In my personal opinion, Libertarianism is a far more dangerous ideology than politicized religious fundamentalism (though I of course oppose both).
Right, the ideology that wishes for freedom of speech, thought, belief, etc. is far more dangerous than the ones that throw rocks at you until you die because you dare to disagree with them. Clearly.No, the ideology that wishes for the dismantling of the intergenerational social contract known as Social Security, that opposes the very concept of societal responsibility with their divisive "individualism" rhetoric, that is opposed to every protection and reform the reformers of the 1930s bravely fought for, especially calling for the deregulation of public utilities which puts institutions crucial to the functioning of our country into the hands of plunderers like Enron...that's the ideology I oppose.
Given they'd be following a non-aggressive philosophy for the most part, I don't see what would be so frightening about that. Frankly I'd be more scared of the ideologies that appeal to the uneducated and gullible masses, given that's where the real power is.[/quote]
Those people never actually make it to the seat of power. People who pander to them (like George W. Bush) do. With a few exceptions, like Governor Huckabee and Senator Brownback, true believers in the message of Christian conservatism don't rise to prominence and elected power.
As Ernest mentioned, some projects can do a lot of good, but frankly I don't see a $25 million bridge to an island of just 50 people who were already content to live there without a bridge as a wise investment. There's numerous other ridiculous items as well.[/quote]
You know, I've actually met someone from Ketchikan who said that he'd really appreciate a bridge so that he wouldn't have to take a ferry to get to the airport on the island. I tend to agree that some cases are a bit beyond the pale, like that one, but constituent service, including pork, is actually a legitimate government function. All these attacks on earmarks and government projects in congressmen's home districts as if they were evidence of corruption really aggravates me. There are legitimately corrupt people on Capitol Hill, but the relatively small amounts of discretionary spending spent on pet projects is necessary for the horse trading needed to pass major legislation, and many times, has legitimately beneficial results for the districts it is used on.
I doubt if those disappeared that the nation would become any dumber. And you know, I think we could do without Barny or the Teletubbies.[/quote]
Ha ha. I was first exposed to Charles Dickens by a made-for-TV adaptation of
David Copperfield on PBS. Without that, I might still not know who Mr. Micawber was. I've seen some fairly incredible things on
Masterpiece Theatre. And all for free on the public airwaves, not on some premium HBO channel.
If the government was downsized, a number of the services would legitimately have a good chance of privatizing. (not all of course, but I don't advocate downsizing every bit of government) And yes, many of those civil servants are inefficient bureaucrats - again, not all, but enough to significantly slow down important projects and increase their costs.[/quote]
Privatized and deregulated like the power companies? No more Enrons, please.
[/quote]
Yes, non-aggression and freedom are exceptionally dangerous.
[/quote]
Any ideology whose definition of "freedom," undermines social cohesion, involves the further atomization of society, and advocates a lack of interest in collective action to benefit mankind, yes, is dangerous.
Poll
