Individualism vs. Collectivism

[Pharmakon]

Yup

[Etta Place]

Originally Posted by gsh341

No, it just started discussing the inherent dangers of our current political situation in the US. We all believe that government is necessary, but we also agree that the government we have right now is not the proper realization of a republic.

I personally think that the US is getting overrun with politicians trying to do anything popular so they can get reelected and our government is too big and invasive.

I agree with you, but I also agree that the U.S. is spending WAY too much money on military commitments to other countries. Why is it the responsibility of the U.S. to make sure all of these other countries have democracy?

[Pharmakon]

Originally Posted by Etta Place

I agree with you, but I also agree that the U.S. is spending WAY too much money on military commitments to other countries. Why is it the responsibility of the U.S. to make sure all of these other countries have democracy?

I wouldn't consider that anywhere near the top of my list of priorities. Defending allies, sure. Invading and occupying other countries. not so much. Striking out against clear and present dangers and calling it a day...acceptable evil.

But having a strong and well funded military is a role I expect the government to uphold.

[AZXD]

Originally Posted by Etta Place

I agree with you, but I also agree that the U.S. is spending WAY too much money on military commitments to other countries. Why is it the responsibility of the U.S. to make sure all of these other countries have democracy?

Military commitments to other countries is a drastic diversion in another direction for this thread.

So, answer this question, please.
What do you think would happen, if we did nothing ??

[Pharmakon]

Originally Posted by Etta Place

I agree with you, but I also agree that the U.S. is spending WAY too much money on military commitments to other countries. Why is it the responsibility of the U.S. to make sure all of these other countries have democracy?

Did you watch the video that this discussion is about? I really don't see much posting from you on this thread that is on the topic.

[XDConvert9mm]

Originally Posted by Pharmakon

Did you watch the video that this discussion is about? I really don't see much posting from you on this thread that is on the topic.

You'll get used to it after a while.

[Pharmakon]

Originally Posted by XDConvert9mm

You'll get used to it after a while.

Honestly, I was hoping to get more discussion about the topic without slipping too far into election 2008 talking points. Although some is to be expected.

Just because things like war and economic practice come in to play does not mean that promoting or denouncing war are inherently right or left. Not long ago Republicans were elected to end the war. If you are a liberal and want to argue that Bush destroyed the economy then what about Carter? Not that Bush is a shinning symbol of conservatism or anything. But these issues are clearly not Republican vs Democrat(unless you accept their actual definitions not what they have come to mean).

Individualists and collectivists have promoted and denounced these issues respectively at different points in time. The real question is what type of Government do we want to have? One ruled by laws or one ruled by men? History has shown that when the laws get loosened the men always take over. Why should the government have the power to gloss over the law of the land when it is not something that we as citizens can do? We cannot delegate a power that we do not have which is the primary difference between a law and an edict. This applies not only to personal freedom and privacy but also economic freedom as well (including the freedom to rise and fall w/o intervention from the government).

Once the government starts creating laws that suit it's purpose we start becoming an oligarcy rather than a constitutional republic. This collectivist phenomena exists in both of the 2 major parties beholden to different issues and interests.

[Ishpeck]

Originally Posted by Etta Place

I agree with you, but I also agree that the U.S. is spending WAY too much money on military commitments to other countries. Why is it the responsibility of the U.S. to make sure all of these other countries have democracy?

Our military spending is dwarfed by the spending on social security and medicare. Even with "TEH WOR IN IRACK!" going on, our military spending hasn't been anywhere near as insane as our entitlement programs.

You would save the US gajillions more $$$'s if you dropped SS than if you dropped military spending.

I'm especially resentful of the Social Security fraud. The feds continuously take money out of my paycheck without my consent in exchange for a retirement fund that I will never get to see returns on. EVER.

So all you Californians can play the Berkley game and paint peace signs on your bare bellies. Even if you had your way, the US Treasury will still tank.

[OKMatt]

Originally Posted by Pharmakon

.

Once the government starts creating laws that suit it's purpose we start becoming an oligarcy rather than a constitutional republic. This collectivist phenomena exists in both of the 2 major parties beholden to different issues and interests.

Should that read, "We have become"?