User Tag List

First 123

Results 21 to 30 of 30

  1. #21
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,630

    Default

    To be honest I've become less and less enamoured with the abstract theoretical reasoning which is at the very core of libertarianism's reductive narratives about the size and role of government.

    Totally abscent from consideration of the role and size of government is usually the sort of appreciation of Say's Law and some basic economics, the ways in which government spending and public employees wages contribute to the circulation of money which many small and medium sized businesses are totally dependent on and is still required by most of the larger scale enterprises and financial services who resent paying taxes and seek to avoid it the most.

    None of this should be considered left wing or socialistic thinking per se, not at all, institutional economics and Bismarck where anything but socialist, they appreciated economic realpolitik and wherent terrified by the power of private capital and new money like a lot of modern economists and politicians.

    When you talk abstractly and theoretically about the size of government instead of practically you're failing to give any thought what so ever to the fact that those are people, those jobs you're talking about eliminating are often occupied by hard working and committed individuals, at least beneath a certain pay grade, eliminate those jobs and what will they do when the private sector inevitably can not take up the slack? Well, you've just created dependency upon benefits, which can involve such degredation and despair that it'll create a familial culture in which the work ethic is totally abscent for anything as much as three generations, also when people arent occupied with a job and spend more time at home or in their neighbourhoods the population tends to grow, its sociological fact, people with nothing to do can spend more time "partying" and unplanned pregnancies become routine.

    All that's a known and a given, the jury isnt out on that, all the evidence is available from when Thatcher took the politically motivated decision to decimate the mining communities in Wales, in order to tackle the public expense of subsidising British mining she created a public expense in unemployment and other benefits, plus the expenses of attempting to deal with the health and social impact of unemployment, which dwarfs the original figure.

    I dont know about anyone else but I'd prefer to pay taxes to subsidise someone in a job rather than subsidise them for sitting at home watching TV, I dont believe that I'll ever be on a pay grade to avoid the social and health consequences of making people unemployed and I dont fancy unemployment myself. I've always favoured full employment policies. Always will. I dont believe that it is socialistic either, not at all, socialism is something different altogether involving not just employment but empowerment of employees rather than executives and boardrooms or top income groups.

  2. #22
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,529

    Smile Rudd's Revenge

    As I write we are engaged in a political drama.

    Julia Gillard (look to your left) stabbed Kevin Rudd, our former Prime Minister, in the back and took his job. And next Monday Kevin will seek to take back the Prime Ministership from Julia.

    Both sides have their supporters, are counting the numbers, and looking as though butter wouldn't melt in their mouths.

    Everyone and their dog is deploring this drama, not realising that it is liberal democracy in action. Yes, the point of liberal democracy is the limitation of power, and by fighting over the Prime Ministership they are severely limiting their power over us.

  3. #23
    Senior Member Munchies's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    MBTI
    XNXP
    Enneagram
    OMG sx
    Socionics
    iuno
    Posts
    474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Victor View Post
    and by fighting over the Prime Ministership they are severely limiting their power over us.
    So you are saying their tactics and ways of debate are fair? Are their methods fair for a public that should be getting unbiased information to make well informed discisions?
    1+1=3 OMFG

  4. #24
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,529

    Propaganda and Self Interest

    Quote Originally Posted by Munchies View Post
    So you are saying their tactics and ways of debate are fair? Are their methods fair for a public that should be getting unbiased information to make well informed discisions?
    Liberal democracy protects the public from the power of politicians.

    And rather than giving unbiased information, politicians make propaganda for their side and against the other side.

    And the public rather than making informed decisions, vote out of self interest.

    And always remember, if you are backing a horse, always put our money on the horse called, "Self Interest", because you know they are trying.

  5. #25
    Senior Member Munchies's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    MBTI
    XNXP
    Enneagram
    OMG sx
    Socionics
    iuno
    Posts
    474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Victor View Post
    Liberal democracy protects the public from the power of politicians.

    And rather than giving unbiased information, politicians make propaganda for their side and against the other side.

    And the public rather than making informed decisions, vote out of self interest.

    And always remember, if you are backing a horse, always put our money on the horse called, "Self Interest", because you know they are trying.
    nice
    1+1=3 OMFG

  6. #26
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    To be honest I've become less and less enamoured with the abstract theoretical reasoning which is at the very core of libertarianism's reductive narratives about the size and role of government.
    To which abstract theories are you referring?


    Totally abscent from consideration of the role and size of government is usually the sort of appreciation of Say's Law and some basic economics,
    Say was a classical liberal/libertarian economist.


    the ways in which government spending and public employees wages contribute to the circulation of money which many small and medium sized businesses are totally dependent on and is still required by most of the larger scale enterprises and financial services who resent paying taxes and seek to avoid it the most.
    In the United States, the federal government is less than 25% of GDP, and it has historically been closer to 18-20%. I don't see your reasoning here.


    None of this should be considered left wing or socialistic thinking per se, not at all, institutional economics and Bismarck where anything but socialist, they appreciated economic realpolitik and wherent terrified by the power of private capital and new money like a lot of modern economists and politicians.
    Private capital is the engine that turns the turbines of the economy. And who care whether money is new or old? Surely you are not suggesting that people who inherited their money have a greater claim to wealth than those who earn their own?


    When you talk abstractly and theoretically about the size of government instead of practically you're failing to give any thought what so ever to the fact that those are people, those jobs you're talking about eliminating are often occupied by hard working and committed individuals, at least beneath a certain pay grade, eliminate those jobs and what will they do when the private sector inevitably can not take up the slack? Well, you've just created dependency upon benefits, which can involve such degredation and despair that it'll create a familial culture in which the work ethic is totally abscent for anything as much as three generations, also when people arent occupied with a job and spend more time at home or in their neighbourhoods the population tends to grow, its sociological fact, people with nothing to do can spend more time "partying" and unplanned pregnancies become routine.
    So cutting government spending (which would include welfare benefits) now causes welfare spending? Well, that's nothing if not creative. And just how "abstract" and "theoretical" do you imagine libertarians are? If you ask most libertarians, you will hear/read some pretty specific suggestions on how to shrink government. It's not mysticism. There is a coherent political platform to critique, though it does vary from person to person.


    All that's a known and a given, the jury isnt out on that, all the evidence is available from when Thatcher took the politically motivated decision to decimate the mining communities in Wales, in order to tackle the public expense of subsidising British mining she created a public expense in unemployment and other benefits, plus the expenses of attempting to deal with the health and social impact of unemployment, which dwarfs the original figure.
    The United States does not have the equivalent socialized industrial sectors. Are you seriously suggesting that cutting the largely white-collar federal workforce would leave people destitute and on the dole? These people make MORE than their private sector counterparts in this day and age.


    I dont know about anyone else but I'd prefer to pay taxes to subsidise someone in a job rather than subsidise them for sitting at home watching TV, I dont believe that I'll ever be on a pay grade to avoid the social and health consequences of making people unemployed and I dont fancy unemployment myself. I've always favoured full employment policies. Always will. I dont believe that it is socialistic either, not at all, socialism is something different altogether involving not just employment but empowerment of employees rather than executives and boardrooms or top income groups.
    How about not subsidizing either? Can we please try that?
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  7. #27
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    This is my kind of Republican...

    Brian Sandoval

    Could Pro-Choice Nevada Governor Brian Sandoval Be the GOP’s Great Hope?
    The young Hispanic Republican swing-state governor who’s cut spending while passing education reforms would be the ideal running mate—if only he weren’t pro-choice.
    Quick: Name a young Hispanic Republican swing-state governor with a record of reducing the size of government and cutting spending while passing education reforms like ending teacher tenure and establishing merit pay, all with a Democratic legislature.

    Stumped? Here’s another hint: he’s a former state attorney general and federal judge who left a lifetime appointment to the bench to successfully challenge a scandal-prone Republican incumbent.

    Meet Brian Sandoval, the 49-year old governor of Nevada. He’s a rising star in the Republican Party who just might offer the GOP a one-man antidote to what ails them electorally.

    But there’s a reason he isn’t yet a household name in political circles or on every presidential candidate’s VP short list, like Florida Sen. Marco Rubio: Sandoval is pro-choice.

    I sat down with Sandoval on the afternoon of the Nevada caucus in a cavernous meeting room off the floor of the Las Vegas convention center. Engaging, with an understated confidence, the governor is eager to talk about his record since being elected in 2010.

    “Fiscally I’m very conservative … others say that I’m socially moderate,” Sandoval says. “As a former judge I listen to all the facts, and I make a decision as to what I believe is in the best interest of the state.”

    His state is now spending half a billion dollars less than it did last year. “That’s the first time in Nevada’s history from one year to another that we spent less money,” Sandoval says with practiced pride. “We consolidated over 20 state agencies, we eliminated positions and made some tough decisions.”

    Sandoval also aims to cut red tape to help his state grow its way out of its 12.4 percent unemployment rate and “make Nevada the most business-friendly state in the country,” having recently announced the repeal of 654 outdated or overlapping regulations.

    But in contrast to the current conservative orthodoxy that the best thing government can do for the economy is to get out of the way, Sandoval believes in a limited but activist role for government that betrays a bit of an inner policy wonk. “I have to ensure that I’m being a good steward of the monies but also providing the right type of services that meet peoples’ needs,” he says.
    For example, Sandoval disagrees with Mitt Romney’s contention that the government should allow foreclosures to occur, and let the market seek its own level. Instead, Nevada has put in place a foreclosure-mediation program that Sandoval believes could be “a model for the country” and “requires people that are going into foreclosure to meet with their lender to see if they can work things out.” The banks, not surprisingly, are unhappy with this solution.

    The other issue he’s dedicated himself to is education reform. His mother is a teacher, and his kids all attended public schools in Reno, but Nevada public education has been an area of declining achievement despite increasing spending.

    “It’s not how much you spend, it’s how you spend it,” Sandoval says. “We have been putting a lot of money into education in the state of Nevada, and it’s gotten us to 50th in the country in graduation rates. We needed more accountability in our system. My model for a lot of my changes [is] what was accomplished by Governor Bush in the state of Florida.”

    Sandoval has scored some impressive early wins, ending teacher tenure and instituting merit pay despite a massive public campaign opposing it by the teachers’ union. Throughout our conversation, he returns to two bits of unfinished business: ending social promotion and making school choice available for kids in failing public schools.

    All of which brings us to one of the most vexing questions facing Washington: how to pass ambitious legislation with divided government in an age of hyperpartisanship.

    Sandoval chalks up his successes on that front to “personal diplomacy”: “I met individually with all 63 members of the legislature … I had to make the case with regard to the education reforms that the status quo has gotten to where we are, which was at the bottom, and that we needed to do something aggressive and do something different. So it didn’t come easily but I think it came because … I worked with people and they know that I think it’s in the best interest of our state.”

    It’s a similar refrain to what I heard interviewing Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey—reform legislation can pass a Democratic legislature if there is determined personal outreach from the executive.
    One political misstep Sandoval did make was his early endorsement of Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s presidential campaign, which he’s unapologetic for doing. “He’s a personal friend of mine,” Sandoval says. “When I came off the federal bench and attended my first Republican governors meeting he reached out to me and was very supportive … loyalty and friendship all should stand for something.” Since Perry dropped out, Sandoval has declined to endorse anyone else, while assuring party leaders that the ultimate nominee will have his full support.

    One bit of advice the national Republican Party needs is how to connect with Hispanic voters. Sandoval doesn’t play the identity-politics game and he expresses no hostility to the neighboring Arizona’s controversial illegal-immigration law. “I’m a strong supporter of states’ rights to do what they need,” he says. “So they had to do what they had to do. And yes, there was a lot of backlash with regard to that.”

    Sandoval’s political prescription centers on Republicans showing a more active interest in the Hispanic community, particularly on the economic and education fronts: “Get away from some of the divisive [issues] and get to the fact that, at least in our state, the Hispanic population has the highest amount of unemployment,” counsels Sandoval. “I think that’s where the candidates need to go is to show that they can provide for better education, provide for better economy and get people to work.”
    Given his executive and judicial experience and his strong fiscal-conservative record as the popular Hispanic governor of a general election swing state, the lack of talk about him as a potential vice presidential candidate seems to come from the unofficial but strictly enforced pro-life litmus test that has been imposed on all GOP nominees and their veep picks since 1976.

    “I respect a woman’s ability to make that decision for herself,” Sandoval says directly. “My approach has always been to be up front with the people of this state and so when I get asked about it I’m very blunt and clear and it makes some people unhappy.”

    This simple statement qualifies as courageous given the current composition of the GOP. After all, pro-choice Republicans are now all but an endangered species as opposition to abortion even in cases of rape and incest emerges as the new party standard.

    Good people can and do disagree on this most difficult and personal issue, but the rightward rush of the Republican Party has drummed out any hint of dissent, especially when it comes to national offices. If a man like Briand Sandoval finds himself effectively blocked from national office for failing that litmus test despite his record of conservatism in so many other areas, the party is painting itself into a corner.
    Sandoval says that while he is “humbled” when his name is occasionally mentioned as a possible ticketmate, he adds that “I think I have the best job in the country.” It is the polite political response. But he has been a young man in a hurry and given the need for the Republican Party to reach out to the center-right and rebuild the big tent, it would not surprise me if he were to be a Supreme Court nominee or drafted as a GOP presidential candidate sometime in the future.

    But asked if the GOP will grow beyond the pro-life litmus test that seems to stand between him and top-tier status, he gives a slight shrug: “I don’t know if that’s ever going to happen.”

  8. #28
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,630

    Default

    I think we should discuss the proper role of libertarians or the limits of libertarianism rather than government.

    Change the script from a list of resource starved public services to a list of the already obscenely rich who're begging yet another tax break at everyone elses expenses and often the least able to afford it.

  9. #29
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    I think we should discuss the proper role of libertarians or the limits of libertarianism rather than government.

    Change the script from a list of resource starved public services to a list of the already obscenely rich who're begging yet another tax break at everyone elses expenses and often the least able to afford it.
    That is all you ever do, anyway. Was this the royal we? How about you make your own (lonely, unopened) thread about your topic?
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  10. #30
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,529

    I and We

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    That is all you ever do, anyway. Was this the royal we? How about you make your own (lonely, unopened) thread about your topic?
    We are now moving into electronic tribes in the global village. So we no longer have the royal 'we', rather we have the tribal 'we'.

    I know this is a difficult transition for those living in a society based on extreme individualism.

    And also it is a difficult transition for literate individuals.

Similar Threads

  1. The role of TV in your life
    By fidelia in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 05-05-2011, 05:43 PM
  2. Parenting Philosophies/The Role of Children In Society
    By Charmed Justice in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 122
    Last Post: 11-19-2009, 10:51 PM
  3. [ENTP] The role of argumentation in ENTPs
    By Udog in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 92
    Last Post: 09-18-2009, 02:08 PM
  4. Role of Si in nostalgia
    By Totenkindly in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 05-09-2007, 04:32 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