[OT] Bush vs. Gore - Was: [Sussex] Linux is capitalism, Microsoft is communism?

[John D.]

On Tue, 2004-10-26 at 19:45, Stephen Williams wrote:

> 
> > Ha, my view is rather different (as you might expect!). If you had watched the 
> > last weeks edition of "The Power of Nightmares" you may have seen another 
> > reason as to why I, for one, could never follow the reasoning behind the 
> > conservative/republican ethos.
> > 
> 
> Being brainwashed here John?

No, don't think so, as I'm quite happy to suspect the motives of the
programme makers of putting their own political spin on it.

If only a fraction of the programme is true, then it still shows the
possibilities of some pretty scarey stuff happening.


> The problem is that the conservative/republican/capitalist ideology is
> the only one that takes any account of human self interest. Given that
> self interest is what ultimately motivates all of us, any ideology that
> does not take it into account is not a sound basis for government. This
> is why communism failed and is why socialism will fail. Both of these
> purported to elevate society above the individual, i.e. they put
> societies' interest first. All that happened was that those in a
> position to do so put their interests first, and became very wealthy.
> Because society was raised above the individual, any one who questioned
> this was deemed to be acting against the interest of that society.
> Consequently they were subject to abuse and their human rights, as
> individuals, were placed below those of society and not respected.
> 
> Socialism will fail for the same reason. There are fundamental
> contradictions at the heart of "New" Labour that result from the
> modernisers moving to the right to be seen as electable, whereas the
> grass roots are still as left-wing as ever. However, even the
> modernisers still place society above the individual. Why do you think
> David Blunkett feels happy introducing so many illiberal policies? It's
> because he puts the rights of society above those of the individual.

Yup. Some possibly valid points there (plus some that are a bit "90's"
?).

Whilst I appreciate that the basic ethos of communism is excellent,
human nature will always override it. As greed and personal
aggrandisement that have been at societies forefront since 1979 (thats
not to say that those traits didn't exist before then, of course).

I consider myself to be a "people person". While that may sound a little
too idealistic, it's really more about giving the maximum number of
people a fairer minded approach by society. Most of which would probably
labelled as "common sense" (which I also appreciate is relative, but at
the same time, not quantifiable).

I don't really think that "Blunkett" is necessarily happy putting
forward "illiberal policies", but I do suspect that he's driven by
reasoning that he's not prepared to explain, plus a little of the "sheep
mentality" that we're all exposed to by those "god fearing, right
minded?" Americans.

Perhaps the ID card thing would be a good analogy - Who really benefits?

I might not be very good at "reading between the lines" but that doesn't
stop me trying.

Some of the more "polemic" things I'd like to see for example, Ban
Corporate Lobbying (corporate entities shouldn't have rights - rights
should only be granted to voters - companies don't vote!), Statutory
requirement to vote (yes, many "things" political, are bloody boring,
but as politics affects everyone and everything, there aren't many
things that I consider more important. Yes, I have voted in EVERY
election since I was old enough to vote - I go out of my way to make
sure I vote).


regards

John D