[Demosthenes]

No, I'm not here to troll. Something occured to me the other day that seems to be a very logical inherant fallacy in the arguaments of leftists.

I am basing this on the idea that, the American left anyway, count amoung their many traits an almost fanatical distrust of the gubment. If this isn't so then my theory about this fallacy will not be accurate. If it is then my premise is valid.

I base this assumption on the remarks I hear frequently here and in other liberal publications and such. Comments like: "Only the brainwashed trust the gubment", "This gubment is corrupt" and what have you all point to the liberals distrust of the gubment.

In fact since this current liberal thought process emerged out of the protests surrounding Vietnam (hey, hey LBJ how many kids did you kill today?)and continued with the Clinton ans Carter adinstreations I am assuming this feeling does not occur simply because the Republicans now hold the white house. It seems to be an apolitical sentiment.

Neither am I claiming many of you critisized the two later Presidents, Clinton and Carter directly but you certainly did often voice your dislike for the gubment beurocracy surrounding them.

So then this is where the fallacy seems to occur:

If you distrust gubment so much, why the heck do you want to enlarge it? That's just doesn't make sense. WHy do you think the gubment, which arguably you distrust, shoul dbe involved in MORE aspects of our lives?

Maybe I've missed something and you don't have a probelm with the gubment beurocracy, in which case, again my question is moot. If so never mind. If not, then I'd really like to know how your logic brought you to this conclusion.

[briansmith]

As I see it, liberals now want to shrink the government. Conservatives are the ones voting for massive defense budgets, massive increases in prescription drug funding, creating new federal departments, and the like.

The roles have switched, in my opinion, thanks to people who -- on both sides -- have sacrificed their traditional principles to the almighty dollar. Liberals who have no business supporting wars go and do it anyway because their contributors happen to be military technology corporations. Conservatives who have no business extending federal protections to pharmaceutical industries do so anyway because pro-HMO groups and the pharmaceutical lobby is lining their pockets.

It's disgraceful, in my opinion. What happened to centrist politics? What happened to a Democratic Party that stood up for its principles? What happened to a Republican Party that believed you didn't have to kill tens of thousands to show your patriotism and your dedication to a principle (Vietnam)? What happened to the politics of people? Why is it that politics today is entrenched in religious fervor, jingoism, and cults of personality?

Maybe if you can answer those questions, Demosthenes, you can come to a better understanding as to why liberals, conservatives, and people in general are hypocrites.

[The Sentinel]

If you distrust gubment so much, why the heck do you want to enlarge it? That's just doesn't make sense. WHy do you think the gubment, which arguably you distrust, shoul dbe involved in MORE aspects of our lives?

That not what the left is saying. It's not a question of "big government". They want a representative government, a government by the people for the people, repsonsive to the people, working together to benifit the people as a whole. What they are up in arms against is when the policies of the government (Democratic or Republican) favours big business, the arms industry, the oil barons, the prison complex, the multinational corporations. The left want to shift our common resources to benifit the mass of the population in a progressive way, that means public health care, education, social programs, labour rights, welfare, hospitals, libraries, environment, public transportation, decent wages, etc. They don't want their tax money to go into imperialist wars and subsidies to unaccountable transnational corporations that benifit only the top 5 percent of the population. That is what the government does, and that's why they distrust and critisize it.

It's not a case of wanting a bigger government, it's wanting a different kind of government, no matter how big or small it is. They want a less violent and self serving government.

[The Outspoken]

Interesting about perspective.

From a nonpartial viewpoint, the leftists tend to want to expand the government, but not really its powers, unless those powers destroy wealth of the private sector.

Rightists tend to want to shrink government, but in many ways, expand its power, unless those powers destroy wealth of the private sector.

Very interesting....

[Buck Williams]

Leftists want to expand the government so the people have more control over the government. If there is a compact government, you will be able to make decisions better, but they will be less likely to listen to the problems of the people.

[The Sentinel]

From a nonpartial viewpoint, the leftists tend to want to expand the government, but not really its powers, unless those powers destroy wealth of the private sector.

Rightists tend to want to shrink government, but in many ways, expand its power, unless those powers destroy wealth of the private sector.

Very interesting....

In simple terms.

Right wingers are either filthy rich or poor people who aspire to be filthy rich.
Left wingers are either poor or rich peolpe who want to share their wealth with the poor.

[The Outspoken]

Right wingers are either filthy rich or poor people who aspire to be filthy rich.
Left wingers are either poor or rich peolpe who want to share their wealth with the poor.

I had a person try to tell me this before. Problem is, the friend I was with, (probably one of the most conservative peopel on the planet), was $80,000 in debt and wanted nothing but to be out of debt. He was perfectly happy working 9-5 paying off his debts, as long as he could pay them off.

And I meet many rich liberals that won't spend a cent of their own money, but they will spend a lot of the taxpayers money, most of the time to expand their own wealth.

Politics is dirty, on both sides. Trickle down economics work, we just don't know how well. Bottom-building economics work, they just cost a LOT of money. It's a dillema. At what point does the money invested in trickle down economics become inferior to bottom building economics? Hard to say. The best system would be one that makes it easy for the individual to develope themselves fromt he bottom, then enables the people to do so, which is sort of the theory behind both ways.

As a group, it is more acurate to say that left wingers tend to think they are owed something, while right wingers tend to think they must earn something.

[Enigmatic]

It's no more paradoxical than many (not all) conservatives who are inherently distrtrustful of government ability to spend money and yet believe that the government can investigate people's lives with such scrupulous sensitivity that "if you've nothing to hide you've nothing to fear".

[The Outspoken]

It's no more paradoxical than many (not all) conservatives who are inherently distrtrustful of government ability to spend money and yet believe that the government can investigate people's lives with such scrupulous sensitivity that "if you've nothing to hide you've nothing to fear".

Well, I wouldn't connect the two the same way, as one is an economic/monetary issue, and one is a power/corruption issue.

Honestly, you don't hurt my feelings by attacking conservatives, because I'm not one.