How do a person's political views relate to self sufficiency?

[hikerchick]

I think we should just give up on this. It's a waste of time.

The rest of seem to be able to have a discourse that includes differences of opinion without all of this sparring.

it's exhausting and pointless, and frankly, it's getting boring.

 

[patandchickens]

Anyhoo... returning to the *useful* and illuminating portion of this thread (although I suppose it is technically a bit of a tangent from the original question posed),

The million dollar question LH is how do you change the system? The biggest problem as I see it is that the corporations are the biggest campaign contributors. They literally put these guys in office. The American people tend to vote for the candidate with the best TV commercials. So how do you get Congress to pass a bill outlawing corporate contributions?

I don't think outlawing corporate contributions is particularly practical, the money would just get funnelled to the candidates differently. Honestly I see no good solution to the campaign funding problem -- ALL possible systems are vigorously-unfair in different, IMO roughly equal-magnitude, ways.

As to "how do you change the system" though, I think self-sufficiency is actually a large part of the answer.

IMHO, the less the people of the nation are dependant on big corporation products -- the less people *voluntarily* put themselves in the thrall of big corporations by voraciously consuming all sorts of unneccessary goods/'foods'/services/energy -- the less opportunity there is for corporations to get mega-super-powerful and influentia. And also, the less you are a slave of consumer America, the less your life depend on the vicissitudes of politics. The more you can live simply and responsibly and doing things for yourself as much as possible, the more you can (all things being equal) sort of let politics 'roll off your back' to some degree.

I am TOTALLY NOT suggesting we shouldn't care about and be involved in politics, and I am TOTALLY NOT suggesting that if you are reasonably self-sufficient then it doesn't matter what the gov't does... but I do think that, on average, it matters *less*, the *more* self-sufficient you are. Which is a good thing because try as we might, a person really has very little actual ability to influence gov't policy

JMHO,

Pat

 

[reinbeau]

I think we should just give up on this. It's a waste of time.

The rest of seem to be able to have a discourse that includes differences of opinion without all of this sparring.

it's exhausting and pointless, and frankly, it's getting boring.

Of course you can all have a lovely conversation, because, for the most part, you all agree with each other. The conservatives here are squashed like bugs whenever they voice their opinions - I know, I've been squashed, I've given up (and there are plenty here who think I shouldn't voice my opinion at all, because I'm a moderator, even though I'm a member first, then a moderator. But I digress). There really isn't a free flow discussion here, because once it becomes obvious someone isn't a progressive socialist they're given the cold shoulder. I have several PMs from people who have given up on SS because of it.

I read what Scott said in his first post, there was nothing unclear about his position, yet there are over eleven posts here insinuating he isn't answering the original question. That is just patently not true.

Read what is written from the other side of the aisle, understand it, comprehend what is being said and quit 'feeling' what was said, and you're answers will be right there in front of you.

I will return to lurking and watch, because, as I said, I've given up discussing anything here. No pity required, no argument, I'm just stating the facts regarding my participation here on SS in any political discussion.

 

[hikerchick]

Just for the record, I am not a liberal.

At least, I dont' think I am.

I am not a conservative, either.

Just a person who does not enjoy semantic games.

 

[dacjohns]

So, I wonder if we could calmly and respectfully discuss how or how not a person's politics are related to their desire to be as self sufficient as they choose to be.

What (politely ) do you all think?

deleted

. . . typically liberals or secular progressives want MORE intrusion and control of your life and want the sharing the wealth of the wealth with those that are less wealthy. This is displayed in a number of ways, one of which is in the extreme taxing of the wealthy.

I also cannot wrap my head around how someone can say they want to be self sufficient, but still support programs that diminish the great American desire of being self sufficient by providing for you through social programs.

deleted because it wasn't need for my repsonse

Basically, how can someone claim to be self sufficient and also want the government to provide for them?
more deleted

Is this it Scott?

Why did it take me so long to see it? Because I got wrapped up in the other stuff.

 

[me&thegals]

Of course you can all have a lovely conversation, because, for the most part, you all agree with each other. The conservatives here are squashed like bugs whenever they voice their opinions - I know, I've been squashed, I've given up (and there are plenty here who think I shouldn't voice my opinion at all, because I'm a moderator, even though I'm a member first, then a moderator. But I digress). There really isn't a free flow discussion here, because once it becomes obvious someone isn't a progressive socialist they're given the cold shoulder. I have several PMs from people who have given up on SS because of it.

I read what Scott said in his first post, there was nothing unclear about his position, yet there are over eleven posts here insinuating he isn't answering the original question. That is just patently not true.

Read what is written from the other side of the aisle, understand it, comprehend what is being said and quit 'feeling' what was said, and you're answers will be right there in front of you.

I will return to lurking and watch, because, as I said, I've given up discussing anything here. No pity required, no argument, I'm just stating the facts regarding my participation here on SS in any political discussion.

I thought you weren't participating in this thread so that you could reserve the right to shut it down....

Scott is not the only person holding a certain view on here. He is simply the only one that insists on trying to be antagonizing rather than conversational. If he would just come out and say that he doesn't believe self sufficiency and a nonconservative viewpoint can dwell together, then there would be something to talk about. But, he would rather play games.



Back to the conversation, Pat you make an interesting point about consuming less, thus weakening corporations (and our economy!) but also their hold on our gov't. Hmmmm...

 

[ScottSD]

Wow. This is quite a welcome wagon you have here!

Your statement

I knew you were going to yell "attacked"

indicates that you placed this thread out there for bait. Its quite obvious, really.

And. only your opinion is considered valid. This is evidenced by your statement:

yet obviously having negative opinions.

.because any other opinion that doesnt match yours is a negative right?

When you accused me of saying a persons political views prohibit self sufficiencythat pretty much showed you were in the wings waiting for me to say something that you could pounce on. Because of that, I was a bit stand-offish. No one likes being accused of saying things they didnt say. Maybe thats why I decided to not give you a direct answer after that. Like I said, you were waiting for me to say something you didnt agree with so you could point it out.

Apparently what has been said about this site is somewhat true. Theres a lot of snobbery here. I had been told that was the case, but I didnt want to believe it. A few people have been nice, even when you dont agree with their opinions. They are civil and dont hound you until you give them the answer they want to hear. Heck! Even BD has been civil

I have even received some very supportive PMswhich I do appreciate.

As far as the original question here is my take on it.

As evidenced in my post with the definitions. (did you read it?) Collectivism is more on the lines of Socialism and Communism. Individualism is more on the lines of Capitalism.

See any relationship between the words self and individualism?

Can a person that is a progressive and/or liberal (who sway more towards socialism) be a self-sufficient person?

Yeah, I suppose. I said I cant wrap my head around it. But I guess that was not good enough for you.


But heres my take on it. I think that when a self-sufficient person that leans to the left(towards socialism and collectivism} is quite simply acting somewhat hypocritical.

That is my opinion.....which I think I am allowed to have.....

The types of programs that socialism is known for tends to stifle individualism and self-sufficiency. It makes people more dependent on the government...not more self reliant.

So, yes, a left-leaning person can be self sufficient. But I think when they support programs that stifle self-reliance, they are being hypocritical.

There, I have given my opinion MORE CLEARLY for you. Now you can be happy that youve found that I have negative opinions.you know since they dont jive with yours.

As far as not posting in enough self-sufficient threads for your liking.sorry. I am here to learn..Im new at the whole self-sufficient lifestyle as it is discussed here. And I find a lot of the information is very valuable. I do appreciate it and there is an abundance of ways to conserve as I am finding out.

I guess if a person isnt here to contribute on the self-sufficiency topics, but here to learn.they arent really that welcome.

 

[me&thegals]

The first comment I am going to respond to is the first. I "knew" that after about 23 pages of baiting, arguing and nitpicking that once anybody started directly questioning you, you would probably call "unfair." I don't know you personally at all, but it seems a pretty typical response of people who pick fights and then get some heat back.

I think you flatter yourself if you think I started a thread just for you, Scott. You just happened to be the most recent person in a long chain of people claiming SS and liberal/Democratic/progressive political views cannot coexist.

As long as this thread could stay friendly, I was glad to participate in it. There is a difference between making points that disagree with someone else's points and the baiting/nitpicking and fighting.

Finally, FINALLY you make some valid points in your most recent post. Why not until now?

Actually, I find viewpoints other than my own very interesting. If MY viewpoint needed to be worshipped above all else, then I guess I would have really crap relationship with my husband, friends and family, since nearly all of them have political views different from mine. The thing is, the conversations I have with them are generally pleasant and not so sarcastic.

So while you direct your comments at me, you have had about 5 people asking you to stop dinking around and just get to the point.

You know what, I really don't care. It has been an interesting conversation for the most part. I don't see any hypocrisy in trying to be SS while wanting social programs, but I'm sure my opinion will continue to change as my life experiences do.

Thanks for everybody's input!

 

[patandchickens]

snipping out all the dramatics,

yes, a left-leaning person can be self sufficient. But I think when they support programs that stifle self-reliance, they are being hypocritical.

Thank you. That is actually not what I thought you meant, so, see the value of actually saying what you mean in black and white

I doubt you'll find anyone who'd disagree with you here about whether it's good to have programs that stifle self-reliance, btw!

The only (ha, "only" ) disagreement is about what programs *do* stifle self-reliance, as opposed to providing a safety net for those whose ability to be self-reliant is more limited than others' for various reasons.

I think it is a total crock to say that if people disagree with you (not you personally, I mean -- *any* 'you') you're being "squashed" or that they aren't letting you have your own opinion. Isn't the whole point of a discussion to compare notes and see how/where we agree AND DISAGREE, and discuss the merits of different lines of argument??

In reality I think this forum is much better than most other internet forums I've seen, in terms of people with sometimes-VERY different viewpoints and politics getting along fairly well and often having genuinely constructive discussions while not really agreeing on very much

Pat

 

[FarmerChick]

some strong viewpoints comes from people who don't know what the heck they are talking about anyway.

worse thing in the world is a "bit of knowledge" about politics and thinking you truly know how all govts. work.

And thinking that the govt and all its programs exists for JUST YOU PERSONALLY.

(not at anyone--just a general statement)