Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Zrk2]

I mean that by maintaining some moderation on it would allow the government to ensure that those crises were averted, while still protecting most rights and achieving most of the goals of my ideal.

[Aqizzar]

I mean that by maintaining some moderation on it would allow the government to ensure that those crises were averted, while still protecting most rights and achieving most of the goals of my ideal.

Doesn't it strike you that a statement like that is so vague and nebulous as to be meaningless as a political philosophy?  I want personal freedoms and protection from people with more money than me taking advantage of me without giving the government enough power to take advantage of me.  Too.

That is not a plan or a goal or a theory of any kind, it is a statement of the human condition.  My point is that the total-freedom "ideal" you consider core to this is inherently destructive to your goals.  And saying "well obviously there needs to be some moderation" without any indication of knowing what that moderation would be, except believing the industrial world as current is somehow too stifling, renders the whole idea meaningless.

The ideal you are championing is directly contrary to the well being of anyone except the already-wealthy, you fully recognize this, and when confronted with it, fold the whole thing into a hollow platitude devoid of goal or direction.  That's why I'm asking, why hold onto it?

[Zrk2]

Because well being should come from exercising your rights, not drinking from the nanny states udder.

The moderation I think necessary would take the form of employment insurance, guaranteed pensions, and regulation of most economic sectors to ensure that no one company can take over them and milk them for all they are worth, like the oil companies currently.

[Aqizzar]

...drinking from the nanny states udder.

...employment insurance, guaranteed pensions...

Is it very difficult to say this without being insulting, but there it is: you really don't know what you're arguing for or against, do you?  If there's some kind of barrier between these positions, I'd love you hear you describe it.

[Zrk2]

I want as little of them as possible. This unfortunately shows that my utopia will never be achieved because people are not inherently moral. Bam, the second I enter into practical politics, this happens. Oh well, I can always retreat into cynicism.

[ECrownofFire]

Because well being should come from exercising your rights, not drinking from the nanny states udder.

The moderation I think necessary would take the form of employment insurance, guaranteed pensions, and regulation of most economic sectors to ensure that no one company can take over them and milk them for all they are worth, like the oil companies currently.

Damn, oil, I knew I was forgetting a big oligopoly. (I really like that word, in case it wasn't clear, it's fun to say though)

Also, look at what this test shows this of me:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

I'm really only farther on the left because laissez-faire capitalism is stupid, and I don't like monopolies and big companies. I'm all for personal economic freedom, but corporations should be limited (you should be able to buy from who you want, and you should be able to start your own company if you can do better). I'm on the exact opposite side of most of the US too, woo! I'm almost completely libertarian, you can do whatever you want as long as you don't hurt yourself or others. But really, what kind of a government fits that? The exact opposite of what I'm looking for is Corporatism, but pure Democracy doesn't work, especially with laissez-faire capitalism. Any kind of dictatorship is a big no as well.

[Zrk2]

I peg the same as far as libertarianism goes, but right instead of left (By about the same amount)

[ECrownofFire]

I peg the same as far as libertarianism goes, but right instead of left (By about the same amount)

That's interesting, would explain how much we disagree on the economic oligopoly thing though

I'd actually like to see an overall graph of B12 for this test. I think it'd be really cool to see what the political spectrum looks like. We need more people to take this test.

[Pnx]

I'm a couple of squares up and to the right of CrownofFire. There were a fair few questions there that I thought to myself "who on earth would answer yes/no to that" but of course I know there are people out there that think that way in spite of how obviously wrong it might seem to me.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I'm near-maximum libertarian, dead center on conservative-liberal.

[ed boy]

I did that and got right in the middle of both axes.

Although, there were problems with the test - some statements I felt indifferent about, and agree/disagree was too crude a response for how I felt about some statements.

They are inherent in morality. One could argue that rational thinking originated rights. It makes sense that every person is free to do with their own self as they wish. That is the basis of the right to property, from which all other rights are extrapolated.

Basically, the rights are there because they are. There is no "why" to them.

I'm going to have to disgree with you. You seem to be saying that there exist some universal rights that are eternal and immutable. As for how we know about these rights, it seems to stem from "rational thinking" or that they are "inherently obvious". A hundred years ago, it was similarly obvious that women should not be allowed to vote, or that black people should not be allowed to eat in the same restaurants as white people. If you were to ask someone from that time period why this was the case, I'm sure you would be given the same excuses.

[DJ]

@ DJ : Please, provide better counter-ideas. We do not change the world by saying someone else is wrong (let alone without detailed and accurate information). Instead, we get far better results by providing a better alternative reality.

I don't have to be a musician to recognize that a band sucks, why would I have to be a politician to reject stupid policies?

But.....

Who defines rights if they ideally didn't?

The people. Simple as that.

The government *is* the people, in the sense that it represents their political will, at least in democratic countries.

[malimbar04]

@ DJ : Please, provide better counter-ideas. We do not change the world by saying someone else is wrong (let alone without detailed and accurate information). Instead, we get far better results by providing a better alternative reality.

I don't have to be a musician to recognize that a band sucks, why would I have to be a politician to reject stupid policies?

True, but only if you don't care to progress the conversation.

I could say that your house is about to fall down, and I may be right, but that is pretty useless (and questionably accurate) information. If you show me a support that is bearing too much weight, and you tell me how to reinforce it, then the problem is MUCH more likely to be resolved.

@ the general conversation : This is an interesting debate on what a government should do. I think it's safe to say that it differs by who makes up the government. A group of libertarains will have a small government (how small depends on what compermises they make). A group of socialists will make up a commune of sorts, with everyone taking a pre-determined share of what everyone produces.

I read a while ago that true dictatorships don't exist (much like pure socialistic societies don't exist). The problem is that one ruler can not possibly control all the things that a government should do, and everyone ruling never gets anything done. Thus they both gravitate toward the more efficient oligopolies. Dictarships use numerous advisors, and socialists organize leaders. The republic is interesting here because while it still uses an oligopoly, it is relatively controlled by the people through voting.

Unfortunately even a republic has shown huge signs of corruption, inefficiency, and questionable and unchangable laws. The checks put in place (multiple congresses, juries, and so forth) don't seem to be very good at getting rid of bad policies. It gets so bad that we still have laws like "the husband owns his wife's hair", that nobody recognizes because it's so silly.

[ECrownofFire]

@ DJ : Please, provide better counter-ideas. We do not change the world by saying someone else is wrong (let alone without detailed and accurate information). Instead, we get far better results by providing a better alternative reality.

I don't have to be a musician to recognize that a band sucks, why would I have to be a politician to reject stupid policies?

But.....

Who defines rights if they ideally didn't?

The people. Simple as that.

The government *is* the people, in the sense that it represents their political will, at least in democratic countries.

Well, no. Not at all really. Even in "democratic" states (just try and find a successful pure democracy for anything larger than a single city). Ever hear of the "tyranny of the majority"? Quite simply, the government furthers its own goals, or more precisely, the goals of the leaders of that government. The government may be made by the people, but it's almost never for the people. It's for the persons controlling the government. Ultimately, yes, what's best for the country is best for the government, but "the country" is not the people. "The country" is just another way of saying the government. The country IS the government. The political will of the people points to a general philosophy, not to the actions that the politicians make.

No matter what you may think, the US is not democratic on the federal level. Democracy rarely comes into play for the federal level, if ever. You always vote for a person, who votes on what happens themselves. It's a republic, plain and simple.

[DJ]

You vote for people because they stand for things you agree with. If they then violate your trust by failing to act in accordance to their stated program, you vote them out next elections. If you vote for them again despite their failures, you only have yourself to blame.

And I don't see how tyranny of majority causes conflict. The goals of majority are the goals of the people, even if they're bad.