Print

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

[Leafsnail]

Ehhh.... Maybe. What would that common obstacle actually be though? And the methods of dealing with it?

I'd have to agree.  I can't think of many joint demands they could make based on what seem to be their core principles (and I mean actual implementable demands, not vague stuff about the 1% (...who the Tea Party generally don't have a problem with anyway)).

[ECrownofFire]

Since society exists the systems we use are workable.

Edit: Note that workable does not mean best or ideal. Or even long lasting.

Workable only implies that it's able to survive to me. Whatever, I think we can both agree that there's really NO system that's truly ideal anyway.

Ehhh.... Maybe. What would that common obstacle actually be though? And the methods of dealing with it?

I'd have to agree.  I can't think of many joint demands they could make based on what seem to be their core principles (and I mean actual implementable demands, not vague stuff about the 1% (...who the Tea Party generally don't have a problem with anyway)).

Hmm, perhaps outlawing lobbying?

[Criptfeind]

Does the tea party want that though? Why? Would that not be a increase in government meddling?

[Glowcat]

Does the tea party want that though? Why? Would that not be a increase in government meddling?

There are a few elements that do seem to support limits to influencing government. Whether they're numerous enough that it's possible to legitimately say THE TEA PARTY wants to limit influence over government is another matter.

[SalmonGod]

Does the tea party want that though? Why? Would that not be a increase in government meddling?

No, because governments are lobbied by businesses who want special privileges.  The business may be the initiator in lobbying, but the things they lobby for are government meddlings.  Eliminating unfair lobbying by large businesses and the super rich would be a reduction in government meddling.  It would put competition back in the market where it belongs, according to free market ideals, instead of in legislation.  At the same time, it would increase the equality of representation in government, according to socialist ideals.

This is exactly the kind of specific goal that OWS and Tea Party can unite on.

[Criptfeind]

according to free market ideals

Does the Tea party want that?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

according to free market ideals

Does the Tea party want that?

Members of the tea party are generally conservative, and conservatives generally like the idea of inventing free market solutions to economic problems instead of direct government intervention. With corporations put where they belong, free market solutions by Congress might actually be viable, instead of the corporate lobbying profit schemes we have now.

[Nadaka]

according to free market ideals

Does the Tea party want that?

Some people in the Tea Party may, but the Koch brothers, Rupert Murdoch and other side channel leaders who bankroll the group very much do not.

[Aqizzar]

according to free market ideals

Does the Tea party want that?

They think they do.  They really don't of course, but it's what they believe about themselves.

As far as meddling goes, they're not totally wrong, and I think Salmon's got it backwards.  What business lobbyists want is a lack of government meddling in their affairs.  Kickbacks and tax breaks are not meddling, to a certain extent.  You can plausible argue that they get that way - companies qualifying for so many tax credits that they get money back from the IRS is inherently against "the free market", but that's not really the point.  The point is, businesses want the government out of their business, and they convinced the Tea Party that they want that too, because in their minds anyone's "freedom" is everyone's "freedom", even when talking about giving businesses freedom to act directly against their own interests.

[SalmonGod]

Umm.... yes... that's the stated goal I constantly hear from Libertarians, anyway... a "True Free Market", which they claim has never actually existed or at least not for a very long time.  Their ideal is that government only exists to enforce contracts and maintain a standing army for defense purposes only, and everything outside of that is governed by consumer choice in the market.  Their main criticism of any other form of government, is that it becomes a parallel arena for businesses to compete with each other over legislation, which leads to government influence instead of consumer choice in the market picking and choosing which businesses will become successful and leading to corrupt monopolies.

I don't agree with all of that, but this is how it's been explained to me by the most articulate libertarians I know and I can understand their style of reasoning.

[Criptfeind]

But the Tea party is not... Libertarian... Well. Some what. But not what you are describing.

I avoided this for a while. But. Since it already happened by Nadaka.

Koch.

[SalmonGod]

They think they do.  They really don't of course, but it's what they believe about themselves.

Well, like I said... they've been very heavily co-opted.  The whole thing has been turned into a doublespeak arguing with itself.  The couple people I know who have been long-time libertarians, Ron Paul supporters, and were all gung-ho about the Tea Party when it first started have been very frustrated with the way things have gone.

[ECrownofFire]

They think they do.  They really don't of course, but it's what they believe about themselves.

Well, like I said... they've been very heavily co-opted.  The whole thing has been turned into a doublespeak arguing with itself.  The couple people I know who have been long-time libertarians, Ron Paul supporters, and were all gung-ho about the Tea Party when it first started have been very frustrated with the way things have gone.

Very much this. I have seen several things about the Tea Party basically being dead now.

[Criptfeind]

Anyone remember when the Tea party first got on the news in 2007 or so? I remember everyone thinking it was pretty much a joke.

[Aqizzar]

Anyone remember when the Tea party first got on the news in 2007 or so? I remember everyone thinking it was pretty much a joke.

Actually, no.  As far as I remember, the first time anybody started mentioning a "Tea Party", it was in March of 2009, as a preemptive reaction to Obama administration's first health care proposals.  It was exactly that for about a month before Americans For Prosperity crashed the party, and the rest is history.

It made sense then, since some people figured a health insurance mandate would be part of the eventual package (as Hillary Clinton and Bob Dole had proposed before), and they picked up on the Tea Party of yore as a reaction to the government functioning as an arm of private business.  The tragic irony of course was that they wound up being bought and sold by businesses, and convinced themselves what they really hated was government control of health care, and eventually wound up with a "package" that was basically just a business-friendly mandate with almost none of the policy reforms and cost controls that anybody who wasn't a paid spokesman of the pharmaceutical industry actually wanted.