LGP Political Discussion Thread

[bh]

Bush did a big part in continuing the mess that began during the Lyndon Johnson/Vietnam/Nixon/Watergate debacle. It has been going on ever since. Reagan and Bubba Red Nose had a few good years in there, but other than that, all downhill.

I don't know why Reagan gets so much praise. He was the same as all the others. He balloned the size and scope of the leviathan like most all incumbents prior and everyone of them since.

Obama, Bush, McCain, Pelosi, whoever - things are not going to ever change unless people start voting out people from their own party during the primaries. I think the Repubs are starting to do this, to their credit. The problem for them is going to be the fact that many of these new candidates are too far out of the mainstream in terms of their ideology. This country is fiscally conservative and socially liberal, at least to an extent.
I wish like hell we could get a good Liberterian candidate to run and actually have a good shot. But as long as the two parties trade power every four years or so, we'll have nothing left but the illusion of choice. People voted for change, but all they have left is the change in their pockets. Anyone who thinks things would be any different with hillary or McCain in there (still at war, bad economy, high taxes, ridiculous spending) is delusional.

This all is very true although I'm a little skeptical how a libertarian candidate would perform. I just don't have faith that he wouldn't give into the power. I don't care what party the president is from, I just want a principled leader that sees the government as a limited entity and works to reduce it's scope the the essentials. I also think that a president that really wants to reduce the government will not do much without the approval of congress.

As far as getting a third party guy in, there has been a lot of talk in here about that. I've posted many times about voting reform and how if we adopt a different voting method (Range voting or approval voting) third party candidates would have a much better chance. The plurality vote absolutely divides the vote. It makes it a lesser of two evils vote all the time. This has to start on a small scale, local government/state government and build it's way up to the national level. It's possible but I would take a monumental amount of work. The biggest obstacle is that the two current parties sure as hell don't want any competition.

[bh]

lol @ ann coulter

She is pretty outrageous. Half the time I think she is hysterical and dead-on sharp, the other half I am

I think for me it's 0.5% lol and 95.5%

[bh]

I think what we'll find is that the way we're organizing our society now, and the direction we have been heading for some time, will reveal itself to be what is actually untenable, and that realities of this modern world aren't really realities at all, such as our economic system.

This, I think as well. I don't know that I buy the rugged individualism of libertarianism anymore, but there is no question that our financial system is a disaster. There is no way that America is going to sustain it's place as world superpower with our massive trade deficit and the massive military presance that we keep in the world. Not to mention the constant slow and steady inflation of the currency and recent gigantic jumbo spending bills that congress cranks out almost quarterly now. It's just too much. We're going to have to cut back sometime.

[Geezer]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01 ... latestnews" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Another 200 million down the toilet. These guys wanted to plead guilty and be executed but our gov't wouldn't let them. Amazing.

[bh]

To some extent, I don't think anyone has any bleeping clue as to what shapes and moves the economies of the world, especially as a result of increased globilization (crap, I hate that I sound like that clod Friedman whenever I use that word). I fall somewhere between the spectrum of full laissez faire and what we currently have -- helpful, I know .

I think that a lot of the basis of economics was done in a time when agriculture was the main occupation, then came the industrial age and things changed. Well the industrial age here is long gone and we've ushered into an information and service age and who knows where things are going now? The economics for these things are all very different. I doubt Adam Smith foresaw the enormous power that modern day corporations weild and I don't know what he would have though about it. Libertarianism is nice but taken to the extreme it's just not practible or even possible.

[Geezer]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01 ... latestnews" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Yes we can. Tax the middle class ,that is ,after campaigning not to. Ranks up there with Bush senior's "read my lips" no tax promise. Of course per Obama-speak a tax increase isn't a tax increase but a great thing since Cadillac plans are bad for people that have them. That could make the Orwellian type claim of the year. It takes brass spheres to make repeated blatant lies and try to flip them into something to brag about.

[bh]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01 ... latestnews
Yes we can. Tax the middle class ,that is ,after campaigning not to. Ranks up there with Bush senior's "read my lips" no tax promise. Of course per Obama-speak a tax increase isn't a tax increase but a great thing since Cadillac plans are bad for people that have them. That could make the Orwellian type claim of the year. It takes brass spheres to make repeated blatant lies and try to flip them into something to brag about.

How can taxes not increase? When you passes trillions of dollars worth of legislation, taxes have to increase. I agree that doublespeak is a real thing when it comes to Obama. I like the speech where he criticized credit card companies and how people need to be responsible spenders and then the next sentance talked about his plan to help make it easier for people to get mortgages! It's like huh? what? POP! (brain explodes )

[Guinness]

This all is very true although I'm a little skeptical how a libertarian candidate would perform. I just don't have faith that he wouldn't give into the power. I don't care what party the president is from, I just want a principled leader that sees the government as a limited entity and works to reduce it's scope the the essentials. I also think that a president that really wants to reduce the government will not do much without the approval of congress.

http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=296

[RxBandit66]

The biggest obstacle is that the two current parties sure as hell don't want any competition.

And that is the problem. It has become more like one large fraternity as opposed to two parties, especially in the Senate. When a group of politicians have complete control of everything, what do we call that again?

Got communism, anyone?

Forget socialism......our leaders are going for the whole nine yards. And the minority party, which ever one it happens to be, is helping the party in power far more than people realize.

[Guinness]

This, I think as well. I don't know that I buy the rugged individualism of libertarianism anymore

I wish I could find the quote from Hayek's Road to Serfdom online, but I'm striking out... it's an explanation of the concept of individualism that contradicts this "rugged" individualism that detractors tend to characterize. It simply stands in practical and moral contrast to the alternative - collectivism.

When I get home tonight I'll post the quote.

but there is no question that our financial system is a disaster. There is no way that America is going to sustain it's place as world superpower with our massive trade deficit and the massive military presance that we keep in the world. Not to mention the constant slow and steady inflation of the currency and recent gigantic jumbo spending bills that congress cranks out almost quarterly now. It's just too much. We're going to have to cut back sometime.

Agreed. And yet all of this is essentially a function of government action, as well as corporatism (which Hayek also goes into...) and it's access to government power.

Edit to add: I'm about half-way through the Road to Serfdom, but so far I have to say I'd recommend it. Hayek - at that point in his life - might even be palatable to more moderate libertarians, in that he does not object (again, at that point in his life) to all government action. The book also highlights the similarities and common ends of fascism and socialism much more effectively than I've attempted here in the past.

[Guinness]

I think that a lot of the basis of economics was done in a time when agriculture was the main occupation, then came the industrial age and things changed. Well the industrial age here is long gone and we've ushered into an information and service age and who knows where things are going now? The economics for these things are all very different. I doubt Adam Smith foresaw the enormous power that modern day corporations weild and I don't know what he would have though about it. Libertarianism is nice but taken to the extreme it's just not practible or even possible.

I'm obviously going to have to disagree. Corporations wielded enormous power in Smith's time, as they do today. Then, as today, they sought access to the coercive power of the state to further their wealth and to limit access to their competition.

Edit to add: Since I had the Google Books preview of the Road to Serfdom up, I happened upon this passage:

"In much of the current discussion on the effects of technological progress this progress is presented to us as if it were something outside us which could compel us to use the new knowledge in a particular way. While it is true, of course, that inventions have given us tremendous power, it is absurd to suggest that we must use this power to destroy our most precious inheritance: liberty. It does mean, however, that if we want to preserve it, we must guard it more jealously than ever and that we must be prepared to make sacrifices for it. While there is nothing in modern technological developments which forces us towards comprehensive economic planning, there is a great deal in them which makes infinitely more dangerous the power a planning-authority would possess."

Don't give up too easily on liberty.

I don't think libertarianism taken to it's extreme is impractical at all. Might it be that you're presuming anarcho-capitalism as the logical extreme of libertarianism?

[Guinness]

And the minority party, which ever one it happens to be, is helping the party in power far more than people realize.

Why wouldn't they? They know that, sooner or later, they'll be the majority party once again; and then they'll have access to the power they helped accumulate.

[Gaucho]

When a group of politicians have complete control of everything, what do we call that again?

Yeah, what do we call that again?

[slappybrown]

I was looking for some excerpts of the Road to Serfdom, and I just want to point that if you google "Hayek" you get an added bonus (if you are a man):

http://www.google.com/search?q=Hayek+&r ... tartPage=1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[slappybrown]

I havent taken this test in years, but I thought it would be fun to post results (And yes, its obviously imperfect):

http://www.politicalcompass.org/test" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[slappybrown]

Here are my results:

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: 0.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.36

Pretty much what I expected. Libertarian with middle of the road economic views.

Interesting to compare to the options in the 2008 election:

http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2008" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[doublem]

Economic Left/Right: -8.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.87

[SoupOrSam]

Crazy:

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: 1.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 2.05

I hurried WAAAAY to quickly though. I'll find time to retake to be absolutely certain. Intersting link, thanks!

[Gaucho]

Economic Left/Right: -5.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.54

doublem, you're a damn commie.

[shafnutz05]

I always love taking this every 6 months or so

[shafnutz05]

Economic Left/Right: 3.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 1.54

[SoupOrSam]

I always love taking this every 6 months or so

We're just about equal.

[Guinness]

I was looking for some excerpts of the Road to Serfdom, and I just want to point that if you google "Hayek" you get an added bonus (if you are a man):

http://www.google.com/search?q=Hayek+&r ... tartPage=1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Kicksave]

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: 4.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 2.51

[Gaucho]

Salma could lead me down the road to serfdom. I'd gladly follow.