The American Politics thread

[Spark]

yes

[Ikki]

I know what you're saying but TBF, you have my stance or my reliance on that ideology wrong I feel. I have seen you comment in saying that extremism one way or another is lazy. For me, that generalisation in itself is lazy; for sometimes one alternative is far better than another and that may simply be the reality of it. Some things don't necessarily have to have a balance or a middle-ground.

The way I see the free market is that it is simply the best alternative - almost always. Whatever you wish to legislate and regulate can still occur, they'd just be private bodies. Then comes the objection that those bodies can be influenced, yet this criticism is shortsighted as people don't realise that so can governmental ones. And I find the latter more abhorrent because through the justification of the greater good coercion is then adopted. If something is good, let people opt into it. If you actually have to force people "for their own good" then you're going down a slippery slope.

In general, I find opinions on issues differ on a subjective level which is why I abhor the left's reliance on Democracy. On face value, it is a good system; but then again you are forcing the view of some over others. Why can't they have a choice? In the society I envision as ideal; if you want to kill yourself, you have the right. At the least, the federal system allows those who think differently, even if they are a minority, to locate in one area and create laws that they like. Like the free market, this kind of difference creates an innovation in culture.

To reply to the restaurant example: the aim is to safeguard against harm. But the reality is that even those regulators can only give assurances for a very short time - the week they inspect - and any other time other than that your guess is as good as anybody else's until the next inspection. This is simply a waste of resources, and again: people who pay to eat out should pay for this privilege. I don't see the need to subsidise other people's eating habits. It's immoral to me. Where I am more inclined with these kinds of regulations or laws is in the mass production of food - like agriculture. You see, in some areas I too would pay over the odds for some safety. It may be counter to my ideology on the purest level, but I can live with it. But I dislike when such a concession is applied to justify huge bureaucracies.

Ultimately, people have to be responsible. The way I've experienced life; subsidisation, on any level, just breeds inadequacies - eventually, and on a big scale. I come from a country which is basically a dictatorship, and sometimes I feel that those fortunate enough to grow up in the west (like America or Australia) do not realise just how fragile the balance of power is. Just how easily tyranny can come about. It is not something that happens overnight - it is essentially the boiling frog analogy. The frog slowly boils, not realising the temperature is rising. For me, it's simple: I want people to have the freedom to do what they deem is good, for their benefit; not a group of people legislating for a group of other people in what they think is desirable. It's not just a matter of legal rights either; I don't think big bureaucracies are economically viable - and they're continuously shown not to be.

I honestly like discussions like these and if you like you can PM me, I don't mind.

[grecian]

my brain hurts....

[Spikey]

go see a doctor. it won't cost you an arm and leg unlike our yank pals!

[grecian]

Originally Posted by Spikey

go see a doctor. it won't cost you an arm and leg unlike our yank pals!

but, but think of the Taxes, won't anyone think of the Taxes.

[silentstriker]

A single doctor visit will more than take care of the tax difference.

[Top_Cat]

Originally Posted by Ikki

I know what you're saying but TBF, you have my stance or my reliance on that ideology wrong I feel. I have seen you comment in saying that extremism one way or another is lazy. For me, that generalisation in itself is lazy; for sometimes one alternative is far better than another and that may simply be the reality of it. Some things don't necessarily have to have a balance or a middle-ground.

The way I see the free market is that it is simply the best alternative - almost always. Whatever you wish to legislate and regulate can still occur, they'd just be private bodies. Then comes the objection that those bodies can be influenced, yet this criticism is shortsighted as people don't realise that so can governmental ones. And I find the latter more abhorrent because through the justification of the greater good coercion is then adopted. If something is good, let people opt into it. If you actually have to force people "for their own good" then you're going down a slippery slope.

In general, I find opinions on issues differ on a subjective level which is why I abhor the left's reliance on Democracy. On face value, it is a good system; but then again you are forcing the view of some over others. Why can't they have a choice? In the society I envision as ideal; if you want to kill yourself, you have the right. At the least, the federal system allows those who think differently, even if they are a minority, to locate in one area and create laws that they like. Like the free market, this kind of difference creates an innovation in culture.

To reply to the restaurant example: the aim is to safeguard against harm. But the reality is that even those regulators can only give assurances for a very short time - the week they inspect - and any other time other than that your guess is as good as anybody else's until the next inspection. This is simply a waste of resources, and again: people who pay to eat out should pay for this privilege. I don't see the need to subsidise other people's eating habits. It's immoral to me. Where I am more inclined with these kinds of regulations or laws is in the mass production of food - like agriculture. You see, in some areas I too would pay over the odds for some safety. It may be counter to my ideology on the purest level, but I can live with it. But I dislike when such a concession is applied to justify huge bureaucracies.

Ultimately, people have to be responsible. The way I've experienced life; subsidisation, on any level, just breeds inadequacies - eventually, and on a big scale. I come from a country which is basically a dictatorship, and sometimes I feel that those fortunate enough to grow up in the west (like America or Australia) do not realise just how fragile the balance of power is. Just how easily tyranny can come about. It is not something that happens overnight - it is essentially the boiling frog analogy. The frog slowly boils, not realising the temperature is rising. For me, it's simple: I want people to have the freedom to do what they deem is good, for their benefit; not a group of people legislating for a group of other people in what they think is desirable. It's not just a matter of legal rights either; I don't think big bureaucracies are economically viable - and they're continuously shown not to be.

I honestly like discussions like these and if you like you can PM me, I don't mind.

People's decision-making, as a rule, suck and it's got nothing to do with how smart you are, basic psychological fact. Whether it comes to their own health, retirement or a bunch of other things a government does better, we're just not geared to think too far ahead. What you're saying above has been directly contradicted by economic and psych studies in the area so, without being too much of a penis about it, evidence please.

There is a balance between bureaucracy and free market, it doesn't have to be one way or the other and that's borne out by evidence. Such binary thinking = American politics today. Was provably destructive pre-war (WWI, that is) as it is now.

Timely article.

Five things government does better than you - Salon.com

[Ikki]

Originally Posted by Top_Cat

People's decision-making, as a rule, suck and it's got nothing to do with how smart you are, basic psychological fact. Whether it comes to their own health, retirement or a bunch of other things a government does better, we're just not geared to think too far ahead. What you're saying above has been directly contradicted by economic and psych studies in the area so, without being too much of a penis about it, evidence please.

There is a balance between bureaucracy and free market, it doesn't have to be one way or the other and that's borne out by evidence. Such binary thinking = American politics today. Was provably destructive pre-war (WWI, that is) as it is now.

Timely article.

Five things government does better than you - Salon.com

For every article you name, I can name you many in reply to refute the above. Not even left-wing/progressive economists like Krugman dare to call themselves anything other than capitalists - that's how bad government's record is with regards to the administration of resources. People using the money of other people to make choices for another group of people, generally, suck at that too. The fact that the above cites health care as one of those things is a bit of a laugh. That's as far as efficacy goes.

On the other hand, what is good or best is subjective. And there is no justification, IMO, to force someone to do something against their will because you believe it is to their benefit. As I said, for me, if a person wants to kill himself, no body should have the right through force of law to even stop that. Let alone do things which might be less advantageous to him, in your view. Force, coercion, etc, are the very antithesis of a free society. If people want to save up, that is their choice; if they want to blow their retirement money, that is their choice.

[silentstriker]

Originally Posted by Top_Cat

People's decision-making, as a rule, suck and it's got nothing to do with how smart you are, basic psychological fact. Whether it comes to their own health, retirement or a bunch of other things a government does better, we're just not geared to think too far ahead. What you're saying above has been directly contradicted by economic and psych studies in the area so, without being too much of a penis about it, evidence please.

There is a balance between bureaucracy and free market, it doesn't have to be one way or the other and that's borne out by evidence. Such binary thinking = American politics today. Was provably destructive pre-war (WWI, that is) as it is now.

Timely article.

Five things government does better than you - Salon.com

Many libertarians will tell you that even if it is shown beyond any doubt that removing the government out of something will lead to a worse outcome, they would still oppose it because the principle of personal economic freedom is more important.

[Jono]

Ikki, out of curiosity, are you against superannuation?

[Spikey]

if he isn't, he should hand back his guns 'cause he's a disgrace

[Top_Cat]

Originally Posted by Ikki

For every article you name, I can name you many in reply to refute the above. Not even left-wing/progressive economists like Krugman dare to call themselves anything other than capitalists - that's how bad government's record is with regards to the administration of resources. People using the money of other people to make choices for another group of people, generally, suck at that too. The fact that the above cites health care as one of those things is a bit of a laugh. That's as far as efficacy goes.

On the other hand, what is good or best is subjective. And there is no justification, IMO, to force someone to do something against their will because you believe it is to their benefit. As I said, for me, if a person wants to kill himself, no body should have the right through force of law to even stop that. Let alone do things which might be less advantageous to him, in your view. Force, coercion, etc, are the very antithesis of a free society. If people want to save up, that is their choice; if they want to blow their retirement money, that is their choice.

I'm not interested in articles, I'm interested in evidence. Most of the articles I've read in opposition are, as SS alluded to, an extension of personal dislike for the ethos espoused by Libertarian types rather than an evidence-based study of the topic with (as much as possible) personal bias removed. Not interested.

Look, if you want to remove yourself from society based solely on personal choice, go ahead. Feel free to do your own plumbing, waste management, food aquisition, communication, etc. while you're at it. Otherwise, you have to accept compromise and that compromise means stuff like the majority outweighing the personal needs of a the minority. By posting on this forum you're using a communication tool developed communally for 30+ years after a government research project made it viable for the benefit of many, you realise that right? I mean if you were living as you espouse, fine. But you're not and, I'm guessing, never will.

Originally Posted by silentstriker

Many libertarians will tell you that even if it is shown beyond any doubt that removing the government out of something will lead to a worse outcome, they would still oppose it because the principle of personal economic freedom is more important.

I realise that.

[Ikki]

Originally Posted by Jono

Ikki, out of curiosity, are you against superannuation?

I'd be against mandatory superannuation/social security.

Originally Posted by silentstriker

Many libertarians will tell you that even if it is shown beyond any doubt that removing the government out of something will lead to a worse outcome, they would still oppose it because the principle of personal economic freedom is more important.

The way you've painted it, although I may be taking it wrongly, is a bit too simplistic. Government is just a group of elected people getting together to do something. If an activity is inherently successful on a grand scale - and it is beyond a doubt that this is beneficial as you describe - I am fairly sure individuals will voluntarily opt into such a thing. And if they don't, they won't see the benefits.

[Ikki]

Originally Posted by Top_Cat

I'm not interested in articles, I'm interested in evidence. Most of the articles I've read in opposition are, as SS alluded to, an extension of personal dislike for the ethos espoused by Libertarian types rather than an evidence-based study of the topic with (as much as possible) personal bias removed. Not interested.

The evidence is a aplenty. Depends where you look. Try the mises.org. It's too easy to find evidence which backs up your own pre-held assertions. As I kind of pointed to; the shift away from Keynesian/centrally-planned programs is of such a nature that even a fanboy like Krugman calls himself a capitalist. From Friedman, and the resurgence of Hayek, onwards there has been a great shift back to free market thinking. Unfortunately, it is far more politically viable to be Keynesian or to justify government's role - "we'll give you x and y, and protect you from a and b" sounds a lot better on a campaign ad. For this reason, it's a hard beast to kill. What more, doing the opposite means less power for those in government...and I don't think those guys want to give up their power, nor the guys backing them. People also have a distrusting nature for each other, and it baffles me why this distrust doesn't extent to government.

Look, if you want to remove yourself from society based solely on personal choice, go ahead. Feel free to do your own plumbing, waste management, food aquisition, communication, etc. while you're at it. Otherwise, you have to accept compromise and that compromise means stuff like the majority outweighing the personal needs of a the minority.

Libertarianism is not anarchy. It is a formation of society where there is a role for government and people are looking for the well-being of others. It is just that what is good or bad is inherently subjective. You can do almost anything you wish through government through private means. You want to fund research? You want a regulatory body? You want to provide health care? All very easily done. Government is no magic organism - it is a group of people coming together and doing something.

There is no justification in the needs of the majority outweighing the needs of a minority. If something works on a large scale, then it doesn't cease to stop working because a segment in the minority doesn't wish to partake. I find that logic troubling.

By posting on this forum you're using a communication tool developed communally for 30+ years after a government research project made it viable for the benefit of many, you realise that right? I mean if you were living as you espouse, fine. But you're not and, I'm guessing, never will.

I can name you 1000x more inventions created through private initiatives. Do you think your computer was made because the government ordered it? How about the hardware in your computer? How about LCD screens? Did government invent the wheel? In this respect, it's a losing comparison.

But it's irrelevant. It is people's ingenuity that creates things. It has nothing to do with which political philosophy you adhere to. Although, I'd argue, it's been shown that in less regulated environments you encourage more creativity.

[Top_Cat]

You did not just cite liquid crystal displays as an argument against government.

Out.