Republican or Democrat

POSTED BY: TightPants
UPDATED: Thursday, November 10, 2022 18:08
VIEWED: 21056
PAGE 3 of 7

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT PAGE

CREVANREAVER

Monday, June 28, 2004 9:13 PM

For the "True definitions for common political terms" go check out this webpage:

http://www.newspeakdictionary.com/ns-my.html

Here are some excerpts

Quote:
Democratic Party - Primarily, a belief in State-Socialism heavily tempered by State-Capitalist beliefs along with some anti-nationalist, anti-religious, and pro-environmental tendencies. They favor control of the government by 2 parties, that way they can have somebody to blame when thing go wrong. Enjoys block votes from gays, teachers, blacks, immigrants, welfare recipients, members of the press, NAACP members, environmentalist, pro-choicers, Union leaders, and people who hate Republicans.

Quote:
Republican Party - Primarily, a belief in State-Capitalism heavily tempered by Libertarian and free-market beliefs along with some pro-nationalist, pro-religious, and militaristic tendencies. They favor control of the government by 2 parties, that way they can have somebody to blame when things go wrong. Enjoys block votes from Businessmen, Christians, Hunters, KKK, pro-lifers, and people who hate Democrats.

Quote:
Liberal - Used to mean : "Free from narrow prejudice; open minded, especially, open to the reception of new ideas or proposals of reform.". Now means "Full of hatred for past Ideas, and completely intolerant of the people that still believe in them. Socialist." Most liberal arguments basically boil down to "Shut up in the name of open-mindedness and free speech!". The liberal observes evils in society, and then attempts to remedy the problem with an even greater evil.

Quote:
Libertarian-Capitalism - The most prevalent form of libertarianism in the United States (When one hears the term 'Libertarian', you can be pretty sure they arte actually referring to this type). It is a belief in free-markets (little or no state intervention in the economy) and a strong belief in personal freedoms. Governments would only provide basic services (police, a judiciary system, and military).

The browncoats would definitely be Libertarian-Capitalists and would more than likely oppose both of the dominant political parties here in the US. However, I'm still sure if they had to go with the lesser of two evils it would be the Republicans. I could never see someone like Mal or Zoe supporting higher taxes or the attacks on the Second Amendment by the Democrats.

IAMJACKSUSERNAME

Monday, June 28, 2004 9:52 PM

Quote:
correct link: http://www.lp.org/

Grr, aargh. Sorry about the url tag, I forgot it's not available here.

Quote:
Also, on the right side of the page check out the World's Smallest Political Quiz. It's the best indicator I've seen of where you fall politically.

I think the http://www.politicalcompass.org/ is a better version.

Quote:
"neo-feudal"? This must be unique among descriptions of libertarianism. Please elaborate :-)

The LP's version of libertarianism (with privatized highways and power delivery, etc.) yes; not the libertarianism of Proudhon.

"If democracy and self-rule are the fundamentals, then why should people give up these rights when they enter their work place? In politics we fight like tigers for freedom, for the right to elect our leaders, for freedom of movement, choice of residence, choice of what work to pursue — control of our lives, in short. And then we wake up in the morning and go to work, and all those rights disappear. We no longer insist on them. And so for most of the day we return to [...] a version of feudalism in which capital replaces land, and business leaders replace kings. But the hierarchy remains." - Kim Stanley Robinson, Blue Mars, part 3, section 6.

"With country and culture in the hands of a very few, democracy perishes [...] replaced by something resembling, more than anything else, medieval feudalism, only set in a high tech world." - Bill Willers, Privatization and neo-feudalism
--
I am Jack's username
FTL in Firefly? < http://jack.p5.org.uk/about-fiction/ftl-firefly.en.html>
Support our shiny bunnies.

Edit: added a space before the first closing quote tag.

TIGER

Monday, June 28, 2004 11:20 PM

Quote:
"If democracy and self-rule are the fundamentals, then why should people give up these rights when they enter their work place?..."

Simple. Because you have agreed to do what your boss says to do in exchange for money.

The allusions to feudalism by Kim Robinson are ludicrous(as are the rest of the politics in his 'Mars' books; great stories though). A peasant can't buy his own plot of land and refuse to tithe to his lord. A peasant can't decide he doesn't like farming any more and decide to take up blacksmithing.

I agree that working for a large company can be soul-sucking, humiliating, and demeaning, but it is completely SELF IMPOSED. You can quit and your boss can't come to your house and force you back to work.

Feudalism is basically forced labor...free market capitalism with private ownership of lands and absolute property rights would allow you to do whatever you want with everything that's YOURS, and no matter how big the corporation they can't force you to do any different.

This comparison of true free markets with feudalism or government replaced by big business, strikes me as either jealousy or the pent up desire to get ones way through force rather than persuasion - so many people complain about the guy who has a jillion dollars because they can't force him to do with it what they want.

Quote:
"With country and culture in the hands of a very few, democracy perishes [...] replaced by something resembling, more than anything else, medieval feudalism, only set in a high tech world."

This is a descrpition of a large, opressive, and intrusive government, not a free market, property protected system where government is restricted to courts and the military. I'd be interested to know why this is in a book comparing privatization and feudalism.

...In pleasant peace and security
How suddenly the soul in a man begins to die.
He shall look up above the stalled oxen
Envying the cruel falcon,
And dig under the straw for a stone
To bruise himself on.

THEGREYJEDI

Monday, June 28, 2004 11:44 PM

I think they're probably moderate whatever they are. Moderate Republican seems the closest thing, given that the Independents wanted as little government interference as possible, and that they were willing to go to war and shoot people with guns. Democrats have a tendency to promote larger government involvement(interference), as well as a more diplomatic(less shooty) means of foreign policy and also a tendency towards not killing and strict gun control/banning. I'm a registered Republican, though I'm fairly moderate. Too poor to be ultra-conservative I guess. Though I think the browncoats would probably resent being lumped together with any established party.

"And these three remain: Faith, Hope, and Love. And the greatest of these Love."

SPIKEANDJEZEBEL

Tuesday, June 29, 2004 1:22 AM

I just want to say that I'm very pleased that this thread has not devolved into the usual "Republicans suck! No, you're stupid, Democrats suck!" type of dialogue. Once again proving that, whatever your political affiliation, a Browncoat is generally smarter than the average citizen!

"I like smackin' 'em!" - Jayne Cobb

JCKNIFE

Tuesday, June 29, 2004 1:31 AM

Yeah, I have to agree with that.

I think it may be because the Republican tendencies that the independents exhibit are strictly the fiscal and freedom related aspects, and not the social aspects of the religious right associated with our republican party?

Just speculating.

Of course (and this could be a whole separate thread), a sub-story is Mal's apparent loss of faith along with the defeat at Serenity Valley.

THEGREYJEDI

Tuesday, June 29, 2004 2:17 AM

I'm glad to see we've not, at least yet, devolved into a seething mass of partisan hoo-ha. I understand the reasons why Democrats and liberals are what they are. Those of opposite polarity on the political spectrum what work for the common good I like. Democrats whose sole purpose is thwarting anything Republican, or Republicans who exist only to hamper anything Democrat, I have no time for. Too much of that goes one, and nothing gets done but a lot of equal interference. Which is what we browncoats were fighting against to begin with.

"And these three remain: Faith, Hope, and Love. And the greatest of these Love."

VETERAN

Tuesday, June 29, 2004 2:39 AM

Quote:
CrevanReaver wrote:
Monday, June 28, 2004 11:13
For the "True definitions for common political terms" go check out this webpage:

http://www.newspeakdictionary.com/ns-my.html

Here are some excerpts ...

I noticed he didn have a definition for conservative on that link.

RADHIL

Tuesday, June 29, 2004 3:53 AM

Quote:
Simple. Because you have agreed to do what your boss says to do in exchange for money.

Swap 'money' for 'food and shelter' (and in many families, that's not far off), and there's your basic concept of fealty.

Quote:
The allusions to feudalism by Kim Robinson are ludicrous(as are the rest of the politics in his 'Mars' books; great stories though). A peasant can't buy his own plot of land and refuse to tithe to his lord. A peasant can't decide he doesn't like farming any more and decide to take up blacksmithing.

(sigh)

Well, in Robinson's books, it was a far more relevant metaphor, as your pure free-market had devolved into something worse. In Robinson's world, business developed a kind of gravity effect, corporations swallowed small business, and economy revolved around mega-corporations, which had grown to the point of running entire countries. Absence of structure - the definition of free-market - led those with the power (money) to create their own structure. The beginnings of such an effect are even visible today, if not yet quite so self-destructive as Robinson portrayed it.

That such a future society idea as Robinson's steps on the toes of capitalism - which has so far served decent enough - doesn't automatically invalidate it.

Not saying I'd agree with it either. Certainly wouldn't work in today's world. But your dismissal of it seemed pretty reactionary, so I opened my fat mouth (again). Gotta stop doing that....

Besides which, we're well off topic.

SOUPCATCHER

Tuesday, June 29, 2004 4:29 AM

This is kind of a rambling response just based on what I think might be a limited framing to this question. Since we've only had experience with one world, and many nations, it makes sense that to our point of view everything can be nicely broken down into the political parties of one nation. But in the Firefly 'verse were talking about many different moons and planets, all with their own associated internal politics. There's a whole host of different ways to run a planet, from totalitarian regimes to theocracies to some form of democracy to anarchy, etc. It wouldn't surprise me if the independents had people from all types of governments represented. More of a broad based coalition brought together for one purpose, to keep from being dominated by the Alliance. The commonality being that all of the members just want to run their own worlds in the way they see fit. So my weasling answer to the question, "Who do you see the independents as equivalent to?" combined with the title of "Republican or Democrat" would be: both and a whole lot more besides. It just depends on which independent you were looking at.

I shaved off my beard for you, devil woman!

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT PAGE