[permaculture] The conservative/liberal story
primalparent at hotmail.com
Wed Dec 26 23:59:28 EST 2007
i was wondering if you would mind taking the time to help me get my head around a few questions.
first, i admire much of what hartmann writes and i even have given his books as gifts.
i am just hoping someone could explain how the conservative/liberal story became the republican/democrat story and how that became the neo-con/neo-liberal story...
i feel that the beliefs of individuals are too complex to assign to an "either-or" camp (that is unless they assign themselves as those who declare "just vote straight ticket")
on a side note: hobbes declared savage life (pre-civilized) as "nasty, brutish, and short" it should be pointed out that he never lived or spent any time with any hunter-gatherers.
i HIGHLY recommend fredy perlman's 'against his-story, against leviathan'
> So Hobbes requires the dominion of Church or State over people to avert
> continuous war, while Locke requires restraining Church and State so the
> individual and a self-governing society might attain balance and harmony.
why is it that most liberals i know favor a larger federal government? and most republicans i know favor a smaller one?
how do you think this evolved out of the Hobbes/Locke story?
> The idea that we are not capable of self-governing is a conservative
> conviction and nothing more. Believing it makes it true. Except it isn't
> true. It's simply the conservative worldview. If we hold this worldview,
> it may be time for a revisit.
just to play the devil's advocate isn't it just as fair to state:
The idea that we are capable of self-governing is a liberal
conviction and nothing more. Believing it makes it true. Except it isn't
true. It's simply the liberal worldview. If we hold this worldview,
it may be time for a revisit.
Conservative government and a conservative
> decision-making process in general are not responsive enough to meet the
> challenges of relatively rapid energy and resource descent, as we witness in
> Dubya's response to climate change.
most republicans i know dont see bush as a republican or conservative, but as a neo-con.
as far as where i live most of the individuals concerned with peak-oil are republicans. they believe in and they are fighting more for things many in the permaculture movement would agree with (raw milk, local farms, choice for immunizing children, state's rights (i.e. self-governing), individual responsability, etc.)
i just wanted to reiterate i am NOT defending either side.
i have always been curious how this dichotomy emerged but i'd rather spend what little free time i have reading 'gaia's garden' or 'carrots love tomatoes' than the history of u.s. political culture.
just hoping someone could lay it out in a few paragraphs.
> Tommy Tolson
> Austin, TX
> permaculture mailing list
> permaculture at lists.ibiblio.org
> Subscribe or unsubscribe here:
> Google command to search archives:
> site:http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/permaculture searchstring
i’m is proud to present Cause Effect, a series about real people making a difference.
More information about the permaculture