Just curious, Rick...

Just curious, Rick...

Simon Jester
Simon Jester

March 14th, 2004, 10:59 pm #1

With all the politicians and religious zealots shooting arrows at us (or "protect us" or "save us" in their words), have you done any reconsideration of your own views in these matters? Does it at least make it clearer why there's a preponderance of rationalist-types (libs, atheists, Randians or whatever) involved in cryonics?

I guess I still have some hope for you and it would be nice if some good came of all this...
Quote
Share

Rick
Rick

March 14th, 2004, 11:13 pm #2

I'm not sure what view or matter you're referring to? Can you be a bit more specific?
Quote
Share

Texas Cryo
Texas Cryo

March 14th, 2004, 11:17 pm #3

With all the politicians and religious zealots shooting arrows at us (or "protect us" or "save us" in their words), have you done any reconsideration of your own views in these matters? Does it at least make it clearer why there's a preponderance of rationalist-types (libs, atheists, Randians or whatever) involved in cryonics?

I guess I still have some hope for you and it would be nice if some good came of all this...
The problem with the machine is not that we need to discard the machine, but that we need to improve its design. The problem with the American design is the winner take all scheme we have to elect our politicians. What we need is a more MODERN design of govt.

For example, proportional representation styles of govt, such as is practiced in many many other countries. In such govts, you can have representatives elected to power who represent very small fractions of the populace. If you have 10% of the populace who are atheist, then where are our 10% politicians who proudly trumpet their atheism?

If we have that, along with a new and better constitution designed to prevent socially intolerant legislation, we could have our cryonics. Thus, coalitions of socially tolerant politicos and atheist politicos and so forth, would be able to join forces to stop religious bigots like Stump from shutting down cryonics.

Libertarians are really Luddites of a peculiar species. They see a faulty machine (i.e., a flawed form of govt) and say, "Get rid of the machine; go back to doing it by hand!". OTOH, adherents of more modern forms of government, such as Democratic Socialism, say, "No, just design a better machine!"

Actually, libertarianism is a political philosophy championed by those who would rob less able, less intelligent, less fortunate, less motivated citizens of their citizenshio rights. And my idea of citizenship rights are far more expansive than your own, no doubt.
Quote
Share

Maniac
Maniac

March 14th, 2004, 11:19 pm #4

Do you think Rep S is a "religious bigot". I read his bio about being for family values and conservative ideals, etc... but I'm not totally convinced you could call him a "religious bigot".

Maybe, but I don't see it yet.
Quote
Share

Texas Cryo
Texas Cryo

March 14th, 2004, 11:24 pm #5

I have no evidence of such, but let's face it: a lot of Americans and humans in general are religious bigots. And if he is not a relgious bigot, then he is playing to that constituency.
Quote
Share

Texas Cryo
Texas Cryo

March 14th, 2004, 11:32 pm #6

I'm not sure what view or matter you're referring to? Can you be a bit more specific?
Simon is referring to the fact that your political stances (however you might define them) are definitely not in the cryonics mainstream--i.e., you are not a market and social libertarian; you are just a social libertarian (and a LaRouchite, too, obviously).

BTW, here is an excellent thread discussing LLR on DU:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/di ... id=1213597

Enjoy!

((WIDE EVIL GRIN))
Quote
Share

Texas
Texas

March 14th, 2004, 11:46 pm #7

The problem with the machine is not that we need to discard the machine, but that we need to improve its design. The problem with the American design is the winner take all scheme we have to elect our politicians. What we need is a more MODERN design of govt.

For example, proportional representation styles of govt, such as is practiced in many many other countries. In such govts, you can have representatives elected to power who represent very small fractions of the populace. If you have 10% of the populace who are atheist, then where are our 10% politicians who proudly trumpet their atheism?

If we have that, along with a new and better constitution designed to prevent socially intolerant legislation, we could have our cryonics. Thus, coalitions of socially tolerant politicos and atheist politicos and so forth, would be able to join forces to stop religious bigots like Stump from shutting down cryonics.

Libertarians are really Luddites of a peculiar species. They see a faulty machine (i.e., a flawed form of govt) and say, "Get rid of the machine; go back to doing it by hand!". OTOH, adherents of more modern forms of government, such as Democratic Socialism, say, "No, just design a better machine!"

Actually, libertarianism is a political philosophy championed by those who would rob less able, less intelligent, less fortunate, less motivated citizens of their citizenshio rights. And my idea of citizenship rights are far more expansive than your own, no doubt.
"Social Democracy" is a capitalist system designed to support a STRONG welfare and provide maximum quality of life for its citizens. "Democratic Socialism" is a non-authoritarian form of socialism. Typo-thinko....
Quote
Share

Rick
Rick

March 14th, 2004, 11:49 pm #8

Simon is referring to the fact that your political stances (however you might define them) are definitely not in the cryonics mainstream--i.e., you are not a market and social libertarian; you are just a social libertarian (and a LaRouchite, too, obviously).

BTW, here is an excellent thread discussing LLR on DU:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/di ... id=1213597

Enjoy!

((WIDE EVIL GRIN))
...we're not going to get too far. Simon didn't ask me about any specific idea so I don't know what to say. Libertarianism is a group of ideas that have affinity for one another. Without getting into which specific idea, and the specific human being who best represented that idea, I just see our wheels spinning. That board you pointed to didn't really present a specific idea. What specific political stance are you referring to that I described?
Quote
Share

Texas Cryo
Texas Cryo

March 14th, 2004, 11:53 pm #9

What the heck are you talking about? I am the only person here who thinks Rick's post make no sense?
Quote
Share

Rick
Rick

March 14th, 2004, 11:55 pm #10

"Social Democracy" is a capitalist system designed to support a STRONG welfare and provide maximum quality of life for its citizens. "Democratic Socialism" is a non-authoritarian form of socialism. Typo-thinko....
What is a republic, then? What social democracy has a constitution that defines the General Welfare as the purpose of the government, like the US constitution? And don't most "social democracies" involve "parliamentary" forms of government, which are "under" some kind of "monarchy"? Isn't that degrading-- isosfar as that goes? Doesn't a "republic" with a General Welfare clause represent a more advanced and futuristic form of governance and statecraft than a "social democracy"?
Quote
Share