The Logical Conservative: Limited Federal Government

[Username17]

So Tzor, you don't like some of the recent proposed legislation. That's wonderful for you. Do you have any evidence of any thing which is demonstrably more functional when it is under the exclusive command of smaller governmental units and not subject to veto or rewriting by larger governmental units.

We can get to the part where conservatives in general and you in particular don't actually have a consistent opinion on whether smaller or larger political units having more or less power is good or bad in a moment. First we have to get through the fact that you still haven't provided even a single bit of reality based evidence that this position is relevant in the first place. We can't even get to the part where we point out that you haven't produced a "conservative viewpoint" until you present a complete viewpoint at all.

Which you still have not done.

Avalanche of Text doesn't work. This is your baby here. If you want to convince anyone of anything you need some facts, or at the very least some pointers to some facts. Right now, all you're doing is convincing people that you are full of hot air - and that Kaelik and I don't have to take back those nasty things we said about conservatives.

-Username17

[Crissa]

...consider the United States as it currently exists, with a federal government with dreams of centralism.

Does this have any basis in factual reality?

Republicans (your team) put forth a plan to take away the rights of my state to regulate health care.

How is that decentralizing?

-Crissa

[tzor]

Republicans (your team) put forth a plan to take away the rights of my state to regulate health care.

Yes they did. And it was the wrong thing to do. Contrary to the popular myth, I'm more than willing to say that when either party does something that I think is wrong, then it is wrong; period.

(And let's face it, the Bush asministration did far more than just attempt to trump the right of Califorina to do better than federal pathetic levels than just health care. On environmental regulations, the supression of medical pot, and on a whole other issues, they pushed the federal law down Califorina's throat ... AND IT WAS WRONG.)

Centralism has been a goal of both parties for decades; they just do it differently. Remember the more centralized something is, the easier it is to BRIBE, because you need to bribe less of them.

[tzor]

Avalanche of Text doesn't work. This is your baby here. If you want to convince anyone of anything you need some facts, or at the very least some pointers to some facts. Right now, all you're doing is convincing people that you are full of hot air - and that Kaelik and I don't have to take back those nasty things we said about conservatives.

I know you "love" facts Frank, but I think I'm in an area of political science as "factable" as macro economics. I'm trying to argue a model that was partially dismantled in the early 20th century; comparing the problems of the 19th century to today is like comparing a horse to a Ford Mustang; it just is an apple and orange comparison.

Look at Crissa's comment after yours. She has a valid point. Centralism is the opposite of regionalism. Centralism is the concentration of power; all power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. If you need to show facts, Frank, I think you need to show the glory of the centralized state that does not fall into despotism and oppression.

[cthulhu]

tzor is fucking retarded. by his own definition, the top level of government in the US is the UN. therefore, centralizing at the federal level is not centralising at the top level of government.


conversely, if the federal level is the top level government, the EU isn't. After all, canada and australia and NZ all honor each other's healthcare deals like the EU nations do, and the only organisations we are all members of also include thE US.


basically he's just redefining the argument to avoid things he doesn't like. countries like the Uk, denmark, NZ, AU all centralise power in the top level of government and they are hardly nazi states.

[Kaelik]

basically he's just redefining the argument to avoid things he doesn't like.

I'm pretty sure that has been pointed out individually by... every single person in this thread.

[Crissa]

Centralism is the concentration of power; all power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Once again, not actually supported by facts, but platitudes.

It may be that holding power tends to corrupt the use of such. But that power could just be the power to replace lightbulbs or pass free cars through into the parking lot.

It's a pretty stupid way to build an argument, though. Especially since nowhere in the conterpoints is any power centralized - merely processes and payments systems.

In other words, tzor is arguing 'centralizing power corrupts' and therefore the rational behind of 'efficiency of scale' is not true.

But that's not a rational argument. That's just a series of competing platitudes.

-Crissa

[CatharzGodfoot]

Wait, I'm confused. Are we arguing that big government is bad because it's wasteful, or that small government is bad because power corrupts?

[Cielingcat]

I'm not sure, he hasn't really been consistent.

[tzor]

I've been arguing consistantly; I've just not been arguging your arguments. I'm not arguing about heath care because that's not my argument. My argument has been this and it's quite simple: Centralism is bad. The separation of powers, in order to be complete needs to be both vertical and horizontal, with checks and balances between the vertical layers.

[Username17]

My argument has been this and it's quite simple: Centralism is bad.

I understand that. The problem is that this is your entire argument. Unless you have some sort of evidence, it's not a "rational position" it's just an arbitrary, faith-based position.

-Username17

[tzor]

I understand that. The problem is that this is your entire argument. Unless you have some sort of evidence, it's not a "rational position" it's just an arbitrary, faith-based position.

-Username17

Rational: of, relating to, or based upon reason

Reason: the power of comprehending, inferring, or thinking especially in orderly, sensible, rational ways

(That's almost a indirect recursion there. Fortunately for Mr. Webster it is not.)


Rational reasoning does not require as a pre-requisite going through the entire scientific method process. Rational reasoning applies at all the levels of the scientific process, including the area of speculation.

[Username17]

I understand that. The problem is that this is your entire argument. Unless you have some sort of evidence, it's not a "rational position" it's just an arbitrary, faith-based position.

-Username17

Rational: of, relating to, or based upon reason

Reason: the power of comprehending, inferring, or thinking especially in orderly, sensible, rational ways

(That's almost a indirect recursion there. Fortunately for Mr. Webster it is not.)


Rational reasoning does not require as a pre-requisite going through the entire scientific method process. Rational reasoning applies at all the levels of the scientific process, including the area of speculation.

OK, just to bring this full circle, you made this thread in response to the following challenge:

I'll tell you what: let's have the Right Wing in the US present us with one suggested policy that is based on evidence and observable reality instead of gut feelings and emotional pleas, and we can take down the moniker that everything they support is on religious grounds.

Just one.

We're waiting.

So... you're admitting that you failed to do that, right? This entire thread was made in response to a challenge to provide a single evidence based policy idea. And you provided one that is based on a priori reasoning, gut feelings, and emotional pleas. Again.

So you failed.

-Username17

[tzor]

OK FUCK THIS ALL ---- BYE BYE TGD
I didn't come here to get ulcers ---- You idiots can rot in your own progressive hell forever.

[Kaelik]

"progressive hell" seems to be a contradiction in terms.

Also seems impossible to rot there.

[Heath Robinson]

ou idiots can rot in your own progressive hell forever.

I like the fact that Conservatives use the word "progressive" as a negative descriptor. It practically states a kind of hilarity that the name "Conservative" merely hints at.

[Crissa]

But what, exactly, is supposed be 'separated' in this example of health care?

He says his politicians don't support his position at all. But he's a tea-bagger - who are being used by Republican media to bash the progressive bills such as health care reform.

Was there anything specific wrong with these bills or nominations?

-Crissa

[Nicklance]

Was there anything specific wrong with these bills or nominations?

-Crissa

Its wrong because they didn't suggest it first, hence cannot claim credit.

[Crissa]

They wrote the thing about counseling dying people to write living wills, and didn't take credit for it...

-Crissa

[fbmf]

I don't see a reason to keep this open.

[/TGFBS]