User Tag List

First 1234 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 39

Thread: Politics

  1. #11
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by redcheerio View Post
    That's why I don't consider myself libertarian. I think too much deregulation is dangerous because greed is too much a part of human nature to let it run "free". But I am pretty socially liberal, or at least relative to American politics. I don't see the point of spending a lot of time and money punishing people for doing their own thing if they aren't hurting anyone else.

    As for "fiscally conservative", I just meant that I have moved more in that direction relative to when I was younger, in recognition that people can be lazy, so we need ways to separate the lazy people from the people who need some help from social services as a launching pad out of poverty and into independence. I don't see the "trickle down" effect happening much, though. Incentives for innovation and small businesses to succeed, yes! Tax cuts for billionnaires to get richer at the expense of everyone else, no.
    What about replacing both welfare and social services with jobs? I know that no one has heard of Full Employment as a political or economic policy in years but it was the consensus after the war in the UK, GDH Cole wrote an excellent book about it, another women, I dont remember her name now wrote a reply to Hayeks road to Serfdom and dedicated it to him called Freedom and Planning on the same topic too, Orwell thought that Hayeks book was great when he reviewed it but said that having known unemployment himself and hated it Hayek had to have never known it to oppose Full Employment as a policy.

    FDR had some policies I liked when I read about them in history class, it is and always was preferable to pay someone to do something instead of paying them to do nothing, there are cases for taxation besides redistribution or paying for the welfare state. I'm not even talking about the equalisation of incomes or anything like that either.

  2. #12
    Senior Member redcheerio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    E9
    Posts
    912

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    What about replacing both welfare and social services with jobs? I know that no one has heard of Full Employment as a political or economic policy in years but it was the consensus after the war in the UK, GDH Cole wrote an excellent book about it, another women, I dont remember her name now wrote a reply to Hayeks road to Serfdom and dedicated it to him called Freedom and Planning on the same topic too, Orwell thought that Hayeks book was great when he reviewed it but said that having known unemployment himself and hated it Hayek had to have never known it to oppose Full Employment as a policy.

    FDR had some policies I liked when I read about them in history class, it is and always was preferable to pay someone to do something instead of paying them to do nothing, there are cases for taxation besides redistribution or paying for the welfare state. I'm not even talking about the equalisation of incomes or anything like that either.
    In general, yes, I think it's probably a good idea. I don't know enough about its implementation to know what the problems might be, though, or why we haven't implemented it.

  3. #13
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EJCC View Post
    Consider that Lark consistently mentioned his values, throughout his descriptions of his political views. (Nothing against that; in fact I'm about to do the same thing in this post.) It's pretty much impossible to convince someone to believe a certain thing politically without morals being involved somehow -- because as empirical/objective as you will try to be, certain appeals to morality will resonate with you more.
    For a long time I used to think that you had to make your case objectively or empircally without recourse to norms or morals but I've decided its impossible, although I think you have to be prepared or able to defend the values, not simply, I believe this so I think you should, why? Is inevitable and reasonable and alright.

    A lot of the time time the objectivity just boiled down to selfishness, which as far as it goes is alright too but not the complete story.

  4. #14
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    That's true, political beliefs are often a reflection of one's first principles overall.


    Don't know if this entirely applies to you, but this might be of help:
    Anglo-Catholic Socialism
    At the very least, has plenty of resources on the "religious left".
    What about liberation theology?

  5. #15
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by redcheerio View Post
    In general, yes, I think it's probably a good idea. I don't know enough about its implementation to know what the problems might be, though, or why we haven't implemented it.
    Well there are commentaries from the conservative side of UK politics which suggest it cost the UK its imperial capacity.

    Its probably true but I dont know its a bad thing.

  6. #16
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,911

    Default

    I more a less stand by Social Democracy.

    We have have private property, and people seeking profit, and market interaction, and all that good stuff. But it does not regulate itself. It does not automatically default to a condition either prosperous or stable. Government regulation is needed to make that happen. Further more, not everything has to be commercial. It's not all or nothing. We can have both commercial and non-commercial institutions in a society, and in fact I think the competition of the two is best. Health care is better like in Japan or Germany, with many, many private practices and a public option. The media is better when there is strong public broadcasting adjacent to commercial media, etc.

    But I generally trust those regulations to be put in place by a singular authority. In most cases I like to maximize the representative element in law and governance. I seek the virtuous cycle of civic literacy. The more literate people are (in other words, informed and likely to participate), the more equalizing policies are made into law, which in turn means the more informed and likely to participate people are.

    The biggest contradiction I ever feel toward social democracy is that I sometimes get fed up with democracy as we know it. The flaws of a complete technocracy are obvious, but I tend to think that the holy grail of politics is to somehow synthesize democracy and technocracy in a way that brings the best of both worlds. In lieu of that, we're just going to have to focus on keeping the voting public informed and hungry.

    Probably the two most radical ideas I have are that I would ultimately like to see corporations replaced altogether by cooperatives, and that I don't believe in intellectual property at all.
    _______________________________________

    There was talk about how values influence politics. This is good to bring up. I am usually frustrated with trying to explain my political values, including the above instance. They never explain enough. But my values are the consistent guide to everything.

    My morals can be called positive utilitarianism. Mine is of an altruistic nature rather than egoistic. The most happiness distributed among the most people for the longest time. That's the aim that drives everything. In terms of figuring out what's accurate, I love logic, think it's the only fundamental tool of real insight. Through logic you can do cost-benefit analysis to figure out what leads toward my stated moral goal. That is essentially why I do and doing that has taken me to my present political philosophy. But I'm sure to learn more and my philosophy will presumably change subtly over time, even if not dramatically.
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  7. #17
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,911

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    What about replacing both welfare and social services with jobs? I know that no one has heard of Full Employment as a political or economic policy in years but it was the consensus after the war in the UK, GDH Cole wrote an excellent book about it, another women, I dont remember her name now wrote a reply to Hayeks road to Serfdom and dedicated it to him called Freedom and Planning on the same topic too, Orwell thought that Hayeks book was great when he reviewed it but said that having known unemployment himself and hated it Hayek had to have never known it to oppose Full Employment as a policy.

    FDR had some policies I liked when I read about them in history class, it is and always was preferable to pay someone to do something instead of paying them to do nothing, there are cases for taxation besides redistribution or paying for the welfare state. I'm not even talking about the equalisation of incomes or anything like that either.
    No can do. Technology makes us more efficient while the population continues to grow. With every passing year full employment only because less feasible. We're going to have to learn to devalue employment in ways most modern people probably can't even imagine.

    Unless you're okay with continually reducing the amount of hours people work without reducing their pay, or making up an endless variety of trivial useless jobs. But the former is obviously just a move toward welfare if not welfare itself, and the latter is simply a pointless inefficiency.
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  8. #18
    Senior Member redcheerio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    E9
    Posts
    912

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    No can do. Technology makes us more efficient while the population continues to grow. With every passing year full employment only because less feasible. We're going to have to learn to devalue employment in ways most modern people probably can't even imagine.

    Unless you're okay with continually reducing the amount of hours people work without reducing their pay, or making up an endless variety of trivial useless jobs. But the former is obviously just a move toward welfare if not welfare itself, and the latter is simply a pointless inefficiency.
    That assumes technology won't lead to other, more productive forms of employment.

    I do agree that make-work and inefficient work for the sake of employment is stupid and pointless, though.

  9. #19
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,911

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by redcheerio View Post
    That assumes technology won't lead to other, more productive forms of employment.

    I do agree that make-work and inefficient work for the sake of employment is stupid and pointless, though.
    Technology will lead to more productive forms of employment, which is exactly why there will be less demand for labor. Why hire 5 people to produce what my technology now allows 1 person to produce?
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  10. #20
    Per Ardua Metamorphosis's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    3,466

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Antimony View Post
    Also- in making my decision, I wish to be as empirical as possible.
    Don't feel the need to box yourself in with a title. Once people make a decision on their political loyalty they seem to have some kind of great difficulty altering their beliefs or giving alternative viewpoints a fair hearing.
    "You will always be fond of me. I represent to you all the sins you never had the courage to commit."

    Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office
    than to serve and obey them. - David Hume

Similar Threads

  1. How did you get the politics you did
    By Zergling in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 63
    Last Post: 01-21-2016, 06:06 PM
  2. Political Party?
    By wyrdsister in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 69
    Last Post: 08-04-2009, 08:09 PM
  3. What are your political views?
    By Dufresne in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 76
    Last Post: 01-30-2008, 08:08 AM
  4. Office Politics: Play or Pay
    By proteanmix in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 61
    Last Post: 10-08-2007, 05:08 PM
  5. Political Compass Test
    By Meursault in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 09-08-2007, 12:10 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO