Bend over and spread 'em

[Frong]

All right, I'll give you a pass on the short quotes bit, since your intent wasn't specifically to use short quotes to make your point. Fair enough.

Anyway, there are a few significant problems with your entire argument just now:

1) Beck never mentions Communism the entire time in that clip, so you bringing it up here is irrelevant. Let's stick to what he actually says.

2) You said this:

Beck doesn't draw the line at calling communists communists. He takes the phrase "common good" from what Greer said and compares that to communist ideals. But that's not fair or accurate at all. "Common good" does not have to be meant in a communist sense.

Yes, that's exactly what Beck is doing - comparing the PRINCIPLE of Greer's statement that "To put humankind first is to put the common good first." to the Nazist PRINCIPLES that led to death camps. For some reason, you seem to be under the impression that that's not a fair comparison, even though they're exactly the same thing - collectivism. Sure, the intent is different, but that's not Beck's point. His point is twofold: 1) Even with good intentions, attempts to use government to put the common good first nearly always eventually end in failure and often tyranny (it's true; look up the world history of socialist and Communist nations), and 2) It's a flawed principle to begin with. Beck devoutly believes in individual liberty and responsibility, which are the polar opposite of collectivism. Anyway, if you go back through the transcript of the clip, you'll find that at no point does Beck take personal shots at Greer or accuse him of anything. He sticks solely to debating on principle.

3) You also said this:

In fact, the very reason you argue for such far right conservative values is because you think it would be for the best for everyone -- what could also be referred to as the "common good." Sure, there will be people who can't get healthcare and will die... but this method is for the "common good."

That's incorrect. I do not believe that conservative policies are the best for the common good. I believe that they are the best for the INDIVIDUAL good. I also believe, like Beck, that government is neither an ethical nor an effective means to this end. It has its uses, but it should never be the first place people turn for solutions to society's problems. Here, this series of videos explains my point more effectively than I could manage purely in text form. I know they're lengthy when put together, but they essentially cover the entirety of my viewpoint on the matter of individualism vs. collectivism.

[Nakor]

Given I'm just here taking a quick break between getting crap done for school tomorrow, I do not yet have time to watch any videos, but I want to reiterate what my point about "common good" was. First, that presumably your argument for the individual good is that it benefits the most individuals. Presumably, if it only benefited a few individuals, you wouldn't argue the point. If it is good for the majority of individuals, it is commonly good for them. In short, I am saying that common good has multiple definitions.

Second, arguing that all government-led efforts to support a common good lead to tyranny is a tenuous argument. There are plenty of existing examples today of that not being the case. They are not all successful examples of socialist policy within a democracy -- certainly some have failed for reasons unrelated to tyranny (economics, primarily) -- but to claim that all socialist policy, however great or slight, leads to death camps is a slippery slope at best. There certainly have existed many such situations, and certainly we must examine them closely and be sure not to repeat the mistakes of the past.

But was it the desire to help others that led to those deaths? Or in Soviet Russia was it the hatred of any capitalism at all? Does that apply to certain socialist policies existing within a capitalist democratic republic? What about the fact that in East Berlin while the wall was up, one of the very few good things people had to say about living there was that the sick, injured or elderly were all well cared for -- NOT killed? In Nazi Germany the vast majority of deaths were due to Hitler's deluded belief that Jews were less than people and ought to be killed (many reasons are suggested, I'm not sure anyone knows for certain why he thought that way); many others were killed for helping the Jews of course. Why did Hitler kill the elderly, the mentally handicapped and so forth? Because they couldn't provide for his socialist nation, or simply because they didn't fit his profile of a perfect race? What role did his religion play, or the concept of eugenics which was becoming popular at the time?

Those aren't such simple questions that we can say "socialism" did it or "communism" did it and be done with it. To shrug it all off as if that were the sole cause of all those deaths is to not make an effort to really examine what went on, and what the differences are between the countries -- like Canada -- with socialist policies that do not mercilessly kill anyone who doesn't benefit society and the countries that did.

And to then state that Greer's desire to help the "common good" will lead to death camps makes that simplification, shrugs off all that history without really trying to understand it, and fails to give any real consideration to the argument at all. Moreover, it weakens the very words it tries to scare you with; it's like the boy who cried wolf. When every socialist policy under the sun is being pointed at and called communist, why should the communist party seem any scarier than those? It is just as much a violation of Godwin's Law as any other.

There is a communist party of Canada. There's one in BC too. (Two, actually.) Has been since I can remember. They have no chance of being voted in. They were beaten by the Sex Party. (I kid you not.) Nobody screams and yells communist at everything here; we just know that it's a terrible idea. Perhaps more importantly, when someone here says "communist", you know they actually mean a communist. They don't mean a left-leaner, or a socialist, or someone who likes health care; they mean someone who thinks that society should be classless with no capitalistic aspects whatsoever. Ask most people and they can tell you from history classes in high school why communism fails; why it's a terrible economic choice for example. They know it will lead to workers who have no motivation to work, to the inability to trade effectively internationally, to people trying to leave the country, to not enough food to go around, and to all the other problems communism has run into in the past. That's why it will never be voted in; everyone knows what it is and what it is not.

And **** I got to writing and forgot I was supposed to be working on my German... this is why I shouldn't have logged on today. >.< I will look at those videos later....

[Frong]

The phrase "common good" may mean somewhat different things to different people, but the most typical definition is "the greatest good for the greatest number of people," correct? Here's the inherent problem with that - it involves someone making a decision about what counts as "the greatest good." Who's going to make that decision? The majority? A privileged elite ruling class? A dictator? What if I'm not in the decision making faction and don't like their decision? That's the inherent flaw in seeking the common good. Because seeking the individual good means that each man can choose for himself what counts as best, that dilemma does not arise. This is covered in the videos. As far as Greer himself goes, it really doesn't matter which definition he uses, because Beck never accused him of preferring a particular one. He only argued that when exercised by governments, the pursuit of the common good tends to end up in tyranny and death, an assertion which history vindicates.

Along those same lines, while not all government-led efforts to support the common good necessarily lead to tyranny in and of themselves, the compilation of them over time does. Every time you grant government some additional power in order to solve some problem, you forfeit a little more of your personal freedom. By the time you realize that you've got no freedom left, it's too late, because the process usually happens too gradually for you to notice. To make matters worse, it often happens in the name of humanitarianism (after all, the government is only trying to fix everything for you). This is also covered in the videos. For an example, look at Chavez in Venezuela. The guy claims to be working for the masses, but every political action he takes silences a few more of his critics and grants him a little more political power. The Venezuelan people are well on their way to a full-blown dictatorship, and I'd bet you anything that many of them will be shocked when they finally realize it.

I only used the Communist Party USA as a convenient example, by the way. This is not some McCarthyist witch hunt in which anyone and everyone is suspected of being a Communist, and no, no one in the US is afraid of Communist candidates getting elected, either (they can still get into unelected posts, though; see: Van Jones). However, once you get past the label "Communist" and look at the collectivist values that underlie it, you find exponentially more people who hold those values. It doesn't matter whether they call themselves Communists, socialists, progressives, or whatever; they virtually all still hold beliefs that are in direct opposition to the principles upon which the US was founded. This is ALSO covered in the videos. The vast majority of these people are anti-capitalist, many support massive government regulation of everything, and a disturbing number of them are dangerous radicals who openly call for violent revolution. It's not hard to find them, either. Quite a few of them are in Obama's administration right now.

[KenseidenXL]

COICA passed the Senate Judiciary Cmte by a 19-0 vote. Internet censorship is one step closer. Prepare to kiss Youtube goodbye.

[Frong]

Won't happen. It'd piss too many people off, i.e. it'd cost politicians their jobs. Not enough Senators are dumb enough to commit career suicide like that, especially considering that nothing would get the otherwise-apathetic young voting bloc involved like cutting off their Youtube. Do also recall that Google spent the equivalent of a small country's GDP to get Youtube, and I'm sure they'd be just thrilled to sit quietly and let their investment go down the drain.

[Diofan]

I'm not going to get into the previous Arguments posted here. Frong pretty much said everything I would have said anyway.

AS for the latest COICA bill. This is a Lame Duck session. If this is rushed through, It will likely easily pass the current House and head for the White House for Obama's Signature (I Agree that he too will sign it into law. It falls into the pattern of his governing style.)

However, if the Bill stalls in the House until after January 3rd. It MAY be dead in the water.

[Frong]

This may be a lame duck session, but I'm still not entirely convinced that the Senate will pass it. The House, maybe, since it's got a crapton of lame duck Democrats in it who just lost their seats, but the Senate still has plenty of entrenched members in it who haven't just been booted out. Some of them may be desperate at this point to avoid sharing the same fate as many Democrats had this year, so they might not bite on a bill like the COICA that'd make them look even more unpopular. I guess we'll see. I'm also still not ruling out the influence of the Google lobby, either.

[KenseidenXL]

You think Google has more lobbying power than the RIAA and MPAA combined? Don't bet on it.

[Frong]

Honestly? I might very well bet on it. Google has way the hell more money than the two of them put together, which translates to huge influence and basically makes them immune to lawsuits. The RIAA and MPAA are toothless without the ability to win in court, not that they have enough teeth even with the courts to stop piracy, anyway. It's also not like Google would be the only company fighting against government censorship, you know. Anybody else that owns an open media site would be opposed to it, too. That makes for a hell of a lot of opposition.

[Diofan]

This may be a lame duck session, but I'm still not entirely convinced that the Senate will pass it. The House, maybe, since it's got a crapton of lame duck Democrats in it who just lost their seats, but the Senate still has plenty of entrenched members in it who haven't just been booted out. Some of them may be desperate at this point to avoid sharing the same fate as many Democrats had this year, so they might not bite on a bill like the COICA that'd make them look even more unpopular. I guess we'll see. I'm also still not ruling out the influence of the Google lobby, either.

Exactly what I meant by "Current House" Both House & Senate! Most Dems that retained their seats in the senate are there for another 6 years! I personally think they don't care one way or another what the American people think. In their mindset Pass COICA and in 6 years who's gonna remember how they voted on it. That is what they'd be banking on!

[Frong]

Actually, COICA isn't even our biggest issue anymore. Senator Wyden's opposition has temporarily stalled COICA until after the new Congress takes office next year, which means it'll most likely die in the new Republican-controlled House. Also, back in April, the US Court of Appeals rejected an FCC bid to expand its regulatory (read: censorship) powers over the internet. So how did the Obama administration respond? They moved to "reclassify" broadband lines so the FCC can regulate them in their current form. Plus, this happened only about two weeks ago, a nice, clear showcase of the kind of shenanigans the feds engage in with or without COICA in place. This is all typical Obama policy. He and his goons' modus operandi is to basically ignore all the checks and balances of government and grab control of everything by hook or crook. You know, kind of like how they got Obamacare passed, or how he has his various czars (see: unelected officials) pass all kinds of regulations over which Congress and the American people have no say.