• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Politics and people

question

  • Total voters
    6
Slartibartfast

Slartibartfast

Jesus loves you.
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
71,887
Reaction score
58,398
Location
NE Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Simple question. Do you base your politics off of where you want people to go socially. In other words, do you support policies which would require people to be more responsible, hard working, honest, moral, etc or do you base your political positions off of where people currently are at in terms of those things?
 
I base mine off what I think maximizes liberty and equality of opportunity. Whatever one chooses to do with their liberty and opportunity is strictly up to them.
 
You mean like:

Law A would accept that GroupA is coming out of school with overwhelmingly large financial aid debt (larger, in fact, than the average cost of attending most state universities for the same program). In response to this fact, Law A creates a very easy repayment program that allows the loan holder to pay $25/month for the first year, $50/month for the second year, and then $100/month for every year there-after at 2% interest, regardless of prime. Law A is justified by its writer in the following way: "We must protect graduating students from the suffocating debt that school creates."

Law B would accept that GroupA is coming out of school with overwhelmingly large financial aid debt (larger, in fact, than the average cost of attending most state universities for the same program). In response to this fact, Law B creates rules that would limit the amount of money one can borrow for school, adjusted yearly to compensate for reasonable increases in tuition/book/lodging costs. Additionally, Law B would create rules for how universities are allowed to spend tuition receipts, there by providing safe guards for students with new loan limits. Law B is justified by its writer in the following way: "We realize that college costs are rising at drastic rates, but the problem is two fold. Students must borrow responsibly, and universities must spend responsibly."

First law assumes all other factors stay the same or cannot be changed. Second law assumes that all factors can be manipulated and that the involved parties should be held responsible for their decisions.

I'd support Law A over Law B.
 
I'm not sure, I move to increase liberty as much as possible; so wherever that falls.
 
megaprogman said:
Simple question. Do you base your politics off of where you want people to go socially. In other words, do you support policies which would require people to be more responsible, hard working, honest, moral, etc or do you base your political positions off of where people currently are at in terms of those things?
Click to expand...

Neither. I do not think we can force any one to go anywhere, and I do not think limiting yourself to the status quo is good.
 
tessaesque said:
You mean like:

Law A would accept that GroupA is coming out of school with overwhelmingly large financial aid debt (larger, in fact, than the average cost of attending most state universities for the same program). In response to this fact, Law A creates a very easy repayment program that allows the loan holder to pay $25/month for the first year, $50/month for the second year, and then $100/month for every year there-after at 2% interest, regardless of prime. Law A is justified by its writer in the following way: "We must protect graduating students from the suffocating debt that school creates."

Law B would accept that GroupA is coming out of school with overwhelmingly large financial aid debt (larger, in fact, than the average cost of attending most state universities for the same program). In response to this fact, Law B creates rules that would limit the amount of money one can borrow for school, adjusted yearly to compensate for reasonable increases in tuition/book/lodging costs. Additionally, Law B would create rules for how universities are allowed to spend tuition receipts, there by providing safe guards for students with new loan limits. Law B is justified by its writer in the following way: "We realize that college costs are rising at drastic rates, but the problem is two fold. Students must borrow responsibly, and universities must spend responsibly."

First law assumes all other factors stay the same or cannot be changed. Second law assumes that all factors can be manipulated and that the involved parties should be held responsible for their decisions.

I'd support Law A over Law B.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure. I think my question has more to do with how much one is an optimist. For example proponents of the 401k program thought they would be helping people be in control of their money and move them towards responsibility and we are about to have a ****ton of people retire without savings, which is going to put a huge burden on everyone.

So the question is, was this a social engineering failure based on the idea that people would change in response to a new law?

There are countless examples of this, but the 401k one was just on the radio.
 
megaprogman said:
Simple question. Do you base your politics off of where you want people to go socially. In other words, do you support policies which would require people to be more responsible, hard working, honest, moral, etc or do you base your political positions off of where people currently are at in terms of those things?
Click to expand...
I am more focused on social issues and politics that promote freedoms, liberty and social justice. The bold I see as subjective and more personal issues. I would rather see people given the opportunity to work on those aspects as they choose or see fit.
 
I am issue-oriented, so your question doesn't compute for me. :lol:
 
I guess this question is a fail then.
 
megaprogman said:
I guess this question is a fail then.
Click to expand...

It's a good question- probably just a little too abstract for the tastes of many people. It's easy to answer, but not in just a word or two. It requires analysis and foresight over ideology.
 
megaprogman said:
I'm not sure. I think my question has more to do with how much one is an optimist. For example proponents of the 401k program thought they would be helping people be in control of their money and move them towards responsibility and we are about to have a ****ton of people retire without savings, which is going to put a huge burden on everyone.

So the question is, was this a social engineering failure based on the idea that people would change in response to a new law?

There are countless examples of this, but the 401k one was just on the radio.
Click to expand...

It's pretty interesting that the author of the book (can't remember) that was influential in 401k's has called it a failed experiment (after pushing back his own retirement). Wish I had time to google the book title but it kind of laid the case for why everyone should be an investor in the markets and how opening the markets to everyone was this massive game changer.
 
megaprogman said:
Simple question. Do you base your politics off of where you want people to go socially. In other words, do you support policies which would require people to be more responsible, hard working, honest, moral, etc or do you base your political positions off of where people currently are at in terms of those things?
Click to expand...

I think soft encourage policies, to change behavior are a good idea, although I do not believe that should be mandatory.
 
megaprogman said:
I'm not sure. I think my question has more to do with how much one is an optimist. For example proponents of the 401k program thought they would be helping people be in control of their money and move them towards responsibility and we are about to have a ****ton of people retire without savings, which is going to put a huge burden on everyone.

So the question is, was this a social engineering failure based on the idea that people would change in response to a new law?

There are countless examples of this, but the 401k one was just on the radio.
Click to expand...

The program wasn't complete in behavior modification.
401ks are still newish.

I'd support laws adjusted to disallow withdrawals, except in extreme circumstances.

The problem really isn't 401ks, it's that most people are financial illiterates.
 
megaprogman said:
I guess this question is a fail then.
Click to expand...


No, it is actually an interesting question. I had to stop and think about it for a while, which is always a good thing. :mrgreen:





Actually I'm still thinking about it.
 
Last edited:
megaprogman said:
Simple question. Do you base your politics off of where you want people to go socially. In other words, do you support policies which would require people to be more responsible, hard working, honest, moral, etc or do you base your political positions off of where people currently are at in terms of those things?
Click to expand...

I base my politics on my idea that humans group themselves into several kinds of communities and compete with each other for control of scarce resources, and that government should be used to referee this competition to ensure it is done in a non-violent way and so that no one group violates the human rights of another group when competing for control of scarce resources.

Not sure which one of your options my political philosophy falls on, though.
 
megaprogman said:
Simple question. Do you base your politics off of where you want people to go socially. In other words, do you support policies which would require people to be more responsible, hard working, honest, moral, etc or do you base your political positions off of where people currently are at in terms of those things?
Click to expand...

I base my political opinions off policies that I think would maximize an individual's chance to move up the socioeconomic ladder.
 
samsmart said:
I base my politics on my idea that humans group themselves into several kinds of communities and compete with each other for control of scarce resources, and that government should be used to referee this competition to ensure it is done in a non-violent way and so that no one group violates the human rights of another group when competing for control of scarce resources.

Not sure which one of your options my political philosophy falls on, though.
Click to expand...



Sounds more reactive than "herding" so I'd guess based on where people are now, moreso than on "where we want them to go".
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Behavior economics homey.

Opens the world of soft incentives to get people to act/be better.
Click to expand...


Well, tbh I'm rather ambivalent about the idea of government deciding what people should be doing (apart from not committing crimes) and then structuring economic incentives/disincentives in such as way as to "push", ahem I mean encourage, wink nudge, them in that direction.

There's already quite a bit of that in the tax code.... one of the reasons it is so complex.

If our goverrnment acted like it knew its ass from a donkey, I might not be so ambivalent.... as it is.... well....
 
Goshin said:
Well, tbh I'm rather ambivalent about the idea of government deciding what people should be doing (apart from not committing crimes) and then structuring economic incentives/disincentives in such as way as to "push", ahem I mean encourage, wink nudge, them in that direction.

There's already quite a bit of that in the tax code.... one of the reasons it is so complex.

If our goverrnment acted like it knew its ass from a donkey, I might not be so ambivalent.... as it is.... well....
Click to expand...

I tend to think that this is a result from the voters not knowing their asses from donkeys as well.
 
Goshin said:
Well, tbh I'm rather ambivalent about the idea of government deciding what people should be doing (apart from not committing crimes) and then structuring economic incentives/disincentives in such as way as to "push", ahem I mean encourage, wink nudge, them in that direction.

There's already quite a bit of that in the tax code.... one of the reasons it is so complex.

If our goverrnment acted like it knew its ass from a donkey, I might not be so ambivalent.... as it is.... well....
Click to expand...

That is true.
It doesn't necessarily have to be legislation.

I was actually reading about something yesterday, that was done by a private bank in South Africa.
They wanted to get more customers, from the large, generally unbanked black population.
Pretty cool story, the ending sucks though because the government closed it down.

Freakonomics » Lottery Loopholes and Deadly Doctors: A New Freakonomics Radio Podcast

Transcript is available at the bottom of the page, before the comments section.
 
StillBallin75 said:
I tend to think that this is a result from the voters not knowing their asses from donkeys as well.
Click to expand...



That point is well made and hard to argue with.... and one of the reasons I am sometimes ambivalent about universal sufferage, as opposed to "earned sufferage".
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
That is true.
It doesn't necessarily have to be legislation.

I was actually reading about something yesterday, that was done by a private bank in South Africa.
They wanted to get more customers, from the large, generally unbanked black population.
Pretty cool story, the ending sucks though because the government closed it down.

Freakonomics » Lottery Loopholes and Deadly Doctors: A New Freakonomics Radio Podcast

Transcript is available at the bottom of the page, before the comments section.
Click to expand...


I see... interesting. I have no objection to purely-voluntary incentives.... but the gov rarely does anything that is purely voluntary (ie if you don't do it their way you pay higher taxes... I dont consider that purely voluntary).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom