What Is Your Political Philosophy?

No, it is not "meaningless" since I am implying production runs as long as our wars on the abstractions of crime, drugs, poverty, and terror, combined. It can be how else socialism can bailout capitalism due to a simple social Contract.

 

Irrelevancies. Your "Infrastructure" and the various "wars" are both government functions. The question is whether government can do any of those functions as well as a free market alternative. If you take the government out of the picture completely and let businesses compete for the building of a bridge or the reduction of crime, the free market alternative will work better at a lower cost than the government will.

"Socialism can bailout capitalism" is also meaningless and would be irrelevant to a "social contract", if such a thing existed.

 

Your concern is irrelevant; a public sector must exist to ensure a republican form of government. Thus, it becomes a simple matter of promoting the general welfare through infrastructure development.

 

To the contrary, there doesn't have to be a public sector or any form of government and it certainly doesn't follow that the existance of such does or would promote the general welfare. You keep making these unsupported assertions, eventually you should think about providing some evidence or logical argument to back them up.

 

To the contrary, to your contrary; there Must be a public sector, our federal Constitution requires one.

 

Just like the banks, privatize the profits, socialize the losses.

 

I believe the united states is a community.

I believe communities should share the care of people who need care

 

That's funny, are you a strict constructionist? It doesn't actually require a public sector but it does guarantee a republican form of government to each State. It is possible to have a republican form of government so vanishingly small as to not constitute a "public sector".

If we're talking about Constitutional requirements and limitations however, where does it authorize infrastructure projects?

In a larger view, not considering the Constitution, a society doesn't require a public sector to exist. If the public sector vanished today there is no legitimate function it does that a private alternative couldn't do better and cheaper.

 

what do you know about the Cumberland road?

 

Only a public sector can guarantee a republican form of Government as outlined in the federal doctrine.

 

Gravel road from Maryland to the West built by the government over a twenty or thirty year period. Do you think it was something that couldn't have been done by private interests?

 

You can repeat these empty assertions all you want. Until you provide some evidence that what you say is true, its just hot air.

 

It is in our federal Constitution what must exist to be a republican form of government.

 

You might want to work on that attention span. As I said just a few posts back, the Constitution guarantees each State a republican form of government but that doesn't require a "public sector". Private enterprise can certainly setup and run an election. Paper pushing bureaucrats certainly don't do anything any moderately competent business couldn't do better, faster and cheaper. Private enterprise has given us 200 dollar computers while government regularly gives us 200 dollar toilet seats and hammers.

If any government agency had to compete on a level playing field they would go out of business. The only reason they don't go out of business is that they enjoy a mandated monopoly and endless funding through taxation.

 

No, it can't. It must be done by the general government.

 

What you have here are baseless assertions. Why must it be done in this way and no other? If you are capable of reason, supply some here and support your assertions with logic and evidence.

 

Utilitarianism.

Whatever works is best. Whatever doesn't needs to be thrown out.

 

Actually it's the opposite. Or was that not Greece holding out a beggars cup.

 

My political philosophy is that our rubber duckies are sacred to the individual. And they cannot be played with by anyone else unless the owner says it's okay.

 

No, it is just socialism bailing out capitalism, like usual.

 

I identify as a paleoconservative.

 

I'm a believer in the philosophy of Socrates. I believe that only the intellectually gifted and politically informed should be able to participate in the political process. I don't believe the common man is intelligent enough to make good choices, nor do I think they are well informed. I can be very conservative to very liberal depending on the particular issue. I would like to see a society that places more emphasis on curiosity and a quest for knowledge. I'd like to see us place more emphasis on the society rather than the individual. I'd also like to see opportunity be more equal with less of a welfare state. I'm more for a true meritocracy where everybody is given a chance to succeed with a decent education and less people are handed things via the genetic lottery like I was.

 

I agree with you partially. The ill informed who do not know what they are voting for do slant the results of an election toward whoever can sell their point the best. Good or bad. Wouldn't you agree that people in general do not know how to vote at all. Sure they know how to check a box, but they don't know how to take their personal concerns to the voting booth. I'm not talking about voting for the good of the country, that is crap. I mean actually voting with what will benefit them as individuals. Wasn't that what real independence was all about. Block voting has become the norm, where pressure groups poison the water with rhetoric to get people to vote in groups e.g. white, black, old, young, hispanic. Its like somewhere down the line we were all tricked into being collectivists and not individual voters. All of a sudden we all know what direction the country should go, when in reality it will take a natural course through the individual vote.
If everyone voted with their wallets and own personal concerns I am convinced the country would take a turn for the better. Everyone seems to think that they are being some kind of humanitarian wearing a good guy badge when they vote. The whole purpose of each person voting was for them to have a say in the process- to take their personal concerns to the booth. Voting for special treatment of certain groups is NOT personal, it is obtuse and arrogant. This is the way a proper democracy works.

 

You neither understand Socratic intellectualism nor do you seem to accept the fact that many with above average intelligence all too often use it for nefarious purposes.

 

Seems like he's talking about getting rid of spending, which is a much more immediate priority.

Although it seems contradictory, lowering direct taxes has no effect on the actual taxes extracted from the public. They're quite happy to print or borrow money - they prefer it because then they don't get caught for raising taxes.

I have no problem with a flat tax (other than it being a tax), but without a significant move to slash spending across the board, nothing much will change.