DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**Peterli** · 05-01-2007, 07:27 PM

This is strange:

1) Some of the most extreme neocons have openly expressed their fear that "the liberals and Communist underground movement" are quite successfully conspiring to turn the USA into a State with a semi-Communist regime. (That is what they think - I don't agree.)

2) The same people want to change the laws so that the State be able to increase its control of the citizens.

On one hand, these people are very suspicious towards the State, and fear that there is a great risk that it might end up in the hands of some really nasty forces.

On the other hand, these people seem to be naively certain that the State will remain in the hands of good and reliable people who will never misuse laws which gives them detailed control over the citizens.

I'd like to ask everyone who defends the new proposal that the State shall have the right to open mail: Maybe you trust the present Authorities and think that they will never abuse this possibility. But do you now trust all Authorities in the future?

Can you tell your children that "any Authority in the future will be good and worthy of your full confidence"?

Because, as you know, a new law will be used not only by those who issue the law, but by all the following authorities.

That's the rub, isn't it. I think that this can easily be explained by the fact that, in the parlance of modern US politics, Bush is actually quite liberal (with the only notable exception being wedge issues). Bush and the neocons that he has allowed to guide his policy decisions favor increased domestic spending, increased government scope in the name of 'security', hegemonic and interventionist foreign policy, and the idea that the rights of the individual are secondary to the rights of the state. All of these policies, endorsed by the Bush administration, are decidedly 'liberal' (i.e. supported by left wing democrats or 'socialists').

So, partisans on either side become confused. You have 'liberals' vehemently opposing a paternalistic war (probably mostly because it was 'conservatives' who ordered it) and you have 'conservatives' who used to parrot Reagan on the evils of government tripping over one another to cough up their civil liberties.

It's an odd state of affairs. Personally, I consider myself to be a "classic liberal" (or in more modern terms, a 'libertarian') and I have a lot of trouble with people calling themselves 'conservative' while defending a President who has consistently and thoroughly increased government intrusiveness in the lives of citizens.

05-01-2007, 07:27 PM	#31
Peterli Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 458 Senior Member	This is strange: 1) Some of the most extreme neocons have openly expressed their fear that "the liberals and Communist underground movement" are quite successfully conspiring to turn the USA into a State with a semi-Communist regime. (That is what they think - I don't agree.) 2) The same people want to change the laws so that the State be able to increase its control of the citizens. On one hand, these people are very suspicious towards the State, and fear that there is a great risk that it might end up in the hands of some really nasty forces. On the other hand, these people seem to be naively certain that the State will remain in the hands of good and reliable people who will never misuse laws which gives them detailed control over the citizens. I'd like to ask everyone who defends the new proposal that the State shall have the right to open mail: Maybe you trust the present Authorities and think that they will never abuse this possibility. But do you now trust all Authorities in the future? Can you tell your children that "any Authority in the future will be good and worthy of your full confidence"? Because, as you know, a new law will be used not only by those who issue the law, but by all the following authorities. That's the rub, isn't it. I think that this can easily be explained by the fact that, in the parlance of modern US politics, Bush is actually quite liberal (with the only notable exception being wedge issues). Bush and the neocons that he has allowed to guide his policy decisions favor increased domestic spending, increased government scope in the name of 'security', hegemonic and interventionist foreign policy, and the idea that the rights of the individual are secondary to the rights of the state. All of these policies, endorsed by the Bush administration, are decidedly 'liberal' (i.e. supported by left wing democrats or 'socialists'). So, partisans on either side become confused. You have 'liberals' vehemently opposing a paternalistic war (probably mostly because it was 'conservatives' who ordered it) and you have 'conservatives' who used to parrot Reagan on the evils of government tripping over one another to cough up their civil liberties. It's an odd state of affairs. Personally, I consider myself to be a "classic liberal" (or in more modern terms, a 'libertarian') and I have a lot of trouble with people calling themselves 'conservative' while defending a President who has consistently and thoroughly increased government intrusiveness in the lives of citizens.
	Quote