Poll Options said:social conservative, economic liberal, aggressive foreign policy
Kind of a mixed bag in all three, really. But those are the directions I lean.
How anybody could actually consider themself a liberal while acting as apologist for the least liberal people on earth is beyond me, and while I am not a neocon by any means, I can understand the frustration of those liberals at the time who DID become the original neocons when it comes to the far left's hypocrisy.
The morons who call themselves liberal while acting as apologists for Islamism are not liberals at all, but just dogmatic idiots.
What really defines all these things? Not sure where I fit. I'm probably in the fiscal conservative group. Non-aggressive interventionist on the international policy side. Socially I think I'm more a mix than adhering to any particular one side.
I am "social conservative, economic conservative," but there is not an option for a non-interventionalist foreign policy.
My arguments against Internationalism:
1. I am a citizen of a country (US), not the world.
2. I do not believe in applying leadership throughout the world, I think we have enough problems on our own turf and need to look within.
3. I think the world would be much better off without the UN.
4. I am not interested in a single world government.
5. Internationalism is as bad as an aggressive foreign policy as I see the same results from both of them.
i'm with you on the non-interventionist policy. of course, i am socially liberal and economically centrist.I am "social conservative, economic conservative," but there is not an option for a non-interventionalist foreign policy.
My arguments against Internationalism:
1. I am a citizen of a country (US), not the world.
2. I do not believe in applying leadership throughout the world, I think we have enough problems on our own turf and need to look within.
3. I think the world would be much better off without the UN.
4. I am not interested in a single world government.
5. Internationalism is as bad as an aggressive foreign policy as I see the same results from both of them.
Hey, yeah, I saw that vote and found it very curious. I am glad you posted about it. I can dig the socially conservative position, although we disagree on that one, and the aggressive foreign policy position, which we share. However, in what ways are you economically liberal? How do you define that?
I'm using the accepted definition in US politics, economic policies in line with or similar to the Democratic Party or those few parties further Left. I'm not a Leftist in any ideological sense-- I'm not concerned with equality-- but I think progressive tax schemes are a worthwhile end in their own right aside from their value in funding the government and I believe in extensive government programs and services as well as strict regulatory control over the economy.
I just don't want the same kind of programs and services that the more traditional liberals want. For instance, I would want to pour substantial amounts of government funds into the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts. I would want to drastically increase school budgets, but I'd want the money going primarily into creating a robust vocational education system and enhanced gifted & talented programs. And better funding for public universities. Military funding would probably stay the same or even increase. (Funnel the money from boondoggle R&D programs into salaries and training budgets, though.) I'd like to have CCTV, at very least in high crime areas, and enough money to put police officers, on foot, in those areas in sufficient numbers to ensure their safety and their efficacy.
For starters.
As far as social conservatism goes... I'm a little off there, too. Fine with gay marriage and abortion, it's divorce and raising children out of wedlock I object to. Want drugs legalized, but I don't want them advertised and I want them kept behind the counter and out of sight in pharmacies, with the pornography and the marital aids. I want laws on obscenity back, if only in public, and for indecent exposure to be a little broader in scope than genitals and womens' nipples. I support gun ownership, and open carry, and for the castle doctrine to apply to your lawn. (The moat doctrine?) Protesters should be polite, out of the way, and quiet; police should be able to arrest, beat, or turn the hoses and dogs on people bothering innocent bystanders, making noise, or carrying indecent picket signs. The press, on the other hand, should be able to print anything that is not libel, obscenity, or that does not fall under the strictest definition of national security.
We probably see eye-to-eye on military matters. I think American blood is precious and every single drop of it spilled-- by foreigners, at least-- requires justification, but that our military exists to do what's good for us first and foremost and what's good for the rest of the world as an afterthought.
So, yeah. Mixed bag. In terms of label, I consider myself simply a moderate authoritarian, with a tolerance for those traditional freedoms that uphold order and civility.
I am pro-business. I do not like the progressive tax system, as it stifles business. People need to be encouraged to take risks and make money.
I would actually prefer a consumption tax, drop the income tax and drop the capital gains tax.
Welfare, national health care - it is an embarassment that we have people here that aren't covered: SHAME!
What can be done about divorce and raising kids out of wedlock? Agreed that it is really hurting our society.
On indecent exposure, I would actually make it more liberal. It's not a crime to see a penis or a nipple. Lighten up America!
Where we may differ is that I think spreading democracy is good for us and ought to be aggressively pursued.
Not really, because making money is its own encouragement. There is no progressive taxation scheme in which making more money is not rewarded-- it is only a matter of diminishing returns, which is justified in the fact that beyond a certain point, income is not reflective of productive behavior but merely of ownership. The purpose of ownership and capital is to encourage productive behavior; it is the means to an end, not an end of itself.
There is no evidence that consumption taxes depress total consumption. Some things may depress, while others may grow. Everyone should pay tax and this covers missing taxes from undeclared income. Most importantly it doesn't disproportionately hurt those who can bear it least, it makes is equitable.Consumption taxes depress consumption. Where does the capitalist's income derive from, except from consumption? Such a tax hurts everyone, and hurts disproportionately those who can bear it least.
Good point.More importantly, it is an expensive policy failure. Insufficient coverage not only means that the poor go without all but emergency care, but that prices must increase to cover indigent care-- meaning that more people cannot afford routine care. Vicious cycle. And the taxpayer ends up eating a large portion of it.
I've no problem with any of these ideas. Sounds reasonable.There's no way to stop people raising children out of wedlock that I am comfortable with, but I think we can stop encouraging it and there are certainly means by which we can discourage it. Abolish mandatory child support for children born out of wedlock. Make Welfare requirements more stringent in terms of program participation. Subsidize more effective forms of birth control, including abortion. Improve adoption services, including matching pregnant women with childless couples. (Voluntarily, of course.) Prohibit reproduction assistance technology for singles.
Well, I was half-joking and you raise some problems with waving them in public and have the advertising barrage. I just wish we weren't so puritanical. There was a thread here on DP where someone was naked in their home with an open window and a passing lady called the cops who busted the door down to charge him. That's ridiculous.It isn't a crime to see a penis or a nipple. People should be expected to have seen these things and to be comfortable with dealing with them by the time they're adults-- but they should also have the decency to not be waving them around in public. They are called "private parts" for a reason, and people ought not have to see them in public or see the parts of people they're not interested in. They certainly should not have to see them constantly flashed at them in advertisements, nor should they have blatant sexual imagery used to sell them every product under the sun.
That is part of the price you pay in a Democracy. Inefficiency and corruption. Still beats out not being able to vote somebody out of office.It's more fundamental than that. I don't think democracy is all that good for us in the first place. Look at what we elect and consistently re-elect to the Legislature, at the State and Federal levels. (Our Governors are generally pretty good I'd say... but I never would have dreamed that I could miss President Clinton so much.) Look at the shambles of our legal system, our tax codes, our regulatory structure... the sorry state of every government agency except those that are least governed democratically.
Well, now you are calling it rational self-government, like it is out of an Ayn Rand novel. Of course it isn't rational. We don't always make the best individual choices. We vote for people because of their persona as much as their positions which are half lies anyway. But globally, our systemm optimizes itself. It is able to transform itself. I know only a little political history, but the evolution of political thought in this country since the founding is simply remarkable. Civil-rights, Women's rights, child welfare, etc..You talk about whether other countries might or might not have the capacity for rational self-government. I can't honestly say that ours does, and there isn't an example I can think of and use to demonstrate a society that's better suited to democracy than ours.
I think that's a simplification. People have complex behaviors spanning the range. The people who decide to go into politics successfully, don't tend to be the cherries I'll give you. The system works in spite of these pits.People are naturally lazy and short-sighted, and only exceptional individuals are capable of rising above this nature. Theoretically, a democratic government is the best means for selecting these people-- but in practice, the people will vote on the basis of their laziness and short-sightedness, voting for whomever promises them the most bread and circuses or whomever they'd most like to have a beer with.
I don't see the same correllation regarding parent's affiliation and child affiliation, just from my personal exposure. Perhaps this is true across the country. But there you go with the rational bit again. People are not rational, so political decisions, economic decisions and the like are irrational, but sometimes educated.And for those dedicated intellectual partisans who support one party with a deep ideological fervor? The most reliable predictor of their party affiliation is their parents' affiliation. The number of people who make rational political decisions on the basis of their enlightened self-interest or their love of country is vanishingly small, and I'm not certain I can even number myself among them.
The fact of the matter is that the "will of the people" is far too weak and malleable to make a good foundation for public policy. Houses built on a foundation of sand, and all that.
Everyone should pay tax and this covers missing taxes from undeclared income. Most importantly it doesn't disproportionately hurt those who can bear it least, it makes is equitable.
I just wish we weren't so puritanical. There was a thread here on DP where someone was naked in their home with an open window and a passing lady called the cops who busted the door down to charge him. That's ridiculous.
That is part of the price you pay in a Democracy. Inefficiency and corruption. Still beats out not being able to vote somebody out of office.
I totally disagree with this. I believe this country is a rock, even with all of the bickering and bad decisions and policy shifts we see.
First part I'll grant, and it's a fair point.
Second part? Equitable? Necessary expenditures represent a far greater portion of the low income household's budget, even assuming that the high income household will be consuming luxury versions of the same items. The person with the high income can afford to save money, to invest, and many of their consumption expenditures are optional. The poor person ends up paying a far higher portion of his income in taxes than the wealthy person, on simple commodities necessary for his livelihood.
How's that equitable?
I'm not so sure of that. Of course, the big problem lies when an undemocratic government becomes inefficient and corrupt. Any functional system needs to have corrective measures in place for this... but our system clearly does not work, because the inefficient and corrupt are returned to office time and time again. Only a conviction slows them down... and then it doesn't always stop them.
And I believe we'll outlive it. I'd offer to make a wager on it, but if I'm right then the wagered sum would be meaningless and worthless. I suppose we'll simply wait and see.