LGP Political Discussion Thread

[bh]

eh, looks aboot right.

[Guinness]

Alright. I do this somewhat under protest.

My comments, first:

"If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations."

I really don't know what this means. Is this about free trade? What exactly is "it" that should be serving? And can't it serve both? My answer: agree.

"Our race has many superior qualities, compared with other races."

What? My Answer: disagree (just because I'm not sure what this means).

"Military action that defies international law is sometimes justified."

This feels like a veiled reference to Iraq. My answer: disagree. I would agree, because "international law" refers to the UN... But I think this question really is referring to Iraq.

"People are ultimately divided more by class than by nationality."

Actually, both are nonsensical groups. I guess I'll agree. The question really doesn't make any sense, though.

Controlling inflation is more important than controlling unemployment."

Why are we always trying to control things? Real money wouldn't need controlling. Agree, I guess.

"A genuine free market requires restrictions on the ability of predator multinationals to create monopolies."

Duh. "A genuine free market requires restrictions" is a contradiction. Only government can create monopolies, anyway. I disagree, but not because I believe in monopolies.

"The prime function of schooling should be to equip the future generation to find jobs."

The prime function of schooling should be what the customer deems it to be... Disagree.

"Abstract art that doesn't represent anything shouldn't be considered art at all."

While I personally agree with this, art is subjective. Disagree.


Presumably within the context of this quiz, this result is accurate, but think the result is too far to the right, and not far enough toward the bottom. If I were to plot myself, it would be fairly close to the middle L/R, and about one or two spaces above -10.

Edit to add: As I re-read the explanation at the end, the L/R plane refers to economic positions; in which case I would have to say that it isn't quite far enough to the right, I guess - if the far right is the free market. And it's definitely not low enough on the vertical plane.

[Guinness]

"In our home page we demolished the myth that authoritarianism is necessarily "right wing", with the examples of Robert Mugabe, Pol Pot and Stalin. Similarly Hitler, on an economic scale, was not an extreme right-winger. His economic policies were broadly Keynesian, and to the left of some of today's Labour parties. If you could get Hitler and Stalin to sit down together and avoid economics, the two diehard authoritarians would find plenty of common ground."

I, and F.A. Hayek, would agree.

Edit to add: Dang it - I forgot to get that passage out of the Road to Serfdom...

[Guinness]

I am still waiting for Guinness post his results for the political compass test. If it isnt -10 lib. I am going to be disappointed.

Sorry, slappy. Don' be disappoin'.

[Guinness]

So, under your view of libertarianism, then, you'd basically have laws to protect the one absolute (individual sovereignty). So, you'd presumably punish unprovoked use of force. To have any such law, I'd think you'd want a fairly specific, fixed definition of provocation. Care to give it a stab?

Thank you for wishes for my step-dad. He's doing better.

I recognize, and have said before that the logical extreme of my beliefs has to be anarchy (in its literal meaning - "no state"). I can't find a way to justify the existence of any state entity at all, philosophically. If I believe in non-aggression in all its manifestations, then on what basis can exist an entity such as goverrnment police, or a government judiciary?

Violations of an individual's physical being and property are unjust. Violations of a person's physical being would include assault, slavery, rape, murder, etc. Violation of a person's property would include fraud, theft, vandalism, etc.

How does one protect oneself from these violations? As they do now. The state's police - as a rule - cannot prevent these violations. They can seek the aggressor and persue restitution on behalf of the victim after the fact, however. And yet there is no reason that the free market could not provide such an entity.

I'm not sure if I've answered - or at least started to answer - your question. I'm not feeling particularly articulate today, for some reason. Probably from being a little tired and cold, and being at work with not much to do other than kill time!

Anyway... let's go from there, and see where it leads us!

[bh]

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.

There were some corporations then, but nothing like today. Smith didn't write much about them and therefore I would think that they were not a major player on the economic scene yet or else he would have said more. He was against consoloidation of power and what little he wrote of corporations, most of it was negative. Everyone seeks the coercive power of the state. The state is supposed to be for the people but it always ends up being for certain people and not others. I am for a free society, but I see the need to tear down the private tyranny of the corporate world using the government. Yes we need much much less government but we still need the government. Corporate reform is just as nessisary as judicial, economic, and social reform if not more important. I think it's more than, if we fix the government, then everything going to be hunky dory.

Edit to add: Since I had the Google Books preview of the Road to Serfdom

I read half of this book about a year ago. I need to pick it back up and finish it. Actually I'd probably need to reread the first half again.

Don't give up too easily on liberty.

Don't worry, I'm not, but I find that the libertarian views are not fully satisfying me. It rails against the government all the time but says very little about private tyrrany.

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?

yes

[Gaucho]

Alright. I do this somewhat under protest.

My comments, first:

"If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations."

I really don't know what this means. Is this about free trade? What exactly is "it" that should be serving? And can't it serve both? My answer: agree.

"Our race has many superior qualities, compared with other races."

What? My Answer: disagree (just because I'm not sure what this means).

"Military action that defies international law is sometimes justified."

This feels like a veiled reference to Iraq. My answer: disagree. I would agree, because "international law" refers to the UN... But I think this question really is referring to Iraq.

"People are ultimately divided more by class than by nationality."

Actually, both are nonsensical groups. I guess I'll agree. The question really doesn't make any sense, though.

Controlling inflation is more important than controlling unemployment."

Why are we always trying to control things? Real money wouldn't need controlling. Agree, I guess.

"A genuine free market requires restrictions on the ability of predator multinationals to create monopolies."

Duh. "A genuine free market requires restrictions" is a contradiction. Only government can create monopolies, anyway. I disagree, but not because I believe in monopolies.

"The prime function of schooling should be to equip the future generation to find jobs."

The prime function of schooling should be what the customer deems it to be... Disagree.

"Abstract art that doesn't represent anything shouldn't be considered art at all."

While I personally agree with this, art is subjective. Disagree.


Presumably within the context of this quiz, this result is accurate, but think the result is too far to the right, and not far enough toward the bottom. If I were to plot myself, it would be fairly close to the middle L/R, and about one or two spaces above -10.

Edit to add: As I re-read the explanation at the end, the L/R plane refers to economic positions; in which case I would have to say that it isn't quite far enough to the right, I guess - if the far right is the free market. And it's definitely not low enough on the vertical plane.

Boy do I feel like an idiot for simply answering the questions now.

[bh]

Well, I think it is selfish. I think it only seems like a problematic word given the strong negative connotations of the word. But, what we seem to be in agreement on can pretty accurately be described as "devoted to or caring only for oneself; concerned primarily with one's own interests, benefits, welfare, etc., regardless of others." (Dictionary.com definition of selfish) I think the problem comes in where you have someone who's self-interest is to help others. I'd still call that selfish but I suppose it doesn't fit the contemporary definition.

I think that most poeple would say the self interst and selfishness are two different things. With your definition I can't see any way people are not selfish. Sure, everything we do, we do becuase we have a reason to do it. It is our self interest to do it. I think selfishness is more along the lines of thinking of only yourself. You do not care for others. Now I know you will say, "but caring for others is really only satisfying your self interest". That is true, but I think there needs to be a difference between thinking and acting only for yourself with total disregaurd for others and thinking and acting for yourself in the process helping others or at least not harming them. I think that they are two different things and is where I would draw the line between selfish and self interst.

[count2infinity]

i don't like getting into political chats... i always heard, "if you're looking for an argument, all you need to do is bring up religion or politics." but i had to try this:

[shafnutz05]

i don't like getting into political chats... i always heard, "if you're looking for an argument, all you need to do is bring up religion or politics." but i had to try this:

OMG left-wing teachers corrupting our nation's youth!!!!!11!!

[count2infinity]

OMG left-wing teachers corrupting our nation's youth!!!!!11!!

don't worry...there are plenty of right wing nut jobs here to compensate.

[shafnutz05]

don't worry...there are plenty of right wing nut jobs here to compensate.

Of course, you are in Bedford County. Ah..I miss living in Altoona and being surrounded by people that think the same way I do. Perhaps not on an educated level, but close enough.

[shafnutz05]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Economy-l ... l?x=0&.v=8

Another 85,000 jobs shed ....how's that stimulus working out?

Did you know that most of the stimulus money has not even been spent? This pretty much falls in line with my belief that the stimulus bill was never about creating jobs in the first place. The purpose was to create a Democratic special interest/pork project slush fund, which is also being used to buy votes as we have seen with the current healthcare debate.

[shafnutz05]

http://www.gop.com/index.php/briefing/c ... _standard/

I will hand it to the GOP...despite their usual gross incompetence, they have actually put together a pretty solid job data page here. It's a shame that most of the party is made up of a bunch of spineless jellyfish.

[Gaucho]

"GOP.com, your source for reliable and unbiased information."

Ironic that the site takes forever to load.

[shafnutz05]

"GOP.com, your source for reliable and unbiased information."

Ironic that the site takes forever to load.

Every one of their job data totals is taken from the Department of Labor, with links provided. They aren't magical or made-up numbers. Unless the official Dept. of Labor numbers are "biased".

Yes, the site takes forever.

[bh]

How does one protect oneself from these violations? As they do now. The state's police - as a rule - cannot prevent these violations. They can seek the aggressor and persue restitution on behalf of the victim after the fact, however. And yet there is no reason that the free market could not provide such an entity.

So you don't think that the police have ever prevented a crime from happening?

[Guinness]

Boy do I feel like an idiot for simply answering the questions now.

Uh... that was unnecessarily mean. I just thought that the questions were more complicated than the allowable answers...

[Guinness]

How does one protect oneself from these violations? As they do now. The state's police - as a rule - cannot prevent these violations. They can seek the aggressor and persue restitution on behalf of the victim after the fact, however. And yet there is no reason that the free market could not provide such an entity.

So you don't think that the police have ever prevented a crime from happening?

I didn't say that. The majority of the time, however, police are called after a crime has been committed.

[bh]

How does one protect oneself from these violations? As they do now. The state's police - as a rule - cannot prevent these violations. They can seek the aggressor and persue restitution on behalf of the victim after the fact, however. And yet there is no reason that the free market could not provide such an entity.

So you don't think that the police have ever prevented a crime from happening?

I didn't say that. The majority of the time, however, police are called after a crime has been committed.

Ahhhhh, ok I misread. I see what you were saying now. My .

[slappybrown]

I am still waiting for Guinness post his results for the political compass test. If it isnt -10 lib. I am going to be disappointed.

Sorry, slappy. Don' be disappoin'.

No worries -- I am glad you did it. And like I said in the initial post with the link, I know it is imperfect and you can take issue with the phrasing of most every question. But it is a fun exercise. You and bh are my closest ideological cousins.

[Gaucho]

Boy do I feel like an idiot for simply answering the questions now.

Uh... that was unnecessarily mean. I just thought that the questions were more complicated than the allowable answers...

Sorry man, it wasn't supposed to be mean at all. Failed attempt at humor, I guess it came out wrong. Bad day.

I agree with you about the questions, but it's just a "game" I guess. I don't think anyone was surprised by the "scores" presented here. I mean, we pretty much knew where I'd end up and where the regular contributors to this thread would end up, didn't we?

[HomerPenguin]

Only government can create monopolies, anyway.

Really? What did the government do to create Ma Bell?

The only government involvement that I can see leading to the Bell monopoly lies in patent protection (the 1913 Kingsbury agreement simply recognized the monopoly that already existed; it didn't create a new monopoly for Bell). What's your position on intellectual property rights (not, as far as I know, a settled issue across the libertarian spectrum)?

[bh]

I am still waiting for Guinness post his results for the political compass test. If it isnt -10 lib. I am going to be disappointed.

Sorry, slappy. Don' be disappoin'.

No worries -- I am glad you did it. And like I said in the initial post with the link, I know it is imperfect and you can take issue with the phrasing of most every question. But it is a fun exercise. You and bh are my closest ideological cousins.

sup cuz?

[doublem]

It's really like a joke.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/health/ch ... 2599.story" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

At least 166 former aides from the nine congressional leadership offices and five committees involved in shaping health overhaul legislation -- along with at least 13 former lawmakers -- registered to represent at least 338 health care clients since the beginning of last year, according to the analysis.

Their health care clients spent $635 million on lobbying over the past two years, the study shows.

The total of insider lobbyists jumps to 278 when non-health-care firms that reported lobbying on health issues are added in, the analysis found.

Part of the lobbying pressure on current members of Congress and staffers comes from the powerful lure of post-congressional job possibilities.

"There's always a worry they may be thinking about their future employment opportunities when dealing with these issues, particularly with health care, because the stakes are so high and the breadth of the issues -- pharmacies, hospitals, doctors," said Emory University political scientist Alan Abramowitz.

Lobbyists' earnings can dwarf congressional salaries, which currently top out at $174,000 annually for lawmakers and $156,000 for aides, though committee staff members can earn slightly more.