Guns, God, and Conservatives

[Darth Wong]

It has often been said on this board that the Republican right-wing is a paradoxical group. On the one hand, they appear to be libertarians, arguing for reduced government influence over personal life in the areas of taxation and gun control. But on the other hand, they appear to be incredibly intrusive totalitarians, routinely arguing that the government has a rightful place to tell you what you can and cannot do with a willing partner in the privacy of your bedroom.

I came upon an interesting argument a while ago from a sociologist, which I will paraphrase here:

When a government takes money from the masses to enrich the elites, it ceases to be a just society and becomes a kleptocracy. Note: I love the word "kleptocracy"; it cracks me up every time

A kleptocracy has three ways of maintaining its control over the population:

1. Arm the elites and disarm the populace
2. Give back enough of its proceeds in the form of social services that the people are happy.
3. Construct an ideology (religion or nationalism or communism) which promises intangible rewards for obediently continuing to suffer the kleptocrats

Agree? Disagree?

I think it's an interesting argument. This person argues that the relatively irreligious states of Europe fall into category #2, which is why they have such heavy social programs. Republicans would fall into category #3, which is why they support the right to bear arms but fight tooth and nail against any reduction in the influence of religion over public life [EDIT: and also why they are so aggressively nationalist]. He argues that #1 is virtually universal today since military weapons are so much more powerful than civilian ones, regardless of whether gun control is in place (see the example of Iraq, where the people had the right to bear arms but this did not preserve their personal rights in any way, shape, or form).

In essence, if we accept his argument, then any politician who wishes to reduce social programs is probably pushing an ideology at the same time. Conversely, any politician who refuses to push an ideology is probably interested in expanding the social role of government.

So, for those across many nations, would you say that this is a reasonable theory based on your observations?

[Montcalm]

Sometime it looks like they`re combining 1 and 3.

[nechronius]

I'm not in complete disagreement. The political parties in general show their own brand of hypocrisy. Being strongly libertarian myself I find that both major parties pander to their own particular groups to the detriment of those with different ideological values.

While the concept of a "kleptocracy" is interesting (and yes, the word is certainly amusing) it's not entirely correct. In general the right wing wants all of its capable citizens to be armed, which contradicts some other of its own policies but I'll have to get back to you on that. I have a disassembled and dirty .50 AE Desert Eagle on my table that needs taking care of.

[Nathan F]

I'm not in complete disagreement. The political parties in general show their own brand of hypocrisy. Being strongly libertarian myself I find that both major parties pander to their own particular groups to the detriment of those with different ideological values.

While the concept of a "kleptocracy" is interesting (and yes, the word is certainly amusing) it's not entirely correct. In general the right wing wants all of its capable citizens to be armed, which contradicts some other of its own policies but I'll have to get back to you on that. I have a disassembled and dirty .50 AE Desert Eagle on my table that needs taking care of.

I was about to reply, but, you worded it so well, I'll just quote you.

[Joe]

I don't agree that the governments in question are always enriching the elite at the expense of the masses. I prefer Frederic Bastiat's grouping:

1) The few are enriched at the expense of the many.
2) Everyone is enriched at the expense of everyone else.
3) No one is enriched by government.

We are clearly living in the second category; poor folks can get welfare at the expense of everyone else, rich corporations can get hefty subsidies at the expense of everyone else, seniors get endless amounts of shit at the expense of everyone else, and so on. Generally speaking, welfare is funded to a great extent by the elite, the highest income earners, in America, so the argument that somehow they are being enriched by the U.S. government doesn't make much sense to me.

[Nova Andromeda]

--I have to say I'm truly amazed at how Mr. Wong is able to simplify an arguement. I've been argueing that #2 and 3 are our main problem in the U.S. for ages and that military power needs to reside with the populace (though not necessarily the equipment), but never simplified the arguement so well. So yes, I agree. I should point out that not providing good education in logic and reason is necessary for #3.
-I would also add that putting all of our eggs in the education basket so that logic, reason, and science are properly taught in school is our best chance to destroy Kleptocratic(TM) power. We also need to agree upon an objective system of morality. I don't see why that cannot be done despite Mr. Wongs misgivings.

[nechronius]

Desert Eagle is clean and stowed away and it seems that there is little else need be said by this socially liberal fiscally conservative liberatarian atheist except Hallelujah, people seem to be in agreement.

Now I just need an excuse to head to the range and get it all dirty again. Lather, rinse, repeat.

[Nathan F]

I just noticed one thing that I would have to disagree with, that being the religion part. Being a religious person myself, I don't believe that religion is used by the US government to keep the people in line. While I know that religion is pervasive throughout the government (simply because it is so deeply rooted in society, and our government is a democracy elected by the majority of the people, and the majority being religious in some way), I also know that it is good to have a separation of church and state. That said, I also know that some governments do use religion to keep a hold on the people (Iran and the former Afghanistan being prime examples). But, I don't believe that the US, or most western governments, spread religious ideologies to reign in the people.

[Darth Wong]

I just noticed one thing that I would have to disagree with, that being the religion part. Being a religious person myself, I don't believe that religion is used by the US government to keep the people in line. While I know that religion is pervasive throughout the government (simply because it is so deeply rooted in society, and our government is a democracy elected by the majority of the people, and the majority being religious in some way), I also know that it is good to have a separation of church and state. That said, I also know that some governments do use religion to keep a hold on the people (Iran and the former Afghanistan being prime examples). But, I don't believe that the US, or most western governments, spread religious ideologies to reign in the people.

National Prayer day ring a bell? One Nation under God? Constant public references tying well-behaved people to religion? Any of this sound familiar to you?

[SPOOFE]

My whole political opinion is that religious fanaticism - Christianity in particular - is the monkey wrench in the works. A "conservative" (note the small "c", to differentiate it from "Conservative", which is what Rush Limbaugh and Fred Phelps are), by definition, is one that looks primarily at the big picture and designs his plan looking for long-term stability and prosperity (the drawbacks being that this sometimes makes a conservative outlook seem callous and harsh). Ergo, he would focus on fiscal issues primarily, and not bother too much with social issues, since these are particularly fickle and fluctuate wildly month-to-month, often unpredictably.

Enter religion, namely, fundamentalist Christianity, which dictates that social "sinning" can result in fiscal and economic distress, through some miraculous act of a magical sky pixie. In other words, religion makes one of its victims believe that fiscal aspects of a country can be influenced - inexplicably - by social aspects, which is, of course, rubbish.

As a Republican that is fiscally conservative and socially liberal (technically a libertarian, but libertarian stances can vary so wildly that it's hard to define exactly what a libertarian is), it is my hope that someday we can excise the influence of the Religious Right and throw it into the gutter, where it can be stomped to death by homosexuals, women, black people, and other minorities that are supposed to be "put down" by God's decree.

[Howedar]

Kleptocracy, lol.

[Howedar]

Spoofe, I'd rather see it smashed to bits by moderate Christians. Pleasantly ironic, and it would drive the fundies fucking nuts.

[Stuart Mackey]

Spoofe, I'd rather see it smashed to bits by moderate Christians. Pleasantly ironic, and it would drive the fundies fucking nuts.

You mean the fundies are not allready fucking nuts?

[Stuart Mackey]

Spoofe, I'd rather see it smashed to bits by moderate Christians. Pleasantly ironic, and it would drive the fundies fucking nuts.

You mean the fundies are not allready fucking nuts?

Well if they are there has to be something in the bible against sex and tree seed

*Boom Boom Ching!*

[weemadando]

I kind of disagree on a few of the points, but I suppose in some cases it would be correct. The reference to welfare makes me a bit dubious of this as more often than not, the role of welfare has been characterised by certain less than respected people (in my opinion anyhow) as a crutch for the weak, or worse as bribery...

But the kleptocracy seems to fit the US nearly perfectly. Arm the whites, try to disarm the blacks, just enough welfare to make sure that not everyone freezes to death in the street (only those disreputable coloured types) and that some people can get healthcare (sure the state provides, but only if you can afford it) and then writing it all off as being great because America is the greatest nation in the world! Under GOD! And all that... wheee flamebait!

[Joe]

Oh, you have made me question my patriotism! Excuse me while I go weep over our massive nuclear arsenal.

[weemadando]

Oh, you have made me question my patriotism! Excuse me while I go weep over our massive nuclear arsenal.

Whatever makes you feel like a man...

[Coyote]

Face it, with the Republicans in power all our money will be vacuumed up by Big Business; with the Democrats it will all be vacuumed up by Big Government. Neither, in my opinion, is good.

Republicans will let me own a gun, which I like, but want to legislate morality, which I can't stand. Democrats don't mind what you read or who you hump, which I like, but they won't trust me to own a weapon if I wish. So essentially, both forms suck.

The Democrats want to give money to space programs, which we get cool tech from, and the Republicans want to give money to defense programs, which we get cool tech from.

But face it, no matter what I think we will always feel as though we are paying too much and getting little in return. So either form of government, for Americans, wil seem lik a kleptocracy. But in truth we are so much better off than a lot of nations out there I think a lot of it can be written off to whining and ignorance.

I mean, we don't have anywhere near the tax burden of Europe, our businesses are practically free-ranging predators compared to them as well. And face it, if we tightened taxes on businesses, then business would just charge consumers more to cover it. And in truth, our defense budget is actualy quite small-- maybe 3-5% of our GNP, last time I saw any stats on it.

My biggets complaint is more pedestrian-- runaway lawsuits in the civil sector driving up health and insurance costs; not enough money going to schools. We also need some way to regulate/cut "pork" from the gov't diet; too many 'riders' on bills divert money to foo-foo programs to shore up Representatives' reelection bids.

[MKSheppard]

National Prayer day ring a bell? One Nation under God? Constant public references tying well-behaved people to religion? Any of this sound familiar to you?

Yeah so? I really don't give a shit. Let them say that bullshit for the masses.
I don't care as long as there's nobody standing over me with a Desert Eagle
to my head saying "Go to church or DIE" (Haven't been to church in seven years)

[MKSheppard]

Arm the whites, try to disarm the blacks,

AHHAH

Guess who wants to disarm the black man?

the NAACP! Seems they think the
black man can't be trusted to own guns, so they want
firearms stores to stop selling to young black men!

The gun stores, seeing a chance to get rid of a segment of
the clientele that always ends up with the police coming for
their form 4473s after a week or so, are more than happy
to comply!

[Sea Skimmer]

Guess who wants to disarm the black man?

the NAACP! Seems they think the
black man can't be trusted to own guns, so they want
firearms stores to stop selling to young black men!

Since when does anyone listen to the NAACP anyway?

[MKSheppard]

Since when does anyone listen to the NAACP anyway?

Gun store owners who are glad to be rid of a problem clientele
segment (blacks), who always bring the police down to collect
the Form 4473s of said blacks who shoot up a place with said
gun purchased from said gunstore.

[NecronLord]

*shakes head*

Modern day America needs a Liberterian party seperate from the Consevative agenda of the Republicans.

[Pablo Sanchez]

My whole political opinion is that religious fanaticism - Christianity in particular - is the monkey wrench in the works. A "conservative" (note the small "c", to differentiate it from "Conservative", which is what Rush Limbaugh and Fred Phelps are),

The word you're looking for is Reactionary. The Republican party was merely conservative for a long time, which I can respect, but since the 1980's it has been siezed by the Reactionaries and it's become unpalatable.

[Stormbringer]

My whole political opinion is that religious fanaticism - Christianity in particular - is the monkey wrench in the works. A "conservative" (note the small "c", to differentiate it from "Conservative", which is what Rush Limbaugh and Fred Phelps are),

The word you're looking for is Reactionary. The Republican party was merely conservative for a long time, which I can respect, but since the 1980's it has been siezed by the Reactionaries and it's become unpalatable.

Yeah, I think that's certainly it. Though to be honest Democrats have been hijacked by their own problem elements as well.