DVD Talk
State your political philosophy [Archive] - DVD Talk Forum

PDA

View Full Version : State your political philosophy


Hank Ringworm
06-01-08, 12:59 AM
I'm the sort of person who doesn't care too much about political events; I care more about the underlying philosophies. So, what is your political philosophy? I'm not asking how you feel about particular issues (all that's covered nicely in other threads), but rather why you feel the way you do. Basically, what's the role of government? the people? What has affected your political philosophy?

I'll post mine later, probably, when I can write it all down. All I'll say for now is that I emphasize a separation of the political and the personal. i.e., it's one thing to disapprove of gay unions, but quite another to oppose them legally. I will never make fun of someone's personal beliefs, but if they try to impose those beliefs politically...well, I'll let the shit fly. Also that a key role of government is to ensure the survival of the state apparatus, without which the ideas of the state are lost. This usually means the upkeep of the military, but can, in certain times, extend to personal "freedoms." I'm the sort of person who will accept ten years of tyranny for every hundred of freedom, so long as the former ensures the latter.

Shed some light on the ideas you espouse in other, more current event-related threads. Let us know why the hell you think the way you do.

(Sorry if there's been a similar thread; I didn't find one in a quick search. Either way, it's good to have another.)

classicman2
06-01-08, 08:13 AM
Populist

sracer
06-01-08, 09:18 AM
I'm the sort of person who doesn't care too much about political events; I care more about the underlying philosophies. So, what is your political philosophy? I'm not asking how you feel about particular issues (all that's covered nicely in other threads), but rather why you feel the way you do. Basically, what's the role of government? the people? What has affected your political philosophy?

I'll post mine later, probably, when I can write it all down. All I'll say for now is that I emphasize a separation of the political and the personal. i.e., it's one thing to disapprove of gay unions, but quite another to oppose them legally. I will never make fun of someone's personal beliefs, but if they try to impose those beliefs politically...well, I'll let the shit fly.
What are "personal beliefs"? As opposed to what, popular beliefs? That there should be one set of rules that I have to abide by and a separate set of rules for everyone else to?

Ky-Fi
06-01-08, 11:43 AM
Well, I guess I would describe myself as a Classical Liberal, which is of course extremely different from New Liberalism (New Liberalism probably came into being with FDR's idealogy, which advocated a greater interventionilist role for the federal government both domestically and internationally.) So a Classic Liberal philosophy of old is probably closer to current conservative or libertarian trains of thought. Although Neoconservatism is actually much closer to FDR's New Liberalism, and was in fact originated by many from the left who were uncomfortable with the counterculture, anti-American direction that New Liberalism had taken and instead wanted something closer to the old New Liberalism. Thus, Neoconservatism could be considered old New Liberalism, and Classical Liberalism is really modern (non-neo) conservatism/ libertarianism. As opposed to Neoconservatism, my Classical Liberalism might have more in common with Paleoconservatism. It's all quite simple, really.

In a nutshell, my political philosophy is founded upon hatred of the leftist/multiculturalists who are either active collaborators with or naive fellow-travelers of those who seek to destroy Western civilization and its liberal values.

wewantflair
06-01-08, 12:12 PM
Well, I guess I would describe myself as a Classical Liberal, which is of course extremely different from New Liberalism (New Liberalism probably came into being with FDR's idealogy, which advocated a greater interventionilist role for the federal government both domestically and internationally.) So a Classic Liberal philosophy of old is probably closer to current conservative or libertarian trains of thought. Although Neoconservatism is actually much closer to FDR's New Liberalism, and was in fact originated by many from the left who were uncomfortable with the counterculture, anti-American direction that New Liberalism had taken and instead wanted something closer to the old New Liberalism. Thus, Neoconservatism could be considered old New Liberalism, and Classical Liberalism is really modern (non-neo) conservatism/ libertarianism. As opposed to Neoconservatism, my Classical Liberalism might have more in common with Paleoconservatism. It's all quite simple, really.

In a nutshell, my political philosophy is founded upon hatred of the leftist/multiculturalists who are either active collaborators with or naive fellow-travelers of those who seek to destroy Western civilization and its liberal values.

:thumbsup:

Ky-Fi
06-01-08, 01:12 PM
:thumbsup:

Actually, that's a fair reprobation (even considering the fact that my post was hardly 100% serious). I should have said my political philosophy is founded upon pure, unadulterated hatred of leftISM/multiculturalISM, as I really do not hate eXcentris. :lol:

Tracer Bullet
06-01-08, 01:25 PM
I often find that your more reasonable beliefs are based on pure, unadulterated hatred.

JasonF
06-01-08, 02:49 PM
I often find that your more reasonable beliefs are based on pure, unadulterated hatred.

My problem is that I keep winding up with the adulterated stuff. They cut it with turpentine and it's just murder on your sinuses. Anyone know where I can get some of the pure stuff?

Th0r S1mpson
06-01-08, 03:07 PM
I think we should live at peace with everyone, sharing with one another with no need for taxation or laws. Which works great until people keep things to themselves, steal, rape and kill. So until we figure those things out, I'll just try to keep the taxes to a minimum, sharing to a maximum, and peace... well, peace just ain't gonna happen anywhere but your mind.

Groucho
06-02-08, 11:07 AM
My political philosophy is based on two things: change and straight talk. As you can imagine, it's been a tough year. :(

kvrdave
06-02-08, 11:09 AM
It is based on wanting to be left alone and wanting to keep the money I earn.

orangecrush
06-02-08, 12:47 PM
It is based on wanting to be left alone and wanting to keep the money I earn.
There is another group of people that just want "the man" off of their backs. They are called hippies.

VinVega
06-02-08, 12:50 PM
There is another group of people that just want "the man" off of their backs. They are called hippies.
kvrdave is the hippie of his church you know. :hippie:

Tracer Bullet
06-02-08, 12:53 PM
It is based on wanting to be left alone and wanting to keep the money I earn.

I want to keep the money you earn too. It is why I am a liberal.

nodeerforamonth
06-02-08, 01:03 PM
My political philosophy is based on two things: change and straight talk. As you can imagine, it's been a tough year. :(

Well I got some good news for you! Come this November, there is a 100% chance of change! (but 0% chance of straight talk if Obama or Hillary get elected!)

The Bus
06-02-08, 01:04 PM
Most of the political tests I have put me somewhere in the center, although on economic issues I'm on the right.

maxfisher
06-02-08, 01:06 PM
People should be free to do what they want as long as their actions don't violate others' right to do the same. The gov't should maintain citizens' ability to live their lives in safety and stay the hell out of most other areas. Those guidelines probably don't encompass the whole of my political beliefs, but I'd be pretty damn happy if they were met.

Birrman54
06-02-08, 01:53 PM
I essentially agree with maxfisher.

I support free collaboration between individuals in their personal lives including any business they engage in. If the government wishes to limit or regulate these behaviors it must be fully justified and accomplished with minimal intervention possible.

I don't see a difference between your right to engage in business with a member of a different state and your right to engage with a person from another country. I see very few reasons why it's any of the government's business to regulate, prevent, or encourage any of these activities, and the governments proclivity towards doing so has been a major obstacle in humanity's progress.

I'm actually a bit liberal in regards to some social programs, in as much as I believe a society as prosperous as ours can afford to provide some safety nets for its citizens. The problem is we've lost sight of the proper scope and direction of some of these programs. I'm a big proponent of science research, public health programs, and I think if we truly adopted free trade we'd require some kind of re-education opportunities as well as a public insurance to help trade displaced workers.

VinVega
06-02-08, 02:01 PM
I want to keep the money you earn too. It is why I am a liberal.
I want the government to have everyone's money. That's why I'm a liberal.

Tracer Bullet
06-02-08, 02:06 PM
I want the government to have everyone's money. That's why I'm a liberal.

As long as we're both in agreement that Dave shouldn't have any money.

Jason
06-02-08, 02:21 PM
As long as we're both in agreement that Dave shouldn't have any money.

Your ideas intrigue me. I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter.

The Bus
06-02-08, 02:38 PM
Must not be nice.

kvrdave
06-02-08, 02:42 PM
:lol: butts.

Superboy
06-02-08, 03:30 PM
To quote Bill Maher:

"Don't touch me, and don't touch my stuff."

B5Erik
06-03-08, 08:38 AM
My philosophy?

Get the government out of my life. Stop stealing my money and giving it to someone else.

The government does far too much and has become a nanny state. The current liberals/democrats want to treat us like children. They know better than we do about everything - just ask them!

Government should set up an economic system, have a police force and military to protect its citizens from all threats foreign and domestic (which includes protecting our borders and regulating who gets in to the country), should set up an education system, build roads, regulate certain vital industries (vital industries), and provide a minimum financial safety net for those who really need it.

I believe in lower taxes and smaller government.

Let's face it, government does very little well, and almost nothing efficiently. Let the private sector handle more - regulate it if absolutely necessary, but let the private sector handle things it can do better and more efficiently. Let state and local governments handle more than they currently do.

I'm in favor of a free market economy with some regulations (if another country has unfair trade practices, or has labor that is willing to work for amounts that no American can afford to work for, then regulate which businesses can move there, and tax them if they do).

Capitalism is the best system we've seen. It encourages people to work harder by giving them greater rewards for doing so. It encourages innovation.

Those are some things that I believe in philosophically.

classicman2
06-03-08, 08:41 AM
Let's face it, government does very little well, and almost nothing efficiently. Let the private sector handle more - regulate it if absolutely necessary, but let the private sector handle things it can do better and more efficiently. Let state and local governments handle more than they currently do.

Do you really believe that?

The Bus
06-03-08, 10:21 AM
My philosophy?

...let the private sector handle things it can do better and more efficiently.

...if another country has unfair trade practices, or has labor that is willing to work for amounts that no American can afford to work for, then regulate which businesses can move there, and tax them if they do

That's... interesting.

GreenMonkey
06-03-08, 01:59 PM
I generally describe myself as a left-leaning libertarian.

Honestly I'm no too hung up on what the government is doing on financial matters. My main concern is that we aren't running a huge deficit or debt - and the number one money suck is the crazy high military budget (and also currently the occupation of Iraq).

I think someone else on her some time ago pointed out that they are against using public money to fund NPR, museums, etc...but in the great scheme of things these are a tiny drop in the bucket compared to the other huge government expenses. I guess that's how I feel on it.

My main concern is for freedoms and liberties. I'd probably vote for a totally right-economic politician if they actually respected and protected freedoms and rights.

Red Dog
06-03-08, 02:16 PM
Constitutional libertarian.

The Bus
06-03-08, 02:20 PM
I think someone else on her some time ago pointed out that they are against using public money to fund NPR, museums, etc...but in the great scheme of things these are a tiny drop in the bucket compared to the other huge government expenses. I guess that's how I feel on it.

DoD's budget is roughly $1400-$1500 per person. DHS's is $140-150 per person.

The Park Service meanwhile gets $7.50 and the National Endowment for the Arts gets $0.50.

MartinBlank
06-03-08, 04:00 PM
I want the government to have everyone's money. That's why I'm a liberal.

rotfl Funny because it's true.

MartinBlank
06-03-08, 04:09 PM
To sum it up, personal responsibility.

Fiscally: Conservative

Socially: "Old fashioned"....I don't fuck with your shit, you don't fuck with mine...live your life how you want, BUT the minute you push that shit on my little brother or grandmother, than you crossed the line. :)

I want them to provide a military, pave roads, coin money and deliver the mail, that's it, "end of fuckin' list". Provide services that the populace can't provide for themselves.

And guns...I really like guns :cool:

Superboy
06-03-08, 06:04 PM
Do you really believe that?

Here comes the libertarian vs. social democrat trainwreck.

movielib
06-03-08, 06:22 PM
Here comes the libertarian vs. social democrat trainwreck.
Not if we ignore him. ;)

Superboy
06-03-08, 06:30 PM
Not if we ignore him. ;)

Bah. You, me, and classicman2 are so close together ideologically we're splitting hairs.

We all want the US to stop meddling in other countries, causing problems and then rushing in to "solve" them, playing the hero.

Education in the US bites, although we have different solutions, it's not as if we're blind to the problem.

A better government doesn't necessarily mean a bigger one.

A budget deficit, while theoretically possible, is not necessarily advisable nor is it executable.

movielib
06-03-08, 06:49 PM
Bah. You, me, and classicman2 are so close together ideologically we're splitting hairs.
Wait a second, classicman2 and I are close ideologically? You must be talking about a different classicman2. Or a different me.

Superboy
06-03-08, 11:11 PM
Wait a second, classicman2 and I are close ideologically? You must be talking about a different classicman2. Or a different me.

Really? that was the impression I got.

classicman2
06-04-08, 08:00 AM
Superboy,

Surely you jest!

There's no way a person who has visited this forum even infrequently and seen more than 2 of my posts & movielib's posts could conclude that we are idealogically alike.

It's just the opposite. I don't know of anyone on this forum who I am more of a polar opposite than movielib.

btw: I'm not a social Democrat, whatever that means. I mean I'm socially, but....... ;)

wendersfan
06-04-08, 08:25 AM
btw: I'm not a social Democrat, whatever that means. I mean I'm socially, but....... ;)
Wikipedia gives a pretty good definition - "social democrats aim to reform capitalism democratically through state regulation and the creation of programs and organizations which work to ameliorate or remove injustices they see in the capitalist market system."

You refer to "fettered capitalism", and Representative Barney Frank has mentioned "capitalism plus". These are similar ideas. In the past (but not here, I don't think) I have used the term "welfare state capitalism."

Red Dog
06-04-08, 08:30 AM
Superboy must be confusing age with political philosophy when it comes to c-man and movielib.

wendersfan
06-04-08, 08:33 AM
There's also the issue of two people sharing the same general idea of what constitutes a good society, but differing greatly on how to achieve it. For some, the journey is more important than the destination, or vice versa. And then others see them as one and the same.

movielib
06-04-08, 08:36 AM
Superboy,

Surely you jest!

There's no way a person who has visited this forum even infrequently and seen more than 2 of my posts & movielib's posts could conclude that we are idealogically alike.

It's just the opposite. I don't know of anyone on this forum who I am more of a polar opposite than movielib.
Thank goodness! ;)

classicman2
06-04-08, 08:37 AM
Wikipedia gives a pretty good definition - "social democrats aim to reform capitalism democratically through state regulation and the creation of programs and organizations which work to ameliorate or remove injustices they see in the capitalist market system."

You refer to "fettered capitalism", and Representative Barney Frank has mentioned "capitalism plus". These are similar ideas. In the past (but not here, I don't think) I have used the term "welfare state capitalism."

I have no problem with agreeing that the above is basically the position I take.

movielib
06-04-08, 08:40 AM
Superboy must be confusing age with political philosophy when it comes to c-man and movielib.
He's way older than I am. More than seven years! :mad:



;)

classicman2
06-04-08, 08:40 AM
movielib and I have similar positions on abortion - I think.

classicman2
06-04-08, 08:43 AM
I really feel old now.

A horse stepped on my right foot a couple of weeks ago. It's giving me fits. It hurts like hell - add to that - arthritis in the right foot. I'm having custom arch supports made.

Well - I must tell the truth. I'm too embarassed to say that it wasn't a horse, but a donkey, that stepped on my foot. ;)

wendersfan
06-04-08, 08:47 AM
Provide services that the populace can't provide for themselves.The problem with this statement is that almost everyone agrees with this. The disagreement is with deciding what people can't provide for themselves. On the one hand you have people who don't think the government even needs to print or coin currency, and on the other hand you have people who think the government needs to provide health care, housing, and a guaranteed income for people who can't provide those things for themselves. Neither position is illegitimate, yet both are extreme.

classicman2
06-04-08, 08:49 AM
Red Dog,

Can we depend on you to post the post positions of the Belmont Stakes in the sports forum? :)

movielib
06-04-08, 08:57 AM
movielib and I have similar positions on abortion - I think.
I think that a fetus is not a person until "brain birth" which occurs when its brain waves begin to resemble the form they will have throughout life. While the time of this is not the same for every fetus, the earliest occurs is the 24th week of gestation. Thus, to err on the side of caution, abortion is permissible up to that time and not thereafter.

See: http://members.aol.com/REBissell/mmAbortion81.html

The Bus
06-04-08, 08:57 AM
You refer to "fettered capitalism", and Representative Barney Frank has mentioned "capitalism plus". These are similar ideas. In the past (but not here, I don't think) I have used the term "welfare state capitalism."

It's disingenuous to dress up something that's not capitalism with the word capitalism.

classicman2
06-04-08, 09:02 AM
It doesn't seem disingenuous to mean at all.

Would you seriously want a society with pure capitalism?

I damn sure wouldn't.

wendersfan
06-04-08, 09:06 AM
It's disingenuous to dress up something that's not capitalism with the word capitalism.I would say that a system that relies predominantly on markets to set prices, supply, etc., is still capitalism, even if there is a sizable welfare state component involved. Now, when the government owns the steel industry, the auto industry, the telecom industry... That's something else.

VinVega
06-04-08, 09:08 AM
It doesn't seem disingenuous to mean at all.

Would you seriously want a society with pure capitalism?

I damn sure wouldn't.
:up:

movielib
06-04-08, 09:19 AM
I would say that a system that relies predominantly on markets to set prices, supply, etc., is still capitalism, even if there is a sizable welfare state component involved. Now, when the government owns the steel industry, the auto industry, the telecom industry... That's something else.
I find the term "capitalism" to be vague and to mean many different things to different people. For the most part I try to avoid using it. I much prefer the term "free market."

Superboy
06-04-08, 10:37 AM
I probably saw them as ideologically similar because they always seem to avoid vague generalizations and be the voice of reason. Perhaps I jumped to conclusions.

wendersfan
06-04-08, 10:47 AM
I probably saw them as ideologically similar because they always seem to avoid vague generalizations and be the voice of reason. And the forum, <i>en masse</i>, has a brain seizure. :lol:Perhaps I jumped to conclusions.I think they are more alike than they want to admit. ;)

movielib
06-04-08, 11:02 AM
I think they are more alike than they want to admit. ;)
<img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v208/bevelheadgrl/thud.gif" alt="Collapse" />

wendersfan
06-04-08, 11:13 AM
<img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v208/bevelheadgrl/thud.gif" alt="Collapse" />I couldn't find a "crossed fingers behind back" smiley. :)

FWIW, I have found that, over the years, I have a political affinity with you both. Odd, but seemingly true.

classicman2
06-04-08, 12:17 PM
We all make generalizations.

Some of us (not me) just don't want to admit it.

Chrisedge
06-04-08, 12:56 PM
Pro-Choice, Anti-Death-Penalty, Stay out of other countries affairs and they all won't hate us and try and kill us, Anti-Union, Pro Business (but no insane tax breaks), Pro Enviornment, Yet Pro US Drilling, Anti War, Both sides are gonna tax us, so they might as well spend it on all of us instead of Iraq, Isreal, Some other country, Liberal

classicman2
06-04-08, 01:02 PM
They very well might hate us and try to kill us whether we stay out of their affairs or not.

You can't turn back the clock. We have widespread national interests. Sometimes those interests must be protected.

classicman2
06-04-08, 01:04 PM
How would "welfare state capitalism" differ from the variety of Europe's systems, and how would it avoid its pitfalls?

Btw, did you read the article on a recent Foreign Affairs on the "Copenhagen consensus"?

We have a social welfare state that is not as social nor as welfarish as European systems. ;)

wendersfan
06-04-08, 01:18 PM
How would "welfare state capitalism" differ from the variety of Europe's systems, and how would it avoid its pitfalls?
Actually, I would use the term to describe some of those systems. The term isn't my own, BTW. I got it from Gøsta Esping-Anderson's <i>The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism</i>. Esping-Anderson describes three distinct types of welfare states - liberal, exemplified by the US, Canada, Australia, and to a degree, the UK (all Anglophone nations), conservative (most of Catholic Europe), and social democratic (Scandinavia). The distinguishing characteristics of each type are based on the level of labor commodification in their economies.
Btw, did you read the article on a recent Foreign Affairs on the "Copenhagen consensus"?I haven't read it yet. I've been reading the papers themselves, <a href = "http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/Default.aspx?ID=1143">downloadable from the conference website.</a>

grundle
06-04-08, 05:08 PM
My beliefs:

Before elected officials can vote for a bill or sign it, they must first read every word of it.

The U.S. Congress and Senate should be in session for only two weeks every year.

Members of the U.S. House and Senate should be limited to one term.

End gerrymandering of the U.S. House by using only straight lines going from east to west to divide states into districts.

End corporate welfare.

End eminent domain abuse.

Bring the troops home from Iraq, Japan, South Korea, France, Germany, the U.K., and the other 150+ countries where they are located.

Cut the military budget by 80%.

Legalize gay marriage.

Legalize all drugs.

Legalize unlimited water use in Las Vegas and other cities that have restrictions, and get rid of the "water police" in those cities. Raise the price of water in those cities by one penny per gallon, and use that money to build desalination plants and pipes to trasnsport the water, so people can use as much water as they want.

Abolish the personal and corporate income tax, the capital gains taxes, the divdend tax, and the inheritance tax.

Tax pollution, because it's an externality that the free market does not address.

Get the federal government out of health care and education.

Universal health care may be a good idea, but if so, let the states that want it try it. If it causes doctors to flee those states, then it's a bad idea. If it actually works, then let other states adopt it if they want.

Maintain food stamps and disability payments for people who truly need them.

Make social security voluntary.

Abolish all wage and price controls. The function of prices is to communicate information about supply and demand, and to encourage efficient use and allocation of resources. So when the supply or demand situation changes, it makes perfect sense that the price would change accordingly. Price gouging during natural disasters is a good thing, because it reduces the liklihood of shortages and hoarding, and encourages additional supplies to be rapidly brought into the disaster area from other areas.

Shut down all the bad public schools. Keep the good ones open. Get rid of teachers' unions. Abolish "education" as a college major. Fire 90% of all public school bureaucrats.

Do not use tax dollars to pay for private schools, because government funding leads to government control.

Eventually stop burning fossil fuels for the production of electricity. Build 1,000 new nuclear reactors.

Abolish all government recycling of garbage. In cases where recycling really does save resources, the free market already offers to pay people money for their garbage, such as junk yards that buy old scrap metal.

End all farm subsidies.

Abolish the death penalty.

Abolish parole for violent criminals.

Allow all law abiding adult citizens to own guns for self defense, and require them to take training and safety classes, and issue concealed carry permits to everyone who passes the classes.

The Bus
06-04-08, 05:22 PM
It's actually a bit frightening how much I agree with grundle.

classicman2
06-04-08, 05:27 PM
I wouldn't admit it if I were you. :)

I can't tell you how many of his points I think are ludicrous.

The Bus
06-04-08, 05:32 PM
I wouldn't admit it if I were you. :)

I can't tell you how many of his points I think are ludicrous.

A lot of them certainly are.

I'm willing to bet that we will disagree on which.

movielib
06-04-08, 05:42 PM
I wouldn't admit it if I were you. :)

I can't tell you how many of his points I think are ludicrous.
Yeah, he wants to keep way too much government. :)

Superboy
06-04-08, 06:29 PM
The U.S. Congress and Senate should be in session for only two weeks every year.

They're doing too little work as it is.

Maintain food stamps and disability payments for people who truly need them.

Shut down all the bad public schools. Keep the good ones open.

And here I thought no one had the solution to our problems!

These are my political beliefs:

1. If there's a problem, fix it.

2. If the problem is too big to fix yourself, pay someone else to do it.

3. If you can't legally pay someone else to do it, find someone in another country to do it.

4. While you're at it, dump your pollution there as well.

The Bus
06-04-08, 08:22 PM
4. While you're at it, dump your pollution there as well.

This would work especially well at the local/state level.

mosquitobite
06-04-08, 08:27 PM
My beliefs:
....
(I hope that isn't considered a "fix" it was just too long to quote the whole thing)

IMO grundle can be summed up as: follow the Constitution and allow the free market to work. ;)

That's what I believe as well.

I pretty much agree 100% with grundle, but that's not surprising. :)

Red Dog
06-04-08, 08:35 PM
IMO grundle can be summed up as: follow the Constitution and allow the free market to work. ;)



A number of grundle's beliefs, if enacted, would be unconstitutional.

mosquitobite
06-04-08, 08:38 PM
A number of grundle's beliefs, if enacted, would be unconstitutional.
Then ratify a change to it ;) Duh!

classicman2
06-04-08, 09:39 PM
Just one example of how ludicrous some of those ideas are.

Before elected officials can vote for a bill or sign it, they must first read every word of it.

The U.S. Congress and Senate should be in session for only two weeks every year.

grundle
06-04-08, 09:56 PM
Just one example of how ludicrous some of those ideas are.

Before elected officials can vote for a bill or sign it, they must first read every word of it.

The U.S. Congress and Senate should be in session for only two weeks every year.


These ideas help to limit the size and power of the federal government.

grundle
06-05-08, 06:00 AM
A number of grundle's beliefs, if enacted, would be unconstitutional.

One more thing to add to my list: all members of the genus canis who reflect electromagnetic radiation between 620 and 750 nm will be appointed as official court jesters.

wendersfan
06-05-08, 06:41 AM
These ideas help to limit the size and power of the federal government.There's a difference between advocating limited government and fetishizing it.

grundle
06-05-08, 07:57 AM
There's a difference between advocating limited government and fetishizing it.

If I am fetishizing limited government, then why do I allow for universal health care, food stamps, and disability payments?

If anything, I am acknowledging areas where I disagree with my own political patrty.

Are any Obama suporters here willing to disagree with his economic policies to the degree that I disagree with the economic policies of my own party?

Red Dog
06-05-08, 08:01 AM
If I am fetishizing limited government, then why do I allow for universal health care, food stamps, and disability payments?

If anything, I am acknowledging areas where I disagree with my own political patrty.


These are major divergences from the LP, assuming that by universal health care you mean government provided health care. Why are you so critical of their Bob Barr nomination then?

classicman2
06-05-08, 08:14 AM
These ideas help to limit the size and power of the federal government.

Put on your thinking cap now. You want them to be required to read every word of a bill before they can vote - yet you want them to meet only 2 weeks per year. You can see the problem, can't you? :rolleyes:

grundle
06-05-08, 08:14 AM
These are major divergences from the LP, assuming that by universal health care you mean government provided health care. Why are you so critical of their Bob Barr nomination then?


I very strongly disagree with Bob Barr's recent support of the Iraq War and the war on drugs. These disagreements are big enough that I could not vote for him.

I think, from a practical point of view, there are legitimate areas where the Libertarian Party is wrong. For example, they want to abolish the EPA. But the reason the EPA was created in the first place is because the free market did not address the externalities of air pollution. Also, I don't mind using tax dollars to pay for health care, food stamps, and disability payments for people who really are unable to care for themselves. I think that real world experience shows that there is some benefit to having these things.

I think that anyone who agrees 100% with the platform of their own political party isn't thinking enough for themselves, and isn't willing to admit that their party has some bad ideas.

Libertarian theory says that socialism can never work. But France's nuclear power plants are designed, built, owned, and operated by the French government. When real world evidence contradicts a theory, I'll side with the evidence, not with the theory.

grundle
06-05-08, 08:18 AM
These are major divergences from the LP, assuming that by universal health care you mean government provided health care.

It can be whatever kind of experiment the states want to try.

My only condition is that if it causes doctors to flee the state, they must admit that thier program is a failure.

classicman2
06-05-08, 08:19 AM
Red Dog,

Is it very libertarinish to support term limits?

grundle, I believe he claims to be a libertarian, supports term limits.

grundle
06-05-08, 08:22 AM
Put on your thinking cap now. You want them to be required to read every word of a bill before they can vote - yet you want them to meet only 2 weeks per year. You can see the problem, can't you? :rolleyes:


It's not a "problem." It's a good thing. It limits the number of pages of laws that they can pass.

For example, in this thread, I posted an article that says the federal tax code is more than 66,000 pages long, and that Hillary and Obama want to add thousands of more pages. Under my proposal, such a change would not be possible:

http://forum.dvdtalk.com/showthread.php?referrerid=65294&t=527329

classicman2
06-05-08, 08:23 AM
Term limits is about as bad an idea as is a balanced budget amendment - maybe even worse.

Red Dog
06-05-08, 08:25 AM
I think that anyone who agrees 100% with the platform of their own political party isn't thinking enough for themselves, and isn't willing to admit that their party has some bad ideas.



I agree, although I don't affiliate with political parties. I just found your criticism of Bob Barr odd, given your own areas of divergence.

And c-man - supporting term limits is quite unlibertarianish. People should be free to vote for whomever they want. Now if you got rid of political gerrymandering, that would help alleviate the problem of career politicians right there.

grundle
06-05-08, 08:26 AM
Red Dog,

Is it very libertarinish to support term limits?

grundle, I believe he claims to be a libertarian, supports term limits.

I am registered as a Libertarian. I have voted Libertarian in every Presidential election since I turned 18, and I am now 37. And yes, I do favor term limits.

classicman2
06-05-08, 08:26 AM
It's not a "problem." It's a good thing. It limits the number of pages of laws that they can pass.

Oh my god!

The number of pages now is the problem?

Do you not understand that certain things are very complicated, and it takes not only a number of written pages but discussing in the law making chambers to decide whether that idea is worthwhile.

classicman2
06-05-08, 08:29 AM
I am registered as a Libertarian. I have voted Libertarian in every Presidential election since I turned 18, and I am now 37. And yes, I do favor term limits.

Then you can't believe the idea that people have the right to vote for whomever they so choose. If you impose term limits, you take away that right. Term limits is a terrible idea. Yes, I know a number of states have term limits. That doesn't make it a good idea.

Red Dog
06-05-08, 08:33 AM
I'm just impressed that grundle expressed a position on the Iraq War and drugs. I always figured he only cared about anti-liberal/socialist libertarian positions.

classicman2
06-05-08, 08:41 AM
The XXII Amendment to the U. S. Constitution limits the president to 2 terms. I think that was a bad idea.

It is the 22nd Amendment, isn't it?

grundle
06-05-08, 08:44 AM
Oh my god!

The number of pages now is the problem?

Do you not understand that certain things are very complicated, and it takes not only a number of written pages but discussing in the law making chambers to decide whether that idea is worthwhile.

Making something more complicated than what is necessary to solve the problem is always a sign of bad engineering.

Adding thousands of pages to the tax code would make it worse, not better.

The Kyoto Treaty is thousands of pages of red tape and bureacracy, and it hasn't done much to to solve global warming. A simple carbon dioxide tax of $200 per ton would do much more to solve global warming.

Raising Las Vegas water prices by one penny per gallon and using that money to build desalination plants and pipes, is a lot better than having the water police punish people for letting their lawn water spill on to the sidewalk, forcing people to use low flush toilets, and telling people to spy on their neighbors and report it to the police.

Of course if the real goal is for the government to control people, instead of to collect taxes, stop global warming, and end water shortages, then yes, go ahead and make the laws as long and as complex as possible.

grundle
06-05-08, 08:47 AM
Then you can't believe the idea that people have the right to vote for whomever they so choose. If you impose term limits, you take away that right. Term limits is a terrible idea. Yes, I know a number of states have term limits. That doesn't make it a good idea.


The electroal college prevents the people from directly electing the President, and I favor the electoral college.

grundle
06-05-08, 08:49 AM
Then you can't believe the idea that people have the right to vote for whomever they so choose. If you impose term limits, you take away that right. Term limits is a terrible idea. Yes, I know a number of states have term limits. That doesn't make it a good idea.

Without term limits, there's a big chance that Bush would have gotten a third term.

Now what do you think of term limits?

Red Dog
06-05-08, 09:04 AM
Without term limits, there's a big chance that Bush would have gotten a third term.

Now what do you think of term limits?


Clinton would have gotten a 3rd term. That would have been preferable to Bush.

And as for Bush having a good chance at a 3rd term, rotfl. Please tell me what betting parlor you operate, so I can place wagers.

Rockmjd23
06-05-08, 09:05 AM
Clinton would still be in office today, unless he decided not to run for 3rd and 4th terms.

classicman2
06-05-08, 09:28 AM
Without term limits, there's a big chance that Bush would have gotten a third term.

Now what do you think of term limits?

I still think they're a bad idea.

I think a number of things that are in The Constitution are not very good ideas.

wendersfan
06-05-08, 09:30 AM
No, I mean the one about the success, as the author sees it, of Denmark's synthesis between markets and government.
Kuttner's piece? I read it, but nothing about it was news to me.

Red Dog
06-05-08, 09:46 AM
Without term limits, there's a big chance that Bush would have gotten a third term.

Now what do you think of term limits?

I still think they're a bad idea.

I think a number of things that are in The Constitution are not very good ideas.


Hmmmmm...
http://forum.dvdtalk.com/showthread.php?t=512611&highlight=manipulate

wendersfan
06-05-08, 10:03 AM
Hmmmmm...
http://forum.dvdtalk.com/showthread.php?t=512611&highlight=manipulate
Ah, good times... ;)

classicman2
06-05-08, 11:19 AM
I didn't say I favored the idea of a single 6 year term.

I was simply giving the arguments that folks use to support that idea.

I don't favor the requirement that to override the president's veto you have to have a 2/3 majority in each house either, but that's the law.

Red Dog
06-05-08, 11:34 AM
I didn't say anything about what you said. I simply said "Hmmmm" and posted a link. I'll let the forum decide for themselves how to intepret those comments and the above spin. ;)

classicman2
06-05-08, 11:37 AM
It's you and our moderator who is attempting to spin. :)

Red Dog
06-05-08, 11:39 AM
I report. You (the forum) decide.

classicman2
06-05-08, 11:45 AM
But the problem is that your reporting of the news is like Fox News' reporting of the news.

wishbone
06-05-08, 12:21 PM
But the problem is that your reporting of the news is like Fox News' reporting of the news.The link Red Dog posted is what it is, no more, no less. The only editorial comment posted with the link was Hmmmmm... which is more of an aside than anything else.

VinVega
06-05-08, 01:27 PM
So is c-man going to say he was taken out of context? :D

wendersfan
06-05-08, 01:32 PM
So is c-man going to say he was taken out of context? :D
Actually, given the context of it being a limitation of Bush's tenure in office, I think c-man's lack of consistency is perfectly understandable, defensible, and downright sensible. :)

grundle
06-05-08, 03:07 PM
A number of grundle's beliefs, if enacted, would be unconstitutional.

One more thing to add to my list: all members of the genus canis who reflect electromagnetic radiation between 620 and 750 nm will be appointed as official court jesters.

Didn't anyone get my joke?

jdodd
06-05-08, 03:16 PM
Didn't anyone get my joke?
"get" and "appreciate enough to comment on" are very, very different things. :D

grundle
06-05-08, 06:33 PM
"get" and "appreciate enough to comment on" are very, very different things. :D

Oh.

OK.

Red Dog
06-05-08, 07:41 PM
Actually, given the context of it being a limitation of Bush's tenure in office, I think c-man's lack of consistency is perfectly understandable, defensible, and downright sensible. :)


...and consistent.

JasonF
06-05-08, 08:03 PM
Didn't anyone get my joke?
I thought it was hilarious.

You're talking about the post where you said that without term limits, there's a big chance Bush would be elected to a third term, right?

grundle
06-05-08, 09:41 PM
I thought it was hilarious.

You're talking about the post where you said that without term limits, there's a big chance Bush would be elected to a third term, right?

No.

A number of grundle's beliefs, if enacted, would be unconstitutional.

One more thing to add to my list: all members of the genus canis who reflect electromagnetic radiation between 620 and 750 nm will be appointed as official court jesters.

"Reflect electromagnetic radiation between 620 and 750 nm" = Red.

"The genus canis" = Dog

Red Dog will be appointed as official court jester.

grundle
06-07-08, 06:11 PM
^ That's hardcore.



















:up:

Thanks!


Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0