Libertarian vs. Conservative vs. Liberal vs. Whatever -- The Egalitarian Rumble, Redux

[filkertom]

We did this awhile ago, and after the two posts yesterday it seems to be on again. Keep it polite, no personal zingers, and may the best philosophy or combination thereof save the country.

Comments

[lizziecrowe.livejournal.com]

Barg barg. I honestly don't mind others' views as long as they do nit infringe on the non-negotiable human/civil rights of others. All people have a right to build their lives and live those lives in the way that works best for them. But it becomes the biggest problem when someone somewhere tells other people how they should and should not exist. This is why I'm a charter member of the First Church of Leave Each Other the Fick Alone.'

[randwolf.livejournal.com]

I offer a perhaps-useful scale of political positions, from radical right to radical left.

1 - Grover Norquist (Radical-right activist and policy theorist.)
2 - Orrin Hatch (Conservative Senator from Utah. He may actually be somewhat to the right of this.)
3 - Nancy Pelosi (near the actual center of the US population measured by neutral polling, see (http://mediamatters.org/reports/progmaj/).)
4 - Bernie Sanders (democratic socialist Senator from Vermont.)
5 - Noam Chomsky (Radical-left anarchist whose politics are similar to, though more nuanced than, Leslie Fish's)

Take-aways here:
a. The scale is broader than most people realize.
b. Most US political discourse is in the 2-3 region, though we see some substantial dips into the 1-2 region.
c. What are called "centrists" fall at perhaps 2.5. They are at the center of discourse, not the center of political philosophy.
d. Obama is a centrist.
e. The Republicans have a far-right faction, including Norquist himself.
f. There is no major US far left. The Democrats do not have a far left faction, despite all claims to the countrary.

[rdmaughan.livejournal.com]

As a Brit I sometimes doubt the USA has a Left faction, let alone a far left faction.

[technoshaman.livejournal.com]

WRT 5a there:

The Fish is neither Left nor Right, but Up. Lefties in general don't believe in guns or rugged individualism; the Fish is *hardcore* about *both*. See also, Heinlein's early-to-middling work (Starship Troopers through Stranger; the best of it WRT governmental viewpoints is The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, which really needs a movie made of it as a training film, but Hollywood would never stand for it). The Fish, Radical? Yes. Lefty? I wouldn't say that anywhere within range...

[phillip2637.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure if this is generally true, but I've lately heard people with widely different political views all claim to be in the center. This may be an expansion of your point a), where people can only see distinctions for a small "distance" to their own left or right and everything beyond that is a lump called 'extremists'.

I think this has implications for whether issues are discussed rationally or not, but that's far too subtle for my brain at the moment. :-)

[randwolf.livejournal.com]

I distrust the right-wing bias the above scale reveals. I believe there are many useful policy solutions in the 3-4 area of that scale that we are not adopting, out of fear.

[antinomic.livejournal.com]

It seems to me that policies from the range of 3-4 always seem to want to take the money I have earned and give it to others. No one has a right to what I earn other than myself.

[alverant.livejournal.com]

Do you want to live in the United States or in a collection of fiefdoms? The US has laws that apply to everyone equally and a means of keeping itself in check. Fiefdoms ("counties") are tiny nations where the laws vary and if you're in the minority you can find yourself on the wrong end of law enforcement with no recourse. As a country the US has done things like put a man on the moon, create the internet, manage disaster relief, completed monumental projects like Hoover Dam and the Interstate Highway System. Counties are lucky if they can hold a successful fair once a year.

SO yes, a country is better than a county.

[technoshaman.livejournal.com]

Ascyooz pliss.

Would like to point out that the most recent space innovations have come from private companies, the Internet as we know it has been privately run for profit since the mid '90's, and the best disaster relief is not FEMA, but NGO's like Doctors Without Borders and the Red Cross. Governments are good at research, but once the basic tech is established, they generally suck at large-scale implementation. Which is why they generally hire such things out. Hoover Dam? Bechtel. The Interstates? A bazillion local and regional contracting companies. FEMA? Not hired out, and a *disaster* itself. See also, Katrina.

This is not to say that businesses do everything better. BP, Enron, AIG, GM, etc. ad nauseum. *That* is what government is for, is to make sure those cats' damage is as limited as possible. It's when government has been captured by the likes of those that you're in deep doo-doo. Oh, wait...

[valkyrwench.livejournal.com]

What I don't understand, and would love somebody to give me a *rational* reason for is this - if we're so hot to shove Democracy down the throats of other countries, and theocracy is Bad, why is the Republican right so hell-bent on turning this country into a theocracy? And why are we letting the majority make moral judgments on the minority - why are they being allowed to ignore the constitution on a religious whim?

I would love it if somebody could give me a thoughtful, reasoned, rational answer to the above. Something other than "They're going to hell, it's in the bible", or "because God said so".

[technoshaman.livejournal.com]

Power.

And it's not really about theocracy if you study it carefully. It's really got jack-all to do with what any rabbi (or imam or preacher or guru) said. It's about consolidating power in the hands of them with the bucks, to make sure they have more, and we pay it. Look at the message of any of those megachurch shows (if you have the stomach). What's the real underlying message? Gimme all your money.

And what with governmental capture, and the rise of the Permanent Incumbent Party, I'm not real sure how to fight it. It can be fought; we know this because we know names like Lech Walesa and Vaclav Havel. But right now it's mighty tough.

[siliconshaman.livejournal.com]

You'll forgive me, but as a card-carrying rational anarchist I'm just whooping with laughter at the idea of an ideological cage-fight to determine who's best.

Go to it guys and gals... and may chaos take you all!

[markbernstein.livejournal.com]

"card-carrying . . . anarchist" is the best oxymoron I've seen in a while. Thanks for the laugh.

(No, that wasn't snark, it was a genuine compliment. I'm assuming you're intelligent enough to be using the phrase with conscious irony.)

[umbran.livejournal.com]

It seems to me that philosophy won't save the world. Reason, evidence, backed by human empathy - that's what'll save the world.

[filkertom.livejournal.com]

Well, yeah, but there have to be underlying principles that interpret the evidence and direct reason and empathy, leading to action.

[markbernstein.livejournal.com]

I'm well aware of, and tend to agree with, the old saw that democracy is the worst system in the world, except for all the others. In other words, yes, there are big flaws, but I'm not ready to scrap everything without a whole lot of convincing.

So I'm asking this question out of genuine interest. Can any of the libertarians out there give me historical precedents? Has there, at any time in human history, been a successful (i.e., stable and enduring for at least a couple of generations) nation that was based on libertarian principles?

[tcgtrf.livejournal.com]

Mark, I don't believe that libertarian systems of government are compatable with resource scarcity. Without a surplus of goods and services, there is a deprived class that is willing to resort to violence to gain the minimum that it needs to get along.

Since the history of humanity prior to the 20th is one of scarcity (and the early 21st--see below--a return to such), the libertarian utopia lies in the same place as the Marxist one, in some shady, indefinite future.

Tom

[hanabishirecca.livejournal.com]

I lean towards both libertarian and liberal in my political standing. If humans weren't so damn selfish, it wouldn't matter if there were little to no regulation. But, because humans are selfish, we need to have regulations in place.

I think that the government should have the power to swift come in and slap the hell out of a business for acts that take advantage or knowingly harm of individuals. For example, the Safe Cosmetics Act of 2010 is a great bill to go out and support right now. If passed, it gives the FDA the ability to regulate shampoo, soaps, and cosmetics the same way the regular medical equipment. Many companies knowingly use chemicals that are cancer causing agents.

At the same time, the regulations should not go a step beyond. There is a case before the Supreme Court right now about the right to sell violent video games to minors. Buying a violent video game does not cause anyone harm and it should not be restricted under any circumstances.

The same goes for gun control. I fall very conservative in this category. Almost all gun related deaths are both drug related and involved the use of an illegally owned firearm. Those that are not, typically are domestic violence. In the side of me that leans more liberal, I point out at this point that by providing more supports to people in our country, we can reduce these incidents dramatically. Most couples experience difficulties due to financial problems. A system that is in place to help families get on their feet and offers affordable mental health coverage can help prevent these incidents from happening.

[phillip2637.livejournal.com]

My main problem with the labels is that they are often used to imply beliefs in one domain based on stated beliefs in an unrelated domain. There may be some statistical relationship involving religion, military, finance, civil rights, and all the other things that political activity touches but too often the correlation assumptions are used even at an individual level.

[sveethot.livejournal.com]

I've lived in a kingdom 30+ years ago, which although it is a "moderate" Middle Eastern country was sadly missing some of the rights we take for granted. Not a democracy and if you didn't like, too bad. Keep your big yap shut unless you felt like redecorating a prison cell.

There: Not a theocracy, per se, but enough religion tossed in there to know I do not want to live in anyone's theocracy.

There: Freedom of speech ... not so much. So it really chafes my chaps when some people say one is not patriotic or American for disagreeing with them and their views. To the contrary, I believe one of the most patriotic things an American can do is exercise the First Amendment.

There: Women's (etc.) rights? ... fuggedaboudit. No one should be second (3rd, 4th) class citizen. Human rights apply across the board.

Now relinquishing the soap box.

Reposted from my journal

[admnaismith.livejournal.com]

Contrary to popular belief, I respect and agree with some conservative ideas. Those ideas are not being advanced by the modern Republican Party, and especially not by the teatards, who continue to exhibit both the stupidest and cruelest publicly acknowledged ideas and behavior I have seen in my lifetime.

Here is a near-tragic tale of soon-to-be ex-Representative Bob Inglis (R-SC), a man kicked out of public office by teatards for being a Conservative with a fully functional brain.

http://www.alternet.org/teaparty/147732/gop_politician_confirms_what_was_long_suspected:_republicans_intentionally_feed_the_racism,_anger,_and_paranoia_of_the_far_right/?page=1

Maybe he has a remaining career as a blue dog Democrat, but today's GOP doesn't want him.

[eleri.livejournal.com]

Every political test I take puts me firmly in the realm of socialist. Which probably makes a lot of people run screaming. I vote where my head and my heart take me- what label they've stuck on themselves is meaningless.

[dragondances.livejournal.com]

I find myself in the same boat. I'm listed on facebook as "democratic, liberal, and socialist" and if certain members of my family looked closely at my profile, they'd probably think I should be committed. Every time someone uses the word "socialist" as an insult it makes me sad. Just because the principles are difficult to put into practice doesn't make them an unworthy ideal, and just because we had a Cold War doesn't make them the Incarnation of All Evil. :(

[liddle-oldman.livejournal.com]

"Above all, be kind."

Near-future economics hypothesis Page 1

[tcgtrf.livejournal.com]

In my statements in these discussions over the last few months, I have been predicting the breakup of the United States and Europe in a similar manner to the Soviet Union's fall in the late 1980s. Rather than repeat my politics, I'd like to take this occasion to explain my reasons and the hypothesis behind the prediction and how the prediction stems not from ideology, but from careful study of the last century. It all began when I was doing research for an SF novel set in the middle of the 21st Century.....

During the 20th Century, first the United States, then Europe and Asia, were home to an unprecedented degree of prosperity and progress. Various political and philosophical factions have claimed varying reasons for this prosperity--the technophiles saw it as the culmination of five thousand years of civilization and the final acceptance of science as a substitute for God; the corporatists saw it as due to a world-wide adoption of capitalism and open markets (this was especially prevalent after the fall of the socialist states); some Christians and Jews claimed that it was due to the West being the chosen people of God, meant to lead the world into the light; the liberal and progressive factions stated that it was due to the West exploiting the rest of the world.

The more I studied the histories and economics, the more I realized that they were all wrong. What follows is my alternative hypothesis:
The unprecedented growth of the United States in the latter half of the 20th century was due to the fact that in 1945, every other economy in the world was either undeveloped or completely flattened. There were markets for goods everywhere--even Europe didn't completely recover until around 1960 and Japan even later. The flow of money to the United States was so great that by the 1960s, it was able to simultaneously build a nuclear arsenal, fight a land war in Asia, provide an entire series of new social programs domestically, and spend a billion 1960 dollars to go to the Moon.

As the non-Communist "First World" states recovered, they, too, began to sell goods and services which brought new nations into the prosperity sphere. Since the US no longer had a monopoly on these items, the growth rate of its economy slowed, so that by the end of the 1970s, it was falling into a cycle of expansion/recession with a period of about four or five years. This lasted until just after 1990, when the Soviet Union fell and the evolution of the formerly Communist states in Europe and Asia provided new markets for goods and services until they, too, advanced to comparable levels and became competitors, rather than customers. By the early 2000s, there were few developing markets and the competition for those was fierce. As the decade progressed, non-bubble economics stagnated.

During the last 65 years, then, the growth that was experienced was both unprecedented and long lasting. It was accompanied by a world-wide growth in population that took us from 1.6 billion worldwide in 1900 to 6.9 billion today. That rate of increase in that growth, however, topped off in the 1990s and has been steadily dropping since.

Page 2

[tcgtrf.livejournal.com]

Prior to the 1930s, the nations of the world had limited ambitions for social safety-net programs. The Fascist and Communist states which developed then instituted some as part of their ruling agenda and the West copied some to be competitive and to quell dissent during the Depression. As the century progressed, the large influx of wealth and the prosperity instilled by increasing population demographics encouraged larger and larger programs to ensure an enviable (by historical measure) standard of living for even the poorest citizens. The prosperity has lasted, now, for two generations and what few remain of those who remember a time before are museum-pieces or nursing home residents.

The problem that we face, now, however, is that the extensive social safety nets that have been established and, for that matter, highway maintenance, regulatory agencies, and even the military have become so expensive to maintain that they have become dependent on an ever-increasing flow of new revenues to finance them.

These revenue streams have grown to resemble a "pyramid scheme" in that they require the combination of two factors--rapidly growing economies with ever-increasing numbers of young, employed producers to provide tax revenues at non-oppressive rates. For 55 of the last 65 years, we have had these two in spades.

What we see, now, happening world-wide, is a demographic contraction across the developed world. The replacement birth rate in the United States is currently 2.1, the highest in 25 years--which means that the number of native-born taxpayers will shrink for at least the next twenty years. Europe has a dismal replacement rate--Italy's 1.38, Russia 1.34, Greece 1.33. Asia is even bad--China at 1.73, Japan 1.27, Singapore 1.26, and Hong Kong at an amazing 0.98.

Everywhere, women are having fewer children. In the long run, this will increase the odds of human survival, but in the short, combined with the contraction of economies, it will mean that the collectable revenues, world-wide, will continue shrinking indefinitely. This provides a dilemma which could be insoluble--the citizens of nations, globally, have grown to expect that their governments have enough money to help them. When it becomes apparent that they do not, the stage is set for world-wide unrest and rebellion.

The Soviet Union fell apart when it became apparent that it no longer had the funds to support the means to enforce its member and satellite states' inclusion in its collective. The United States has become increasingly prone to division along the philosophical red/blue lines, along the lines of race and ethnicity, along the lines of regionalism, and along the lines of religion. As we speak, its first member states are not meeting their contractual obligations--California, Illinois, and Massachusetts leading the way. These are just the first.

What is needed is a political solution to these dilemmas before fighting breaks out.

Tom Trumpinski

Re: Page 2

[nagasvoice.livejournal.com]

Helpful, thoughtful, and thorough, thank you. The problem I see is that splitting up the US or Europe for economic or political reasons is even more impractical. Think about evacuating Los Angeles and Riverside Counties after the Big One hits, for example. Or water supplies if the various pipelines are cut off. Or both. The populations involved are so vast it can't be allowed to happen at all, which is absurd. State and federal agencies have to consider this stuff (somebody has to show some common sense, even when local planning commissions refuse to do so) but truly it's an exercise in catastrophic absurdity.
And that's not even talking about the fury that is a China totally bursting at the seams.

Just to inject a little humor into this discussion...

[nimitzbrood.livejournal.com]

I vote for a choice of ruling class selected in accordance with a large bladed weapon retrieved from a female of the human species immersed in a large inland body of water. ;-P

Re: Just to inject a little humor into this discussion...

[randwolf.livejournal.com]

Hee.

On the Deficit at This Time

[randwolf.livejournal.com]

When we about "deficit hawks," this means people who want to cut Social Security, Medicare, and other social programs and want to reduce short-term deficits--a policy which consistently makes matters worse in a recession. People who are actually interested in reduction of the national debt think first of military expenditures, because the US military has been ready to fight another world war for 70 years, and this expensive, and tempts us to fight expensive wars, second of jobs, because an economy in a depression produces low tax revenues and high expenses, and third of national health care cost management.

And, yes, long-term carelessness with government deficits is another way to get into economic trouble, but that's not our current problem.