|
Because of that Tea Party thread, I thought I'd briefly describe some of my own political thoughts.
My biggest concern is over-centralization of control. I tend to call myself a libertarian, but that's not entirely accurate: while I believe in individual rights and liberties, I see a definite role for the State to play in providing what I would call "necessary" services: roads and communication, hospitals and health care, education. The distinction I'd make, however, is that to be effective this has to be done at as local a level as possible, with no more oversight or regulation from more central and "higher up" authority than necessary. In the USA, we've got such a huge country that the ideal level for government programs would be the state, or sometimes even the county level.
From what I understand of economics - and I freely admit that this is very little - I'd favor a fair tax model (essentially a universal sales tax) to provide the entire budget. The model currently proposed every election cycle includes in the proposal that a poverty/subsistence/necessity-level (depending on the person) "rebate" be provided each month from this. I'm not sure the "pure" model is workable; I suspect some fees would be necessary for roads, rail, doctors' vists, etc. What is clearly unfair, to my mind, is the radical multiplication of kinds of taxes: both because they apply to people unequally, and because it's almost impossible for voters to keep track of.
Social issues:
Abortion: against, based both in my faith and on the fact that the human fetus is genetically human, with no natural bar to development, from conception.
Gay marriage: I think the term "marriage" ought to be kept to its traditional meaning largely for clarity and accuracy's sake, but I can't - on rational grounds - oppose "civil unions" either. This is largely a non-issue for me: if we're going to allow homosexual activity as legitimate, then to be consistent we need to equally protect their rights even as couples. (Of course, the libertarian side of me doesn't really think that married couples should get special rights at all and it ought to be totally a non-issue.)
Fiscal responsibility: while I think the government has a duty to provide certain services as well as general protection, I'm uncomfortable with the growing tendency to just borrow money: it can't end well. I think a lot of the money is actually waste which could be cut down by localizing services, but I don't know for sure.
Foreign policy: I don't have one. My policy amounts to "go away and leave me alone". However, given current involvements and treaty agreements, I don't know how practical that is.
Constitution: At heart I'm a strict constructionist... with the caveat that I don't think the Constitution actually is the perfect model of government and I also understand that the modern American state has gone way beyond the letter of the law, whatever you make of the spirit, so going back is impractical to impossible.
My ideal: I favor direct democracy at the local level as the best method of maintaining justice. Ideally, you'd have no more than a couple thousand people - say, the size of a small college, or maybe two or three times the number of people you recognize on sight - electing any representative. It's impractical, maybe, but you get beyond that size and you get into the bane of governments: you're forced to vote for someone you don't know and can't know, and as such personal responsibility to the citizens is, for all intents and purposes, lost.
---
I wrote this up quickly. Ask me questions: where do you disagree? What do I need to clarify? Where do I need to learn more, do more research, maybe change my mind?
I'm becoming very concerned about the elections this Fall: I have never been impressed with the Democratic party's usual candidates (though I've voted for a few), but the Republicans' open opportunism and lack of a real alternative turned me off by high school, and the more recent hijacking of the initial Tea Party movement has me very concerned. I'm in the process really considering my own views and trying to hash out what I want, so I'm not forced into knee-jerk votes. I doubt I'll ever get what I want, exactly - but at least I'll know where I am.
|
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.
|
If you support socialized healthcare and education, you shouldn't be calling yourself a libertarian imo.
|
I largely agree with you; though with the globalization of...well, the globe, it's impossible to beneficially hold an isolationist policy for long.
I'm somewhat torn on the tea party issue, on the one hand I don't agree with all the stances, but on the other: anything to shake up the hegemony of the republicans/democrats has to be a good thing right? lol.
|
IM TRYING NOT TO DO MY GOV HOMEWORK AND YOU THROW THIS SHIT AT ME
|
When you say you are against abortion, you give a moral position. What is your position on the law? Do you believe it should be criminalized?
|
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.
|
note: the following is strictly my opinion. Also, I'm a little tired while writing this, so my thinking is a little impaired, so I might be wrong about things.
I can't vote yet (D=), but if I could, I wouldn't vote either democrat or republican just because I'm registered to one of those 2 parties. I would vote for the party who is doing what the times call for. At this point in time, I feel that it should be the democrats, however they seem to be too passive about things and are letting the Republican party stomp all over them. If the republican party stops disagreeing with everything the Democrats throw at them and start offering practical solutions that the times call for, then I would vote for them.
Personally, I feel that the Tea Party movement was spawned from the anger, fear, and frustration of many Americans due to the lack of agreement in Congress. The fact that they are gaining so much momentum is the fault of both the Democrats and Republicans for not doing something, and instead bickering for the glorification of their own party while people are suffering.
|
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.
He didn't say to get rid of taxes, and he also didn't say to get rid of the government. He said the tax burden was born unequally, which is true. He also said the states should be the ideal level of government in the USA. You bring up the Netherlands, do you realize it's about 1/7 the size of Michigan, a moderately sized state? The problem with governing the USA is it's so huge, hence the reason to delegate a lot of the federal powers to the states.
|
I think of myself as a social moderate, and a fiscal conservative.
Abortion: For it. Personally, I think its deplorable, but ultimately, its a woman's body, and its a woman's choice. (imo)
Gay Marriage: For it. Call it something other than marriage if you have to, but denying a group of people a set of rights because of their sexual preference is probably the least American concept I've ever heard.
Fiscal Responsibility: I believe in 100% capitalism. The government's job is to protect the lives and rights of the citizens. Not to protect their bank accounts.
- Also a good place to plug the Fair Tax. Our current tax code is a fucking joke. I challenge anyone to do some research on the Fair Tax and present a sound argument against it.
Foreign Policy: I'd like to see the United States return to a more pre-World War 2 mentality. I'm tired of being the world's police. Bring all our troops back home and take all that money we're pumping into operating abroad, and put it into improving military technology and infrastructure. This way, our boys are better equipped when it is time to fight, and the whole of our nation's defense isn't spread out across a hundred-million miles of planet.
Constitution: It's gotten us this far. I love it. I adhere to it. I think we've over-interpreted the shit out of it. The fact that a police officer can get in trouble for illegal search and seizure when it pertains to a known criminal, or an obviously criminal incident is a gross misinterpretation of our 4th amendment rights. Here's some trivia:
Police officers involved with K-9 (everything from drug dogs to attack dogs) keep their animals with them at all times. This means the dog is present in routine traffic stops.
If an officer pulls someone over for speeding, and his dog alerts on narcotics, without consent of the driver, the officer is restricted (by the 4th amendment) from making an arrest.
Something tells me our founders might disagree with that...
o.O
Political thread = flame bait
/endrant
|
On September 17 2010 13:13 Yurebis wrote:
If you support socialized healthcare and education, you shouldn't be calling yourself a libertarian imo.
I think Libertarian is one of the most mangled words in the modern "debate" (if such a thing could be called a debate)
Libertarianism has its roots within communism, however the american Right wing maniacs have attached their capitalist christian worldview to the word and stolen it imo ^^
EDIT: though I'm not sure that's really relevant here 
|
On September 17 2010 13:41 Motiva wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2010 13:13 Yurebis wrote:
If you support socialized healthcare and education, you shouldn't be calling yourself a libertarian imo. I think Libertarian is one of the most mangled words in the modern "debate" (if such a thing could be called a debate) Libertarianism has its roots within communism, however the american Right wing maniacs have attached their capitalist christian worldview to the word and stolen it imo ^^
Idk bout that, but okay
Even then, the op is clearly not either, hes a moderate imo, trying to reconcile everything and sound nice to everyone. No offense, thats what politics is after all.
|
On September 17 2010 13:46 Yurebis wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2010 13:41 Motiva wrote:On September 17 2010 13:13 Yurebis wrote:
If you support socialized healthcare and education, you shouldn't be calling yourself a libertarian imo. I think Libertarian is one of the most mangled words in the modern "debate" (if such a thing could be called a debate) Libertarianism has its roots within communism, however the american Right wing maniacs have attached their capitalist christian worldview to the word and stolen it imo ^^ Idk bout that, but okay Even then, the op is clearly not either, hes a moderate imo, trying to reconcile everything and sound nice to everyone. No offense, thats what politics is after all.
Hmmm, I maybe oversimplified a bit To be more accurate it began to my knowledge from communists that had anarchist tendancies, and It's definitely more accurate to say that it has anarchist roots
My point was more to say that Libertarianism doesn't strictly mean religious capitalist, and can mean socialist as well.... Just not in America :D
|
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.
|
On September 17 2010 13:51 Motiva wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2010 13:46 Yurebis wrote:On September 17 2010 13:41 Motiva wrote:On September 17 2010 13:13 Yurebis wrote:
If you support socialized healthcare and education, you shouldn't be calling yourself a libertarian imo. I think Libertarian is one of the most mangled words in the modern "debate" (if such a thing could be called a debate) Libertarianism has its roots within communism, however the american Right wing maniacs have attached their capitalist christian worldview to the word and stolen it imo ^^ Idk bout that, but okay Even then, the op is clearly not either, hes a moderate imo, trying to reconcile everything and sound nice to everyone. No offense, thats what politics is after all. Hmmm, I maybe oversimplified a bit To be more accurate it began to my knowledge from communists that had anarchist tendancies, and It's definitely more accurate to say that it has anarchist roots My point was more to say that Libertarianism doesn't strictly mean religious capitalist, and can mean socialist as well.... Just not in America :D
America is what counts yo
Also mr.bitter is a better example of a libertarian today. U go boy.
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.
even better lols
lets hijack this thread
jk I stop now.
|
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 suppose I may as well jump in, even though I'm not much for debating in general. I'm pretty liberal socially, and waver on where I stand fiscally.
I'm pro-choice, pro gay marriage and pro just about anything else that doesn't directly negatively effect me, or anyone else. I'm pro legalization of marijuana at least.
State governments are generally terrible, country and city even worse; watch them on C-SPAN sometime. I'm fine with them existing as they currently are but do some research into the level of corruption that goes on the more local politics become. This is also how creationism gets into school curriculum, and how Texas gets to screw with textbooks used nationwide.
I'm for a progressive income tax. I think the highest income tax bracket should be far higher than it currently is. It was much higher as recently as Regan, but everyone seems to have forgotten that. I'm coming around to the idea that the capital gains tax should be abolished, but investment income should just be taxed the same as income. I'm open to a larger deduction on investment income.
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.
I think the size of the military and the size of its expenditures should be reduced, healthcare should be nationalized, and all elections should be government funded. I think the school year should be lengthened, teachers should be paid more and receive results based incentives and the teachers unions are too powerful. I'm pretty anti-gun, but don't have a problem with people keeping them for hunting, sport, or personal defense (though I think this is a BS reason) as long as they're licensed and not fully-automatic. I want immigration reform, and am ok with some form of amnesty.
I suppose that's enough for now.
Edit: One more thing. We should re-engage in the Doha round of world trade talks and give up what they want, a reduction in the maximum amount of agricultural subsidies we give (an amount we likely will never reach anyway). Also we should do away with, or at least reconfigure our farm subsidies.
|
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.
|
On September 17 2010 13:58 Cider wrote:Show nested quote +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.
yeah man. cauld see this
http://mises.org/media/5230
also search austrian business cycle theory
|
On September 17 2010 13:58 Cider wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
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
|
|
|
On September 17 2010 17:24 HwangjaeTerran wrote:
I´m Above
And I'm on top.
LOL
|
Classical Liberal. The natural evolution of this laissez-faire position is Keynesian macroeconomic intervention, so that is wherr I am.
Chomsky says classical liberalism would turn into Libertarian Socialism; but I don't quite see it.
Edit: where not wear lol
|
Well, I'm for criminalizing religion; for messing around too much with countries' societal decisions via emotion when we should be reasoning out how to become a self-sustainable species.
Eg. Romans w/ Jews
The Caliphate
The Crusades
The Inquisition (not the Spanish one  )
The Holocaust
The Intifada (sp?)
j/k @ above
I'm all for individual freedoms except for the individual paying to support a basic social safety net for the state; a slowly progressive tax that CANNOT be amended; inflation-based financial penalties on laws and regulations with fines. Legalization of abortion up to the 30th week (any fetuses beyond have a probability to SURVIVE outside the womb medically), prostitution and regulation on drugs. Minimal gun regulation but mandatory registration (so if it's stolen I'd be able to say that it wasn't me handling the weapon). Implementation of a merit-based system for education and the sciences.
Blah I don't want to be too comprehensive. I'd take forever.
|
conservative mostly i guess
1.Bring back tariffs on imported goods , especially those made in slave labour countries like China
2.Reduce government spending , cut taxes , cut red tape
3.End illegal wars in Afghanistan and Iraq , close most offshore military bases
4.Child benefit payments stop after first child (to avoid these people that have 10 kids and live off the welfare)
5.Bring back death penalty
6.Decriminalize drugs , thus cutting police budget and prison population.
7.Allow euthanasia for terminally ill people , people over 85 have the option available regardless of whether they are ill or not
8.Better border protection , throw out illegal immigrants
I doubt i'll check this thread much so if you agree with me thats cool , if you disagree with me thats also cool.
|
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.
Anyone see gold hit a new record the other day of 1271 US/Ounce , probably a strong correlation between that and the government heating up the printing presses.Just a thought.
|
On September 17 2010 13:13 Yurebis wrote:
If you support socialized healthcare and education, you shouldn't be calling yourself a libertarian imo.
Might be other stuff I need to address, but this was the first. Yeah, I'm not really a libertarian. Good point.
But first of all, I call myself libertarian with reservations, as I mentioned. But here's why I don't think it's entirely inaccurate: I believe government has two main responsibilities. The first is what we variously might call justice, order, safety, or protection: the guarantee of those (largely negative) rights which can be clearly violated and thus clearly defended and offenders clearly condemned. Now, on the whole, many libertarians will limit the government's role to this purely negative or protective one.
However, some will allow - as I understand it, and this is why I still class myself - that in order to accomplish these negative goals, the government also has some responsibility to maintain larger things, those "necessary" things which private enterprise cannot or historically will not provide. The main one cited is almost always a standing army: most will also allow roads: I would argue that similar logic would extend to schools and hospitals. I realize this is a different point of view from the mainstream of libertarian thought, so I'd like a better label but I don't have one. But I also insist that these programs ought to be worked out on as local a level as possible, rather than being centralized. If I gave myself a label, rather than borrowing current ones, I'd call myself a "localist".
|
On September 17 2010 13:19 chocopan wrote:
When you say you are against abortion, you give a moral position. What is your position on the law? Do you believe it should be criminalized?
Yes, just like theft or murder or assault or fraud or any other form of violence committed against another person. I also tend to think the majority of the blame/penalty should be placed on "doctors" who perform the procedure. I do understand that removing all abortionists wouldn't remove all abortions, but I view it like any other organized criminal activity: you remove the mafia boss, that doesn't remove all the swindlers, but you still have to do it.
I understand that my condemnation of abortion is due in part to my religion, but I really believe that you can't kill human life of any kind without setting the stage for further transgressions of natural law rights.
Unlike, for instance, the following:
On September 17 2010 13:28 Mothxal wrote:
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.
My "anti-gay" sentiment, such as it is, is irrelevant to the argument. And what is it, anyway? Well, it's a personal religious belief. Being gay isn't equivalent to murder or anything; it's more like being an atheist: something I personally disagree with, think is wrong, and aside from conversion and repentance will land you in trouble with God eventually - but in the meantime, it's not really my business, it's between you and God (or if I'm wrong, it's entirely your own business and I was wrong even to think you're wrong at all), and it's certainly not politically relevant. Go ahead, be gay: you still get to vote, conduct business, etc. etc.
My objection to "gay marriage" is semantic, not political: I think that the core of marriage is the reproductive union, which isn't really available to homosexual couples. If it has to be called marriage to make people happy or get their unions recognized, fine I guess, but a distinction gets missed.
On September 17 2010 13:46 Yurebis wrote:
Even then, the op is clearly not either, hes a moderate imo, trying to reconcile everything and sound nice to everyone. No offense, thats what politics is after all.
"Trying to reconcile everything", certainly. Or at least as much as can be reconciled. I don't know about trying to be nice to everyone.
On September 17 2010 13:56 Cauld wrote:
State governments are generally terrible, country and city even worse; watch them on C-SPAN sometime. I'm fine with them existing as they currently are but do some research into the level of corruption that goes on the more local politics become. This is also how creationism gets into school curriculum, and how Texas gets to screw with textbooks used nationwide.
I realize that local governments are a mess (I live half an hour from Detroit, how could I not?): but I'm thinking, for the moment, that this is at least partly due to the (relatively recent) emphasis on the federal government. And it's not like the Federal government is a bastion of purity either!
|
On September 17 2010 14:02 Mothxal wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2010 13:55 Sentenal wrote: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.
"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."
???
|
On September 18 2010 00:50 Sentenal wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2010 14:02 Mothxal wrote:On September 17 2010 13:55 Sentenal wrote: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. "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." ???
He said most of the people who think everything should be optional are reasonably young people from the United States, not that most reasonably young people from the United States want government to be optional.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
