Tea Party values are Hippy values

[Blagsta]

I agree with you on that

So why are you a liberal then?

 

[Random]

So the Eu is maoist and according to the other charts the pope is a communist. Luls

 

[moon23]

So why are you a liberal then?

I not only think that human's are born innately free in a state of nature but also that they prosper under a liberal system that doesn’t indoctrinate or attempt to construct them. I realize that people are also socially constructed which is why I worry so much about state and religous authoritarianism.

 

[elbows]

Newsweek recently claimed that the Tea Party has an “anarchist streak.” I find this interesting, because the Newsweek writer understood that both Tea Partiers and anarchists are on the same end of the “Government Control” axis, but couldn’t grasp that, viewed from a different orientation, Tea Partiers are at the opposite end of the “Human Nature” axis from anarchists, who want to construct an (impossible) law-free utopia based on the assumption that people can change and control themselves in the absence of any authority whatsoever.

This is what I don't get, how can you both be against government control and argue that you need laws? Who enforces the laws if not the government? Well possibly private indivduals directly through the courts I guess.

I cant talk about it using those terms.

The right-wing libertarians arent against government in its totality, only in terms of certain things, mostly economic ones. They want government to protect their wealth and private property, they dont want the government redistributing wealth at all, or at least not in the 'wrong direction' away from the rich.

They dont want anything to get in the way of the power of their own wealth. How does the term anarchy fit? Well Tony Benn once said on some TV program that 'Id like to be free from the anarchy where the rich can do what they want and everybody else has to put up with it'.

 

[Blagsta]

I not only think that human's are born innately free in a state of nature but also that they prosper under a liberal system that doesn’t indoctrinate or attempt to construct them. I realize that people are also socially constructed which is why I worry so much about state and religous authoritarianism.

Your second sentence completely contradicts your first. Your first sentence is nonsense. What does a "state of nature" mean? How is it free from influences in the womb?

 

[kyser_soze]

Sounds like someone's read a page of Satre & Hobbes quotations, and is combining them in an existentialist social contract.

 

[Blagsta]

I'm also curious as to how a liberal system doesn't construct social identity. Are you saying that the boss/worker relationship is also "natural"? Is paying rent natural? Please enlighten me!

 

[moon23]

I'm also curious as to how a liberal system doesn't construct social identity. Are you saying that the boss/worker relationship is also "natural"? Is paying rent natural? Please enlighten me!

There is a difference between a liberal system in which a social identity is constructed as a result of free individuals interacting and a system that actively attempts to construct a social identity with a particular ideology. For instance someone brought up in a religious school within a theocracy is being indoctrinated through a religious education into having a religious social identity. A liberal system would seek to negate any central authoritative state power from wielding the ability to create social identities.

I accept still though that some social identity is being created as the free-interaction of individuals forming economic relationships is going to influence people. I guess maybe (and forgive me if I misrepresent) you would argue that this free economic interaction is unfair as is itself a form of social control.

 

[moon23]

What do people think though, are Hippies and Libertarians comparable?

 

[stethoscope]

Jesus, you're linking to shit graphs that you don't understand.

 

[elbows]

What do people think though, are Hippies and Libertarians comparable?

In some ways perhaps, but why does it matter? The hippy movement has been mostly irrelevant for over 40 years. Wish I could say the same for libertarians. And in terms of political significance, both mean little in the UK compared to the USA.

 

[elbows]

But if you must learn more about this stuff, have a look at the yippies, and in particular the journey of Jerry Rubin from yippie to yuppie.

 

[moon23]

In some ways perhaps, but why does it matter? The hippy movement has been mostly irrelevant for over 40 years. Wish I could say the same for libertarians. And in terms of political significance, both mean little in the UK compared to the USA.

I find it personally interesting in terms of my own sense of self-identity.

 

[elbows]

Go for it then, Im sure it will be a great fit.

"Until me, nobody had really taken off their clothes and screamed out loud, 'It's O.K. to make money!'" - Jerry Rubin.

 

[Blagsta]

There is a difference between a liberal system in which a social identity is constructed as a result of free individuals interacting and a system that actively attempts to construct a social identity with a particular ideology. For instance someone brought up in a religious school within a theocracy is being indoctrinated through a religious education into having a religious social identity. A liberal system would seek to negate any central authoritative state power from wielding the ability to create social identities.

I accept still though that some social identity is being created as the free-interaction of individuals forming economic relationships is going to influence people. I guess maybe (and forgive me if I misrepresent) you would argue that this free economic interaction is unfair as is itself a form of social control.

You think that liberalism doesn't have an ideology?

 

[agricola]

On a somewhat related theme, did anyone catch Christine O'Donnell's performance in her Senate candidate debate on CNN tonight? I was only able to follow it intermittently on the Guardian's blog, but from what they were saying sounded even more mad than the Witch advert.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/richard-adams-blog/2010/oct/13/christine-odonnell-debate

 

[goldenecitrone]

An idea for Nick Clegg's new advertising slogan?

 

[butchersapron]

Not sure people would believe him now.

 

[Nylock]

Hippies were never anything other than self-interested twats.

QFT

..so the tea party ARE ideologically close to the hippies then!

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

http://pajamasmedia.com/zombie/2010/10/11/the-electric-tea-party-acid-test/?singlepage=true

Something strange is going on in the US psyche, there seems to be an Individualistic affinity amongst the Tea Party and Hippies. What do people think of this article, the chart is interesting and so are the comments.

Where are the untrue anarchists, or the false anarchists?

Are 'true anarchists' like 'real ale'?

 

[Shreddy]

I thought they were actually "tea baggers". Silly me...

 

[Proper Tidy]

Selfish self-interested twats are like selfish self-interested twats. Well I never.

 

[DrRingDing]

[/QUOTE]

My giddy fuck.

 

[gavman]

Why are bums and hoboes on opposite sides of the chart?

bums are scroungers. hoboes are self reliant