Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

RE: Good vs. Evil

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Mr. Wish,

That is perhaps the most complete and reasonable response that I've seen
posted on this or any other non technical topic.  Yes my rhetoric is strong,
and having spent significant time and money in the current health care
system, I'm not happy with any of the available or proposed options.  It's
the only industry that can have a 30-40% Administration overhead and still
stay in business.  Education is not far behind on the administration cost
and the ill management.

As far as liberal, socialist, and communists, I don't believe that these
terms are evenly closely related.  But, I do believe that some liberals have
forgotten what the word really means.  By the same token some conservatives
have also forgotten what that really means.

Traditionally the title Liberal or liberalism is defined by Webster as
either a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint
and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the
gold standard c : a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the
essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and
standing for the protection of political and civil liberties was not afraid
of change, tolerant of others, and protective of civil liberties.
Additionally they believed in a self-regulating economy.  The original
definition is based on the Protestant movement from about 400 years ago.

This is far from what I see the current liberal policy maker doing and
promoting in Washington today.

Conservative or Conservatism is a political philosophy based on tradition
and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring
gradual development to abrupt change.

Socialism is a system or condition of society in which the means of
production are owned and controlled by the state.   Wouldn't state ran
medical care be the reverse of liberalism, as actually defined, and the meet
the definition of socialism?

Communism is, when I use the term, a totalitarian system of government in
which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production
or is the final stage of society in Marxist theory in which the state has
withered away and economic goods are distributed equitably.

All definitions are from Webster's Online.

What really concerns me is that he liberals talk of protecting civil rights,
but I don't seen one minority person in a position of power in the
Democratic party.  Nor did I see one during the Carter or Clinton

As far as government programs, I lean toward liberal economical policies,
that are now conservative, and libertarian ideals.

The best protection for Civil Liberties is Individual Liberties.


-----Original Message-----
From: Structuralist [mailto:dennis.wish(--nospam--at)]
Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2005 1:45 AM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)
Subject: OT: Good vs. Evil

It's been bothering me lately to see so many posts by professionals who
are polarized to one extreme or the other. While I've had a long post
planted let me put it in simple terms:

    * Liberals are not socialist, communists and without strong faith or
      moral value. This is simply a lie spread by those who can't stand
      the idea of believers who are concerned with the civil rights of
      Americans and who wish to provide protection against this abuse.
    * I have a number of friends who are first generation citizens from
      communistic societies and they are naturally conservative. They
      fear the potential abuse of the left and because of this they
      migrate as far away from the left as possible. While they may not
      be happy with the current events, they feel that the basic
      ideology of the conservative will protect them.
    * Those of us who are voicing opinions on health care, social
      security,  outsourcing and more are accused of being liberal and
      potential communists. The truth is that there is no position to
      the far right or the far left that will work - the same as
      socialism or communism based on the frailties of human pettiness
      prevents any political ideology work. What this means is that a
      government run program is just as likely to fail as a publicly
      owned (private industry) corporation. The support for Globalism
      and NAFTA or outsourcing spans both sides of the aisle and became
      evident to the surprise of Democrats during the Clinton
      administration. What concerns me is the growing number of
      conservatives who are now understanding that an unbalanced system
      of profiteering does not work and have returned to the ideology of
    * Finally, there are still those who hate - they hate anyone who
      disagrees with their opinions, they spout the words of past
      patriots out of context and fail to prove how their ideology is
      successful in todays world. Someone  asked to name one government
      program that has worked and there are many. However, I can also
      name a number of programs that government was involved with that
      has taken advantage of the private sector such as Worldcom, Enron,
      Lawsuits against health care providers who are billing medical and
      insurance companies for twice what a patient with insurance pays
      in order to compensate for their loss (Tenet is one health care
      provide who has defaulted and agreed to reimburse those who were
      charged for emergency room services who did not have insurance in
      the late 90's and early 2000's). There are many examples of how
      the private sector is taken advantage of and pays the price for
      these abuses.
    * The answer lies in the middle - a mixture of private enterprise
      and government checks and balances. The same should be true of
      government - we allow bills to be submitted that contain
      compromises for one party or the other that has little or nothing
      to due with the bill and then when the representative or senator
      of one party votes against the bill, the spin is to blame the
      politician for his vote - a no win situation. This happened when
      Kerry was accused of voting against money for Iraq when he found
      that the bill contained a compromise for the communications
      industry that would give exclusive rights to develop a wireless
      standard in the middle east (which could not actually compete with
      an existing standard already in place in Saudi Arabia). The point
      is that we live in a society that is much more complicated than
      some of our more outspoken conservatives, liberals, faith-based
      and anti-immigration writers post to this site. However without
      each persons constitutional right to free speech being enacted, a
      proper solution will never be found.

I may be of the liberal mindset, but I would hope that I am open minded
enough to recognize a good idea and not be bound by partisan pressure.
As an American, I am free to believe and practice what I believe to be
appropriate for the issue at hand. I am a protectionist but only until
the field and competition is reasonable. Nobody in this world deserves
to take or expect us to voluntarily give up our jobs to those in other
countries and not be compensated for the debt we have a responsibility
to repay - we become deadbeats to those who baited use and placed us in
this position. If you don't believe it, count the number of pre-approved
loan offers you have each day. I've learned years ago to live with what
I have until it dies - this way I won't become an endured slave to my
society - but our youth has much to learn and they will learn it like
many of us have - the hard way. Few of us have the family ability to
pull our children out debt and the new laws make sure our children are
harnessed with the stress and worry of repaying debts that have been
paid many times over in uncontrolled interest rates but needed to
satisfy the corporate investors profits.

Apathy is lethal - a phrase used many times in the last few years. I
urge each of you to use your constitutional freedom of speech and voice
your opinions - no matter what you have to say, you have a right to
speak your mind and nobody can violate your right. If they do, I want to
be the first to know and I'll make an issue of it.

That's my promise to you.

Dennis S. Wish, PE

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   Read list FAQ at:
*   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
*   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
*   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
*   Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at) Remember, any email you
*   send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted
*   without your permission. Make sure you visit our web
*   site at:
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   Read list FAQ at:
*   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers 
*   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To 
*   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
*   Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at) Remember, any email you 
*   send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted 
*   without your permission. Make sure you visit our web 
*   site at: 
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********