B
BErt
It's called foreplay...oh, you were only arguing.
Where Do You Stand? (2016 Election)
- Thread starter AshburnerX
- Start date
GasBandit
Staff member
Dammit Keltsy.[DOUBLEPOST=1469120144,1469119853][/DOUBLEPOST]
...oh, you were only arguing.
I bet I can beat you at Gay Chicken, though.
Ok, so first of all I'm going to ignore all the sarcasm and hyperbole, so if I misunderstand something please correct me.
Secondly, a platform is a place to put one's ideals, but I hope we can all agree that getting absolutely everything fully implemented of any one political platform is probably not good. Every party pulls to one extreme in the hope that we can move a little in that direction, but with the understanding that compromise must necessarily happen.
With that in mind, let me address your concerns with a few counterpoints:
https://www.engadget.com/2014/07/17/tesla-motors-us-sales/
Do you agree that this regulation is useful and helpful to the citizens of the US?
While complete deregulation is not a reasonable scheme, I hope you understand that there are many, many regulations that are counter-productive, not just to businesses, but to consumers.
Libertarianism, to me, means the government only regulates that which cannot be handled any other way, and which can only be regulated by the government.
Electing libertarians to congress won't suddenly result in the immediate deregulation of everything.
Unfortunately the government isn't a very efficient machine at turning taxes into value.
Let's just agree not to increase taxes, and force the government to be more careful with spending. Let's cut the purse strings of those lobbyists and businesses that have worked the system and congresscritters so well that they're getting free money for little value.
We can't depend on the public to take care of the most vulnerable people in society, though, so I still want the government involved in making sure they're not left adrift.
I do, however, want this to state within the states, and have less federal interference. The current status isn't great, but at least the federal government can only use the carrot approach, and can't use the stick (yet). The states are responsible for the costs, and must tax accordingly, but are also held accountable locally.
I don't see why trade agreements would be a problem either, and I'm not sure why you're saying the two are so dependant on each other.
Besides all this, a lot of wars - undeclared though they may be - are economic wars. We're fighting one with Russia, and one with China right now. Trade is the weapon of choice. We've even had recent skirmishes with Canada and Mexico (over meat country of origin labelling, of all things).
I don't think isolationism is the best way to describe their platform, I believe they're mostly concerned about our recent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and our ongoing support of Israel. If I remember correctly you aren't a big fan of any of that, but please correct me if you support these actions and are opposed to scaling such military action back.
That couldn't possibly happen, though, and it seems to me that some of the points they are making would, could, and should push the US in a slightly better direction than some of the places we are currently headed.
You might believe the current trade off is fine, or you might even be willing to give up more of your liberty if it advances a cause you agree with.
Be aware, though, that as you do that you explicitly remove liberty, freedom, and perhaps even happiness from others in society who have to live under your version of society. You are spending not only your own liberty, and not just someone else's, but everyone else's.
I'd like people to have a higher bar, and deliberate longer before removing additional liberty from citizens.
Secondly, a platform is a place to put one's ideals, but I hope we can all agree that getting absolutely everything fully implemented of any one political platform is probably not good. Every party pulls to one extreme in the hope that we can move a little in that direction, but with the understanding that compromise must necessarily happen.
With that in mind, let me address your concerns with a few counterpoints:
Right now Tesla cannot sell their cars in certain states. This is due to automotive industry regulation:
https://www.engadget.com/2014/07/17/tesla-motors-us-sales/
Do you agree that this regulation is useful and helpful to the citizens of the US?
While complete deregulation is not a reasonable scheme, I hope you understand that there are many, many regulations that are counter-productive, not just to businesses, but to consumers.
Libertarianism, to me, means the government only regulates that which cannot be handled any other way, and which can only be regulated by the government.
Electing libertarians to congress won't suddenly result in the immediate deregulation of everything.
I'm not going to debate this very much. I'm indifferent on income taxes, as long as the government is very careful on spending and isn't pouring money into pork barrel projects that have little real value but cost too much.
Unfortunately the government isn't a very efficient machine at turning taxes into value.
Let's just agree not to increase taxes, and force the government to be more careful with spending. Let's cut the purse strings of those lobbyists and businesses that have worked the system and congresscritters so well that they're getting free money for little value.
While I don't agree with libertarians on this point, strictly speaking, I can at least understand the idea that people should be responsible for their own upkeep, and the government shouldn't be forcing others to support them.
We can't depend on the public to take care of the most vulnerable people in society, though, so I still want the government involved in making sure they're not left adrift.
I disagree with the libertarian party on this one. A basic education, freely offered to all children is a very sound investment in our society, and pays more dividends than it will ever cost.
I do, however, want this to state within the states, and have less federal interference. The current status isn't great, but at least the federal government can only use the carrot approach, and can't use the stick (yet). The states are responsible for the costs, and must tax accordingly, but are also held accountable locally.
I don't think you're representing the platform correctly. It merely says we should maintain a military capable of protecting us from aggression, and avoiding foreign entanglements. It doesn't say no treaties with other countries - in fact one of the ways to avoid aggression is making such treaties, and one of the ways to avoid high cost military is making treaties of mutual protection with others. We would be going to war with other countries when necessary if it protects us better.
I don't see why trade agreements would be a problem either, and I'm not sure why you're saying the two are so dependant on each other.
Besides all this, a lot of wars - undeclared though they may be - are economic wars. We're fighting one with Russia, and one with China right now. Trade is the weapon of choice. We've even had recent skirmishes with Canada and Mexico (over meat country of origin labelling, of all things).
I don't think isolationism is the best way to describe their platform, I believe they're mostly concerned about our recent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and our ongoing support of Israel. If I remember correctly you aren't a big fan of any of that, but please correct me if you support these actions and are opposed to scaling such military action back.
I suspect if everything on the platform was implemented absolutely 100%, then you are right, that is the likely outcome.
That couldn't possibly happen, though, and it seems to me that some of the points they are making would, could, and should push the US in a slightly better direction than some of the places we are currently headed.
While you're using negative words to describe it, you aren't wrong. Libertarianism is about giving each citizen maximum liberty. Other political platforms are more interested in taking some liberty from people in order to advance causes they think our society should support. There's always a trade off.
You might believe the current trade off is fine, or you might even be willing to give up more of your liberty if it advances a cause you agree with.
Be aware, though, that as you do that you explicitly remove liberty, freedom, and perhaps even happiness from others in society who have to live under your version of society. You are spending not only your own liberty, and not just someone else's, but everyone else's.
I'd like people to have a higher bar, and deliberate longer before removing additional liberty from citizens.
One of the big problems with government right now, is that more and more we take an all or nothing approach to our political views. It can be seen in Gas's recent infographic on the polarization of Congress. And while some people like that one party just stalemates the other into oblivion, I feel like that is the exact opposite of what should actually be happening. I want some give and take. Unfortunately, most of the give and take these days is made in the form of riders, and other stupid bullshit that has no relation to bills being passed. But what we have happening is that the Republican party has absorbed a whole lot of crazy that they can't reign in anymore, the Democrat party heads just pick who they want to lead the party and give dirty looks to whoever doesn't fall in line, and even though our country's biggest voting block is "Independent", everyone believes that they throw their votes away if they don't pick one or the other. I will say that I have a lot of friends on my Facebook feed who are screaming Gary Johnson or Jill Stein, but what will really come of it? Honestly, Bernie Sanders was FAR too left for me on economic policy, but I voted for him anyways, because I liked the idea of the movement forming behind him. Had he been elected, I didn't really expect any of his plans to come to 100% fruition, but he had some reasonable ideas. Unfortunately, as is the case with most political movements, I still see some rambling from diehard Bernie Bros, but for the most part, a lot of Bernie's movement is falling to the wayside as Hilary takes up some of his ideas, and I fear that a lot of the political reform people were shouting for will once again fall to the wayside regardless of what is said by the Democratic Party Platform.
Pretty sure I started rambling, but my point was meant to be that you really shouldn't be expected to agree 100% with a political platform. There should be give and take within the government so we can enact things on both sides that have a net overall benefit to society, instead of backseat riders that only benefit lobbyists.
Pretty sure I started rambling, but my point was meant to be that you really shouldn't be expected to agree 100% with a political platform. There should be give and take within the government so we can enact things on both sides that have a net overall benefit to society, instead of backseat riders that only benefit lobbyists.
For me, that's one of my biggest problems with our current government. The extremists on either end of the political spectrum have too much power and influence over their parties now. They complain that nothing gets done, but are so entrenched in their beliefs that they aren't willing to compromise at all. "Compromise" is not an ugly word, despite what they think.
I actually agree with a lot of what your libertarian party puts out EXCEPT for what they're NOT willing to do TO businesses. Basically every economic theory agrees that if business is left alone, it develops into cartels and monopolies. And this is bad for EVERYBODY except the businesses themselves in it. What they need to explicitly put in their platforms is willingness to agressively break up big banks, businesses, etc, and do everything possible to encourage as much competition as possible. Start encouraging businesses to fail by KILLING others, and not being able to absorb them (to the extent that's possible).
Basically, a lot of the rest of regulation only exists because of the abuses of monopoly (or nearly-so) positions. Most labour things become unnecessary (not all) if you have competition for labour. Most consumer abuses go away if you have ACTUAL competition for a consumer's dollar. You don't NEED government as long as the big guys are broken up (and forced to compete with their former selves, which is the opposite of what happened with AT&T, where they just went from national monopoly to regional monopoly), and where it happens so often it's almost NOT news.
That's the kind of libertarian approach to the economy I'd like to see.
And as for the charity thing, I think there's a point there in getting government out of it. Right now it's more like "if everybody's responsible (the government) then nobody is responsible." Making it explicitly "unless you donate to charity, the poor are screwed" means actually a greater chance of revolution and drastic social change. Which MAY be a good thing in the long run. Or not. But I understand the argument.
Basically, a lot of the rest of regulation only exists because of the abuses of monopoly (or nearly-so) positions. Most labour things become unnecessary (not all) if you have competition for labour. Most consumer abuses go away if you have ACTUAL competition for a consumer's dollar. You don't NEED government as long as the big guys are broken up (and forced to compete with their former selves, which is the opposite of what happened with AT&T, where they just went from national monopoly to regional monopoly), and where it happens so often it's almost NOT news.
That's the kind of libertarian approach to the economy I'd like to see.
And as for the charity thing, I think there's a point there in getting government out of it. Right now it's more like "if everybody's responsible (the government) then nobody is responsible." Making it explicitly "unless you donate to charity, the poor are screwed" means actually a greater chance of revolution and drastic social change. Which MAY be a good thing in the long run. Or not. But I understand the argument.
Now I finally understand @Dave's comment in the D thread.
Any successful system will have some form of forced sharing built into it, because otherwise those who have, won't, since there would be no incentive to do so. I've spoken about this before, so my position is no secret. I don't follow political ideologies all that closely, so I don't really know exactly where I fall except that it is left of center.
--Patrick
More notable than the list of who is attending the RNC, perhaps, is the list of people not attending the RNC:
http://www.npr.org/2016/07/18/48639...vel-these-republicans-are-sitting-out-the-rnc
http://www.npr.org/2016/07/18/48639...vel-these-republicans-are-sitting-out-the-rnc
I'm surprised the Koch brothers didn't show up... but I suppose Trump is the only possible person they can't afford to buy off. Or they already know he's in their corner.
Decent short interview with Johnson at the RNC by Vice.
Trump has thrown around more gov't money in 10 minutes than Bernie's entire platform.
this is the libertarian simplification that I go back to most often in my mind and laugh
Hmm, at second thought, this isn't really what I meant. And by that, I mean that the article appears to have been styled to give it a very business-oriented, corporate slant.
No, I was referring to where pure Left = Government has 100% power, People have 0%, and where pure Right = Government has 0% power, People have 100%.
I feel like I'm close to the middle (balanced) position, but I want the Government to have a smidge more influence, because People are lazy and sometimes require that occasional pitchfork to the rear before they get moving on stuff they're supposed to be doing. I just haven't committed to how to structure that smidge.
--Patrick
That seems extreme. That would suggest that left-of-center means you wish the government to control/regulate/tax fully half of my life and liberty.
That's not how this chart works. It's not a representation of how much of each is controlled by the other (otherwise you'd also be saying the People control/regulate/tax fully half of the Government's stuff), it's a representation of how much influence is held by each, a sort of "voting power."
--Patrick
I also find it a very strange definition of left and right, in the sense that both the left and the right, as considered in Europe, want control to be with the government, just for different reasons. Fascism wasn't left, and it certainly wasn't liberal.
Conservative/progressive, liberal/socialist, anarchist/big government, etc, they're different, and not necessarily aligned, axis's. That there's practically only two choices in the USA while the political landscape has more shades is one of the biggest problems the world faces.
Conservative/progressive, liberal/socialist, anarchist/big government, etc, they're different, and not necessarily aligned, axis's. That there's practically only two choices in the USA while the political landscape has more shades is one of the biggest problems the world faces.
I know, I know, and there's also the problem that any axis you draw can only show absolutes. Ideally, rather than 60/40 or 50/50, I'd really like to see the proportion of power be divided 55/55*...which you can't represent because that adds up to more than 100%.
But if we accurately represented all the relevant axes, we'd be talking about the Koosh Ball of politics.
--Patrick
*Translation: "We are practically equals BUT there are things I get to have my way and things you get to have your way."
Why not? A Koosh ball also more accurately depicts how much sense most people can make of politics, anyway
And how much they bend and stretch it to fit their own interpretation.Why not? A Koosh ball also more accurately depicts how much sense most people can make of politics, anyway
I didn't choose that by accident, y'know.
--Patrick
There hasn't even been a "but... but... HILLARY!" rebuttal.
Numerous reports coming in of outside observers and media fearing for their safety, especially last night.
GasBandit
Staff member
Well, if you mean the SIEG HEIL, somebody takes a still of a republican waving at the critical "straight elbow" moment every single time so they can make that reference. I'm sure you've already seen pictures of Hillary in the same pose all over facebook today. Ingraham is a shrill, insufferable harpy, though, so I didn't feel a powerful need to stick up for her awkwardness.
The West Wing skewered Dr. Laura enough to last for decades. I'm talking about the Nuremberg vibe the convention as a whole gave off, especially last night. Comparisons to 1933 Germany are all over the place. Have been ever since Trump started to gain momentum last fall.
GasBandit
Staff member
Only comment I have is I think you're confusing Laura Ingraham with Dr. Laura Schlessinger.
Oops. Not that I pay any attention to anything either one says.
Now that I think of it, when was the last time that Dr. Laura was relevant?