TomNook:

Armitage Shanks:

werepossum:

Cheeze_Pavilion:
[quote=werepossum post=18.74255.832390]Those who style themselves liberal here want the government involved in everything, whilst our conservatives supposedly want government to be less intrusive.

Except marriage, abortion, drug use, and the separation of church and state.

You know, minor stuff people don't really care about... ;-D

I'm just shooting off the hip here, but wouldn't it be fair to say that both sides want governments involved in everyday life, but in different areas of everyday life?

For example (and I'm speaking really broadly here):

"Liberal" governments want to have gun-control and limited economic control. They want to stay out of religion and issues like abortion.

"Conservatives" want the government to have tighter law and order control (PATRIOT act etc) and a say in issues like gay marriage and keeping drugs illegal. They want to leave the market free and things like gun laws to not be highly restrictive.

But then again thats just my pretty uninformed opinion.

Its because the Conservatives have been hijacked by the radical Christian right. Liberals want lots and lots of economic control.

"radical" and conservative are contradictory terms

Right wing economics tend to assume perfectly competitive markets, where monopolistic power does not exist, everyone has perfect information and all markets hit a fair and sensical equilibrium point. This has so far never happened in real life. Ever. Also, anyone who thinks non-govermental monopolies are a good thing realy needs to retake basic economics classes.

Hard Right Wing economics leads to boom bust economies, with sometimes spectacular results and sometimes horrific market failures. With little government intervention, the rich-poor gap widens and markets become either more competitive or suffer from serious market failure in the form of monopolistic, monopoly or oligopoly markets. There is slightly more incentive to earn, but more vulnerable members of society suffer.

Hard Left Wing economics can be productively inefficient, but allocatively efficient. Merit goods are provided at the right level, and the markets are inheritly more stable in a vacuum. There is less incentive to earn, but everyone is catered for.

Really it's a value judgement.

Here's another one of those campaign videos:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65I0HNvTDH4

It is an interesting look at things.

the_tramp:

BaronAsh:

their tax rate is already 35% which is the second highest in the world. In my mind taxing somebody because he is successful is such bullshit I think their should just be less government spending.

Here in the UK the highest tax threshhold is 40%, and that kicks in once you've hit £40,000 and we're doing completely fine with it. Whilst I agree with you that it's bullshit to tax someone more just because they're more successful it does eventually get to a point where you simply cannot spend all of your earnings.

Yeah I heard the "35% is second highest in the world" thing on the radio, sorry for the bad statistic.

Mirika_the_warrior:

TomNook:

Armitage Shanks:

werepossum:

Cheeze_Pavilion:
[quote=werepossum post=18.74255.832390]Those who style themselves liberal here want the government involved in everything, whilst our conservatives supposedly want government to be less intrusive.

Except marriage, abortion, drug use, and the separation of church and state.

You know, minor stuff people don't really care about... ;-D

I'm just shooting off the hip here, but wouldn't it be fair to say that both sides want governments involved in everyday life, but in different areas of everyday life?

For example (and I'm speaking really broadly here):

"Liberal" governments want to have gun-control and limited economic control. They want to stay out of religion and issues like abortion.

"Conservatives" want the government to have tighter law and order control (PATRIOT act etc) and a say in issues like gay marriage and keeping drugs illegal. They want to leave the market free and things like gun laws to not be highly restrictive.

But then again thats just my pretty uninformed opinion.

Its because the Conservatives have been hijacked by the radical Christian right. Liberals want lots and lots of economic control.

"radical" and conservative are contradictory terms

How so?

I love how American political wonks completely ignore the entire rest of the world and get lost in their own (or each others') navels.

Arguably the highest-taxed society on the planet is Sweden. Traditional American econo-political doctrine says that Sweden should be a hell of corrupt governmental controls over all aspects of society... and yet the Swedish standard of living is among the highest of any nation, with reasonably low levels of unemployment, reasonably strong military and police forces, and a great deal of personal freedom.

Arguably the most laissez-faire nation on the planet, with the least government interference in private enterprise, is Somalia. I don't think they have gun control problems or overbudgeted entitlement programs there, true, but... not much in the way of streets, or law and order for that matter, either. Personal freedom? I suppose it's there, if you can wheedle it out of the nearest clan chieftain/warlord.

This isn't to say that government=good and private-enterprise=bad, just that the gross oversimplifications of the current crop of pundits in the US don't reflect what's going on right now in the real world. Democratic and Republican superpartisans have created cloud-cuckooland fantasy pictures and pretended they're real for far too long because they haven't actually looked beyond their own partisan dogmas.

(Me, I favour a mixed-economy that damps the huge boom-bust swings of a pure market economy without the stifling inflexibility of a planned economy. Heresy to the Chicago School dogmatics, I know, but it seems to reflect what the top 10 best countries to live in are doing. How you'd convince Americans that this is the way to go is left as an exercise for the reader.)

-- Steve

PS: trickle-down doesn't work for the same reason that any other long distribution chain leads to higher costs... each link in the chain takes a cut with a portion going to savings instead of recirculation (or, in thermodynamic terms, each conversion leads to entropic losses) and so for anything to make it down to the very lowest levels of the economy you need massive injections at the top. That kills the middle class, and it's horribly inefficient at priming the economic pump anyway; even trickle-up works better that way because lower-income earners can't afford to put as much aside into uncirculated savings.

Anton, minignu, I am very pleased that there are sane people on this forum. I was started to get very worried that I was completely isolated in my correctness.

2 reasons to vote Obama:

Palin.

McCain.

/thread.

TomNook:

Mirika_the_warrior:
"radical" and conservative are contradictory terms

How so?

Technically, Mirika is correct.

"Radical" comes from the latin radix (if I've got that precisely correct) for "root", and in a political context it means ripping up what's there by the roots and replacing it with something entirely different.

"Conservative" (origin discussed above) means preserving what's there.

You can't do both at once.

-- Steve

PS: The term "reactionary" is a political term used to describe those who want to replace what is here now with something that was there earlier, to "go back to better times". That's probably a better term to use than "radical conservative".

Damnit! I had an air-tight rebuttal to that video but I opened a new tab to get a source and lost the entirety of my post. "...next time, Gadget! NEXT TIME!!!"

werepossum:

While liberal in the classic sense stood for a love of freedom, that's no longer true of American politics. Those who style themselves liberal here want the government involved in everything, whilst our conservatives supposedly want government to be less intrusive. A good way to think of contemporary American politics is that conservatives want to control everything thing you do, while liberals want to control everything you do AND everything you think.

I'll reply to all my quoters through this post, since I'd get a little repetative instead. I highlighted the part of your rebuttal that I think most clearly demonstrates my point. The core issues of the ideologies still remain, you can't change an ideology - what you can is invent new ones or change your political stance, but then you are no longer working according to the doctrines of the old ideology. A liberal person who suddenly gets conservative ideas can not claim to have changed liberalism, he's simply gone conservative. While I will cede the point that there are dozens, hundreds and even thousands of ways you can look at one of the three core ideologies, the main points of them stand anyway. A liberal person cannot argue the need of large-scale control and still convincingly call himself liberal.

Anyway, what the main point of my post was - though it may have come across a bit weakly in comparison with the rest of the post, my weakness is that I tend to dwell too much on the wrong bits, was that the person I quoted (I can no longer remember who it was) said on one hand that you should watch what politicians do rather than what they say they do, and then went right on and ignored his own advice. Now, the reason I highlighted "american politics", is just that. The american politicians who claim to be liberal are, apparently not, liberal. So watch what they do instead of what they say they do.

And yes, words change meaning over time. This, however, is not as true for ideologies as it is for other matters. Socialism, liberalism, and conservatism are the three core ways of looking at politics. Each of these cores is divided into dozens of other ideologies, which in turn are divided into dozens of others. But liberalism is, and always will be, about personal freedom and unobtrusive government - just as conservatism remains about preservation.

Anton P. Nym:
I love how American political wonks completely ignore the entire rest of the world and get lost in their own (or each others') navels.

Or the fact that the government as a competitor in the marketplace has been established since Art. 1, Sec. 8 of the Constitution--yet DHL, UPS, and FedEx compete with the USPS--in thinking that any entrance of the government into the marketplace will lead to Soviet-style command economics.

Your.Name.Here:
I would just like to point out that making fun of Obama in any way is racist.
You elitist bigot.

As is using his middle name, pointing out that he is skinny, calling him liberal, or referring to his past as a community organizer.

Nomadic:

werepossum:

While liberal in the classic sense stood for a love of freedom, that's no longer true of American politics. Those who style themselves liberal here want the government involved in everything, whilst our conservatives supposedly want government to be less intrusive. A good way to think of contemporary American politics is that conservatives want to control everything thing you do, while liberals want to control everything you do AND everything you think.

I'll reply to all my quoters through this post, since I'd get a little repetative instead. I highlighted the part of your rebuttal that I think most clearly demonstrates my point. The core issues of the ideologies still remain, you can't change an ideology - what you can is invent new ones or change your political stance, but then you are no longer working according to the doctrines of the old ideology. A liberal person who suddenly gets conservative ideas can not claim to have changed liberalism, he's simply gone conservative. While I will cede the point that there are dozens, hundreds and even thousands of ways you can look at one of the three core ideologies, the main points of them stand anyway. A liberal person cannot argue the need of large-scale control and still convincingly call himself liberal.

Anyway, what the main point of my post was - though it may have come across a bit weakly in comparison with the rest of the post, my weakness is that I tend to dwell too much on the wrong bits, was that the person I quoted (I can no longer remember who it was) said on one hand that you should watch what politicians do rather than what they say they do, and then went right on and ignored his own advice. Now, the reason I highlighted "american politics", is just that. The american politicians who claim to be liberal are, apparently not, liberal. So watch what they do instead of what they say they do.

And yes, words change meaning over time. This, however, is not as true for ideologies as it is for other matters. Socialism, liberalism, and conservatism are the three core ways of looking at politics. Each of these cores is divided into dozens of other ideologies, which in turn are divided into dozens of others. But liberalism is, and always will be, about personal freedom and unobtrusive government - just as conservatism remains about preservation.

While all this may be true in other countries, in the US we have what we have. Calling things other than they are recognized here because they differ in different places would be foolish at best.

Mathew952:
McCains plan is to give rich people money, and then that money will be spent, and trickle down to the rest of us. I'm sorry, but how about instead of injecting prospeirty at the top, and hoping it comes down to the rest of us eventually, let's just give the middle class a tax cut. It makes more sense to give a 1,000 dollars to each middle class family each year, for them to spend, than to give 700,000 dollars more in tax breaks, to the top 1% families.

This post is more illustrative of the decline in the concept of America than anything I've seen in recent years. From rugged individualism, we have declined to the concept that all wealth belongs first to government, to be equitably distributed on the basis of, well, existence. Any income that IS NOT confiscated by government is considered a gift from government; any income that IS confiscated by government is considered an investment. From considering ourselves free creatures by right of G-d, with all the rights, privileges, and terrors of freedom, we have as a people devolved into serfs presenting ourselves and our families with nooses around our necks and silver pennies in our hands that we may no longer face the challenges of life on our own.

Somehow we have taken the bravest and boldest of each nation and in a mere few hundred years devolved into something that, frankly, I don't see being able to compete with other socialist nations in the long term. We're losing our advantages whilst retaining our deficiencies.

werepossum:

Mathew952:
McCains plan is to give rich people money, and then that money will be spent, and trickle down to the rest of us. I'm sorry, but how about instead of injecting prospeirty at the top, and hoping it comes down to the rest of us eventually, let's just give the middle class a tax cut. It makes more sense to give a 1,000 dollars to each middle class family each year, for them to spend, than to give 700,000 dollars more in tax breaks, to the top 1% families.

This post is more illustrative of the decline in the concept of America than anything I've seen in recent years. From rugged individualism, we have declined to the concept that all wealth belongs first to government, to be equitably distributed on the basis of, well, existence.

That's not what that quote says. That quote describes a situation where the idea that all wealth belongs to the government in the first place is a given, and the difference between McCain and Obama is who they think should be given it as a privileged.

True rugged individualism requires people to build their own roads, deliver their own mail, fight their own wars, and put out their own housefires. That just doesn't work.

There's a big gap between thinking all wealth belongs to the government, and thinking the government has the right to tax and spend for the general welfare because some of that wealth was created by prior spending on the general welfare--it's hard to make a million dollars selling widgits if the government hasn't provided an infrastructure for commerce.

Soviet Russia did not fall because it had a command economy; it fell because it geared it's economy towards winning a conventional war of armies and navies, not realizing that wars between countries are now fought with tariffs and corporations and trade agreements and information.

Ever wonder why the U.S. government keeps bailing out the airlines? Because it's kinda hard to open up a McDonald's in Red Square if you can't fly executives around.

As for serfdom, here are two quotes from the book that that idea that government regulation/participation in the economy is a form of serfdom: a book called _The Road to Serfdom_ from F.A. Hayek. These are some of the passages from that book that might surprise people here:

For instance, to limit working hours, to require certain sanitary arrangements, to provide an extensive system of social services is fully compatible with the preservation of competition. There are, too, certain fields where the system of competition is impracticable. For example, the harmful effects of deforestation or of the smoke of factories cannot be confined to the owner of the property in question. But the fact that we have to resort to direct regulation by authority where the conditions for the proper working of competition cannot be created does not prove that we should suppress competition where it can be made to function.

and

But there are two kinds of security: the certainty of a given minimum of sustenance for all and the security of a given standard of life, of the relative position which one person or group enjoys compared with others. There is no reason why, in a society which has reached the general level of wealth ours has, the first kind of security should not be guaranteed to all without endangering general freedom; that is: some minimum of food, shelter and clothing, sufficient to preserve health. Nor is there any reason why the state should not help to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance in providing for those common hazards of life against which few can make adequate provision. It is planning for security of the second kind which has such an insidious effect on liberty. It is planning designed to protect individuals or groups against diminutions of their incomes...It is important not to confuse opposition against the latter kind of planning with a dogmatic laissez faire attitude."

werepossum:

Somehow we have taken the bravest and boldest of each nation and in a mere few hundred years devolved into something that, frankly, I don't see being able to compete with other socialist nations in the long term. We're losing our advantages whilst retaining our deficiencies.

Actually, we developed from a nation of smugglers who out-competed other merchants by not paying taxes on stuff like tea...

I know that goes a little to far, but it's important to remember that the values this country was founded on were not in opposition to Communism, but to Mercantilism. Big difference.

werepossum:
From considering ourselves free creatures by right of G-d, with all the rights, privileges, and terrors of freedom, we have as a people devolved into serfs presenting ourselves and our families with nooses around our necks and silver pennies in our hands that we may no longer face the challenges of life on our own.

Somehow we have taken the bravest and boldest of each nation and in a mere few hundred years devolved into something that, frankly, I don't see being able to compete with other socialist nations in the long term. We're losing our advantages whilst retaining our deficiencies.

Drama, much?

If you're right, then perhaps your Founding Fathers were mistaken on how best to advance the ideals of the Enlightenment they so treasured. Perhaps preserving political freedom isn't best done by assuming that people will be responsible for their own freedom... perhaps their fears that Athenian demogoggery would undermine their Republic were well-founded, and their measures to counteract that insufficient.

Honestly I don't think so; I think they did make some mistakes (they're only human) but nothing irreversable to the American ideals of equality before the law and right to seek betterment of one's living ("pursuit of happiness") has yet happened. The myth that "rugged individualism" is the foundation of American society is eroding, yes, but it was a myth fostered more by Marlboros ("For a taste as mild as the West was wild!") than by Jefferson.

I certainly don't believe that any of those drafting your Constitution ever thought that plutocracy should be the ultimate result of that document... and if anything is killing rugged individualism in America, it's the concentration of power into the hands of the wealthy and their use of that power to increase the dependance of wage earners upon that power.

-- Steve

Cheeze_Pavilion:

werepossum:

Mathew952:
McCains plan is to give rich people money, and then that money will be spent, and trickle down to the rest of us. I'm sorry, but how about instead of injecting prospeirty at the top, and hoping it comes down to the rest of us eventually, let's just give the middle class a tax cut. It makes more sense to give a 1,000 dollars to each middle class family each year, for them to spend, than to give 700,000 dollars more in tax breaks, to the top 1% families.

This post is more illustrative of the decline in the concept of America than anything I've seen in recent years. From rugged individualism, we have declined to the concept that all wealth belongs first to government, to be equitably distributed on the basis of, well, existence.

That's not what that quote says. That quote describes a situation where the idea that all wealth belongs to the government in the first place is a given, and the difference between McCain and Obama is who they think should be given it as a privileged.

True rugged individualism requires people to build their own roads, deliver their own mail, fight their own wars, and put out their own housefires. That just doesn't work.

There's a big gap between thinking all wealth belongs to the government, and thinking the government has the right to tax and spend for the general welfare because some of that wealth was created by prior spending on the general welfare--it's hard to make a million dollars selling widgits if the government hasn't provided an infrastructure for commerce.

Soviet Russia did not fall because it had a command economy; it fell because it geared it's economy towards winning a conventional war of armies and navies, not realizing that wars between countries are now fought with tariffs and corporations and trade agreements and information.

Ever wonder why the U.S. government keeps bailing out the airlines? Because it's kinda hard to open up a McDonald's in Red Square if you can't fly executives around.

As for serfdom, here are two quotes from the book that that idea that government regulation/participation in the economy is a form of serfdom: a book called _The Road to Serfdom_ from F.A. Hayek. These are some of the passages from that book that might surprise people here:

For instance, to limit working hours, to require certain sanitary arrangements, to provide an extensive system of social services is fully compatible with the preservation of competition. There are, too, certain fields where the system of competition is impracticable. For example, the harmful effects of deforestation or of the smoke of factories cannot be confined to the owner of the property in question. But the fact that we have to resort to direct regulation by authority where the conditions for the proper working of competition cannot be created does not prove that we should suppress competition where it can be made to function.

and

But there are two kinds of security: the certainty of a given minimum of sustenance for all and the security of a given standard of life, of the relative position which one person or group enjoys compared with others. There is no reason why, in a society which has reached the general level of wealth ours has, the first kind of security should not be guaranteed to all without endangering general freedom; that is: some minimum of food, shelter and clothing, sufficient to preserve health. Nor is there any reason why the state should not help to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance in providing for those common hazards of life against which few can make adequate provision. It is planning for security of the second kind which has such an insidious effect on liberty. It is planning designed to protect individuals or groups against diminutions of their incomes...It is important not to confuse opposition against the latter kind of planning with a dogmatic laissez faire attitude."

But the idea that all wealth automatically belongs first to government shouldn't be a given, at least not to conservatives and libertarians. Giving a tax break - literally the government taking less of a person's wealth or income - is not a gift, any more than choosing not to rob someone is a gift. By equating tax rates with gifts, we accept that we are property, that government knows best who should have what. With all due respect to Hayek, the situation today is not guaranteeing a certain minimum income to everyone, it's

No, never mind. There's no point to answering these kinds of posts. America has decided that government should run our lives, taking everything and equitably re-distributing it, telling us what we can and can't do, what we can and can't say, what we can and can't think. I just need to accept it.

Anton P. Nym:

werepossum:
From considering ourselves free creatures by right of G-d, with all the rights, privileges, and terrors of freedom, we have as a people devolved into serfs presenting ourselves and our families with nooses around our necks and silver pennies in our hands that we may no longer face the challenges of life on our own.

Somehow we have taken the bravest and boldest of each nation and in a mere few hundred years devolved into something that, frankly, I don't see being able to compete with other socialist nations in the long term. We're losing our advantages whilst retaining our deficiencies.

Drama, much?

If you're right, then perhaps your Founding Fathers were mistaken on how best to advance the ideals of the Enlightenment they so treasured. Perhaps preserving political freedom isn't best done by assuming that people will be responsible for their own freedom... perhaps their fears that Athenian demogoggery would undermine their Republic were well-founded, and their measures to counteract that insufficient.

Honestly I don't think so; I think they did make some mistakes (they're only human) but nothing irreversable to the American ideals of equality before the law and right to seek betterment of one's living ("pursuit of happiness") has yet happened. The myth that "rugged individualism" is the foundation of American society is eroding, yes, but it was a myth fostered more by Marlboros ("For a taste as mild as the West was wild!") than by Jefferson.

I certainly don't believe that any of those drafting your Constitution ever thought that plutocracy should be the ultimate result of that document... and if anything is killing rugged individualism in America, it's the concentration of power into the hands of the wealthy and their use of that power to increase the dependance of wage earners upon that power.

-- Steve

Sorry if that's too dramatic. More and more I'm finding The Escapist forums too depressing, and it's starting to make me a little weird I think. I think I'm going to have to leave, at least for awhile, maybe go back to the hard science sites I've been neglecting, maybe do some more writing.

Anyway, it's been fun.

werepossum:

But the idea that all wealth automatically belongs first to government shouldn't be a given,

I agree.

But that's not the basis on which you criticized the previous poster.

I agree it shouldn't be a given to even Social Democrats. Tax breaks are not gifts, like you said--every tax the government levies should have a sufficient justification for being levied in the first place.

However, just because you disagree with someone else's justification does not automatically mean the only consistent ideology they can base that justification on is that all wealth belongs to the government and tax breaks are gifts.

Spending to increase the general level of freedom or security in a country is justifiable, I think, without any need to base it on the idea that the government owns all wealth. Of course we'll have disagreements about the line between freedom and security and luxuries, but, any system that endeavors to provide freedom and security will have those disagreements.

werepossum:

Sorry if that's too dramatic. More and more I'm finding The Escapist forums too depressing, and it's starting to make me a little weird I think. I think I'm going to have to leave, at least for awhile, maybe go back to the hard science sites I've been neglecting, maybe do some more writing.

Anyway, it's been fun.

Yes the escapist can be depressing because it makes you think that people everywhere so want government to run their lives because they don't want to provide for their own wellbeing. But this is a slanted community and not what many people want/think/believe, I promise you there is a bunch of conservative youth(and older people) out there, almost all at my college (UT's business admin school) believe like you and I. So there is hope yet for conservatism don't get too down.

Most of its is basic Macroeconomics, but damn the media tells me to vote for Oboma so thats who my vote will go to!

Rankao:
Most of its is basic Macroeconomics, but damn the media tells me to vote for Oboma so thats who my vote will go to!

I just like the idea that he taught Constitutional Law. We could use someone in office for a couple of years that thinks civil rights aren't just for commie arab pussies. Basically, whatever damage he does to the economy, I figure he'll make up for it in appointing good judges and setting an entirely new tone in the Federal government, if his behavior running the Harvard Law Review is any guide.

Cheeze_Pavilion:

Rankao:
Most of its is basic Macroeconomics, but damn the media tells me to vote for Oboma so thats who my vote will go to!

I just like the idea that he taught Constitutional Law. We could use someone in office for a couple of years that thinks civil rights aren't just for commie arab pussies. Basically, whatever damage he does to the economy, I figure he'll make up for it in appointing good judges and setting an entirely new tone in the Federal government, if his behavior running the Harvard Law Review is any guide.

Liberties and Freedom is the last thing on my mind when I am in a mob raiding a Grocery to feed myself and my family.

You see the issue is that the Bush Administration has been injecting meth into our economy, making seem like its doing very well, and lets face it we have had meth injected into it for the last 6 or so years. Now what the next president does with the economy will be crucial. Not because he will be able to "wave a magic wand" (both Bush and Oboma can be quoted saying that excact phrase about gas problems) but it will be a deciding factor if we will be able to pull out of it in the next 8 years opposed to the next 10,20, life.

I mean we could have a go at having our government run every aspect of our lives, but you wouldn't be able to do that without having bread riots i the streets of New York and Chicago (at least maintaining the basic Civil Rights and Liberties). I believe in the next 4 years we will really see the true face of Oboma, and what his real feeling of Civil Rights are.

Rankao:

Cheeze_Pavilion:

Rankao:
Most of its is basic Macroeconomics, but damn the media tells me to vote for Oboma so thats who my vote will go to!

I just like the idea that he taught Constitutional Law. We could use someone in office for a couple of years that thinks civil rights aren't just for commie arab pussies. Basically, whatever damage he does to the economy, I figure he'll make up for it in appointing good judges and setting an entirely new tone in the Federal government, if his behavior running the Harvard Law Review is any guide.

Liberties and Freedom is the last thing on my mind when I am in a mob raiding a Grocery to feed myself and my family.

You see the issue is that the Bush Administration has been injecting meth into our economy, making seem like its doing very well, and lets face it we have had meth injected into it for the last 6 or so years. Now what the next president does with the economy will be crucial. Not because he will be able to "wave a magic wand" (both Bush and Oboma can be quoted saying that excact phrase about gas problems) but it will be a deciding factor if we will be able to pull out of it in the next 8 years opposed to the next 10,20, life.

I mean we could have a go at having our government run every aspect of our lives, but you wouldn't be able to do that without having bread riots i the streets of New York and Chicago (at least maintaining the basic Civil Rights and Liberties). I believe in the next 4 years we will really see the true face of Oboma, and what his real feeling of Civil Rights are.

The funny thing is, the whole issue could be moot--any huge government intervention could be justified not by waving a red flag and carrying a big paper-mache sculpture down Main Street on May 1st, but just by a second G.I. Bill.

Think about it--we have *so* many vets now that any kind of benefits program for vets would be like a social welfare program of general application. Not as close as after WWII, but still--something to think about if any politician wants the government to get involved in the economy: they could do a lot under the patriotic, right wing cover of a massive G.I. Bill.

EDIT: also, I should add that there are a lot of issues in Con Law that aren't just about civil rights--there's a lot of pre-emption stuff. Also, I wouldn't mind a president in there who could deal with a law like ERISA like, well, a law review lawyer.

Cheeze_Pavilion:

The funny thing is, the whole issue could be moot--any huge government intervention could be justified not by waving a red flag and carrying a big paper-mache sculpture down Main Street on May 1st, but just by a second G.I. Bill.

Think about it--we have *so* many vets now that any kind of benefits program for vets would be like a social welfare program of general application. Not as close as after WWII, but still--something to think about if any politician wants the government to get involved in the economy: they could do a lot under the patriotic, right wing cover of a massive G.I. Bill.

I mean I have no problem with some social help that effects the lives for everyone. For example I agree with Oboma that we should put a lot more effort into entry level school. Find use of income to better our children education at that level because that is the most important age of learning.

And I support homeless shelters and job hunting organizations, soup kitchens, and education programs. The problem is well, economics. Resources are scarce and wants and needs are unlimited. We have to be smart where we put our resources to help our society, we just can through money into it and hope it goes well. We also can't start telling people where they need to spend their money and how they need to do it.

Military is of the socialist factors that I am willing to let the government handle. I mean I respect Wal-Marts efficient and market power, but lets face it do you want them to run your Defense. They would outsource it.

Don't get me wrong, I won't vote for Oboma but there are some issues I do agree on him with, I believe that there should be some sort of required military or foreign ambassadory service. It would at least make you respect what you have. At the same time though, It is one of the Privileges (not a right) of living in America that I am not required to die for my country, and that is a choice for me have. I can contribute by working, having and raising a family, and paying taxes or I can do that Plus a little bit more.

We are all part of a community like it or not. Some to don't pull their weight, but most do. The driving factor in Socialism and Capitalism is that resources are scarce and not everyone gets to them. The difference is one I have the right to choose how I handle that scarcity the other I don't.

Rankao:

We are all part of a community like it or not. Some to don't pull their weight, but most do. The driving factor in Socialism and Capitalism is that resources are scarce and not everyone gets to them. The difference is one I have the right to choose how I handle that scarcity the other I don't.

Actually, I don't know how true that is. I think the driving factor in this day and age is technology--what can be done with resources. It's been human intelligence and inventiveness that has made the wealth we see around us possible.

In a lot of ways I'm an Objectivist--I just don't delude myself that there will ever be an industrialist so incredible that I'll be more happy to sweep the floors of his factory than run my own business.

Just wondering what exactly are the policies that Sarah Palin will find in the post-it notes lying around from McCain?

Anton P. Nym:
PS: trickle-down doesn't work for the same reason that any other long distribution chain leads to higher costs... each link in the chain takes a cut with a portion going to savings instead of recirculation (or, in thermodynamic terms, each conversion leads to entropic losses) and so for anything to make it down to the very lowest levels of the economy you need massive injections at the top. That kills the middle class, and it's horribly inefficient at priming the economic pump anyway; even trickle-up works better that way because lower-income earners can't afford to put as much aside into uncirculated savings.

You've intrigued me: is there any reading you could suggest on this point? Don't shirk from dense economics texts as long as they don't require an understanding of the lingo.

As for the actual video I really don't see this guy's viewpoint. He seems to assume that vaguish promises will be applied as hard economic policy by Obama. That and his voices itself justifies something very violent.

werepossum:

This post is more illustrative of the decline in the concept of America than anything I've seen in recent years. From rugged individualism, we have declined to the concept that all wealth belongs first to government, to be equitably distributed on the basis of, well, existence.

Ha ha ha!

Man, I tell you: this 'rugged individualism' business would never have gotten anywhere, if only the Wampanoags had let the Pilgrims starve.

Or to put it another way, the government should encourage the market by no longer printing money.

That's privatization for you!

mipegg:

Archon:

werepossum:
Whichever way Obama chooses to go, look for an economy where the government plays an ever-increasing role, both in choosing what industries are profitable and what individual companies within each industry succeed. Again, we have been moving toward a Soviet-style command economy for decades, but this will be a sharp increase in pace.

I find this outcome so dire that I wish I could argue with you, but I sadly agree with your analysis.

Again, I also agree. I do so hate the socialist/planned market ideal. To me it just seems to take away all need to work hard and do anything. If i can be supported totally by the state why bother training all those years to be a systems analyst when I could just as easily get an equally (if not equal then supported by the state) payed job doing one of my hobbies (rockclimbing) I would far rather climb or instruct for a living than be an analyst but there just isnt a job in it.

Yay for killing all forms of venture eh?

This is a strawman argument. I know of no centrally planned market or socialist plans in any nation on the Earth today or who has ever existed who had citizens who were totally supported by their government. I hear about them all the time it seems, big bad welfare states where people drive around in nice cars while living off of food stamps and welfare checks. I have yet to see one myself but then again I'm not a fiscal conservative, who at the slightest drop of a socialist hat apparently see Stalinist boogey-men everywhere. It's good to see McCarthyism is alive and well.

I do like werepossum's scare-tactics though. I'm considerably more liberal and more socialist than Barack Obama ever will be and I don't even want a Soviet-style command and control economy. If you want to start conjuring up spooks I suppose we could start with Bush and his plan to nationalize our banks and financial corporations. Obama will take it farther but Soviet-style? Oh come on! It's not like we're going to hold onto those banks until the economy grinds itself into the dirt like the USSR, the plan itself calls for selling those stocks back to the banks, which should result in a nifty profit for the American tax-payer. That is assuming, however, that the government feels like giving us our money back.

werepossum:
This post is more illustrative of the decline in the concept of America than anything I've seen in recent years. From rugged individualism, we have declined to the concept that all wealth belongs first to government, to be equitably distributed on the basis of, well, existence.

Why does it seem that libertarians, fiscal conservatives, and anarcho-capitalists are the only ones who really buy into that whole deal of government being a seperate entity from the larger society and culture? Whatever happened to "by the people, for the people, and of the people"?

Saskwach:

Anton P. Nym:
PS: trickle-down doesn't work for the same reason that any other long distribution chain leads to higher costs... .

You've intrigued me: is there any reading you could suggest on this point? Don't shirk from dense economics texts as long as they don't require an understanding of the lingo.

Truth be told, it's something I only realised myself about the time this current market tanking started... it's probably an amalgamation of a bunch of stuff on the news with my old university textbooks. I don't pretend to be an economist, but I did spend a couple of years each in physics and history (the latter, alas, filled with dreary pseudo-Marxists ramming balance of trade charts into everything) and sometimes the fusion of the two disciplines is... interesting, especially in the light of past experience in small business and a serious news addiction.

Most of what I said there, though, is either basic thermodynamics, basic economics, or current business practices... just put together differently.

-- Steve