by logansrun 31 Replies latest social current
Logan, I'm involved in local politics, and let me tell you first hand, I think of one thing only, JUSTICE FOR ALL. It's not an easy to attain, but it's worth the challenge. You come to see people in their true light, either for justice or just-us.
Guest 77
economics
I don't think we have ever had a totally free market. While there are things like farm subsidies and protectionist taxation then the market is skewed. The more people mess then the more corrections need to be made. Also, I dno't think a totally free market works because of corruption which is not persued with the same vigour as other things.
So, basically, I think that governments mess both too much economically and not enough. They try and put plasters over things that shouldn't be fixed and allow corruption to go unchecked (eg. Enrons).
Communism doesn't world for the same (maybe opposite) reasons and because governments are inefficient and don't do things well. Market forces are needed.
international agenda setting
This is often painted as an all-or-nothing thing: either the US isolates itself or imposes itself on other countries. Why can't it just do what so many other countries do and 'exist' with the rest of the world, sharing and trading but not trying to impose it's own politics and culture?
Again, too much is done and at the same time, not enough. Become more involved in some areas and less involved in others. Be a good world citizen / neighbour just as a person would in a community: pay a fair share of the costs, be nice to the less fortunate, don't pollute etc ...
enviornment
This is where the current leaders fail us and we fail ourselves because no one seems to wake up to the looming crisis of the environment. When it becomes urgent then it will probably be too late. It's probably already urgent.
IMO the most reprehensible behaviour is the tearing up or unwillingness to join in on environmental protection treaties and agreements solely for short-term fiscal and political gain. The population is so compliant (read dumb) that they don't realise that the only people who really benefit are the politicians wanting to protect their own positions and unwilling to take measures that are necessary but would possibly adversely affect their own careers.
Economically (and I realize I still have alot of studying to do on economics) I think a flat tax would be a good idea although I can't entirely get rid of the idea of some kind minimum wage. I have no problem with government grants or loans but I don't like government subsidies that prop up enterprises that can't sustain themselves.
Environmentally, I agree with PS. Isn't better to err on the side of safety?
Internationally, I think the US is far too involved in meddling with other countries and their affairs. I think they way they've tried to bully Canada lately is shameful! As for other areas I've already stated plainly how I feel about those.
At the risk of making myself sound like a Republican, I feel our government is far too large. It's swimming in beaurocracy and leaves little to no room for common sense or personal responsibility.
I rarely vote either Republican or Democrat but for third parties who occasionally actually win. If it is a really tight race between a Republican and a Democrat I'll likely go for the Democrat but I've chosen Republican a few times when I thought they would do a better job.
~Aztec
Aztec, well put. "It's swimming in beaurocracy and leaves little to no room for common sense or personal responsibility." I can attest to that!
As to which party, Dem/Rep?, neither. They both have the same agenda except with a twist to it, it's my turn to drive the bus!
Guest 77
Excellent thoughts on the enviornment, Phantom. Sort of a twist on Pascal's Wager. I like it.
B.
I am a Libertarian. The twin sides of the Libertarian coin are freedom and responsibility. It is an individual-based philosophy ("there is no such thing as society" as Margaret Thatcher once famously said), and embraces aspects that are espoused by both the political left and right. I've been accused of being both by different people at different times, depending upon what the subject of conversation is. In terms of politics, the Libertarian principle is that the only legimate purpose of government is to prevent people harming each other. Thomas Hobbes stated that the basis for human behaviour is self-interest, and thus the natural state of humanity is war, of all against all, in a constant battle to improve our self-interest. Individuals create alliances (tribes, nations, religions etc) in which they make a contract not to harm each other so that they can improve the self-interest of all individuals in the group. In such a group, it is necessary to have a mechanism to enforce this contract, or it is worthless, and in a national grouping, this is known as "the government". In this one purpose, the government should be a powerful government. So, the government's purpose is to prevent us from harming each other. It is not there to provide health services, or education, or welfare, or give the kiddies a free lunch at school. All of these things are beyond the purpose of government, and should be provided privately by individuals. The Economy Adam Smith correctly showed that the best thing a government can do regarding commerce is to get out of the way. Individuals should be free to pursue economic goals without government interference. Markets should be free, which simply means that people should have the freedom to sell their goods and services to each other at a price agreed upon by the parties to the transaction, no matter where they are located. Going with this is responsibility: people have the responsibility to provide for themselves economically, they have no right to expect others to support them, nor should they be expected to support others. Corporations have no social purposes. A corporations only purpose is economic, and that purpose is to make money for its owners. All corporations have this one and only purpose. They accomplish this purpose using different methods (selling goods and services) and using different tools (machinery, employees etc). If the corporation is no longer fulfilling its only purpose, there is no longer any reason for the continued existence of that corporation. There should be no goverment assistance to corporations, for this merely perpetuates inefficiency and stagnation. Nor should there be any protectionist tarriffs or duties placed upon movement of goods and services in order to give certain companies a buffer from free competition. This also stifles innovation and advancement, and has a net negative effect upon the economy. This also means that any taxation beyond the absolute minimum necessary to enable the government to fulfill its one purpose is wrong. Particularly egregious is the mechanism of graded income taxation, since this taxes success and the people who create it. A more Libertarian form of taxation would be a head tax, where each person contributes the minimum necessary to enable the government to stop us harming each other. All other taxation is an injustice and an infringement upon individual freedoms. Social Socially, people should be free to makes their own decisions, but they also have the responsibility to accept the consequences of their decisions. For example: drugs. Under Libertarianism, people are entirely free to decide whether or not to use any particular drugs. It is not the governments job to dictate to them. All drug use should be free and legal. This is the freedom side of the coin. The responsibility side of the coin is that a person must accept the consequences of making poor decisions regarding drugs. It is not the governments purpose to provide rehabilitation centres or programmes funded by taxes. Person A should be free to take drugs, if he so chooses. But persons B, C, and D should also be free of coercion through taxation to subsidise the poor decisions of person A. These two sides of the coin, freedom and responsibility, are the Libertarian approach to virtually any social question. The Libertarian Meritocracy One of the strengths of Libertarianism is that when people are free to make their own decisions and pursue their own economic self-interest without government interference, a meritocracy is created. To put it bluntly: a meritocracy seperates the intelligent and the industrious from the lazy and the stupid. The former succeed, the latter fail. But because the basis of human behaviour is self-interest, far more people will try to improve their circumstances than otherwise, particularly if they know that other people will not be coerced through taxation into supporting their unproductive existence. A meritocracy is natural selection at work, and thinking that the human animal is not subject to natural selection like any other animal is an emotional delusion. This also answers questions like "should the US get more involved internationally". The purpose of the US government is the same as every other government: to prevent people harming each other. If another government harms people, then it should be removed, by force if necessary. This is why I, as a Libertarian, supported the Iraq war. (To be fair here, Libertarians were split on this issue. Quite a lot of them felt that this was not a justification for the Iraq war. I obviously do.) The environment? Firstly, let the market operate. Individual consumers will become more concerned the further the environment deteriorates. Corporations that do not respond to consumer concerns over the environment will not survive economically. Those that do will have a strategic edge. Environmentalism will benefit accordingly. In clear cut cases of individuals or corporations harming others through environmental degradation, the government can fulfill its purpose. It's not a co-incidence that in nations where the government hugely oversteps its legitimate purposes and takes over and runs industry, environmental pollution is horrendous. Objection? Logansrun raised the most common objection: Libertarianism taken to its logical conclusion is heartless. My response? Tough. Utopia is not an option. Everything reduces to numbers. The system which benefits the greatest number of individuals is the superior system. In analysing systems, emotional reaction fogs the clarity of rationality. Expatbrit
"Adam Smith believed that there should be limitations on what corporations should and shouldn't be allowed to get away with. He thought that the English South Sea Bubble scandal of 1711 was an outrage and exactly the kind of thing the public should be protected from. During its run of power, members of parliament took bribes, and members of the corporation got rich, and members of the public got bilked while the worthless stock rose from 128 pounds to 1700 pounds and plummeted back down to 128 pounds again in a single year, purely from speculation urged on by the South Sea Company. The South Sea Company was one of the first corporations ever founded and one of the earliest examples of manic greed speculation. The company was supposed to have been preparing to trade with the new world, when in fact the treaty rights it held with Spain only allowed for one or two cargo loads per year. The company had grand schemes, but really nothing to do. So the worth of the company existed on paper and in the hype of its owners, trading and reissuing new stock, much like Enron today.
Smith also believed that monopolies were the death of the free market, and that the government should do whatever it could to step in and break up monopolies when they formed to insure just competition for the worth of labor. But even more than government regulation, which he believed should be kept to a minimum, Adam Smith was a deep believer in something he called "the unseen hand" - a magical force that would somehow curtail man's baser nature and insure mostly just dealings for most people most of the time.
From an article on Adam Smith
BTW, everyone that believes that unregulated free markets would result in the greatest good for the greatest number, please step this way - specials on bridges today.
Wow ... Expatbrit : I agree with 90 % of what you've said
and about that :
My response? Tough. Utopia is not an option (A) .
(A) utopia is to believe in the gov (they work for themself first)
Everything reduces to numbers. The system which benefits the greatest number of individuals is the superior system.(B). In analysing systems, emotional reaction fogs the clarity of rationality
(B) it's all about the kind of contract you are talking about related to self interest who is related to comfort = money = economy
As far as the economy is worldwide now for good - the gov have nothing to do with this contract :
Citizens want to protect themselves (first) ? and it is perfectly normal ? and they choose THOSE OR WHAT can protect them MOST? (IT?S VERY IMPORTANT IN THE REASONNING) that means that they don?t need politicians especially, anything that can protected them most will be supported (if they know about it / information - influence / even little by little ...)
And no social without economy - who will pay the bill ?
And there is nothing that any governement can do against for real and on long term against an efficient economical system (citizens will choose the comfort) Example : IMIGRATION
In analysing systems (B) , emotional reaction fogs the clarity of rationality (A)
(A) "divid and rule" - WRONG INFORMATION what politicians are used to, to be able to lead for their own benefit ... lead to that !!! but still people are especting governemental solutions
(B) analysing systems JUST NEED TO BE CLEAR (C) ! and politicians doesn't help to make it clear (We know why)
(C) THE RIGHT INFORMATION !
Mostly (90%+) Libertarian as defined by expatbrit but within the framework of the U.S. Constitution. Am really anti drug advocate but think states should decide what they will allow within their borders even if I do not personally agree.
Think EVERY American in the military should be brought home. Their job should be to defend our country and us. I don't give a rats a.... about the military being peacekeepers anywhere else or social workers for the world or the world's free labor when some country needs to rebuild their country-i.e. Iraq. We freed them let them rebuild it themselves, and if they choose to live in a pig sty country, so be it. Most of the countries in the world have been around about a thousand years longer than us, if they haven't got it together by now I doubt if they ever will. If we want to supply countries with free social workers then draft them and send them there to screw up whatever they are good at screwing up. Other countries need free labor- send convicts for the rest of their sentence with the promise that the host country keep them after they have finished their sentence.
Get out of the UN. It is one of the biggest waste of taxpayers money (my money). They are one of the most useless organizations around except for emergency humanitarian needs.
I once wrote to the Smithsonian Institute in D.C.(about 5 years ago) and asked them to supply me with some info regarding extinct species. It took about a week for them to send me a packet of info with the numbers I was looking for. I asked them for an estimate for the number of species that became extinct BEFORE humans were around if you use the evolutionists figure of @ one million years. They replied that the scientists they consulted agreed on the figures ranging from 10 billion to 100 billion extinct species before we ever showed up. Now I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to figure out that that's a LOT of extinct animals and creepy crawly things who withered away for one reason or another without any interference from us. Do you really think that NATURAL extinction abruptly stopped when humans arrived on the scene and that all extinction thereafter could only be attributed to human after we got here? Species will always become extinct with or without us being around. I think human impact on the environment is vastly over rated. Anyone who watches TLC or Discovery channels gets an inkling of how little we matter without even realizing it. Ever see the deep ocean series where all of those giant worms and gazillions of other animals live around those belching volcanic vents on the ocean floor, living off of the chemicals and gasses being pumped out of those vents? Ever REALLY listen to their conservative estimates of how many TRILLIONS of tons of stuff are pumped out of those vents every year? Where do you think that stuff goes? Gasses especially. Gas rises in water and eventually breaks out into the atmosphere wher it continues to rise- all of those things like hydrogen sulfide, carbon monoxide, methane, carbon dioxide, etc. Most of it is absorbed in the water but if only 10% makes it to the top to disperse in the air that still a HUGE amount of gas that we have no control over. Multiply this by a hundred other things we have no control over and you start to realize that we puny humans control and contribute very little to the natural world around us. Environmentalism is vastly over rated. And our impact on the world is hysterically magnified beyond all reason by those who would prefer the extinction of the human species.
