people who hold views different from mine.

No, what you are seeing is extreme rhetoric, not extreme ideology.

Blessings,

Duder

[Darth Executor]

Greetings, Slave -

I don't see a rise, sudden or otherwise, in extremist ideologies. I do see a rise, however, in the tactic of calling the other fellow's point of view extremist. This is done to frighten people away from the other fellow's ideas.

I myself see a rise in the volume of incompetent people speaking when they shouldn't. Speaking of that, welcome back. :hi:


Let's take as an example the suggestion made by President Obama that we adopt a "public option" in health care. In the continuum of all possibilities, this idea is just about dead-center. Consider: Those of us who are heavily influenced by liberal ideology say that there is no place in a good health care system for private, for-profit insurance. Others who are enthusiastic conservatives say that in health care there should be no government involvment whatever. The "public option" sits between these extremes and says, have a govermnent plan if you want it, and keep your private plan if you don't. That is about as moderate as you can get. Liberals like me see it as half-hearted and lukewarm.

But the tendancy nowadays is to treat such moderate proposals as the "public option" as if they were the ravings of slavering ideologues. "Socialists! Fascists! Nazis! Grandma killers! "



That's because the public option is the first step on the way to removing all private options. Obama himself says that's what he wants, other high profile democrats have said that's the plan and dozens of house democrats outright say they just want "universal" health care. So to the uninformed it may seem like the "moderate" solution, but in reality it's just the first step to fulfilling your ideology. Once the program is in place it's virtually impossible to get rid of. That's how the west has been getting more and more liberalized: baby steps.

[Duder]

I myself see a rise in the volume of incompetent people speaking when they shouldn't. Speaking of that, welcome back. :hi:

Greetings, Darth -

Thank you! It is good to be here again.

As to whether or not I am incompetent, it is possible that I'm too incompetent to tell.:eek:




That's because the public option is the first step on the way to removing all private options. Obama himself says that's what he wants, other high profile democrats have said that's the plan and dozens of house democrats outright say they just want "universal" health care. So to the uninformed it may seem like the "moderate" solution, but in reality it's just the first step to fulfilling your ideology. Once the program is in place it's virtually impossible to get rid of. That's how the west has been getting more and more liberalized: baby steps.

Since health care is not the central topic of the thread, I don't want to argue it here. But as an example of something that evokes extreme rhetoric, I think it's germain, as your reply indicates.

You evoke what is called in informal logic the "slippery slope fallacy" - that is, the idea that the slightest creep away from one extreme will lead automatically to a headlong rush to the opposite extreme. This, to my ear, sounds like an example of extreme rhetoric, such as we see prevailing today in the national, public conversation.

Blessings,

Duder

[Darth Executor]

Greetings, Darth -

Thank you! It is good to be here again.

As to whether or not I am incompetent, it is possible that I'm too incompetent to tell.:eek:


No worries, that's what I'm here for. :thumb:



Since health care is not the central topic of the thread, I don't want to argue it here. But as an example of something that evokes extreme rhetoric, I think it's germain, as your reply indicates.

You evoke what is called in informal logic the "slippery slope fallacy" - that is, the idea that the slightest creep away from one extreme will lead automatically to a headlong rush to the opposite extreme. This, to my ear, sounds like an example of extreme rhetoric, such as we see prevailing today in the national, public conversation.

Blessings,

Duder

I haven't invoked any fallacy. Democrats have been saying outright that they expect it to be a step forward towards government dominance of health care insurance. It's not a fallacy if stupid people on the other side are admitting or bragging about it. And to put it bluntly, even if they hadn't said it I'd still assume it based on the character of the liberal movement. Bawking about "slippery slope" is sadly quite common and the real fallacy being committed IMO. And there's a thread on this topic in the civics area (a bunch of them actually).

[joel]

Greetings, Slave -

I don't see a rise, sudden or otherwise, in extremist ideologies. I do see a rise, however, in the tactic of calling the other fellow's point of view extremist. This is done to frighten people away from the other fellow's ideas.

Let's take as an example the suggestion made by President Obama that we adopt a "public option" in health care. In the continuum of all possibilities, this idea is just about dead-center. Consider: Those of us who are heavily influenced by liberal ideology say that there is no place in a good health care system for private, for-profit insurance. Others who are enthusiastic conservatives say that in health care there should be no government involvment whatever. The "public option" sits between these extremes and says, have a govermnent plan if you want it, and keep your private plan if you don't. That is about as moderate as you can get. Liberals like me see it as half-hearted and lukewarm.

But the tendancy nowadays is to treat such moderate proposals as the "public option" as if they were the ravings of slavering ideologues. "Socialists! Fascists! Nazis! Grandma killers! "

This all depends on the context of "extreme." The "dead-center" between pure good and pure evil is still evil.

Suppose you murdered someone for a radical cause and someone called you an extremist. Using your argument you might respond that "in the continuum of all possibilities" your action was not really that extreme. For example, it was "dead-center" between killing zero people and killing 2 people! In fact taking in the scope of the fact that it is possible to kill millions of people, your killing 1 person was near the far non-killing end of the spectrum. In fact, taking in that large context you might say you are practically a non-killing extremist, compared to the number of people you could have killed.

Using your reasoning, if the government proposed killing half the population that would be a moderate proposal. It would be dead-center between the government killing zero people and it killing all people. That proposal would be "half-hearted" and "lukewarm", which is absurd.

[Duder]

I haven't invoked any fallacy. Democrats have been saying outright that they expect it to be a step forward towards government dominance of health care insurance. It's not a fallacy if stupid people on the other side are admitting or bragging about it. And to put it bluntly, even if they hadn't said it I'd still assume it based on the character of the liberal movement. Bawking about "slippery slope" is sadly quite common and the real fallacy being committed IMO. And there's a thread on this topic in the civics area (a bunch of them actually).

The Slippery Slope, as you have used it, is fallacious. This is shown in your reply above when you said that the people on the other side who say that the modest proposal of a public option will lead to their extreme of socialized medicine are stupid. You are right that there is something screwy about them. And because they are screwy, you should not take them seriously to represent the actual state of affairs.

I would not have said that those of my fellow liberals who amplify the effects of the public option are "stupid", but I do recognize that they are big talkers. They are doing exactly what the big talkers on the right are doing. The only difference between them is wild-eyed optimism versus wild-eyed demagoguery.

[Darth Executor]

The Slippery Slope, as you have used it, is fallacious. This is shown in your reply above when you said that the people on the other side who say that the modest proposal of a public option will lead to their extreme of socialized medicine are stupid.

I think they're stupid for coming out and admitting it, not because they're wrong.


You are right that there is something screwy about them. And because they are screwy, you should not take them seriously to represent the actual state of affairs.

Again, I didn't call them stupid because they misrepresent the current state of affairs, I call them stupid for just telling people about their plans. This might work for their constituents but at a national level it'll do the exact opposite.


I would not have said that those of my fellow liberals who amplify the effects of the public option are "stupid", but I do recognize that they are big talkers. They are doing exactly what the big talkers on the right are doing. The only difference between them is wild-eyed optimism versus wild-eyed demagoguery.


I'm not sure what this has to do with anything. The PRESIDENT HIMSELF says he prefers government health care but won't try to implement it because he doesn't think he has the political capital to do it (not in those exact words, he's smarter than the rank and file morons). When the "big talkers" have congress and the presidency, any sane man should listen.

[Duder]

This all depends on the context of "extreme." The "dead-center" between pure good and pure evil is still evil.

Suppose you murdered someone for a radical cause and someone called you an extremist. Using your argument you might respond that "in the continuum of all possibilities" your action was not really that extreme. For example, it was "dead-center" between killing zero people and killing 2 people! In fact taking in the scope of the fact that it is possible to kill millions of people, your killing 1 person was near the far non-killing end of the spectrum. In fact, taking in that large context you might say you are practically a non-killing extremist, compared to the number of people you could have killed.

Using your reasoning, if the government proposed killing half the population that would be a moderate proposal. It would be dead-center between the government killing zero people and it killing all people. That proposal would be "half-hearted" and "lukewarm", which is absurd.

Greetings, Joel -

But we were not suggesting killing anyone, were we? If we suggested killing someone as a solution to a problem, that would be extreme and wrong, as I think we all agree.

What you have done here is moved the goalposts, as it were. You've taken the extreme and shown that it can be made to appear not so extreme if you amplify it beyond all reasonable limits. "See? Manson doesn't look extreme if you compare him with Hitler!"

Now, by calling the public option "moderate", I did not resort to this handy tactic. The idea that the goverment always destroys whatever it touches is already, with no amplification needed, the extreme basis of the extreme ideology that there should be no goverment involvment in health care.

Those who adhere to the extreme position (myself included), are tempted to move the goalposts in this way so that they can feel like moderates and not like extremists. If they employ extremist rhetoric against moderate opposition, that is the reason.

Look... I am an extremist liberal in the present climate of American politics. I recognize that and admit it to those I argue with. For that reason, I have no need to amplify my rhetoric so as to appear moderate.

Blessings,

Duder

[Darth Executor]

Now, by calling the public option "moderate", I did not resort to this handy tactic.

Yes you did, by using complete government takeover of health care (which isn't even liberal, it's pure socialism) as the liberal baseline.

[Duder]

I'm not sure what this has to do with anything. The PRESIDENT HIMSELF says he prefers government health care but won't try to implement it because he doesn't think he has the political capital to do it (not in those exact words, he's smarter than the rank and file morons). When the "big talkers" have congress and the presidency, any sane man should listen.

As I am sure you agree, the President is in many respects an old-school liberal - an extremist in today's climate. If he had his heart's desire, we'd go to single payer, or maybe even to outright socialized medicine, which is far to the left of what most people are comfortable with.

He knows that. And that is precisely what makes his proposal moderate. It splits the difference between what he wants and what you want.

[Duder]

Yes you did, by using complete government takeover of health care (which isn't even liberal, it's pure socialism) as the liberal baseline.

Not so, friend. I say that the liberal baseline is single-payer. Socialized medicine is beyond the liberal single-payer base. It's radical.

[Darth Executor]

As I am sure you agree, the President is in many respects an old-school liberal - an extremist in today's climate. If he had his heart's desire, we'd go to single payer, or maybe even to outright socialized medicine, which is far to the left of what most people are comfortable with.

He knows that. And that is precisely what makes his proposal moderate. It splits the difference between what he wants and what you want.

Only if you take the proposal in a political vacuum, which is utterly insane. I have no reason to believe his party will stop at that when so many of them are outright saying they won't (and again, even if they didn't, the historic trend is clear). I've tried to get this point across already but you don't seem to get it. You just dismiss all the politics around it as a "slippery slope", as if one decision has nothing to do with the next one. In politics, when you have A (the status quo), C (the desired result) and B (a step towards the desired result), assuming implementation of B is a step towards C is not only reasonable, but mandatory until shown otherwise.

Obama is stopping at B for now because he has no choice (for now), not because he doesn't want to get to C, nor should any sane person reasonably expect him to stop until he or a successor gets to C.

[Darth Executor]

Not so, friend. I say that the liberal baseline is single-payer. Socialized medicine is beyond the liberal single-payer base. It's radical.

The only difference between single-payer and overt government control is that the former is stupid socialism while the latter is less stupid socialism. At least in the latter the government has complete oversight of how taxpayer money is spent. In the former, the government will just shovel money into doctors' wallets until it finally goes bankrupt from all the debt it's gonna rack up.

[Duder]

The only difference between single-payer and overt government control is that the former is stupid socialism while the latter is less stupid socialism. At least in the latter the government has complete oversight of how taxpayer money is spent. In the former, the government will just shovel money into doctors' wallets until it finally goes bankrupt from all the debt it's gonna rack up.

Even if you express the distiction between single-pay and socialized medicine crudely and inaccurately, you do show an appreciation for the distinction - the way in which the one is on the extreme left and the other is out of the solar system.

That was my point.

[Darth Executor]

Even if you express the distiction between single-pay and socialized medicine crudely and inaccurately, you do show an appreciation for the distinction - the way in which the one is on the extreme left and the other is out of the solar system.

That was my point.

Just because I express a distinction does not mean I express a distinction relevant to the issue at hand. There isn't. In both cases the government pays for the health care. One may be more socialist in that it seeks to own the businesses that provide it as well, but that's not what the current health care debate is about.

[Duder]

Just because I express a distinction does not mean I express a distinction relevant to the issue at hand. There isn't. In both cases the government pays for the health care. One may be more socialist in that it seeks to own the businesses that provide it as well, but that's not what the current health care debate is about.

May I point out that the thread isn't even about health care? We were talking about extremism in ideology and rhetoric.

Defining precisely which position is moderate, which is extreme and which is radical is always going to be susceptible to subjective interpretation, and I am sure that there will be no universal agreement here about what ideology falls into which catagory. Such agreement is not needed for a mutual acknowledgement that there is a peculiar tendancy now for both sides to overamplfy their rhetoric against each other. The positions actually held today are not more extreme than usual. They may be more moderate than usual, and really, the parties in dispute might be picking at nits.

Extremist rhetoric, not extremist ideology, is the problem.

[Darth Executor]

May I point out that the thread isn't even about health care? We were talking about extremism in ideology and rhetoric.

You were talking about that. I wasn't. :rasberry:


Defining precisely which position is moderate, which is extreme and which is radical is always going to be susceptible to subjective interpretation, and I am sure that there will be no universal agreement here about what ideology falls into which catagory. Such agreement is not needed for a mutual acknowledgement that there is a peculiar tendancy now for both sides to overamplfy their rhetoric against each other. The positions actually held today are not more extreme than usual. They may be more moderate than usual, and really, the parties in dispute might be picking at nits.

Extremist rhetoric, not extremist ideology, is the problem.


I think the reason why the rhetoric wasn't as extremist is because people were complacent. I prefer extremist rhetoric as well, it means people care. Also, I'm not sure this is a recent change. With bush in power it was mainly liberals going psycho. With Obama in power, it's conservatives. I'm guessing you only noticed it recently because it's your guy getting hammered now. You tend to forgive your own side its inequities and amplify those of the enemy.

[Duder]

You were talking about that. I wasn't. :rasberry:




I think the reason why the rhetoric wasn't as extremist is because people were complacent. I prefer extremist rhetoric as well, it means people care. Also, I'm not sure this is a recent change. With bush in power it was mainly liberals going psycho. With Obama in power, it's conservatives. I'm guessing you only noticed it recently because it's your guy getting hammered now. You tend to forgive your own side its inequities and amplify those of the enemy.

You know how back in the day I used to bash President Bush? I was guilty of what I decry here. But even back then, Duder the rabid Bush-basher eventually came to his senses and realized how unhelpful and how fundamentally dishonest it was. I began treating President Bush with respect and striving to understand those who agreed with his policies.

Today, I cannot stomach the infantile rhetoric heard on Air America (or whatever they call it now), and I urge liberals to avoid using that kind of blather. It does not contribute anything good to the sphere of civics .

Yes, by all means, let us both as extremists give full-throated voice to our beliefs and our wishes for the nation. In doing so, we need not try to make each other seem more extreme than we are.

[joel]

If we suggested killing someone as a solution to a problem, that would be extreme and wrong, as I think we all agree.

Yes, that was the basis of my reductio ad absurdum.



What you have done here is moved the goalposts, as it were.
No, you did. That was my point. You moved the goalposts to include "the continuum of all possibilities". I simply illustrated what that would look like in other contexts.



You've taken the extreme and shown that it can be made to appear not so extreme if you amplify it beyond all reasonable limits. "See? Manson doesn't look extreme if you compare him with Hitler!"
No, I wast trying to explain that that is what you did. "See? government-run insurance isn't total abolition of the health insurance market, so it's "moderate", "dead-center"."



The idea that the goverment always destroys whatever it touches is already, with no amplification needed, the extreme basis of the extreme ideology that there should be no goverment involvment in health care.
This is kind of a straw man.



Those who adhere to the extreme position (myself included), are tempted to move the goalposts in this way so that they can feel like moderates and not like extremists. If they employ extremist rhetoric against moderate opposition, that is the reason.


Look... I am an extremist liberal in the present climate of American politics. I recognize that and admit it to those I argue with. For that reason, I have no need to amplify my rhetoric so as to appear moderate.
Let me go back to my first point in my previous email.
Consider the following analogy. (I realize that you will totally disagree with it, but consider it for the sake of argument.):

1. No government intervention in health care: Good
2. Government (i.e., coercive) insurance: Evil
3. Single-payer health care: Even more evil

Now, there is no need to "move goalposts" or "employ extremist rhetoric". If you say the relevant range goes from 1-3, fine. 2 is still evil. Say that 2 is "moderate" or "dead-center" or whatever. Fine. It is still evil. If someone calls 2 evil, don't necessarily assume that they are calling 2 "extremist". Don't assume that they think or are claiming (rhetorically) that you can't get worse than that.

If we are going to start disputing about moving goalposts, one could just as easily accuse you of moving goalposts, not so as to appear/feel moderate but so as to make yourself appear/feel to be at or within the goalposts. One could just as well argue that you are making an extreme position appear moderate so that you don't appear to be "beyond extreme" (e.g., like how Manson is extreme and Hitler is beyond Manson). One could argue that you are being like Hitler calling Manson is a moderate, rather than extreme.

Again, it all depends on context. There is no more point to debating that context than there is to debating the definition of a word.

[joel]

Those of us who are heavily influenced by liberal ideology say that there is no place in a good health care system for private, for-profit insurance.


As I am sure you agree, the President is in many respects an old-school liberal

It's funny how much the common usage of a word changes. Up to about 100 years ago it would have been common knowledge that liberal ideology says that there is no place in health care for government intervention. Liberals (e.g. John Locke, Thomas Jefferson) were government minimalists. Today the word tends to refer to a largely opposite ideology. Who knows what you mean by "old-school" liberal.