| Blogs > Musoeun |
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7032 Posts
On September 17 2010 13:55 Sentenal wrote: 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. | ||
|
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
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. | ||
|
Motiva
United States1774 Posts
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 | ||
|
Half
United States2554 Posts
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) | ||
|
Cauld
United States350 Posts
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.  | ||
|
kzn
United States1218 Posts
On September 17 2010 14:01 Cauld wrote: 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. | ||
|
Ideas
United States8178 Posts
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. | ||
|
Kimaker
United States2131 Posts
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. | ||
|
Kimaker
United States2131 Posts
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 | ||
|
MacroNcheesE
United States508 Posts
| ||
|
Half
United States2554 Posts
On September 17 2010 14:13 Kimaker wrote: 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. | ||
|
Zergneedsfood
United States10671 Posts
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.  | ||
|
geometryb
United States1249 Posts
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. | ||
|
Cider
United States198 Posts
| ||
|
johnlee
United States242 Posts
| ||
|
Cider
United States198 Posts
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. | ||
|
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
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 | ||
|
deth
Australia1757 Posts
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. | ||
|
Ndugu
United States1078 Posts
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 | ||
|
HwangjaeTerran
Finland5967 Posts
| ||
| ||
[ Submit Event ] |
|
|
|
|
EPT
