Political discussion thread

The Doctor wrote: First, no one is ever going to be 100% free.  Unless he/she chooses to live out in the wild and have zero contact with any other person.  Even then, you're not free from nature.  The freedom of one is always going to go up against the power of another.  The best we can hope for is to minimize the amount of power anyone can exert over another, and thereby maximize the amount of freedom each person has.  Of course government is one institution that exerts power over individuals, but so do corporations, employers, banks, landlords, etc., etc., etc.  Those who exert power must have their power reduced in order that those without power have at least some measure of real freedom.  Freedom is not just freedom from government intervention in the lives of those who have.  Freedom is also the protection of those who have not.  There must be a balance between public power and private power.  For, without such balance, we will merely be trading in one government for a private government (one run solely for the profit of the private entity).

And, like a liberal, you propose a solution that is (even in your view) a part of the problem. 

"Yeah, let's reduce people's freedom, so that we can all be...um, more free!  Yeah!"

I would rather have several small prviate governments run for profit than one big government run for debt.

Epignosis wrote: The Doctor wrote: First, no one is ever going to be 100% free.  Unless he/she chooses to live out in the wild and have zero contact with any other person.  Even then, you're not free from nature.  The freedom of one is always going to go up against the power of another.  The best we can hope for is to minimize the amount of power anyone can exert over another, and thereby maximize the amount of freedom each person has.  Of course government is one institution that exerts power over individuals, but so do corporations, employers, banks, landlords, etc., etc., etc.  Those who exert power must have their power reduced in order that those without power have at least some measure of real freedom.  Freedom is not just freedom from government intervention in the lives of those who have.  Freedom is also the protection of those who have not.  There must be a balance between public power and private power.  For, without such balance, we will merely be trading in one government for a private government (one run solely for the profit of the private entity).  And, like a liberal, you propose a solution that is (even in your view) a part of the problem.  "Yeah, let's reduce people's freedom, so that we can all be...um, more free!  Yeah!"I would rather have several small prviate governments run for profit than one big government run for debt.

(Sorry, I messed up the quote on the last thread, and I can't recall how to edit. It's late)
Once again:
You are proposing feudalism. It would reduce freedom for sure.

The notion of several small private governments run for profit is no more palatable than one big one run for a deficit (deficit is the opposite of profit - debt is the opposite of credit). When the main income into government is taxation (by whatever means) then operating at a net credit means the income is too high, it does not mean "profit". Government run for profit (whether private or public, small or big) is not operating at a profit at all, that "profit" is an operating cost that is nothing more than creative accounting for an increase public spending (basically "profit" is "wages" of the "shareholders"). Deficit can incur debt if the deficit is made up by borrowing, credit can be used to pay-off that debt and profit only result when debt is paid off. There are no simple philosophical/political/fiscal panacea for eliminating a $1.5 trillion deficit and a $11.5 trillion debt that would result in a break-even, zero deficit, zero proifit situation - all measures that can reduce public spending and can increasse public income that can eliminate budget deficit and can eliminate public borrowing should be employed regardless of how unplatable they are to any single political/fiscal philosophy.

Edited by Dean - October 29 2012 at 07:17

Better view, more zoomed in

The T wrote: Another myth: "the center is always good".

That one drives me crazy perhaps more than any other fallacy I encounter regularly.

The T wrote: Another myth: "the center is always good".

The battle cry of the rule-in-hell crowd, right there.

Well, that's not completely true, Logan.  I'm a leftist, but in spite of what a few of you may think, I don't support a Stalin-esque type government.  French style socialism will suit me just fine.  Just as I'm sure most conservatives would not have good things to say about fascism or Hitler.  There are degrees.  And while I am a leftist, I do see the need for some individual liberties and even property rights, believe it or not.  So I do not foresee myself going "all the way to the left". 

@Rob, I understand what you said about my post, but if you completely tie the hands of government, private power will rise to levels of as HackettFan put it: feudalism.  You can only limit government so much, before private power begins to rise to uncomfortable levels (in many ways we are already beyond this point, though in others not so much).  The idea is to get all forms of power (public and private) to the minimum both can be without the other rising. 

thellama73 wrote: smartpatrol wrote: i'm not saying we need to be extremely centrist, just more centrist. At least balanced between the left and right But why? If one side is crorect and the other side is incorrect, why should we aim for the center? If you are a leftist, you should want to go all the way to the left. If you believe in what conservatives believe, you should want to go all the way to the right. Unless you believe that the center is actually the correct choice, but I have not heard you voice that opinion in the past.

I believe that a good balance of Conservatives and Liberals will work best overall.
But the idea that having to go all the way with your views is frankly ridiculous.

Well, despite what I may feel is the right way to run a country, I recognize that everybody won't see that, and I think a good balance of people of every political stance, not just centrists, should be in congress. There's just a lack of centrists in congress, particularly Central Conservatives.

thellama73 wrote: I have never understood why Hitler was considered far right. Nazis were socialists. I guess you could say that conservatives tend to be a bit nationalist, but apart from that I see no similarity. Maybe it's because I tend to think of the left/right divide in economic rather than social terms.

If Hitler was a socialist, then why did he imprison and or execute most communists and socialists?  Hitler was not a socialist in economic terms.  His sole tie to socialism was the placement of the nation above self.  This can be either right or left, although those on the left generally place society (and not nation) above self.  Hitler's sole intent was the protection of the national unity (not the protection of the lower classes or workers but the nation, which in this case meant him and his government).  He was not a Marxist.  He believed in private property rights and contract rights.  And his views have historically been seen as right wing.  It is only the right's current attempts to rewrite history which have confused the matter for some.