EPTTechnically, but not in the sense that you make it out to be. It's like saying that the Democratic Pary's philosphy is punishing hardworkers to reward freeloaders.
President Obama Re-Elected - Page 140
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Hey guys! We'll be closing this thread shortly, but we will make an American politics megathread where we can continue the discussions in here. The new thread can be found here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=383301 | ||
|
1Eris1
United States5797 Posts
Technically, but not in the sense that you make it out to be. It's like saying that the Democratic Pary's philosphy is punishing hardworkers to reward freeloaders. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
you're testing my googling skills when you use big words like "laissez-faire" but from a quick wiki read up it seems that this ideology is essentially economic libertarianism, based around the Austrian school of economics. I'm pretty shocked that laissez-faire wasn't taught in your schools (~1700s+) but will readily use economic libertarianism to describe something! :S. I hear that thinking liberals have a government solution to every societal problem is a straw man argument. Then I read Hmmm ... I would argue that there are certain portions of the Libertarian and Republican party that truly are idealistic. That their utopia consists of a free, deregulated market, and given more opportunity and less restrictions, this would create a more prosperous society which would somehow normalize into a meritocracy. Their fantasy is that the world is fair; that all opportunity is created equal, and that everyone is a fair judge of progress or has shared values. Hell, in a world where everyone starts off exactly the same and has the same values, maybe libertarianism works. Note: not saying all Republicans believe this, but I do think some do. There is such a thing as people that are born with so much good fortune that they don't consider how they've benefitted from it. I think Romney truly believes if you just work super-duper hard, you can be a multi-million-billionaire private equity investor, too! So, arguing over straw is par for the course. If my fantasy is that the world is fair ... and this fantasy is the underpinnings of my belief, it seems straw men are the way each side views the other. So, continue with business as usual. And I'm a liberal in the sense that I want to change the current relationship between citizens and government. Undo the natural course of things towards more government intervention in the economy. | ||
|
sunprince
United States2258 Posts
On June 19 2012 11:28 sam!zdat wrote: Mostly just a willfully oblivious attitude towards injustice. More like bigger injustices don't solve smaller ones. To a libertarian, things like affirmative action are a bigger injustice than the inequality they "solve". Also, c'mon, we just had a legitimate discussion a few pages ago on negative externalities, capitalism, and legal rights. You can do better than strawman one-liners. | ||
|
DocTheMedic
United States79 Posts
On June 19 2012 09:00 Signet wrote: This seems to be agreeing with what I said  Before the late 1800s, it was (legally speaking) very easy for people to migrate to the United States. Things like the Chinese Exclusion Act, national quotas for immigrants, or deportations are examples of government actions that could be called immoral or at best morally questionable. When I say "doing something moral" or "doing positive moral actions" I mean actively doing something that could be considered good. Say, providing free health care to poor people. That's a good thing, but it comes with costs you have to weigh it against. On the other hand, ceasing to enforce slaveowners' "property rights" or ceasing to deport foreign-born children who peacefully live in our country isn't really providing people with anything. It's simply not doing something that isn't right. I see, so what you mean by cost isn't consequences, it's whether or not the government has the power to do something. It was easy for the government to stop enforcing "property rights," though it did require some effort of the government to create bureaucracies to ensure an orderly transition from slave life into American citizen life as part of Reconstruction. There will probably costs incurred by legalizing the residents here. For one, the job market will definitely be more competitive: Dreamers don't go struggle to afford college without financial aid to work in the fields or in the back of Walmart. However, since they certainly deserve it (especially if their job qualifications exceed the current legal residents in spite of being handicapped by their undocumented status, the costs are certainly pale compared to doing what's right. | ||
|
Defacer
Canada5052 Posts
Chillax. We're just shooting the shit here. In other news, Mitt Romney said something fucking nuts in a CBS Interview. Here's an op-ed from The American Conservative. Fortunately, Romney is not reckless and has mature foreign policy views. He has told us so himself: "I can assure you if I’m president, the Iranians will have no question but that I will be willing to take military action if necessary to prevent them from becoming a nuclear threat to the world. I don’t believe at this stage, therefore, if I’m president that we need to have a war powers approval or special authorization for military force [bold mine-DL]. The President has that capacity now. I understand that some in the Senate for instance have written letters to the President indicating you should know that a containment strategy is unacceptable. "We cannot survive a course of action would include a nuclear Iran [bold mine-DL] we must be willing to take any and all actions. All those actions must be on the table." These are not statements that Romney’s critics are putting into his mouth. No one is speculating about what Romney’s position on Iran might be, and no one is imputing views to him that he doesn’t claim to hold. He is telling the public plainly that he believes the United States cannot survive a containment policy directed against Iran. It is fair to conclude from this that Romney is delusional (or is pretending to be delusional) and cannot be entrusted with the responsibilities of the Presidency. The United States survived decades of containing Soviet power. America outlasted what may have been the greatest security threat in our history partly because of a policy of containment. Iran is far weaker than any threat the USSR ever posed. If the U.S. could not survive a nuclear-armed Iran, a President Romney would be powerless to change that. On the other hand, back in the real world, if the U.S. has little to fear from a nuclear-armed Iran and is more than capable of deterring any threat from Iran, there is no reason to listen to anything Romney has to say on this subject. Romney obviously does not believe war is a last resort, and he clearly doesn’t believe that the Congress has anything to say about attacking Iran. According to Romney, it is something that the President could do tomorrow if he believed it necessary. The Constitution is completely irrelevant to Romney, and so is the consent of the American people expressed through its representatives. No one should have any illusions about how Romney would conduct foreign policy if he is elected. http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/romneys-delusion-america-cannot-survive-containing-a-nuclear-iran/ | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
This is a good thing. We want to always be questioning why we believe the things we believe. We never want to be complacent about why we believe things. You can't do this without other people outrightly challenging your beliefs, even if you are undoubtedly correct. This is why freedom of speech is so incredibly important. A utopia would be a place where freedom of speech isn't necessary. That's a scary thought indeed. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On June 19 2012 12:43 DoubleReed wrote: This is a good thing. We want to always be questioning why we believe the things we believe. We never want to be complacent about why we believe things. You can't do this without other people outrightly challenging your beliefs, even if you are undoubtedly correct. This is why freedom of speech is so incredibly important. A utopia would be a place where freedom of speech isn't necessary. That's a scary thought indeed. Disagree strongly. What you point out is INTEGRAL to Utopia, not hostile to it. Consider: When everyone knows beauty is beauty, this is bad. When everyone knows good is good, this is not good. So being and nonbeing produce each other: difficulty and ease complement each other, long and short shape each other, high and low contrast with each other, voice and echoes conform to each other, before and after go along with each other. So sages manage effortless service and carry out unspoken guidance. All beings work, without exception: if they live without possessiveness, act without presumption, and do not dwell on success, then by this very nondwelling success will not leave -Daodejing 2 | ||
|
Lightwip
United States5497 Posts
On June 19 2012 12:42 Defacer wrote: Chillax. We're just shooting the shit here. In other news, Mitt Romney said something fucking nuts in a CBS Interview. Here's an op-ed from The American Conservative. Don't think too much into it. Most presidents since Nixon haven't really been fond of the War Powers Resolution Act. However, it's a bit of a stalemate in that no one knows how the WPRA would hold up in court and neither Congress nor the president really want to find out. So they both basically tread lightly but try to gain more control. For the rest of the discussion: Sure, Republicans have some good, valuable ideas. That's very hard to deny. But I simply don't see how any sane person could really support the current state of the party even as a life long Republican. If I were a Republican, I would've ditched my party by now on the principle of them straying way too far into the realm of utter stupidity. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On June 19 2012 11:30 xDaunt wrote: No, because libertarians have a fundamentally different view of justice. edit: nvm not trying to fight edit again: American politics misses the mark when it talks about "bigger" and "smaller" government. The question should be about the elegance and efficiency of governmental organization, not size. Our system needs to be redesigned from the ground up. | ||
|
BluePanther
United States2776 Posts
On June 19 2012 14:28 sam!zdat wrote: Our system needs to be redesigned from the ground up. ... and it gets redesigned from the top down. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
| ||
|
BluePanther
United States2776 Posts
On June 19 2012 14:41 sam!zdat wrote: Ah! You noticed The problem is that when it's then designed from the bottom up, by people from the bottom, isn't the old bottom just the new top? It's a power-ful dilemma. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
edit: But yes there is certainly that danger, and it is a very important thing to consider, often forgotten. | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
On June 19 2012 14:25 sam!zdat wrote: Disagree strongly. What you point out is INTEGRAL to Utopia, not hostile to it. Consider: ??? This quote seems to be precisely what I say. What happens if people speak out against the utopia status quo? If there's one thing I've learned at TeamLiquid, people will complain about anything and everything. Except for the last lines, which makes it sound dystopic. Nothing about the dynamics of human relationships? We work without exception? What about pleasure and leisure? And the 'do not dwell on success' also sounds a little weird, honestly, like once again this may be a world without pleasure and entertainment. | ||
|
Derez
Netherlands6068 Posts
On June 19 2012 12:42 Defacer wrote: Chillax. We're just shooting the shit here. In other news, Mitt Romney said something fucking nuts in a CBS Interview. Here's an op-ed from The American Conservative. http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/romneys-delusion-america-cannot-survive-containing-a-nuclear-iran/ The war powers position is the same position every president during the imperial presidency has maintained. The executive branch has never affirmed the war powers act and considers it not binding. Nothing crazy there. His actual foreign policy I disagree with entirely. Neo-conservatism has failed as foreign policy and I think advocating it is insane. You'd expect regular US citizens to make the same judgement, but it helps when wars are fought by largely lower class citizens, allowing the rest to vote on whatever bs issue of the day concerns them. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On June 19 2012 20:48 DoubleReed wrote: What happens if people speak out against the utopia status quo? You have a very particular idea about what utopia is supposed to be that is not what I am talking about. You assume already that it is "dystopia" My point is that if we are going to make a better world it will address all of these problems that you point out. We work without exception? What about pleasure and leisure? And the 'do not dwell on success' also sounds a little weird, honestly, like once again this may be a world without pleasure and entertainment. Can you read these lines in another way? "All beings work, without exception" can be interpreted many different ways - can you hold all of them in your mind at once? What is "work?" What are different things that "exception" could mean? There is a difference between "having no success" and "not dwelling on success" - what is it? Note that "by this very nondwelling/success will not leave," so what we have here is not a rejection of success. What is success, anyway? I don't know where you get the idea about no pleasure or entertainment. Nothing about that here at all. | ||
|
0neder
United States3733 Posts
On June 19 2012 14:39 BluePanther wrote: ... and it gets redesigned from the top down. The abandonment of timeless successful principles and morality has absolutely no bearing on the principles themselves that underly our government. IMO, you're just spewing rash philosophy that gets regurgitated and tried once every generation only to flop and hurt society. To quote Milton Friedman, "So that the record of history is absolutely crystal clear. That there is no alternative way, so far discovered, of improving the lot of the ordinary people that can hold a candle to the productive activities that are unleashed by a free enterprise system." | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On June 20 2012 01:09 0neder wrote: [To quote Milton Friedman, "So that the record of history is absolutely crystal clear. That there is no alternative way, so far discovered, of improving the lot of the ordinary people that can hold a candle to the productive activities that are unleashed by a free enterprise system." So why don't we get to work on this? Seems like a worthy project. edit: Unless of course Mr. Friedman is the ultimate nostradamus of economic theory, in which case holy shit are we all fucked. edit again: not to mention, of course, that the category of "productive activities" remained wholly unexamined here. What are "productive activities?" | ||
|
Lightwip
United States5497 Posts
Government has an important place in economics. To think otherwise is to put too much faith in the moneygrubbers of big business. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On June 20 2012 01:20 Lightwip wrote: Government has an important place in economics. To think otherwise is to put too much faith in the moneygrubbers of big business. Liberals like to forget that they had to create the modern state in the 18th century in order to have capitalism in the first place. They prefer to think of themselves as arising fully formed from the "state of nature" It is a strange sort of prudishness | ||
| ||
