The 28th Amendment

[MachineGhost]

I cannot let out a loud enough groan over this.  It reflects what is the very worst about liberal-minded progressives who think increased liberty for everyone equates to a greater control by a few.  If they have their way, the bogeyman they fear exists will come to be so.  Ught.

https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/the- ... /x/5570079

https://movetoamend.org/wethepeopleamendment

[Reub]

Speaking of greater control by a few, did you see where the FCC wants to regulate the internet providers as they do utilities? This will almost certainly lead to more censorship and progressive propoganda, in my opinion.

[MachineGhost]

Speaking of greater control by a few, did you see where the FCC wants to regulate the internet providers as they do utilities? This will almost certainly lead to more censorship and progressive propoganda, in my opinion.

You mean Net Neutrality?  From what I've read, the FCC is taking a very light regulatory approach compared to how utilities are over-regulated.  How do you figure there will be "more censorship and progressive propaganda"?

[dragoncar]

Speaking of greater control by a few, did you see where the FCC wants to regulate the internet providers as they do utilities? This will almost certainly lead to more censorship and progressive propoganda, in my opinion.

You mean Net Neutrality?  From what I've read, the FCC is taking a very light regulatory approach compared to how utilities are over-regulated.  How do you figure there will be "more censorship and progressive propaganda"?

I tried to read what Reub wrote, but it just showed up as ****THIS VIEWPOINT HAS BEEN DELETED****.  What's the holdup here?

[Ad Orientem]

I actually agree with the first part of this proposed amendment. (The second part is daft.) The Supreme Court was off its nut when it ruled that corporations were people under the 14th amendment.

As for campaign money, my position is simple. Anyone who can legally vote in a given election should be able to spend as much as s/he wants on that election. If you can't vote in the given election then find something else to spend your money on. No unions, no PACs, no big business, no AARP or NRA and no money from "concerned citizens" that live in another state.

[MachineGhost]

I actually agree with the first part of this proposed amendment. (The second part is daft.) The Supreme Court was off its nut when it ruled that corporations were people under the 14th amendment.

I actually agree too.  In a perfect world, it would be nice if only natural persons had rights.  But when two natural persons band together in our unperfect world, they are deemed an organization/union/corporation and then they no longer have any rights?  That's unfair.  And that was the restrictive campaign finance position for decades before the Supreme Court ruled it as unconstitutional.  It's not so much about corporations having free speech as the natural persons within such corporations.  Liberals see "Big Business" the same way Conservatives see "Big Government"...  both are metaphysical fairy tales.  In reality, there are only natural persons.

The second part is sheer liberal loonacy.  Can't have one or the other, gotta take both!  Typical.  I think liberals are actually scared shitless of liberty.  Am I right, PS?

[Pointedstick]

The second part is sheer liberal loonacy.  Can't have one or the other, gotta take both!  Typical.  I think liberals are actually scared shitless of liberty.  Am I right, PS?

Yes, basically. The important thing to understand is that liberalism is not an ideology that's actually concerned with liberty in the Libertarian conception of the word. Liberalism is concerned with something else.

To vastly oversimplify and use a metaphor (and somebody give me a high-five if they recognize the reference), Conservatives are "straight" while Liberals are "weird." The Liberal conception of liberty is freedom for the "weird" to express themselves and challenge the "straight" orthodoxy without suffering the normal social consequences of doing so. They want to be able to participate in and benefit from the same society that they criticize and reject. Anything they perceive as strengthening the "straight" elements of society (e.g. big corporations, rich people, etc.) is something they perceive as a threat to themselves and their power, which stems from the rejection of and disdain for those elements. This is why liberals champion single motherhood, gay culture, ethnic outsiders, heavy metal music, etc. All "weird."

In the end, this is Liberalism's major weakness: it largely consists of a coalition of different "weird" factions that don't really have anything in common except for their exclusion from the "straight" mainstream status quo. In addition to the challenge that their interests may frequently be opposed, any one group that becomes too successful and begins to get absorbed into the mainstream then finds itself increasingly being better represented by "straight" Conservatives and coming into conflict with the remaining "weird" Liberal groups. For example, rock & roll music was weird in the 60s, but now it's totally mainstream, so modern Liberals don't particularly listen to much Rock & roll music or champion its culture. The serious ones have moved onto heavy metal.

This is the self-devouring nature of Liberalism, because it actually isn't interested in forging a durable society the way Conservatism is, only pointing out and challenging perceived flaws in an existing one. This is why all the societies that the Liberals attempted to fashion without any Conservatives failed so terribly. They're just no good at it. In this way, Liberals are sort of necessary subordinate symbionts on Conservative society. They serve a useful function of challenging and correcting the worst abuses of Conservative society, and helping it to change when necessary (which Conservatives ordinarily have a real problem with). But they can't become too big or too strong, or else they will wind up simply destroying the society they totally rely on.

When I considered myself "weird," Liberalism seemed attractive to me. As I matured, got a job, bought guns, accumulated money, got married, and started a family, its rebellion against the social structures I was coming to enjoy and make use of seemed less and less attractive.

[MachineGhost]

When I considered myself "weird," Liberalism seemed attractive to me. As I matured, got a job, bought guns, accumulated money, got married, and started a family, its rebellion against the social structures I was coming to enjoy and make use of seemed less and less attractive.

That seems like the general trend as you grow up.  But, what about your parents and other adult Democrats?  Are they still "weird"?

[Pointedstick]

When I considered myself "weird," Liberalism seemed attractive to me. As I matured, got a job, bought guns, accumulated money, got married, and started a family, its rebellion against the social structures I was coming to enjoy and make use of seemed less and less attractive.

That seems like the general trend as you grow up.  But, what about your parents and other adult Democrats?  Are they still "weird"?

Some are, and they're the poor ones, because they refuse to or are incapable of fitting into the societal institutions that create wealth and comfort, so they have no reason to appreciate society's "straight" elements. The wealthier liberals are the ones who behave as conservatives in their day-to-day lives (steady employment, marriage, church attendance, itemizing on their taxes, etc.) but continue to hold the liberal torch politically due to some combination of happy memories from their youth, sympathy with today's "weird" elements, and distaste for the general political rudeness and intolerance of conservatives.