Religion and politics, the two subjects one must never bring up at parties. Philosophy, a study some find pointless. Oh well. Below you'll find my ramblings on various topics and ideas. Possibly they'll be inspiring. Maybe not. Things will be added as I find the time and inspiration.
This is inspired by Rick Staats' comment in Interregnum #21, "I'm not opposed to conservatism or liberalism per se, it's intolerance that scares the Dickens out of me!" and his comments about how liberals as well as conservatives can be intolerant. I've mulled over the tolerance issue for some time; the following may be a bit of a rant, so be warned.
First, a definition from Webster's II New Riverside Dictionary:
tolerance 1. recognition of and respect for the opinions, beliefs, or actions of others.
Tolerance is not "accepting all views as equally valid" or "subscribing to a certain acceptable viewpoint", but that's my impression of what some folk see to be tolerant.
Christians and Muslims and others aren't "intolerant" if they regard their belief system as the One True Way. But they are intolerant if they try to prevent others from practicing their faiths, or if they try to force others to follow their religious laws.
It is not "intolerant" to condemn wrongful actions; but it is intolerant to condemn someone purely for following his or her faith.
It is not "intolerant" to spread one's views; but it is intolerant to prevent others from expressing their views. It's okay for abortion opponents to protest, but not okay for them to block access and tacky for them to harass clinic clients. It's okay to protest a conservative speaker but not okay to occupy a building and prevent them from making a speech.
It is not "intolerant" to write from one's own religious or philosophical belief system, or to dislike reading works written from a differing belief system. But it is intolerant to condemn someone for writing from the perspective that their belief system gives.
It is intolerant to always jump to a negative stereotype about a group, but it's not tolerant to excuse actions by a member of a group (race, religion) because of past wrongs against that group. That's paternalism, and condescension.
It is intolerant to automatically call a right-winger a "Nazi" or a left-winger a "Marxist" or a "Statist" without having something on which to base that statement. These are specific ideological viewpoints and it corrupts the language to call every right winger a "Nazi", for example.
Tolerance can be a tricky thing. Tolerance doesn't mean you like somebody, or accept that their belief system has any validity, or approve their actions. It does mean accepting the right of others to have differing views.
Do we therefore tolerate white supremacists, or other hate groups? Well, you allow them to speak, and then counter them. Hate groups seem to commit definition of character pretty readily given half a chance. The danger is that the hate group will attract the unthinking with their lies, but I'd have to say that these folk are looking for a channel and a form for their frustrations and would find another outlet that's equally destructive.
Just my opinion; I'm curious what everybody else thinks.
The primary purpose of a business is to make a profit, not to produce goods, or to provide services, or to employ people, or to otherwise provide for the needs of the public and society. The ideal business would employ no one, produce nothing, but still make a profit.
------------------
I'm quite aware that people start businesses out of dreams of doing neat things, or helping others, or even to create jobs. But the bottom line is that a business, unless it's being subsidised, must make a profit or go out of business. The profit motive doesn't necessarily lead to the public good. Note how one executive justified "downsizing" by noting that he worked for the stockholders, not the employees.
We can not assume that the Free Market will provide for everyone. It will only do so if there is a profit to be made. Not every desirable thing is a profitable thing.
If we want universal health coverage it will not be provided by the free market; it's not profitable to insure everyone.
If we want to preserve wilderness, or wildlife, or the environment, we can't expect the private sector to do it without encouragement. Note that if Libertarians got into power they'd sell off public lands in an effort to balance the budget; their presidential nominee said so at their convention. I think it's safe to assume that a lot of that land would up end being developed in ways destructive to the environment and/or that would reduce access for the general public.
If we want to protect workers from unsafe conditions, or from being exploited, we can't expect market forces to do that. While most businesses do have some concern for their workers, it isn't the pursuit of profit that gives them that concern. Note that there are still (illegal, but not if some folk got in power) sweatshops in this country paying people pathetic wages and forcing them to work in unhealthy and unsafe conditions.
And that, boys and girls, is why government does more than just provide for the national defense and the enforcement of laws and contracts; not because of some conspiracy to control your life but because there's actually a need.
Salon is not purely a political magazine, but it has political discussion that illuminates things that escape the mainstream media. They've had quite a series of stories noting the flaws in the whole "Whitewater" investigation; noting that much of it appears to be questionable information provided or encouraged by Clinton enemies whose morality is far from exemplary. There's a lot of other articles on all manner of subjects, and some good comics. It should be noted that it does deal with some mature subject matter.
Here's a whole mess of articles and stuff pointing out the flaws of Libertarian philosophy and the related philosophies of Objectivism and Anarcho-Capitalism, from folk who are far better than I at this. Something that pleases me, as arguments with Libertarian types are roughly as effective as tunneling through solid rock by banging your head against it. As they point out, you rarely see much about these philosophies from anyone other than the advocates; get a view from the other side if you're even remotely considering supporting them.