View Poll Results: How Would You Vote?

Voters
38. You may not vote on this poll
  • Without money, people have no hope.

    22 57.89%
  • Without hope of social justice, money has no use.

    14 36.84%
  • I have no idea but I think this is exactly what I'll have to decide.

    2 5.26%
  • I don't vote.

    0 0%
Page 11 of 13 FirstFirst ... 910111213 LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 124

Thread: Would You Vote Against Your Conscience For A Better Economy?

  1. #101
    Engineer

    RabidAlpaca's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    American in Europe
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:46 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    14,567

    Re: Would You Vote Against Your Conscience For A Better Economy?

    Quote Originally Posted by iliveonramen View Post
    I agree to an extent....but government is not some autonomous entity. It's controlled and it serves the interests of some group of people...which is why class or groups within a country DO matter. It's also why looking at government vs All People is false in my opinion.

    The Monarchies of Europe were controlled by the Aristocracy. They gave additional "rights" to landowners while taking away rights of the peasants. So it wasn't some automous entity that just gobbled up power...it was government serving the interests of one group of people.

    Also...the Civil Rights Act gave additional powers to the Federal Government...and that power was used to break down institutional racism in the south. So you could say the rights of White Males in the South were lost while rights to African Americans was gained.

    I just think this idea of "government vs citizens" is a wrong view. Government is sometimes a means of serving the interests of one group but it's not like in the absence of government equality exists.
    I suppose this is where it should end between you and me, because we've stumbled across the fundamental issue. I believe that when the government's sole role is to ensure the natural rights of it's citizens, economic prosperity will follow. I believe in equal opportunity, not equal outcome. It's only when the government gets involved that a system develops where certain individuals have certain privileges that others do not.
    Last edited by RabidAlpaca; 02-10-12 at 01:20 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by LowDown View Post
    I've got to say that it is shadenfreudalicious to see the rich and famous fucquewads on the coast suffering from the fires.

  2. #102
    Engineer

    RabidAlpaca's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    American in Europe
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:46 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    14,567

    Re: Would You Vote Against Your Conscience For A Better Economy?

    Quote Originally Posted by kamikaze483 View Post
    It is a shame that we do not have more viable choices, but the fact of the matter is that in this two party system, you only have two viable choices.

    Being gay, it is a bitter pill for me to swallow many times. But I will always vote against ultra liberal candidates, because I believe they are ruining this country- sacrificing economic security and opportunity in the name of some bull****, nonsensical, illogical and unreasonable ideal of fairness.

    It would have been most upsetting for me to have had to vote for Bachman or Perry, but I would have cast my vote in good conscience for whichever candidate runs against the current president.

    Currently, it looks like there are only two choices for me: Romney, who I believe would allow Obamacare to run it's course (which would be a deal breaker for me if there were ANY other choices), or Santorum, who stated that he thinks libertarians believe in "no government," and who is as anti gay as any of the other candidates have been.

    Obama isn't a choice, because he has the destruction of this country as his primary goal, IMO, calling this destruction "a fundamental transformation."

    The primary in Georgia isn't until March. Between now and then, I'm trying to decide which of the GOP candidates is more likely to be able to beat Obama. Right now, I am leaning toward Santorum. I believe he would support the repeal of Obamacare (if it was placed on his desk, because I don't really think he has the leadership skills necessary to be a good president). The problem I have with Romney is that not only will the democrats make it a black vs. white election, but with Romney as the candidate, they will present the choice to stupid, mindless Americans that it is a poor vs. rich election. I have real concerns that that is a hurdle he may not overcome.

    Maybe soon the libertarian party will put forward a candidate that is strong on defense, foreign policy, and border control. When they do, I support them all the way to the ballot box.
    Why not Ron Paul? I challenge you to find a candidate that supports individual rights, such as the right to be gay, more than he does. I find it baffling that you would ever vote for someone like Santorum who openly admits that people like you are the work of satan.
    Quote Originally Posted by LowDown View Post
    I've got to say that it is shadenfreudalicious to see the rich and famous fucquewads on the coast suffering from the fires.

  3. #103
    Pontificator
    iliveonramen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    On a Gravy Train with Biscuit Wheels
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:30 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    9,158

    Re: Would You Vote Against Your Conscience For A Better Economy?

    Quote Originally Posted by RabidAlpaca View Post
    I suppose this is where it should end between you and me, because we've stumbled across the fundamental issue. I believe that when the government's sole role is to ensure the natural rights of it's citizens, economic prosperity will follow. I believe in equal opportunity, not equal outcome. It's only when the government gets involved that a system develops where certain individuals have certain privileges that others do not.
    I was actually going to start the post off with that...that our space between fundamental views are too far to bridge.
    I respect your views...but in now way agree with them.

    I believe in equal opportunity, not equal outcome
    There's never going to be complete equality in society...I don't know of many people that make that argument. There's always going to be some stratification.

    I'm curious...do think there's equal opportunity? When you look at numbers that show the largest determination of where you end up in life is based on your parents income do you think that shows equal opportunity? Taking out any assumptions what would you see statistically if everything was based on a clean slate when someoen is born and opportunity for success was equal? I don't think the two are entirely separate.
    “Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone.” John Maynard Keynes

  4. #104
    Engineer

    RabidAlpaca's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    American in Europe
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:46 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    14,567

    Re: Would You Vote Against Your Conscience For A Better Economy?

    Quote Originally Posted by iliveonramen View Post

    I'm curious...do think there's equal opportunity? When you look at numbers that show the largest determination of where you end up in life is based on your parents income do you think that shows equal opportunity? Taking out any assumptions what would you see statistically if everything was based on a clean slate when someoen is born and opportunity for success was equal? I don't think the two are entirely separate.
    I think life is unfair, and that the government's attempts to make it "fair" have made it even less fair. I believe in a true free market society the poor have much better chances to change their situations than they do when the government tries to help them.

    I believe that human nature is fairly easy to understand, it's driven by rational self interest. Although socialism is a great idea, it involves the idea that people in their hearts will actually put the good of the group over the good of themselves and their family, which will never happen.

    I believe the government makes poor people poorer. Take the community reinvestment act in the 70's. They took a bunch of poor people, spent untold millions to build projects and stuck them all in there. This segregated them from the rest of society, and their new homes quickly fell apart literally at the seams. Instead of seeing how the rest of the world is, and how people can become successful, they were among only poor people, in an unbelievably high crime area, which perpetuated that condition.

    Human beings can only be motivated to dream and strive when failure is not an option. It's a sink or swim world, and coddling people doesn't do anyone any good, most certainly not the poor.
    Quote Originally Posted by LowDown View Post
    I've got to say that it is shadenfreudalicious to see the rich and famous fucquewads on the coast suffering from the fires.

  5. #105
    Pontificator
    iliveonramen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    On a Gravy Train with Biscuit Wheels
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:30 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    9,158

    Re: Would You Vote Against Your Conscience For A Better Economy?

    I think life is unfair, and that the government's attempts to make it "fair" have made it even less fair. I believe in a true free market society the poor have much better chances to change their situations than they do when the government tries to help them.
    There are varying degrees of trying to help. There are things like education provided for all and grants and subsidized loans for the poor. There are also programs like WIC which provides formulas to poor parents which is to help poor children to get what they need to develop. What are you views on these types of programs?

    I believe that human nature is fairly easy to understand, it's driven by rational self interest. Although socialism is a great idea, it involves the idea that people in their hearts will actually put the good of the group over the good of themselves and their family, which will never happen.
    That's not necessarily true. There are varying degrees and I personally believe that there are things that help society as a whole and should be done by the government. I don't believe that everything should be based on some "greater good" or if it's the "greater good" it should be implemented. It should be a consideration.

    I believe the government makes poor people poorer. Take the community reinvestment act in the 70's. They took a bunch of poor people, spent untold millions to build projects and stuck them all in there. This segregated them from the rest of society, and their new homes quickly fell apart literally at the seams. Instead of seeing how the rest of the world is, and how people can become successful, they were among only poor people, in an unbelievably high crime area, which perpetuated that condition.
    I don't agree that was the CRA that caused that. It was the collapse of the manufactoring sector and jobs that previously provided lower income less educated individuals decent paying jobs. That's the difference between the 1950's and the 1970's or now. You could be someone who wasn't destined for college or some fancy white collar job but could get a job that would provide for you and your family...it was a pipeline out of poverty for a lot of individuals.

    it's possible to move up the ladder out of poverty but it's a lot more difficult if there are missing rungs...

    Human beings can only be motivated to dream and strive when failure is not an option. It's a sink or swim world, and coddling people doesn't do anyone any good, most certainly not the poor.
    I don't think it's coddling people...I think ultimately it providing stability. I don't buy this idea that people choose to live in poverty because they are ensured food. The fact is...if we have millions of people that are faced with "failure" it causes problems. Say right now...with people out of work for over a year...those social safety nets bridge the gap through a bad economy.

    I also disagree that monetary award is the end all be all. Look, I'm sure you're the same way...I personally make a very good salary...I also love my job and find it challenging....the money (though nice) is not my main incentive. I like the challenge. Steve Jobs enjoyed the challenge. If all he was worried about was profit he wouldn't of created machines that took forever to build and perfection wouldn't of been his goal. Good enough to sell would be his goal. He enjoyed taking his vision and making something live up to his vision.
    “Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone.” John Maynard Keynes

  6. #106
    Engineer

    RabidAlpaca's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    American in Europe
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:46 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    14,567

    Re: Would You Vote Against Your Conscience For A Better Economy?

    Quote Originally Posted by iliveonramen View Post
    There are varying degrees of trying to help. There are things like education provided for all and grants and subsidized loans for the poor. There are also programs like WIC which provides formulas to poor parents which is to help poor children to get what they need to develop. What are you views on these types of programs?
    I believe education should be on a voucher system, those who wish to partake in the government system can, and those who do not are not stuck with the bill. This also would require that government schools would have to strive to remain competitive, instead of wallowing away in their state run monopoly. I'm not against WIC, per se. I think such programs that offer coupons for very specific items can be a good thing, after all, it's not the child's fault that the family is poor. I am not 100% against a social safety net. I certainly think there should be one, but there should be very strict requirements, and a quid pro quo between the government and the recipient. There should be a time limit, and one must show that he is actively and aggressively pursuing work. Germany (although not an example of libertarian economics) has a system somewhat like this. They attempt to retrain or rehab the out of work back into society. We just let them hang out for as long as they want, no strings attached.




    Quote Originally Posted by iliveonramen View Post
    That's not necessarily true. There are varying degrees and I personally believe that there are things that help society as a whole and should be done by the government. I don't believe that everything should be based on some "greater good" or if it's the "greater good" it should be implemented. It should be a consideration.
    Some programs, perhaps, but there are VERY few that the free market would not take care of. If there's a desire in the free market, rest assured that it will be met.


    Quote Originally Posted by iliveonramen View Post
    I don't agree that was the CRA that caused that. It was the collapse of the manufactoring sector and jobs that previously provided lower income less educated individuals decent paying jobs. That's the difference between the 1950's and the 1970's or now. You could be someone who wasn't destined for college or some fancy white collar job but could get a job that would provide for you and your family...it was a pipeline out of poverty for a lot of individuals.

    it's possible to move up the ladder out of poverty but it's a lot more difficult if there are missing rungs...
    It wasn't the CRA that caused it, it was the CRA that made it worse, all the while wasting tax dollars in the process. I believe the collapsing of the middle class, and "missing rungs" as you put it are due to government intervention in the economy, but that's another discussion altogether.

    Quote Originally Posted by iliveonramen View Post
    I don't think it's coddling people...I think ultimately it providing stability. I don't buy this idea that people choose to live in poverty because they are ensured food. The fact is...if we have millions of people that are faced with "failure" it causes problems. Say right now...with people out of work for over a year...those social safety nets bridge the gap through a bad economy.
    Already answered the first part above. The boom/bust business cycle is a direct product of the federal reserve, but once again, for another thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by iliveonramen View Post
    I also disagree that monetary award is the end all be all. Look, I'm sure you're the same way...I personally make a very good salary...I also love my job and find it challenging....the money (though nice) is not my main incentive. I like the challenge. Steve Jobs enjoyed the challenge. If all he was worried about was profit he wouldn't of created machines that took forever to build and perfection wouldn't of been his goal. Good enough to sell would be his goal. He enjoyed taking his vision and making something live up to his vision.
    Of course, money is not everything in life, the more important thing is to be challenged and fulfilled. In our society in compared to past generations this is exceptionally harder to do, and I know why.


    Lastly I want to point out that even though we are on opposite sides of the spectrum, I really enjoy debating with you. It remains intellectual and civil. I can't stand the mud throwing that goes on around here.
    Quote Originally Posted by LowDown View Post
    I've got to say that it is shadenfreudalicious to see the rich and famous fucquewads on the coast suffering from the fires.

  7. #107
    Pontificator
    iliveonramen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    On a Gravy Train with Biscuit Wheels
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:30 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    9,158

    Re: Would You Vote Against Your Conscience For A Better Economy?

    Lastly I want to point out that even though we are on opposite sides of the spectrum, I really enjoy debating with you. It remains intellectual and civil. I can't stand the mud throwing that goes on around here.
    I agree entirely...the reason I come to these websites isn't to agree with someone with the same position but to have my views challenged. Like you I prefer it to be a civil intellectual debate.

    I believe education should be on a voucher system, those who wish to partake in the government system can, and those who do not are not stuck with the bill. This also would require that government schools would have to strive to remain competitive, instead of wallowing away in their state run monopoly. I'm not against WIC, per se. I think such programs that offer coupons for very specific items can be a good thing, after all, it's not the child's fault that the family is poor. I am not 100% against a social safety net. I certainly think there should be one, but there should be very strict requirements, and a quid pro quo between the government and the recipient. There should be a time limit, and one must show that he is actively and aggressively pursuing work. Germany (although not an example of libertarian economics) has a system somewhat like this. They attempt to retrain or rehab the out of work back into society. We just let them hang out for as long as they want, no strings attached.
    Actually I'm all for reform and making government better. I think any Liberal should agree with you...I think everybody (Liberal and Conservative) should take a pragmatic approach...who does it better, where do we get most bang for a buck...things that government should be doing how do we make it more efficient. I don't agree things should be ideologicaly driven (and you seem to have the same view) that Government is the answer for everything or that Government is never the answer.

    I actually agree with a voucher system. I don't think that privat ran schools are better based on being private...I take issue with the whole structure of our education system. Kids from bad neighborhoods forced to go to school where all the kids are from bad neighborhoods. This is why I'm for a voucher system...when someone is slated for a "bad" school, whose parent is involved and the kid has potential....keeping him in a troubled school could potentially ruin his chances. I think they should be given the opportunity to get a voucher and go to a school where like minded parents and kids are.

    I do think most of the positive numbers coming out of school choice are based on those situations. it's a self selecting populations where from the start the parents are interested enough to get those vouchers and apply for their schools. I think the voucher system does empower parents to make decisions on their kids education. It does leave all the "trouble" kids with no support or what not but at least....we can't just leave them alone...the good thing is when you have a population of like kids you can better institute changes that are geared towards those specific types of kids.

    Anywho...yeah...completely different discussion but I agree. I also agree with your Germany example. I have no problems with some kind of program that helps but also leads towards someone providing for themselves. I think that's a very rational approach.

    Some programs, perhaps, but there are VERY few that the free market would not take care of. If there's a desire in the free market, rest assured that it will be met.
    Maybe for certain populations and above...yes the market will meet most of the needs of middle class and above individuals. I don't think the market meets the needs of the poor....because well they are poor. They don't have the disposable income to make it worthwhile to provide services.

    I believe the collapsing of the middle class, and "missing rungs" as you put it are due to government intervention in the economy, but that's another discussion altogether.
    Very true...I'm sure there will be a future thread where that pops up and we can have it.

    Of course, money is not everything in life, the more important thing is to be challenged and fulfilled. In our society in compared to past generations this is exceptionally harder to do, and I know why.
    I agree....I do think there's much higher stratification with younger generations. I think the middle class families are taking their kids to piano lessons and stimulating their minds and they are competitive in a global economy. I worry about the growing poor who seem to be falling behind...that's a major problem.
    “Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone.” John Maynard Keynes

  8. #108
    Phonetic Mnemonic ©
    radcen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Look to your right... I'm that guy.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:46 AM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    33,407

    Re: Would You Vote Against Your Conscience For A Better Economy?

    Quote Originally Posted by RabidAlpaca View Post
    I think life is unfair, and that the government's attempts to make it "fair" have made it even less fair. I believe in a true free market society the poor have much better chances to change their situations than they do when the government tries to help them.
    Are opportunities artificially closed to them now?


    Quote Originally Posted by RabidAlpaca View Post
    I believe that human nature is fairly easy to understand, it's driven by rational self interest. Although socialism is a great idea, it involves the idea that people in their hearts will actually put the good of the group over the good of themselves and their family, which will never happen.
    Completely disagree. Human nature is IRrational self-interest... or selfishness. Pure free market/libertarian philosophies imply that people will include the good of the group with their own good... which will never happen, either.

  9. #109
    Engineer

    RabidAlpaca's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    American in Europe
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:46 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    14,567

    Re: Would You Vote Against Your Conscience For A Better Economy?

    Quote Originally Posted by radcen View Post
    Are opportunities artificially closed to them now?
    I don't know what you're asking. Perhaps you could give an example.
    Quote Originally Posted by LowDown View Post
    I've got to say that it is shadenfreudalicious to see the rich and famous fucquewads on the coast suffering from the fires.

  10. #110
    Sage
    lizzie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    between two worlds
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,581

    Re: Would You Vote Against Your Conscience For A Better Economy?

    Quote Originally Posted by iliveonramen View Post
    I'm curious...do think there's equal opportunity? When you look at numbers that show the largest determination of where you end up in life is based on your parents income do you think that shows equal opportunity? Taking out any assumptions what would you see statistically if everything was based on a clean slate when someoen is born and opportunity for success was equal? I don't think the two are entirely separate.
    There is equal opportunity, and in fact, likely more opportunity for those who come from backgrounds considered disadvantaged. There will never be true equality, because no two individuals are the same. Even if they had the same intelligence level and identical educational background, the differences in humans are too numerous to expect equality in outcomes. Pretend that you and I have equal intelligence and educations. You may be frugal by nature, invest your money well, and very successful, whereas I may be generous with my money and spend it on stuff that I just want to have, and end up penniless in my old age. The only thing that government can really guarantee is that the opportunities are there for those who are willing and able to pursue them.
    "God is the name by which I designate all things which cross my path violently and recklessly, all things which alter my plans and intentions, and change the course of my life, for better or for worse."
    -C G Jung

Page 11 of 13 FirstFirst ... 910111213 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •