I don't mind if the forum's fairly conservative, as long as it doesn't seep into non-political discussions. I cringe every time I see a "that's that liberal agenda" type stuff. But it's fairly rare, we've generally had quite productive posters and good moderation.
Nice to know I stand somewhere between Ghandi and Stalin.
n0000, I can't speak for everyone who has more liberal beliefs. I don't believe that money should be the 100% basis of society, which seems to be a very strong conservative mindset. Things like parks, education, having a
subsistence level of food housing and medical care, those are things that are beyond money. The side effects of not having basic subsistence, the effects of people lashing out at society for it, are much more expensive (I can personally attest having seen it). It costs $60,000 a year to incarcerate someone in a low security prison, but not even half that to feed/clothe/house them. Nothing fancy, but subsistence.
I'm a strong social conservative--two-parent homes, white picket fences, no children from what isn't a long-term, stable relationship (usually marriage, not necessarily). I
do support gay rights and marriage, but I
don't think they should have children--not because they're bad or immoral, but because of the way children need to have gender roles in the house to adapt to the outside world. Needless to say I don't support feminism. Women need men. Men need women. Women who say they don't need men delude themselves, and few hardcore feminists die happy.
But, on the other hand, it's the job of the government to support the people. It is "by the people, FOR the people". The success of a government is not the title it carries, the terms applied to it, but its success is the quality of the greater society it supports and the ability it has to help the people who it serves.
Government serves people. The economic conditions and trends are destroying the middle class, the concentration of wealth is not sustainable. Declining middle class + a rapidly diminishing original populace group = social unrest. Since the welfare capitalism model has been uprooted (labor markets are a race to the bottom--see: china, india, taiwan, malaysia, etc.), since the workers have little bargaining power now due to unions being either overly inflexible or destroyed, the only OPTION available is for redistribution of wealth. The only other course of action is to let them all sink into poverty, so they can wind up destructive (see: any former blue collar American city). The morality of it is open for debate--should the rich keep their earnings as they're "earned" even if not always by fair means and equal work, or should they redistribute?--but the basic fact that a functioning middle class is necessary for a modern, functioning society is undeniable.
Capitalism needs someone to reign in the destructive tendency of companies. Companies are designed to make money however they can. Corporations and businesses exist in the bigger scheme not to make money, but to provide products for a working class to buy. Their competition should be at each others expense, not that of their own revenue base or of greater society. Even with feminism, even with rampant female consumption and a consumerist society, we're still gradually slowing. The system is growing sclerotic, it's dying, because there's tons of marketing and advertising, and people cannot afford to buy everything. That's all inherently self-destructive, and makes the labor market a prisoner's dilemma. Other powers need to be there to counteract the destructive effects--labor unions to help the workers get rights/stability/fair pay, government to prevent companies from doing immoral or destructive acts otherwise. And if another nation offers dirt-cheap labor which undermines this, we don't need to be doing business with them. Especially since cheap labor nations like China DON'T have a consumer class who you can market as effectively to, because they DON'T HAVE MONEY. So, if you're going to lose a high-stakes game with them, why play?
That's my line of thought. I hope it sheds some light on my views at least, maybe some other people have the same feelings. I think people generally trend politically towards whatever gives them the best deal at that point in their life, though, whether they're aware of it or not.
Also i do like sameau's idea about small sectarian communes. For groups that don't fit in with "regular" society, I think that's the best option. If someone's a white power skinhead, radical feminazi, hardline communist, anarchist, etc, give them all a small little area to call their own, let 'em do as the please, and just tell em not to cause any trouble outside their realm. Voluntary isolation with limited contact with the world should be more acceptable. You can come in and buy stuff and trade, but feel free to be relatively isolated--almost like the Amish.
