|
On September 17 2010 13:55 Sentenal wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2010 13:28 Mothxal wrote: I find it amusing, as an European, that when I see a thread about how government can't work and everything needs to be set up in such a way that government is completely optional because of the horror of taxing people, that it's always by a reasonably young person from the United States. It's not like everything is perfect here in the Netherlands, but we spend a lot of money on government that goes to integration, safety nets, education, infrastructure and mostly the system works. People don't complain that they have to pay taxes because they're unique snowflowers that would be oppressed otherwise, they realize that you can't have any of those services without money. I guess the problem with the USA is that it's deeply corrupt on a political level, and it's a divided nation that's easy to manipulate by the ruling class, but your utopic vision isn't actually solving anything. What it in effect will do is give credibility to, say, the oil industry to scale down regulations so they can destroy the environment some more.
A bit more specific on your points: nice veiled anti-gay sentiment there. I guess you'd be opposed to people that divorce and get re-married having their union called a marriage too, since that's the traditional view? Please go ahead and tell a gay couple that they can't actually marry. since that term is reserved for proper people. Uhhhh, maybe you don't know much about the US, but most "reasonable young people" in the United States tend to be liberal. I didn't say that at all, please reread what I wrote.
|
do you know what a supermarket is and who provides it? non-sequitur imo.
The government creates a fake boom to speed up ag.demand, but that always has the cost of a bust when malinvestments are realized. Keynesian econ. is a fraud. imo.
edit: but like I said I don't want to be a prick so I'll stop debating.
|
On September 17 2010 13:52 Cider wrote: Libertarianism has its roots in classical liberalism not communism.
Since you asked, i'm an anarchist. A free market could provide all goods and services better than the government can. Very simple economics.
Well, The first cited use of the word to describe a political belief system was an Anarchist Communist describing his views in the mid 1800s, but I don't know much about the classical liberalism roots from which I'm sure it was derived from here in the US...
to stay more on topic, I would say that if it wasn't for the religious zealotry I would have little qualms with calling myself a Libertarian. I can't stand any of the political parties in the US and really have a hard time voting for lesser evils...
If I had to cling to some idealistic, but not very realistic political worldview it would prolly be Libertarian Socialism, but since that's not practical, a constitutional republic may be :D
|
I vote democrat because I'm a poor student and socialistic policies are most likely to provide short term financial benefit to me.
That sounds like a dig at democrats, college students, socialists, leftists or something, but its not.
Seriously, your pretty naive if you think any politician really cares where the country is going to be ten or fifteen years once there out of office, or whats the optimal "direction" for this country. You know Regan? How all those right wingers all loved his policies? No, his policies sucked balls and were terrible for the country economically, but they would only collapse around Bush seniors term in office. But hey, who cares, it won't be his administration that has to clean it up.
Just vote for the bureaucrat who screws you over the least. Anything else is pointless. Being a libertarian or w/e is nice for chats and ideology, but in terms of actual voting season, you might as well ritualistically burn your ballots to the sun gods.
(socialistic policies=/=socialism btw)
|
On September 17 2010 14:04 Yurebis wrote: do you know what a supermarket is and who provides it? non-sequitur imo.
The government creates a fake boom to speed up ag.demand, but that always has the cost of a boom when malinvestments are realized. Keynesian econ. is a fraud. imo.
When growth is below potential growth, speeding up agregate demand isn't a bad thing. Keynesian econ may well be a fraud though, I'll grant you that.
|
On September 17 2010 14:01 Cauld wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2010 13:58 Cider wrote:On September 17 2010 13:56 Cauld wrote: I think in times of recession the government should run a deficit. I'm disappointed at the current infrastructure investments by the federal government. The recession provided an opprtunity to create much needed infrastructure via construction of roads, rail, expansion of airports, expansion of the national power grid, etc. And the people who were hit hardest by the housing bust (construction) could have been employed to do all these things, thus lowering unemployment and increasing future potential GDP growth. The tax subsidy for mortgages should be slowly phased out.. You don't understand economics at all. Money doesn't come out of thin air. If the government runs a deficit in times of recession they'll just have to pay it back in the future, negating any supposed benefit you assume they might be able to provide. The private sector does a decent job of allocating resources effectively without government meddling, all that the governmnent does is muck everything up. No, you don't economics at all. The government can inflate the supply of money at any times. I never said they wouldn't have to pay it back. You have no concept of keynsian economics at all. The public sector builds roads, bridges, airports, the power grid, damns, etc? Do you know what infrastructure is and who provides it? Edit: But like I said, I'm not big into debating, so I'll pre-emptively agree to disagree.
You realize Keynesianism has really been dead for 30 years, it just resurfaces every time liberals have to generate an economic justification for their income redistribution, right?
[edit] In principle, I'm pretty much an anarchist, but practically that wont happen in my lifetime, so I'm libertarian-ish.
|
On September 17 2010 13:13 Crunchums wrote: I vote purely based on social issues (for democrats) because while neither party fully agrees with my beliefs outside of social issues I have very little confidence in either political party's ability to get anything done. Both parties are full of bullshit and will raise taxes and increase the size of government but if you vote republican they'll restrict abortion, the rights of gays, etc so might as well vote democrat.
edit: there are other reasons why I prefer democrats to republicans but they are way less significant.
this is really how i feel. both dems and republicans suck, but at least dems arent assholes to anyone who isnt white upper-class christian heterosexual.
|
I am a:
Strict Constructionist, Heavily in favor of Capitalism, wish to Legalize drugs, think Gay-marriage is fine, am Pro-life, want Privatized Education, want Universal Consumption tax in place of the graduated income tax, believe in a Non-interventionist foreign policy (this includes aid as well as war), and I Strongly favor gun-rights.
I've found that, talking to rational socialists, we essentially have the exact same ideals, but just believe in different ways to accomplish them; I want to let the market do its thing, they want the government to cover it, and we both think that the others solution is dangerous to our freedoms.
|
On September 17 2010 14:05 Half wrote: I vote democrat because I'm a poor student and socialistic policies are most likely to provide short term financial benefit to me.
That sounds like a dig at democrats, college students, socialists, leftists or something, but its not.
Seriously, your pretty naive if you think any politician really cares where the country is going to be ten or fifteen years once there out of office, or whats the optimal "direction" for this country. You know Regan? How all those right wingers all loved his policies? No, his policies sucked balls and were terrible for the country economically, but they would only collapse around Bush seniors term in office. But hey, who cares, it won't be his administration that has to clean it up.
Just vote for the bureaucrat who screws you over the least. Anything else is pointless. Being a libertarian or w/e is nice for chats and ideology, but in terms of actual voting season, you might as well ritualistically burn your ballots to the sun gods.
(socialistic policies=/=socialism btw) Totalitarian policies=/= Totalitarianism btw xD
lol
|
I'm a radical cynic. It's the only way to fly.
|
On September 17 2010 14:13 Kimaker wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2010 14:05 Half wrote: I vote democrat because I'm a poor student and socialistic policies are most likely to provide short term financial benefit to me.
That sounds like a dig at democrats, college students, socialists, leftists or something, but its not.
Seriously, your pretty naive if you think any politician really cares where the country is going to be ten or fifteen years once there out of office, or whats the optimal "direction" for this country. You know Regan? How all those right wingers all loved his policies? No, his policies sucked balls and were terrible for the country economically, but they would only collapse around Bush seniors term in office. But hey, who cares, it won't be his administration that has to clean it up.
Just vote for the bureaucrat who screws you over the least. Anything else is pointless. Being a libertarian or w/e is nice for chats and ideology, but in terms of actual voting season, you might as well ritualistically burn your ballots to the sun gods.
(socialistic policies=/=socialism btw) Totalitarian policies=/= Totalitarianism btw xD lol
Good job bro, except for one thing, We kind of use a different word to describe totalitarian policies when used in low amounts.....
Its called being rightist or authoritarianism or nationalism.
|
I want to say I belong to a political party, but I just find a mix between liberal and conservative modes of thought. I feel that both of these sides are hypocritical and counter-intuitive, and therefore a mix of these values will probably work the best.
Since I read New York Times (which has been criticized as a liberal source), Wall Street Journal (funded by Fox News), and the CATO Institute (Libertarian Think Tank), I get a marketplace of ideas to just think about what ideals I should be investing my time into.
So I guess I'm the ultimate moderate, someone who reads a lot of information and just can't decide on a fixed political view.
But I have a personal grudge against the more vocal conservatives that give the GOP a bad name. Because in all honesty, many people that belong the Republican party aren't a bunch of dumbasses and assholes, it's those that speak out and say dumb things the deface the party and make them look dumb.
|
the problem with debating economic policy is that no one really knows anything when trying to predict the future, write policies, or measure results. Even in hindsight, good or bad policies are not very clear.
in fact, measuring the effects of any policy is very difficult. There are too many variables and too many possible outcomes. Therefore, I don't think any position is inherently good or bad. The system is too complicated to theorize.
|
Haha thanks for busting out the austrianism to defend me while i was afk guys. I don't even have to argue haha.
|
You aren't a libertarian.
|
On September 17 2010 14:44 geometryb wrote: the problem with debating economic policy is that no one really knows anything when trying to predict the future, write policies, or measure results. Even in hindsight, good or bad policies are not very clear.
in fact, measuring the effects of any policy is very difficult. There are too many variables and too many possible outcomes. Therefore, I don't think any position is inherently good or bad. The system is too complicated to theorize.
There are basic economic laws that govern the way the world works. Even though the economy is too complex for precise quantitative predictions, it's quite possible to give qualitative predictions as to the effectiveness of certain policies.
|
On September 17 2010 14:47 Cider wrote: Haha thanks for busting out the austrianism to defend me while i was afk guys. I don't even have to argue haha. np but now IM afk
|
I have no idea what my political position would be called anymore.
I'm a strong believer in equality, and that our current lifestyles (suburbia, economic systems sustained on constant growth) will be just completely unsustainable in the future. I believe we need to have some serious reform of current political and international relations systems, and move forward into some form of a post-capitalism mode of life.
On government control etc, I think the public sector/public ownership has a great role to play in future society. We need proper governance though, and current systems are just unworkable. Most western political systems + parliament structures are barely better than fights in a primary school playground.
Gay Marriage? Why isnt this universally accepted already :/
Climate change? One of the most important challenges of humanity, more absolutely HAS to be done.
I don't agree with government censorship though, I heavily support freedom of speech.
I suppose I'm just a little bit crazy.
|
You're far more moderate and intellectual than most and by the time you're a few years older you'll be far left, brilliant, and respectable.
Stop bein silly and hating on a woman's right to choice. As a libertarian especially, and as someone who probably can logically look at our overpopulated world, it really is a nonsensically political view fueled only by even more nonsensical religion.
<3
|
|
|
|
|