NeoRio1, first - you need to understand what logic is... A logic is a view of a "system" - with rules, mechanisms, values, symbols etc. See "model theory" for how such structures are constructed - and how a "logic" needs to be consistent, sound etc. A logic is not the "reality" - it does not "form reality" in any way - just reflects upon it. Therefore it is a tool in use for human reasoning, and it can never be a logic that "covers everything" - which is impossible - re Gödel's incompleteness theorem. Most people are sorely inept in using logic - be it right-wing or left-wing, populist or ideologists... and another thing to understand is how logic is reductionist - like with Occam's Razor - you remove information from the "picture" which is really not helpful many times. A logic works within a specific system - or a series of systems - but can not be projected outwards from these systems, because then the logic fails miserably. You cannot apply any "logic" to society at large - because society is more akin to a "complex adaptive system." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_adaptive_system Gord, neo-conservatism was invented in the US and is present there, perhaps some supporters in Israel and very few elsewhere. You are a donkey's ass for not understanding that.
The constitution set up a limited government that allowed people their freedoms. Neither party nowadays is going to go with strict constructionist views, that would be Ron Paul territory... I think that, since it appears to be in the bag for the Democrats, I'm going to vote my conscience and go Libertarian wherever it doesn't matter and Republican where it might make a diff...
I'm going to share one of the secrets of life with you. The devil fools people. One of his things is to convince people to look for complicated answers where very simple ones are correct and even obvious. Become like a little child and obvious things are revealed to you and you will confound the wise quite often....
Thanks for explaining the philosophy behind logic. Unfortunately i wasn't asking for that. I believe both of us are logical. It is not smart to jump off a cliff just the same as it is not smart to hurt the country. Neo-cons want sophisticated and strict forms of identification and they want illegals out of the country. Far left liberals want to give driver licenses to illegals. Logically if i was conservative i think getting illegals out of here would help the country. Logically if i was liberal i think giving illegals opportunity and liberty would help the country. The problem that you addressed behind that philosophy is that logic depends on the system. The final thing i can say with any type of concrete meaning is that things need answers. The final thing to be agreed upon is moderate views need to win in order for one system of radical logic to win.
Fractals, anything that even has a whiff of communism or neo-conservatism is diametrically opposite to a Libertarian view --- they are authoritarian and totalitarian proponents - neo-cons as fascists. Anarcho-capitalism or individualist anarchism is very close to Libertarian - but there are some inconsistent Libertarian factions - like Neo-libertarianism, but they seem pretty witless, since Libertarian first and foremost means the "Non-aggression principle." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle Unless you support the non-aggression, you cannot call yourself Libertarian - without getting into all kinds of self-contradicting philosophy and viewpoints. A good "guide" for making philosophical decisions - even political one - is the two-level utilitarianism. Not because it is a "neat idea" or is "logical" - but because it is what actually reflects how we do make ethical and other decisions - the nature of how we humans are... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-level_utilitarianism NeoRio1, well, the answer to Fractals above applies to your post about the "logics" of your positions. You should instead try and read a little about systems science, decision theory and the two-level utilitarianism - or even epistemology and phenomenology - as this is the key to understanding "decisions, reasoning, trust, information, ethics" etc.
I asked you for an example of your definition of neoconservatism as evidenced by a state. You have all kinds of useless rhetoric, but you can't even give me one example. You are nothing more than a propagandist spewing lie upon lie hoping no one will notice you have no evidence. Pathetic...
I think this should be agreed upon. Education should be the biggest amount of government spending because when people fall in line with ideologies they truly believe in a logic that is a delusion both left and right.
That is very true. Also, the biggest problem to ending corruption (political and otherwise), is the lack of education. It is especially evident here in Brazil, where education is very sub-par - among the worst in the world. This again leads to rampant crime ignored by disillusioned parents without any hope for their kids, and perpetual poverty through the corruption and "old-money" entrenching their grip on profits in stead of providing incentives for domestic economic growth. I have an European background, and frequently need to "phase out" from situations here in Brazil where the shear stupidity gives me a "brain-ache" (like an ice-ache).
Exactly. I think the biggest reason why liberals think we need all these government programs is because people are uneducated. These programs have been going on for decades and there is no evidence of any real progress. The lack of vision for the future is so apparent when politicians want increased spending on programs. Spend on programs in order to invest for the future. Adding more government programs is an incentive and almost acceptance of less educated people for the future. Pitiful that people cannot vision the future. They can only vision NOW. I guess that's the only way to get elected nowadays which also shows the selfishness for why people value their own present and small fluctuating bank accounts then their own childrens future.
NeoRio1, the future entails everyone realizing that we are living in a confined environment that is running out of resources - and that for us to grow further we need to optimize resource usage - and try to stabilize every society so that there is some control over consumption. By 2040 there will be 10 billion people, and that will be an absolute hell unless the resource consumption is under control and balanced so that we can have sustainable growth. Immigration problems of today are nothing to the true security fortresses necessary in the near future if things continue like this. Lack of resources and lawlessness, corruption and exploitation need to be dampened to reduce impact in the future. The last presidency has been extremely destructive with regards to the human future, and hopes for humanity. Further, the realization that we need more space to grow further as a species - and that can only happen if we work together, and not waste resources on petty conflicts. It also means that the planet Mars is the next stop, along with intermittent larger-scale spacestations. Otherwise - humanity will get to a certain point where not all life is sustainable on Earth, and it will become extremely draconian with a constant struggle for resources --- think Mad Max post-nuclear stuff -- really. Also, remember that everytime we consume energy we create bi-products. E.g electric sparks create ionized atoms which reacts into Ozone gas. In short - there needs to be a complete balance of consumption and regeneration - otherwise we tilt all of ecology and the environment. We need to understand "sustainable development" and try to progress without conflicts. Equity, society and environment. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainable_development