Print

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

[Zrk2]

This forum currently lacks a politics thread. Consider that remedied. The purpose of this thread is to discuss the political spectrum, and the merits of the various positions on it. I am a Libertarian, and I find that this is the easiest way to quantify one's position on the political spectrum:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

It is an gross oversimplification, but it helps as a rough measure.

I know these threads have a tendency to end horribly, but let's try to avoid that this time.

[Megaman]

This thread will crash and burn. Guaranteed.

[Zrk2]

I know, but sometimes a trainwreck is fun to watch.

Any serious discussion?

[Renault]

I know these threads have a tendency to end horribly, but let's try to avoid that this time.

Best of luck with that. This is the internet.

So, it'd probably help to have a topic a little more defined than present. Otherwise, it'll probably just be people saying their own beliefs until someone else says those beliefs are wrong, whereupon we degenerate.
I think the best way to keep a focused and sane discussion of politics to have a very specific topic and disallow great deviation from it.

As totalitarian as that makes me. xD

[Aqizzar]

This forum currently lacks a politics thread.

I know these threads have a tendency to end horribly, but let's try to avoid that this time.

The forum lacks what now?  Honestly, I think without a specific incident or concept to discuss, there's really nowhere for this to go except people to reiterate their personal spiels once again, while everyone either gets angry or talks past each other.  Good luck, but personally I really have nothing else to say on anything, without being prompted.

[Realmfighter]

Watching US politics makes me happy that even our Conservatives are more liberal then your Liberals.

[Zrk2]

I was hoping to get people to describe their own beliefs, and then we could discuss them.

I am a Libertarian: One should be able to do whatever one wants, so long as one does not violate the rights of others. The government has the legal monopoly of the use of force, and so is the single  most dangerous entity in any society, and so it must be strictly controlled. The purpose of said government is to protect the people. That means:
-Police
-Military
-Courts
-Jails
-Anti-fraud department (Also make sure that no financial crimes like ponzi schemes and whatnot are not happening.)
-Roads (Because I cannot think of any other way they cold be handled)

Re Aqizzar: Ok, I know your view of these threads. I didn't really expect you to

Realmfighter: Where is that?

[Fayrik]

Uhh.
Wat.

I appreciate the whole subject/thread thing.. But you've not really gotten the ball rolling.
Like, if this where 10-pin, your ball litterally isn't rolling. You're not even gunna hit the gutters with this.

...Or, removing the metaphor:

Any serious discussion?

You're the OP. You start.
You can hardly start a topic and then rely on someone else to make it about something.
...Unless...
This topic is now about Penut butter and Jelly.
An odd combination, that originated in the states.
It is usually applied to either toast or some form of sandwich.
I personally find it delicious, what about everyone else?

(Also, I find it a little bit wrong to just outright declare yourself as x, y or z. My GF told me that she spoke to someone online who claims to be a Communist Nazi... And the point I'm making with this is, it is actually possible. Your political views are your moral views, so it's perfectly reasonable that you may like chunks of the right side, you may like chunks of the left. Or you might just hate it all.)

[Renault]

Alright, I'll bite. Lets talk about your nascent libertarianism.

What about economic matters? Even the most ardent Free-market defenders recognize monopolies possess great amounts of power over the economy; enough they could be as "dangerous" as the government. Do you think government has the right to regulate monopolies and other trusts?

[Vector]

Hohoho, getting ready to watch the econ-major steamroll

(Also, we are about to go to school and I can now recognize you from your enormous hair)

[Renault]

Shh, Vector, don't spoil this for me. I can't wait for someone to mention the Laffer Curve; that ones always fun. xD

(Also, hoorah! I'd heard you weren't coming back, or something. Glad thats not the case.)

[Strife26]

Laffer Curve.

There, I've mentioned it. If memory serves it has something to do with the point where additional levels of management counteract the productivity boost large firms get. I'm fairly sure that memory doesn't serve here.

I'm relatively middle of the road for straight politics, liberal on domestic issues, conservative on foreign affairs. In an economic sense, I feel that the government has a responsibility to protect against monopolies, becuase capitalism kinda gets broken with them.

[Bouchart]

The U.S., European and Japanese political systems are largely broken and there's gonna be rapid and dangerous change in these areas over the next few years.  By the way, I'm fairly Libertarian.

[Vector]

(Also, hoorah! I'd heard you weren't coming back, or something. Glad thats not the case.)

(No, I left but now I'm coming back :I  And I have a whole 2.5 years that I get to stay, too!  It's so exciting!

Oh my gosh oh my gosh)


But, back to your regularly scheduled political debates.  I personally choose to abstain on grounds of naivety, which I know sounds ridiculous.  My early youth was spent communism-fangirling (no joke, I was really into it from the ages of 5 through , and nowadays I guess I'm in a sort of mostly-capitalist socialist mode.  For example, French socialism with its constant strikes is problematic.

Actually, let me put it this way.  I think the system needs to fit the culture.  There is no one best system.  Canada should do what works for Canada, France should do what works for France, the US should do what works for the US.  Right now, I think we do need to cut back on spending for a while.  It's going to be hard, but it's necessary.  Being debt-free would be a very, very, very good thing, though I mostly speak as a matter of principle (as I hear mutual economic debt can really help stop wars).

After that, maybe we'll have a better chance... but for now, our standards of livings are pretty darned good, and I bet they'd still be pretty darned good if we did a little tax-raising for education and national debt purposes.  We can take a couple of hits in other areas, if we have to.  Hell, if we started working on a public transportation system or something (:I) we might be able to save money in the long run...

[/wishful thinking]

As far as social reform, though, I'm a hard-left liberal.  Discrimination is a Bad Thing and helping-hand-style social nets are good, too.

[Aqizzar]

Laffer Curve.

There, I've mentioned it. If memory serves it has something to do with the point where additional levels of management counteract the productivity boost large firms get. I'm fairly sure that memory doesn't serve here.

Oh goody, Strife mentioned something I actually know.  The Laffer curve is actually a theoretical limit to how much social services a government can provide, as paid for by whatever level of taxes needed to pay for it, until eventually a significant enough number people decide it's more in their interest to not work and live on the government dole, that raising taxes winds up reducing revenue.  American conservatives like to believe that line is anywhere above 0% taxes or any social services.  In reality, it's been borne out in practice exactly once in history - in Sweden in the late 90s, people got public transportation, public education through college level, unlimited medical services, and guaranteed minimal housing and food, in exchange for a national income tax of around 60% (it's probably not a flat rate, but you get the idea).  They raised it to 65%, and saw a fair number people start quitting their jobs and living on the welfare system, since it wasn't much worse than what they could buy with after-tax wages anyway (free riders are an inherent problem in a system that garauntees you can never die from being poor, but historically was 10% of the population at worst before the period in question). They dropped it back down to 60% again and made a few budget cuts.

I'm undoubtedly glossing over some details, but I was given this story by a doctor of economics who knew Arthur Laffer personally.  Mr. Laffer was actually quite surprised by the turn of events himself, since he believed such a government was purely theoretical and only came up with the idea as a drunken sales pitch for a Ford-era tax cut proposal.