Interesting! To me, the ideals of diversity and chances for all are frightening enough to consider giving real ground to, let alone any ‘false’ ideal of such notions.  This could get into another extremely broad discussion when talking about immigration too, some of which I think you and I would largely disagree on, for a number of different reasons.  What you just outlined for example [and I think this plays a part in the vices of immigration and diversity] by saying that people want freedom of belief and the right to impose it on everyone else, I have an almost visceral reaction to people when I hear them spouting off such statements.  I hear this especially a lot from liberals, perhaps invoked by them not all for the same reason, but I see it used very generally as an argument to keep people balkanized via politically correct outlets and channels for example, and to stultify genuine progress from being made in society.  You’ll hear it used other ways for example, as I’ve heard it from talking to others about aristocracy, they’ll respond to me with a panacea by saying something along the lines of: “oh yeah, well what makes you think you are qualified to decided what’s right and wrong in society…” as if that was just the knockdown argument of all time against an ordered and structured state.  The thing is, no matter what society you have, no, matter, what, society, you, have, everything is legislated at some level or another, be it a democratic government or a totalitarian police state.  I would argue with you that, no matter if you believe yourself to be qualified or not to decide what kind of society we should have, everyone should first be made to understand that it’s an inevitable outcome that someone, or some group is going to decide what kind of society we’ll have, and it will be imposed on all of us nonetheless.

There [The United States], to the contrary, neoliberal initiatives are characterized as free market policies that encourage private enterprise and consumer choice, reward personal responsibility and entrepreneurial initiative, and undermine the dead hand of the incompetent, bureaucratic and parasitic government, that can never do good even if well intended, which is rarely.  A generation of corporate-financed public relations efforts has given these terms and ideas a near sacred aura.  As a result, the claims they make rarely require defense, and are invoke to rationalize anything from lowering taxes on the wealthy and scrapping environmental regulations to dismantling public education and social welfare programs."

=’(, that’s okay! :). It’s good for me to know that there exists on VGT [rather surprisingly] some people who are as sensible and intelligent as you are [Omega being the other]. Even amongst my friends and the people I know in real life, there are very few people that I can have such discussions and conversations with and even fewer people that would take anything I have to say with much seriousness.  You personally strike me as a person who’s very deserving of respect and doesn’t swallow down everything that he’s told by others.  Normally when I read I organize my thoughts and think to myself about my opinions on various topics and issues and let it marinate in my head until I think I’ve got it all figured out and there’s few people who can ‘peer review’ so to speak, the things that I think of and offer me insights, perspectives and problems in my hypothesizing that I wouldn’t have seen or would’ve been blinded to and never came across before, and I’m very thankful for that.  I think you and I should both make a massive compilation of recommended reading in various ranging topics and then send them to each other, :D.

By the way, do you have AIM or MSN? :D.

It’s rather apparent to me I think, that when talking about the notion of culture war, or just simply culture construed broadly, you and me may be referring to two different things in what we’re talking about.  I’m not intending to emphasize or be particularly selective about any single issue that has to do with culture [such as gay marriage or abortion for example], but rather the notion and importance of having culture [i.e.  a broad and national uniformity when it comes to values, ethics, and institution] in contrast with what we have now in society.  That is what I’m referring to about homogeneity.  I’m not taking a single cultural instance and hyper-inflating its importance and then comparing it alongside something like foreign policy, that would just seem redundant to me.  I also think that the argument you posit for illustrating the lack of significance on cultural issues is rather fallacious, especially if you’re basing it off of some group’s argumentative stance for advocating one position or another. [For example] Surely some observer with regards to the Proposition 8 hysteria would have conceived of it largely as a vociferous group of religious nut bags trying to shout over everyone else, but what makes issues such as foreign policy anymore exempt from someone taking that same argumentative stance in discussing issues of foreign policy? By that logic, foreign policy is just as insignificant as any example given for a cultural issue.

I tried to illustrate a point with regards to this first sentence of yours.  Don’t confuse the fact that just because something can be used to divide people, therefore there is nothing more to it or that it is in itself nothing more than a social tool used to obfuscate and divide up public opinion.  Look back to the example of the pencil [which was a uniquely egregious example, I apologize] that I used earlier in one of my posts.  I also have a contention with the notion of not caring for the poor [which I think is in part pervasive for a lack of moral education], and providing benefits for the rich, that you equate them with even occupying the same venue as cultural issues.  Providing benefits to the rich has nothing to do with our debate about culture I would think, that’s simply an articulation of ubiquitous greed which is inherent and found in every human being.

Regardless as to whether or not gay marriage affects me personally, it’s completely irrelevant.  Even if I disapproved of gay marriage only on the grounds of their sexual orientation [which I don’t], I would not legislate for any oppressive or constrictive measures to be imposed on them because sexual orientation plays no crucial element in culture from the sense of how I’m referring to it.  I would only seek to legislate against it on the grounds I proscribed in my prior post, not because of sexual preference, but because the grounding I gave for my opposition to it affects the society at large, and that is my concern.  Because gay marriage does not by-nature permit, reinforce or indirectly allow the contribution that society necessitates from such a union [meaning the expectation that children will result from marriage and as a result contribute back to society], extending marital benefits to homosexuals allows and encourages them to piggyback on state and federal institutions that is truly damaging and parasitic to the economy, as well as general and national growth.  Almost exactly in the same way our current welfare system is.  Gay marriage is not about acceptance of a minority’s sexual preference, it’s about demanding the benefits that accompany marriage.  And that is what I’m against.

:o, :D, thank you for that! I haven’t seen that clip as of yet.

By the way, what do you think of Samuel Francis’ concept of Anarcho-Tyranny?

I fail to see how ‘lack of culture’ would not be a cultural issue.  I find that its highly relevant to the talk of culture war, and I while I ‘think’ perhaps I may or may not disagree with you, that while there cannot be any supposedly ‘correct’ resolution to culture war, an outcome can most certainly be forced and imposed on the culture at a systematic and national level.  I think these are indeed large issues that should be taken seriously.  I think to say that these issues hardly directly impact such people is a premature statement.  Culture pertains very much to a the individual and national sense of identity, community, belonging, what values are necessary to protect against societal dissolution, and will be beneficial for everyone to accept.  What’s in a culture? The U.S.  has had, historically, a dominant, but not monolithic European cultural presence, and I certainly would not be very receptive to foreign influence or encroachment on established culture from different people, not for any particular reason, but as a natural reaction and reflex.  I think every body's tendency is oriented to a homogeneous society, in favor of their own cultural bias and conception, and sometimes, cultures overlap and arguments breaks out.

Actually I’ve found in my own reading and research, quite the contrary to your point about overpopulation.  Projected estimates of birthrates have shown the number of births [depending on which year to year or to decade projection you’re looking at] are largely decreasing, and in fact in Russian for example, as well as some other countries that I can’t recall off the top of my head :(, the State has had to provide financial incentives for couples to marry and produce more children in response to such foresight.  I also think however, that the point of overpopulation is a fundamentally fallacious one because it really doesn’t address the issue I have with gay marriage because it’s utilitarian.  The issue for example, about heterosexual unions that are unable to produce children doesn’t even have a point of entry into this argument.  I argued that on grounds of by-nature contributions, homosexual unions cannot fulfill that which is expected to result from a heterosexual one, by nature of the union.  A man and wife who are sterile, or a woman who’s barren for example, is completely irrelevant to me because while this example does obstruct producing children, its not an argument predicated on the nature of the union.  Second of all, I think gay people who adopt kids is a premature introduction to this issue because I think there doesn’t yet exist a comprehensive body of research or evidence for the effects that such a union has on children.  I’m not saying I’m against it, I’m not saying I’m for it, but I’m unwilling to engage in any theoretical speculation about such a notion that I think can’t substantially be reported on, at least as much the information that we have on other issues.  With regards to the overpopulation issue, I’m not entirely sure how much I would say it really has to do with capitalism, but I’m willing to concede absolutely that it is implicated in the issue nonetheless.

Well we would both agree that the nature of the government would need a massive change if not a complete overhaul, but as an extension of this argument, would not a State which does have mastery over the direction of society and culture, have a better advantage at training future leaders of the State with resistance against corruption, hypocrisy, and their own individual vices rather than a culture that is pervasive with its diametrical opposite, precisely because it lacks such control over culture? :o

If my understanding is correct here however, a meritocracy isn’t a political philosophy but an ideological tool, and I would agree with you in thinking that its an entirely necessary one for the consideration and construction of any government.

I’d be glad to call myself an anti-American if not being hypocritical was considered to be a vice by the majority of people.

Whether or not they should be issues or not seems entirely irrelevant to me, they are big issues nonetheless.  Secondly, whether or not any proposed solution is simple or obvious is also completely irrelevant, as I’ve said for example, I’m against gay marriage on the grounds of ‘by-nature’ contributions to society that homosexuality cannot fulfill or commit to.  One of the reasons for example why marriage entails so many benefits [and this is what the cry for gay marriage has to do with, primarily] for couples is predicated on the notion that ultimately, children will result from such a union and from this, marriages contribute back to society.  By its nature, homosexuality cannot produce either the direct parallel or the equivalent of this, and for this reason, I’m against gay marriage.  I am not against gay marriage on account of their sexual orientation, and am completely against any discriminatory policies or similar acts from people, that would treat them as subordinates or second class citizens.  I think you’ve got somewhat of a black and white conception of gay marriage, and that was evident to me when you brought up the theocracy notion.  Gay marriage is a cultural issue, and while I find answers to be rather straightforward and simple as you do, there is no question that this has very far reaching implications with regards to culture, societal institutions, and communal life.  Just take a look at the sexual revolution of the 1960s, which to me, was an absolute disaster in terms of its after effects on today’s modern culture, but that’s another subject.

Should the government not be entrusted with being the arbiter of culture? I think you correctly understood what I was meaning to imply, but just to uncover my point of this part of my post which you quoted in response, my point was that it would be rather ironic for anyone to go and cry about the ‘notion’ [not the reality] of the government that we have, especially if we advocate a limited government, and don’t risk granting to the State an unprecedented [well not literally unprecedented, but for emphasis] level of power of which the State will retain mastery over the society as a whole.  Complain about the government and its weakness, yet deny it the power to make any change about this situation? That was my point to you about your statement seeming contradictory.  Also note, that I do not advocate absolute power of the State, I’m just setting it up as a hypothetical example to contrast your statements against.

Oh, well then we’re in the same boat :(. I don’t have much of an idea about how it would be implemented either, much of my political thought has been garnered from my own private theorizing and thinking about such issues by myself, and from a practical standpoint, I’m just as lost as anybody else.

I seem to remember [perhaps falsely] asking you a little bit ago about what kind of government you would propose to supplant and replace the one that we currently have now, and if I remember correctly, you said you didn’t have much of a systematic idea about what kind of government you advocate, but you did provide an economic foundation [being socialism, of which I agree with superficially.  Perhaps we would disagree on the specifics in more detail]. I’m a pessimist and an introvert, but I, like you, am somewhat optimistic with regards to the obviousness of the existence of better political systems than what we currently maintain.  Even if you don’t have an idea specifically about what kind of government you would like to see, and of which is also realistic, I would still like your thoughts on what political system you would want, even if you’re a little here and there about it.

I actually don’t see how these feed into the ideas and intentions of the Democrats and Republicans, but perhaps you’re seeing something I’m not, :o.  To say that these issues are big because of indoctrination, and to make such cut and dry statements about liberal and conservative reasoning for these issues to me negates any want of a deeper understanding about such issues.  While I reject much of liberal reasoning for abortion, and I also reject virtually all religious grounds against abortion, there is a wealth of exploration and understanding to be found outside of these narrow viewpoints.

You know you’ve really got to read ‘The Lost Philosopher’. Whenever I try to take an objective look at liberalism, I can’t help but see how evident it is, to me, that so many fundamental liberal tenets are based on false conceptions of reality, and rather obvious ones that are so self-evidently untrue.  And TLS, to me, encapsulates precisely some of the major problems I find of liberalism, and consequently, it also embodies almost exactly my non-religious advocacy of conservatism.  Anthony Ludovici has probably had the biggest philosophical influence on me in terms of politics.

With regards to being an American, I take a reverse approach to claims.  If I spoke out for example against the war on terror, democracy and capitalism, and I was castigated for it, I would be proud not to accept but to call myself an anti-American

The first thing that came to mind when I read this was a statement I made in a forum post regarding the Book of Isaiah, and how unfortunately with many issues, its those who don’t have anything but opinion, rhetoric, or open hostility that couldn’t care more about such issues, and to speak on them rather than have any constructive debate.  Just take a look at some of my first blog posts and look at the first five to six comments down, about the only people caring to make a post are those that I would like to see have their voice taken away.  The same is with much of society.  The voices of the masses are intent on drowning out anyone who has anything of any worth to listen to.

Well it certainly distracts people from more immediate issues, we’re getting back to what we talked about before.  I would also emphasize that there is an intrinsic importance with open dialogue on these kinds of issues [such as abortion] that such talk about the War in Iraq for example could never have, and that’s because its a concern that arises at home, and pertains to home.  If the U.S.  wasn’t causing trouble in the backyard of other nations, then this specific issue regarding our foreign policy wouldn’t take as much of a precedence over domestic issues, of which the War in Iraq has nothing to do with our own internal well-being at home, it has to do with our external troubles caused by pissing in on somebody else’s lawn.  Imagine if those efforts in Iraq were redirected to solving problems at home.  However, when you’re the biggest asshole that lives on the block, you can disregard the words of other people, and get away with all kinds of things you wish to do.

For what reasons do you believe they aren’t major issues? I’m not contending what you’ve said, but I’d like to know the reasons for this statement, :o.

Good, that’s exactly what I expected to hear.  So then what limited functions of individual and national life should be entrusted to government care, in your opinion? If your advocacy of any government rests on or is predicated on the kind of grounding that I think you endorse, then to me, idealistically, you’d find yourself in harmony almost precisely with the kind of government we have now, yet you and me both attack it for its weakness of governing and its frailties.  This seems contradictory to me.

I don’t think that any sensible person would advocate government immunity of applying the same standards to itself that it imposes on its subjects, and you’ll have my absolute concession that no political system is perfect, or perhaps even adequate, however, I think there does exist many better systems of government, to my mind, such as the one I advocate for example.

I’m inclined to agree with you in terms of the U.S.’s government being an oligarchy.  I disagree however the attribution that such a government is just a type of aristocracy.  By that logic I’ll go just as far and turn the tables around and say, isn’t an aristocracy simply a limited democracy? My advocacy of aristocracy isn’t based solely on the principle of intelligence, which would be very short-sighted to reduce it down to as there’s a myriad of factors and variables that play a very large role in it.  I completely accept the existence of the inevitability of corruption and political dissolution with regards to any political system.  The problem with that statement however, is that in contrasting democracy with aristocracy, democracy proceeds from the point of an aristocracy’s failure.  Just because such an event is inevitable, does not make it rational to therefore begin from the worst angle possible simply because it doesn’t last for eternity.  And yet, this is precisely what a democracy does.  Looking at it from this vantage point is like a person who takes a fatalistic approach to life, saying: “Well we’re all going to die, so we might as well kill ourselves right now as there’s ultimately no purpose for what we do.” Sure, we’re all going to die, but that doesn’t mean therefore that we should begin from such a point.  Start from the top, and surely it’s going to go down.  But it’s better than starting from the bottoming and remaining there indefinitely.

I still think you’re committing the same mistake of equating immediate issues, with being the same thing as protracted issues.  I think where you draw the illusion of thinking they’re the same is that, immediate foreign policy, is a of course a bigger issue when we take a look at the context in which it embodies.  That’s not to say that amongst any comparison between culture wars and foreign policy, that culture wars will always take the backseat because it’s a smaller issue.  To me that just seems to be a mistake.  They’re both huge issues.  What makes foreign policy a bigger issue? Is it because, by its nature [meaning because of the issues dealt with under the umbrella of foreign policy], always and innately more important than culture war? To me the answer is, no, and from what I gather from you, the answer is, yes.

Well I also think that with regards to liberalism, and perhaps you and I both suffer from this, is our tendency to universalism in thinking about a political ideology and how it insulates against our wanting to give it any ground to be considered and thought about.  Liberalism has many facets to it.  How it’s embodied today, classical liberalism, and simply how each individual might think ideally of liberalism.  One of my favorite quotes regarding liberalism is: “Liberalism is a disease whose first symptom is an inability to believe in conspiracies.” And what’s interesting about it to me, is that I see liberals more than anybody else, always on the front lines of society, preparing to shoot down or disregard people with a different opinion from themselves, in an attempt to diminish the scope and explanatory power of what other people are trying to say, and the more I see this, the more power and truth I find in that quote.  Or as a similar metaphor: Just because you’re being paranoid doesn’t mean you’re not being followed.

That seems rather strange to me.  While you don't classify yourself as a liberal, you still seem to hold true to many, very modern liberal tenets.

So you don't think then, that certain social controls should be forcibly imposed on people, even if it does impinge on one individual’s conception of freedom? For example, while you may [I'm not saying that you do] hold to the notion that freedom is one of, if not the, highest ideals to be held to by a governing body, you would refrain from advocating any, we’ll call it: collectivist, policies that make use of people by fostering higher education, and forcibly integrating or culturally assimilating people, even if their abilities promise a return to the society that raises all kinds of standards of betterment for the nation, simply for the praise of individual freedom?

I would like the idea of a government that imposes restrictions and penalties for people who act on such vices [such as greed as you said]. You may think that’s improper and unethical of anyone to say that, however understandings couldn’t be established until you [or anyone] understood what I meant by that.  I’m palatable to the idea of a universalistic or ‘nationalistic’ [I say nationalistic because it appears to be more practical and realistic] morality.

In your discussion with Omega, I would grant him what he says about democracy, just to illustrate a point of just how bad democracy truly is [from my point of view]. I’d even take out your statements about an informed electorate, and institutionalized corruption [even though I believe they’re spot on and true]. Because another fundamental problem of democracy, is the inability to get almost anything done.  Democracies inherently subjugate their citizens and subjects because for it to functionally work, it has to foster discontent and balkanization [and balks at the idea of national unity] amongst the populace.  It separates political candidates, and amongst a community of leaders, you don’t have a singular, authoritative figure who can override everyone else and focus the efforts of a nation, immediately, and either provisionally or permanently, on one particular issue or goal.

:o, is this a response to the segment about Athenian democracy that you quoted?

Whether or not it’s important to most people is completely irrelevant to me.  I know people who find contemporary politics and the current economic crisis to be completely irrelevant to them, and couldn’t care less about one single bit of it, but that doesn’t matter either, it still is an issue whether or not they think of it as one.

Do we not all suffer from this affliction at one point or another? Children for example, are very susceptible to a parent’s propaganda campaign, and without a doubt, parents, as well as your local environment, play a tremendously large role in shaping our intellectual development.  We’re all told how things work by other people, however I think there’s a distinction in how people react to being told what is and isn’t true.  There’s a difference between what we’re told to be true, and what we see to be true.  Most people don’t actually care to separate and partition these differences.

Hah, you know there is a certain philosophical irony and comfort that I’ve actually found in my hard, pessimistic portrait of human behavior and of the world.  For example, I used to be an extremely impatient person.  I got angry when people did things that didn’t conform to how I wanted them to behave and I was always let down and disappointed by people who I had to rely on.  The more negative feedback and experience I had with people, initially drove and powered my pessimistic vantage point.  Now, I’m the exact opposite way, because of my pessimism.  I very rarely, if ever lose my cool, and I’m an infinitely more patient and conservative person than I was in the past.  And that’s because based on my own experiences, in having to rely on people for example, if I expect the worst, I’m not disappointed when my preconceived probabilistic outcome is confirmed because, I don’t expect people to get anything right.  My pessimism has greatly put me at peace more-so than I could’ve ever imagined.

:o, :D.  What is your opinion on the Black Panthers?

Very interesting! Speaking in terms of ‘liberty and freedom’ is rather ambiguous, every political ideology would like to proclaim that title as exclusive to their own viewpoints.  To me, liberalism places at the apex of its values, almost exclusively, the idea of individualism.  This is one of the strongest points of contention that I have with liberalism.  While liberalism is individualistic, I’m a much more hard-lined [however not extreme by any means] collectivist.  I think this is also a point at which our conceptions of the culture wars overlap, and where the issue first begins to arise.

The things that liberalism has historically and almost unequivocally supported in the past, are what in part makes my viewpoint skewed in considering much of what liberalism offers to society, and I know that I am biased with regards to considering the logic or solutions proposed by the pioneers of liberal ideology, but I don’t think that my concerns are unjustified.