What Is Your Political Philosophy?

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by tecoyah, Nov 24, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. fencer

    fencer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    1,020
    Likes Received:
    232
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Then you've been suckered because none of those wars exist.

    Politicians do one thing and that is try to get elected and when they're in office they're still just trying to get re-elected. Republicans say stuff they think their constituents want to hear. Some of that includes traditional values of the past that seem to some to be (and in some cases may in fact be) racist, classist or sexist. Democrats claim there is a Republican "war" on some group because that is what seems to work with their constituents.
     
  2. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    How does that supply us with better governance at lower cost? Capitalism does not include Government as Socialism must. I understand your line of reasoning, but, if we use your example, we would have lost the Space Race due to a simple lack of profit motive. Socialism must bailout capitalism to promote the general welfare.

    I believe Hoover Dam is a better example of a public sector means of production.

    Better use of existing natural resources can provide for better governance at lower cost.
     
  3. fencer

    fencer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    1,020
    Likes Received:
    232
    Trophy Points:
    63
    The post office is a government entity. Forcing it to run more efficiently or be replaced through competition would supply us with better postal service (currently a government function) at lower cost.

    As for the space program, if the government had opened the space race to competing firms to see whether the first Americans on the moon would be flying Boeing hardware, Lockheed or some other contender, not only would we have gotten to the moon sooner, we would now be going there for vacations and working there in industries that would benefit from a lower gravity environment. All the competitors in such a race would build a craft faster, at lower cost, with designs that would work for future ventures. The profit potential in space travel is (pun intended) astronomical.

    I fully expect there to be a couple of companies offering flights to the moon and back within the next ten years as long as the Feds don't interfere too much.
     
  4. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    That is the whole point about supply side economics; enabling better solutions at lower cost.

    The point is, however, that promoting the general welfare is a form of competition with the private sector to the extent it may require those resources from the private sector.

    The point about the Post Office, is that it also requires Post Infrastructure. The private sector doesn't have that burden.
     
  5. ErikBEggs

    ErikBEggs New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2013
    Messages:
    3,543
    Likes Received:
    25
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Is this a freaking joke?

    The Post Office has been constantly neutered by Republicans for being too efficient. UPS and FedEx can't compete with the Post Office. That's why they lobbied Republicans to mandate USPS to pre-fund their benefits....

    Undoubtedly.....

    ErikBEggs
     
  6. fencer

    fencer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    1,020
    Likes Received:
    232
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Balderdash. The private sector is the general populace. If government enforces a monopoly power that excludes the private sector how is that promoting its welfare? When it takes resources from the private sector it diminishes the welfare by every dollar it takes. Then it uses those dollars badly and in many cases does further damage to the general welfare.

    What infrastructure are you talking about? UPS or FedEx don't have infrastructure requirements? Are you saying those companies couldn't do what the post office does more efficiently and at lower cost?
     
  7. ErikBEggs

    ErikBEggs New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2013
    Messages:
    3,543
    Likes Received:
    25
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Actually no. Crowding out the private sector is a myth. All government expenditures can happen independent of taxes. The government is monetarily sovereign; it isuses its own currency.
     
  8. fencer

    fencer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    1,020
    Likes Received:
    232
    Trophy Points:
    63
    So the government isn't taking taxes from the private sector? The get fair chunk from me and every dollar they take out of my pocket is one I can't spend on my own needs and wants. Further, since it issues the same currency we're all using for our exchanges, every dollar it creates reduces the value of the currency already in circulation. Which part of this is myth?
     
  9. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Your appeal to ignorance is your own. Why do you believe a legal monopoly on the coercive use of force does what you claim? It can be said that it is one reason why States via statism, create wealth by merely existing and ensuring that form of Order for private sector markets to flourish.
     
  10. fencer

    fencer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    1,020
    Likes Received:
    232
    Trophy Points:
    63
    You're gonna have to do better than that. Identify the fallacy in my post or answer the questions.

    Government enforces a monopoly on mail delivery. The lack of competition on mail delivery removes the incentive to be efficient. I didn't say anything about coercion or force.

    It can be said that crap tastes like candy but that doesn't make it so.

    If government takes a dollar from a taxpayer, that taxpayer is a dollar poorer, that is simple math.

    When the government takes money from the private sector for its own functions, that is parasitic. Any benefit that may accrue to the taxpayer can't be proven simply because, unless the transaction is voluntary, which taxation is not, we can't know if the taxpayer wanted what the government is providing. Its a fair bet that your average taxpayer would not voluntarily pay for rabbit massages or cow flatulence studies.

    If you ignore the waste, fraud and abuse in government and only address the overtly beneficial activities taxes are used for, like roads, there is still no way of determining whether the taxpayer wanted or needed that road or bridge. Further, even if the taxpayer did actually want a road in that particular place, there is no way of knowing whether the government did as good a job as the private sector would have in building it or whether it meets the needs of the people forced to use it as well as the market alternative might have.
     
  11. ErikBEggs

    ErikBEggs New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2013
    Messages:
    3,543
    Likes Received:
    25
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yes, it is.... but you're missing the point.

    The egg comes before the chicken. The government issues currency through debt / deficit spending. Taxation does not precede government spending. The Government is not bound by the limits of taxation. That is the myth you are perpetuating.

    Devaluing the currency is irrelevant. Japan has a total public debt in the quadrillions (that's billion million, 15 zeros). Where is their hyperinflation?!?! :roll:

    Basically, the government can create a job by simply issuing new stimulus projects. It just chooses not too, because those jobs would benefit the poor and middle class more than the rich. We can't have that....

    Dubiously....
     
  12. fencer

    fencer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    1,020
    Likes Received:
    232
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I thought you said the myth was that the government is crowding out the private sector. I didn't say government was bound by the limits of taxation, I said the taxpayer is. When money is taken out of my pocket I have less to spend or invest. Certainly if the government can create new jobs anytime that would give the government the ability to "crowd out" the private sector at its whim since the private sector has limited resources and the government doesn't.

    Debt is just a number until it comes due. As long as Japan doesn't have to pay, everything is fine. If I buy a 10 million dollar mansion and some idiot is dumb enough to let me, I can live like a king. When my creditor asks for the first payment, he gets the house and I'm on the street. If I could print money I might be able to stay in the lap of luxury a little longer but eventually the guy receiving my worthless currency as payment will figure out he's being scammed and then I'll be on the street and he'll have the house. I don't know how long a government can maintain the fiction that its printing wealth when there is nothing of value behind the currency but eventually bubbles will pop.

    By the way, if the government can start a stimulus project and make everyone in the country a millionaire, it wouldn't only benefit the poor and middle class because everyone would be rich. What is their motivation for being stingy and keeping us poor?
     
  13. ErikBEggs

    ErikBEggs New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2013
    Messages:
    3,543
    Likes Received:
    25
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No no no... let's think about this rationally.

    1) When is the debt due for a monetarily sovereign government like Japan? Who in the world can tell Japan to stop printing its exclusive sovereign currency?

    2) Everyone cannot be rich. If everyone is rich no one is rich. The amount of money in your pocket doesn't make you rich. The amount of money in your pocket relative to others is what makes you rich. The gap between you and the lazy welfare moocher on the street...
     
  14. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Why does a lack of competition on a for-profit basis impede better service at not for-profit cost. In other words, the public sector can do it at cost instead of at cost plus profit.
     
  15. fencer

    fencer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    1,020
    Likes Received:
    232
    Trophy Points:
    63
    If you're using other people's money and you have no competition there is no incentive to improve efficiency or do a better job than the other guy. The result is massive waste. Just compare a place like Second Harvest to any government food stamp or welfare program. Second Harvest food banks have to optimize theri use of every dollar or their donors will give their money to a charity that does a better job. About 95 percent of every dollar goes to the people they serve. I couldn't find a comparable rating for any snap program but last year Florida received a 7 million dollar bonus for reducing its waste in SNAP to only 47 million dollars.
     
  16. Phoebe Bump

    Phoebe Bump New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2010
    Messages:
    26,347
    Likes Received:
    172
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I believe that anybody who believes in the word 'inherently' is evil. I also believe Ayn Rand is evil. And I also believe that anybody who believes in the words "truths" and "self-evident" are evil when used together in one sentence.

    I'd agree with you on that, by golly, but not because government is 'inherently' exploitative. I believe governments grow that way over time when people start to stir the functions of wealth and government into the same pot. Which they ALWAYS seem to do.
     
  17. fencer

    fencer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    1,020
    Likes Received:
    232
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Nobody can stop Japan from printing money, just as nobody could stop the Weimar Republic or Zimbabwe from it. The Weimar Republic no longer exists but the exchange rate for Zimbabwe's currency is something like 20 million to the dollar. Japan has alot more capital and productive capacity backing its money so it'll take longer for it to fail but if they're printing money without growing their capital wealth, eventually they'll go the same way.

    So if I've got the only dollar and I can buy a can of soup, while those around me don't have any money, I'm rich and they're poor. If I've got a million dollars and can buy a yacht but everyone around me has a billion dollars and can buy a fleet of yachts, I'm poor and they're rich? I'll take that kind of "poor" any day. If everyone has a large store of wealth and can live a life of ease and luxury "rich" and "poor" is meaningless.
     
  18. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    It seems, to me, that we merely need simpler public policies. Lowering our tax burden should be a market recognizable metric.
     
  19. fencer

    fencer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    1,020
    Likes Received:
    232
    Trophy Points:
    63
    The problem with government is that its only interaction with the market is to interfere and burden it with taxes and regulation. People could do a much better job of protecting their own interests against the encroachments of other people and corporations if the U.S. reinstated property rights and allowed individuals to sue polluters or other bad actors for the infringement of their rights and got the government out of the way. That way, when the local slaughter house dumps waste in the river and damages the downstream farms, the farmers can sue, get remunerated for their losses and stop the slaughter house from continuing their abusive behavior. The way it works now is the slaughter house is indemnified against lawsuits because it complies with government regulations or pays a fine but continues their harmful actions unabated. The government gets the fines and the company gets indemnification and the farmers get screwed.

    [video]http://perc.org/articles/how-dirty-laws-trash-environment-learn-liberty[/video]
     
  20. volksfan

    volksfan New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2014
    Messages:
    73
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    War is simply an expression used to describe actions and ideology of certain groups against other groups: Denying women control over their bodies or access to proper healthcare, Lying about Obama (If Obama is so bad, why do people have to lie about him?), and cutting programs that help the poor and needy in our country.
     
  21. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    I agree to disagree. Only a public sector can provide for the general welfare via that form of socialism. Capitalism does not include government since it is based on voluntary social transactions that should result in mutually beneficial trade. Thus, it merely becomes an issue of why our federal Congress, with their combined education and experience, cannot seem to come up with better solutions at lower cost, or even simple Standards to be fixed for our republic.
     
  22. fencer

    fencer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    1,020
    Likes Received:
    232
    Trophy Points:
    63
    "War" is simply a partisan demonization to weaken the opposition and cut off debate. If you use that term you're either a sucker or a partisan hack. What you call "denying women control over their bodies" the opposition would call protecting innocent unborn humans. Disagreeing with either position is understandable but to label it a "war" is the act of a partisan hack. If you can define what "proper healthcare" is we could debate that but the ACA is about insurance and its as likely to diminish the quality and availability of healthcare as it is to improve it. That being the case, there are valid opinions and points of view on both sides of the issue. To label it war is the act of a partisan hack.

    As to lying about Obama, I don't know what particular lies you're referencing but it is the nature of politics that politicians lie, and partisans lie, as in calling every disagreement with the opposition a "War".
     
  23. fencer

    fencer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    1,020
    Likes Received:
    232
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I can accept that. Since the essence of free trade (capitalism) is voluntary exchange and the essence of government is force, its inevitable that free trade results in greater benefit to the individuals involved and therefore society as a whole (so long as free trade is free and available for everybody). Since government is force, capitalism can't do what government can do, which is to steal from, kidnap and kill its citizens. We'll also have to disagree that what the government does provides for any improvement of the general welfare, since it is force and therefore everything it does involves (at minimum the possibility of) compelling the unwilling in some way.
     
  24. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Yes, only socialism can bailout capitalism like usual.

    Providing for the general welfare should not be very difficult.

    Why does the right not simply insist their elected representatives merely purchase the finest solutions money can buy, with an official Mint at their disposal?
     
  25. galant

    galant Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2014
    Messages:
    876
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    except for the fact that the damage done by dumping often FAR exceeds what the dumping company has in the way of assets, and the damage is done already. So you can force them out of biz, so what? your kids are still messed up from the pollution, etc. And nobody in the corporation gets horsewhipped to death on public tV for it, like they should get.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page