I believe low voter turnout for elections just goes to show that the majority of people think the whole thing is a waste of time. I believe the majority of people aren't extremists and are more turned off than turned on by the extremists screaming at each other. I believe the majority of people are losing faith in the system as it is now, that's why so many politicians try to show how outside the system they are.Politicians have been trading on their "Washington outsider" status for generations now. It's nothing new.
What's most interesting about this post is that you attempt to paint this as a fight between two "extreme" factions, when the reality is that this is a battle between a faction too terrified to be anything but moderate, and a truly extreme faction. More to the point, you try to paint yourself (or, rather, your libertarian political beliefs) as the moderate, populist voice - which raises an interesting problem for you: Libertarian governance is a dead dream. If it were going to get off the ground, it would have already happened. So you need to start addressing the problem of why your political beliefs are so unpopular, despite your fervent belief that the majority of Americans agree with you. Are you, and all those aligned with you, simply abysmal at political messaging? Is your messaging sabotaged by corporate interests (corporate interests which, mind you, would fall over themselves to support a true libertarian state)? Or is it possible that you have misjudged the American voters, and that your positions are not seen as moderate at all (but rather as radical fringe beliefs)?
The fact that I agree with some Libertarian positions does not make me a Libertarian. Same is true for Democrats and Republicans. What's really funny is that, like every other Democrat here so far, you believe that you are a moderate while everyone else are extremists. The Republicans all believe the same thing.
I don't for a second think the majority of Americans agree with me. I believe in true individual freedom, something that scares many people. Freedom means being responsible for your actions, and who wants that? How about running your own life before trying to run mine? If top down government is ideal, why does it always fail?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...And since you're in favor does that mean everyone else has to be in favor too? And anyone who still isn't in favor must be forced to be in favor? And when you say health care, do you mean health care or health insurance?Republicans seem to want laws that only favor them and their backers. Meanwhile, Democrats seem to want laws that only favor them and their backers.I don't even know what that means.
Probably depends on who you consider "their backers" to be.Frankly, people voting for you because you do things they like is pretty much how politics is supposed to work.
And there are plenty of things on the general Democratic agenda that I'm in favor of, even if they don't benefit me directly: raise the minimum wage, expand access to healthcare, covering women's health care, allowing gay marriage, the social safety net.
The lack of middle ground you speak of is the direct result of a winner take all electoral system. It's always been that way in this country, though obviously the issues have changed over the decades.
Obviously, since I'm right.
But more seriously of course not. No one has to be forced to be in favor of anything. Feel free to oppose anything I support, not that you need my permission.
I have no idea where you got that idea from anyway. That was as a counter to "Democrats seem to want laws that only favor them and their backers". I want laws that don't directly favor me. I get very little personally from supporting Democrats. Even in theory. In practice I get less, since they don't live up to the platform.
See, the people who believe they know what's best for everyone and decide that everyone else needs to want those things as well actually say your first sentence seriously.
You (impersonal you) might not think anyone has to be forced to want what you want, but they do need to be forced to do what you (impersonal
1. Then stop trying to figure it out.
2. I'm sure you actually believe that. And on this particular site more people agree with you than don't so you can safely believe you're right.
3. Indeed
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1. Then stop trying to figure it out.
2. I'm sure you actually believe that. And on this particular site more people agree with you than don't so you can safely believe you're right.
3. Indeed
1) Since you've made no attempt to clarify at all, I'll just assume it was meaningless.
2) I've put forward at least some arguments in favor of it and have seen nothing to counter them except "Republicans believe the same thing". What people believe isn't evidence of them being right.
An extremist left position would be something like "nationalize the means of production". That's nowhere on the Democratic platform. We're so far away from extreme left, you can't even see it from here. And moving rightwards by the year.3) Yep.
1. That's fine, but just because you don't grasp the meaning doesn't mean there is no meaning.
2. What people believe isn't evidence of them being right. Exactly. And make sure you apply that to yourself. Do you actually spend any time going to sites where people don't agree with you?
3. Seems we agree on at least one thing.
2) An extremist left position would be something like "nationalize the means of production". That's nowhere on the Democratic platform. We're so far away from extreme left, you can't even see it from here. And moving rightwards by the year.
[Ears perk up]
That's a more charitable framing than I would have given it.
I am aware that I have a sizable charisma check penalty and try to keep it to a dull roar.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't for a second think the majority of Americans agree with me. I believe in true individual freedom, something that scares many people.
About as many people are against individual freedom as are against apple pie. You're not exactly some kind of radical for saying you want something that 99.9999 % of americans agree with.
Freedom means being responsible for your actions, and who wants that? How about running your own life before trying to run mine?
Everyone says that.
Then they get hit by a drunk driver.
If top down government is ideal, why does it always fail?
It doesn't always fail. That you continue to spout this in the face of the evidence is telling.
Clean air act, clean water acts, taking lead and sulfer out of gasoline, endangered species protection, national highway system, national education system, fishing regulations have all contributed to a better america and a better world.
But these things are expensive/the joke/ not perfect/ high frusctose corn syrup!/some meaningless insult.
Yes. They're not perfect. Because they deal with the real world. Things in the real world have downsides. The thing is that we know what we get when we don't have them: the world of the 1890s where the air was too polluted to breathe the water had to much cholera to drink the machinery wasn't safe enough for little jimmy to work on without losing a hand.
A world with reasonable regulations doesn't have to be better than your idealized utopia of the free market: it just has to be better than the reality of what the world looks like when you have a free market. Having actually seen that, we know thats a pretty low standard to beat.
Clean air act, clean water acts, taking lead and sulfer out of gasoline, endangered species protection, national highway system, national education system, fishing regulations have all contributed to a better america and a better world......
A world with reasonable regulations ....
And that is there issue right there. What is reasonable and what has been taken too far and is now punitive for no real gain.
Many of the regulations that started reasonable have grown too much and been used by groups with a cause where there can never be enough regulation to satisfy them. Regulations are now being used to skirt the need for Congress to pass laws or they have been put in place to stifle small businesses that can never afford to stay in compliance.
To say a world without any regulations would be better is silly, but to say our current climate of regulations is ideal would be also. Finding the right balance of enough regulation but not too much is hard, and then even harder when they can be used for political or personal gains.
The problem exists when someone thinks, for example, the Clean Water Act has gone too far in some places, they get portrayed as wanting dirty water and hates the environment. Or when a legitimate water issue arises and regulations are added to combat it, so much unnecessary regulation has already been added it is easy to label them "Eco-Nuts".
The fact that I agree with some Libertarian positions does not make me a Libertarian. Same is true for Democrats and Republicans. What's really funny is that, like every other Democrat here so far, you believe that you are a moderate while everyone else are extremists. The Republicans all believe the same thing.
No, not all of them. The base believes that, because most of them exist in information vacuums where it's easy to come to believe counterfactual things. But the people running the show? They don't believe they're running a moderate party.
I don't for a second think the majority of Americans agree with me. I believe in true individual freedom, something that scares many people. Freedom means being responsible for your actions, and who wants that? How about running your own life before trying to run mine? If top down government is ideal, why does it always fail?
First, no government is "ideal". That word implies that there exists a system of government under which all people will be happy, and that is simply not true. We have governments which are stable, healthy, and generally have a positive impact on their citizens' lives, and we improve those governments in increments.
Second, "top-down government" (wow) doesn't always fail. In fact, in the modern developed world, large governments almost never fail!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Second, "top-down government" (wow) doesn't always fail. In fact, in the modern developed world, large governments almost never fail!
I would argue that things like Saddam's gov gassing his own people was a failure, and the US gov invading Iraq, running a widespread torture program and surveillance program are failures. I would also add the "election" of 2001, the banking crisis, "free trade", the prison state... etc.
Governments keep rumbling along, but massive failures abound. I think you are correct however if you are saying they don't "end".
So what have we learned today, class? Any and all government is automatically tyranny! Anarchy for all! BURN IT DOWN!
See how much fun it isn't when people deliberately misrepresent a viewpoint? :P
@thejeff - I have never been a fan of the 4 senators from the Dakotas having the same say as the senators of California and Texas two of the larges AND most populous states. The system poorly reflects the constituent needs on that level and the house is ABSOLUTELY unwieldly.Working as intended. That's the very reason we have a bicameral legislature. The House represents individuals, the Senate represents States.
Only true until 17th amendment allowing for direct election of senators. 101 years ago.
Again I point out the irony that, due to gerrymandering, the senate is a better litmus of the political sway of a state (though not the nation) than representatives.Also: I'm back! Expect a.thread explaining my absence tonight.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So what have we learned today, class? Any and all government is automatically tyranny! Anarchy for all!
I have found that people who are serious anarchists consider all organizations based on hierarchy inevitably breed injustice and exploitation. They tend to view self-determination, freedom, and consensus very highly. I would think that anarchists, libertarians, and believers in direct (as opposed to representative) democracy would agree on 95% of government theory.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Are there unnecessary or even bad regulations? Certainly.
Are there needed regulation that are not in place? Certainly.Does either of those imply that we have either too much or too little regulation? No. It implies we have some wrong regulation.
Anyone talking about too much regulation in the abstract is likely trying to get some good regulation removed under cover of there being too much. Bad regulations can be pointed out and removed on their own. Good ones have to be snuck out. No one actually argues that we need more regulation in general, though plenty of people argue for specific regulations they think are needed. Again these are often opposed on the grounds of "too much regulation" when they can't be opposed on their own merits.
I would argue that unnecessary and bad regulations would be the definition of too much regulation.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Are there unnecessary or even bad regulations? Certainly.
Are there needed regulation that are not in place? Certainly.Does either of those imply that we have either too much or too little regulation? No. It implies we have some wrong regulation.
Anyone talking about too much regulation in the abstract is likely trying to get some good regulation removed under cover of there being too much. Bad regulations can be pointed out and removed on their own. Good ones have to be snuck out. No one actually argues that we need more regulation in general, though plenty of people argue for specific regulations they think are needed. Again these are often opposed on the grounds of "too much regulation" when they can't be opposed on their own merits.
I would argue that unnecessary and bad regulations would be the definition of too much regulation.
*eyetwitch*
Also, if one person breaks the law egregiously (murder foe example) that's proof we have too many people. People can't be rehabilitated just like laws can't be amended. Riiiiiiiight?
"unnecessary and bad would be the definition of too much"
I don't think you can really use "definition" in that way and have it work out.
NOTE: I'm not trying to gang up on you TD, and I think your statement about, "Or that the party's platform doesn't really represent the way they govern." sums up my view of the political parties perfectly.
Fair enough on the "Unnecessary and bad regulations." but how about "Unnecessary " being what too much regulation means. I acknowledged before that bad regulation can still do some good, but should be fixed. (as I can also point out many can do too much bad, but that is a case by case basis).
Many of the regulations that started reasonable have grown too much and been used by groups with a cause where there can never be enough regulation to satisfy them.
Example?
Regulations are now being used to skirt the need for Congress to pass laws or they have been put in place to stifle small businesses that can never afford to stay in compliance.
The world has gotten more complicated since 1776. Congress passing EPA standards for every new chemical they manufacture alone would require more work than congress does right now
To say a world without any regulations would be better is silly, but to say our current climate of regulations is ideal would be also.
No one is saying its ideal. We're saying its a hell of a lot better than it was, and its a hell of a lot better than it would be without the regulations in general. If you can't argue that, the whole idea that every solution is free market free individual and freebird goes out the window.
The problem exists when someone thinks, for example, the Clean Water Act has gone too far in some places, they get portrayed as wanting dirty water and hates the environment. Or when a legitimate water issue arises and regulations are added to combat it, so much unnecessary regulation has already been added it is easy to label them "Eco-Nuts".
Sooo much irony in so very few words. Do you not see that, without even pausing to take a breath, you did the very same dismissive thing that you had JUST finished complaining about?
I have an opinion!
Where's the communism? Or even socialism?
Are you kidding? It's everywhere! Public schools? Socialism. Roads? Socialism. National defense? Socialism. Infrastructure? More socialism.
A rugged Real American™ would single-handedly teach his own children every subject, build his own roads and bridges, and defend his own country -- all 3.8 million sq. miles of it!
Have I missed nationalization of the oil industry?
That's next on Obama's agenda once he gets everyone's guns.
I have an opinion!
"He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing"?
I have an opinion!No, you don't.
Do too!
WB Meatrace!
As opposed to the more common "liberalism is a mental disorder" catchphrase (which has become part of U.S. vernacular)?
WB Meatrace!
I totally read that as "WTB Meatrace!" :P
How about Meatrace FTW!
While I don't agree with Scotts favorable view of the Democratic party, I found his thoughts on the issues to be well thought out and insightful. I don't always agree, but I respect his opinions, and give him a lot of credit for expressing them.
If anyone else would like to express an opinion, we might get a more interesting discussion then the quote/quote/quote/quote/ circle jerk that this thread has degraded into.
I was going to share my opinion and it was pretty awesome. But not anymore.
As opposed to the more common "liberalism is a mental disorder" catchphrase (which has become part of U.S. vernacular)?
It's the title of a book written by Micheal Savage wherein he attempts to draw similarities between liberal policies and having to be insane to think they are good for society in the long run.
It became a catch phrase, sure, but I haven't seen anyone use the book to justify an opinon, here, or outright dismiss other's.
I was going to share my opinion and it was pretty awesome. But not anymore.
Don't be afraid!
Fear is the mind killer, something, pass over me, something, only I will remain, etc
I was going to share my opinion and it was pretty awesome. But not anymore.Don't be afraid!
Fear is the mind killer, something, pass over me, something, only I will remain, etc
I must not post.
posting is the thread-killer.posting is the little-death that brings total obliteration.
I will face the thread.
I will permit it to pass over me and through me.
And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path.
Where my post has gone there will be nothing....only I will remain