Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
Editorial

Journal jcast's Journal: Socialist Emotions 21

Journal by jcast

I just want to get this down on my permanent record: I think the fundamental Socialist attitude is impatience. Socialists don't think things happen fast enough when progress comes outside the government, so they turn to the government to speed things up. This is why they want things like gay ``marriage'': it's too long and boring to get insurance coverage, etc., by private action, so they turn to the government to hurry things up.

My problem with this is that societies are like living organisms; they need to grow and change gradually and continuously, not quickly and abruptly. Going to the government to effect societal or economic change is like breaking your arm and inserting steel rods to make it longer. Sure, you'll get a longer bone, but you can't fix the muscles and skin around it that way. The government is the same: it can `fix' a specific problem, but it cannot shape the entire society to grow around the fix. So, in the long run, the more government intervention you have in society, the more fragile and dis-jointed society is. IMHO, this is a bad thing.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Socialist Emotions More

Socialist Emotions

Comments Filter:
  • The opposition to gay marriage isn't so much against the concept of marriage, but against the concept of homosexuality itself. If someone doesn't regard homosexuality as an acceptable thing, they are obviously going to be against the idea of conferring marriage rights on a gay couple. So the problem here is that the gay relationship is not accepted as legitimate at the outset and all opposition to the concept of gay marriage grows from there.

    But isn't this the land of the Free? Isn't there equality unde

    • Personally, I think that the government shouldn't have any business legislating marriage. If someone wants to get married to someone else, regardless of sexual orientation, it should be allowed. Polygamy should be allowed.

      I agree. However, the Gay `Rights' movement is pushing for gay `marriage'. I.e., they want the government involved in homosexual relationships. Why do they want the government involvement? Why can't they just peform the ceremonies and get on with it? They perceive legislation as a

      • The gay rights movement is trying to play it safe, in my view, with regards to the gay marriage opponents. That's why they try to play the same "marriage is a sanctified institution" game. They can only play that card by advocating an increase in their own rights without also expanding it to polygamists, etc. It's a big flaw in their method of argument, but it doesn't detract at all from the core position that married homosexual couples should receive less than their fair share of government protection.

        • The reason they need government action is because marriage as recognized by the government confers benefits tax-wise

          No it doesn't (not at the Federal level, and I suspect not at the state level---the Federal level used to have this feature (back in the 70s), and the outcry from singles got it changed the other way). Until recently (and any changes made recently are undoubtedly sunseted), marrying and filing jointly would give you a higher federal tax liability than staying single and just living togethe

          • Until recently (and any changes made recently are undoubtedly sunseted), marrying and filing jointly would give you a higher federal tax liability than staying single and just living together.

            This is a misunderstanding of the tax law. The problem with the "marriage penalty" was that it penalized married couples who both worked. In the traditional "Dad works and Mom stays at home" model family the structure of the tax system burdened married couples less than single individuals of equivalent income. Wit
  • Well, the bottom line is Socialists want massive regulation in place BEFORE they take over. The last ones successful with that (I think) were the National Socialists in Germany, but maybe also that guy in Venezuela.

    After that they get elected and make things even worse, like adding more people to track under this 'marriage' fad.
    • That is true for the leaders, but it doesn't explain why they draw adherents, which was my focus. I'm all for understanding and combating the leaders, but the only way we'll win is to convert their following out from under them.
      • The leaders just babble populist nonsense with enough incoherancy to "stick" to different people. Like Chomsky, Nader and Emmanuel of 2600 magazine. The only way to combat this nonsense is knowing your stuff when you run into the victims in person and patiently laying out reality for them. Well, one way and the only way I know anyway.
        • I disagree. It may be true that some of the fringe has descended to that level, but the main reason their stuff sticks is they've got what their constituents believe is a real problem (and is usually is), and they've got enough followers who are impatient enough only to see change when it's the government bringing it about.

          If the mainstream left descended to the level you indicate, they'd be finished.

  • People anywhere in the political spectrum who want a change are impatient for that change to occur.

    • Everyone wants the change to happen. Socialists, though, are impatient, i.e., not willing to wait for the change to happen normally. They aren't willing to take the question to the marketplace of ideas and argue it there---that takes too long for them.

      There's a difference between regretting the speed the market works at and being unwilling to wait for the market.
      • What do you mean by "the change" -- this one in particular? I haven't noticed socialists as being particularly in evidence as the people behind this change. Nor do I see the decisions as based on socialist principles (which mainly have to do with addressing things on a macroeconomic level).

        I think everyone has the same impatience about the areas where they want political change. It may be more evident from socialists because they have more things they want changed.

        I guess they also don't believe that "the m

        • What do you mean by "the change" -- this one in particular?

          Well, I mean any change socialists want---higher income and more opportunity for poor people,

          I haven't noticed socialists as being particularly in evidence as the people behind this change

          Which change? I mean changes that lefties/socialists are behind.

          Nor do I see the decisions as based on socialist principles (which mainly have to do with addressing things on a macroeconomic level).

          Well, I guess we differ there---I see the drive to repl

  • Often times government gets involved in issues because society has changed yet laws have not. Case in point: labor law development post-Civil war. As the US became more and more industrialized there became a pressing need for more regulation of the labor market - for safety issues, pay/compensation, redress of complaints, etc. This is my primary complaint with laissez-faire free-market approaches to government: assuming that all issues will sort themselves out in an anarchist's utopia dream scenario.
    • OK. 99% of your ``examples'' are caused by misguided government action in the first place. Obviously, I have no problem with correcting misguided government action.

      Second, as for your one example of the government actually intervening to solve a problem it didn't cause---the labor issue---there is no evidence that labor regulation actually achieved anything the unions couldn't have achieved. You use the fact that the socialists did get the laws changed as evidence they had to. That doesn't work.

Slashdot Top Deals

When someone says "I want a programming language in which I need only say what I wish done," give him a lollipop.

Close