Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I am difficult to categorize, but you can be sure I am anti-authoritarian. I believe in applying my own morals and sense of tradition to a given situation rather than letting some political party or philosophy goad me into becoming a hypocrite so I can 'stay on the team'. I have no patience for liberals or their conservative bedmates.
In other words, like me... you use your own free will. Good for you.
I just don't get it. It seems like a troll question but I remember back in the day when Americans recognized a whole multitude of political opinions, not just the left/right spectrum. How does this left/right spectrum explain someone like me who could be called a libertarian on individual rights (no SS/Income Tax, freedom of speech and religion, no government intrusion into my private life) but as far as business regulation and government go leans more towards what the Democrat and Green parties push (regulations on business and corporations and a more democratic form of government versus what we have now)? It seems almost comical to me.
One needs something to schlock together a hypocritical, self serving, irrational and corrupt world view.
Seems to me that some people just care about what we call a small cabal of men who are corrupt and have unlimited power in a command style economy.
They both meet in neoclassical architecture. If its in a private bank building, its considered "the right". If its in a public building, we call the "the left".
I just don't get it. It seems like a troll question but I remember back in the day when Americans recognized a whole multitude of political opinions, not just the left/right spectrum. How does this left/right spectrum explain someone like me who could be called a libertarian on individual rights (no SS/Income Tax, freedom of speech and religion, no government intrusion into my private life) but as far as business regulation and government go leans more towards what the Democrat and Green parties push (regulations on business and corporations and a more democratic form of government versus what we have now)? It seems almost comical to me.
Its easier for most people. They dont have to think, or go against the grain.
Can you explain what I highlighted? Is this not democratic enough for you? What changes are you proposing?
When I mean regulation of business and commerce, I mean that business and commerce should be regulated more effectively to protect the general public from shoddy products/environment disasters/fraud/etc. Given what we have seen in the past few decades, it's obvious that deregulation of industry in general (especially the FIRE industries) is bad for any society. Furthermore, much of the deregulation that has occured was mostly designed to benefit corporate society by basically pushing out smaller competition. Have you ever wondered why there have been only three major US automakers for the past 20 years, for example?
As far as having a more democratic society, the USA is not a democracy. It never was. How on earth could Bush win the 2000 elections even without a majority vote (irregardless of your feelings towards him)? It seems ludicrous to me. I fail to see how a structurally anti-democratic government is expected to support democracy. As far as the US government being a republic, it's a republic much like the ones in sub-Saharan Africa. Basically, designed to corrupt. We need a government where the people have a much greater say in Washington's day to day mannerisms and operations. You'll get the talk that the general public will vote themselves into bankruptcy or whatever flavor of the week boogeyman is discussed in the media, but it likely will never happen.
When I mean regulation of business and commerce, I mean that business and commerce should be regulated more effectively to protect the general public from shoddy products/environment disasters/fraud/etc. Given what we have seen in the past few decades, it's obvious that deregulation of industry in general (especially the FIRE industries) is bad for any society. Furthermore, much of the deregulation that has occured was mostly designed to benefit corporate society by basically pushing out smaller competition. Have you ever wondered why there have been only three major US automakers for the past 20 years, for example?
Based on your stance on issues, if one would want to classify you, they could classify you as a "liberal", with the "no SS/Income Tax" the only thing out of place in the equation, which is tad baffling to me too. Whenever you want stricter controls and regulation, money needs to be spent to do that. Typically liberals call for higher taxes on the rich, to fund their own regulation. If you say "no SS/Income Tax" where is the money going to come from? Should we just borrow/print it?
I take the entirely opposite view of things when it comes to regulation. I think it is regulation which is stifling innovation and smaller competition, not deregulation (I am curious to know how you came to this conclusion). Big corporations actually push for regulations, and there is frequently a revolving door between the government, lobbyists and the industry where the industry insiders become lobbyists, pay off the politicians and get them to push onerous regulations. After "retirement", the politicians themselves become either lobbyists or join the industry. The big corporations usually have to spend a fortune complying with the regulations, but that money is actually peanuts compared to the losses they might incur if a small, innovative start-up cuts into their market. Start-ups usually never have the amount of resources needed to comply with all the regulations, so they usually go belly-up. This protects the big corporations and this is exactly what creates monopolies. The best thing the government can do is to deregulate, so that you and I can also start companies and compete if we want to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fireandice1000
As far as having a more democratic society, the USA is not a democracy. It never was. How on earth could Bush win the 2000 elections even without a majority vote (irregardless of your feelings towards him)? It seems ludicrous to me. I fail to see how a structurally anti-democratic government is expected to support democracy. As far as the US government being a republic, it's a republic much like the ones in sub-Saharan Africa. Basically, designed to corrupt. We need a government where the people have a much greater say in Washington's day to day mannerisms and operations. You'll get the talk that the general public will vote themselves into bankruptcy or whatever flavor of the week boogeyman is discussed in the media, but it likely will never happen.
The electoral college system is designed so that politicians don't just concentrate on big markets and ignore the small states. In a popular vote system, a politician could campaign in just a bunch of big cities (New York, Chicago etc) which has high population densities and win the most number of votes. In the EC system, the candidates are forced to compete in a wide variety of states. My only criticism of the EC system is where certain states always go first and for that reason gets bestowed certain privileges (There would have been no ethanol subsidies if IA wasn't voting first in the nation). That privilege should be shuffled around to give other states equal opportunity.
Your statement about Democracy vs. Republic also seems to contradict your views. If this is not a democracy (majority rule), then what is the argument for popular vote (majority vote)? This is a Republic so that the majority can't subvert the minority, which incidentally becomes the best argument for the EC.
Uhmmm...that's THREE card Monte. Don't mean to embarass you because you make a great point, but...
hard to work it with only 2 cards. Probably some can, tho.
it's funny...
As a New Yorker who grew up in the city which now exists only in the movies and maybe on Law and Order, I watched that game being played on the street all the time. And I've been saying since the election that Trump is the rich version of a three-card monte player. All that patter to distract you from watching that card, the constant hand and arm movements which sometimes don't even move anything on the table...those guys are really something.
THAT's why New York CITY didn't vote for him. We had the opportunity to see him work his game up close and we know a con man when we see one.
All sounds nice but...
Do you know who your local electors are?
Did you know they are not required to vote for the candidate chosen by the popular vote in their own state?
They are called "faithless electors" but they can vote for whomever they choose.
That's why the electoral college elected Trump. There were just enough of these guys to swing it. And it's been happened several time now.
I understand the rationale you offer for its creation, but I would argue that it's not true. The Federalist Party (party of Washington, still going strong)when the constitution was being written, didn't want anything like universal suffrage. even if you ignore women and slaves, who nobody even considered giving voting rights, they didn't want anyone but their peers to vote. The Federalists wanted only landowners (with a large enough amount of land) to get the vote. In other words, they wanted a plutocracy.
They claimed that the rest of us were just not SMART enough to govern ourselves.
Poor people were kinda upset with that theory. There were rioters carrying pitchforks, muskets and stones outside the Constitutional Convention
So this was they figured out how to handle that: we'll let them THINK they have the power to elect the government, while we maintain this hand-picked electoral college who will be the REAL deciders.
Thus the government of the rich, by the rich and for the rich shall not perish from the earth.
Isn't that clever? The Ultra Wealthy are adorable! Such a good solution, works as well today as it did then.
=moving_pains;23045727]Based on your stance on issues, if one would want to classify you, they could classify you as a "liberal", with the "no SS/Income Tax" the only thing out of place in the equation, which is tad baffling
to me too. Whenever you want stricter controls and regulation, money needs to be spent to do that. Typically liberals call for higher taxesC on the rich, to fund their own regulation. If you say "no SS/Income Tax" where is the money going to come from? Should we just borrow/print it?
I take the entirely opposite view of things when it comes to regulation. I think it is regulation which is stifling innovation and smaller competition, not deregulation (I am curious to know how you came to this conclusion). Big corporations actually push for regulations, and there is frequently a revolving door between the government, lobbyists and the industry where the industry insiders become lobbyists, pay off the politicians and get them to push onerous regulations. After "retirement", the politicians themselves become either lobbyists or join the industry. The big corporations usually have to spend a fortune complying with the regulations, but that money is actually peanuts compared to the losses they might incur if a small, innovative start-up cuts into their market. Start-ups usually never have the amount of resources needed to comply with all the regulations, so they usually go belly-up. This protects the big corporations and this is exactly what creates monopolies. The best thing the government can do is to deregulate, so that you and I can also start companies and compete if we want to.
The electora l college system is designed so that politicians don't just concentrate on big markets and ignore the small states. In a popular vote system, a politician could campaign in just a bunch of big cities (New York, Chicago etc) which has high population densities and win the most number of votes. In the EC system, the candidates are forced to compete in a wide variety of states. My only criticism of the EC system is where certain states always go first and for that reason gets bestowed certain privileges (There would have been no ethanol subsidies if IA wasn't voting first in the nation). That privilege should be shuffled around to give other states equal opportunity.
Your statement about Democracy vs. Republic also seems to contradict your views. If this is not a democracy (majority rule), then what is the argument for popular vote (majority vote)? This is a Republic so that the majority can't subvert the minority, which incidentally becomes the best argument for the EC.[/quote]
Because if you have only two options, you can present the issue as a battle between two sides.
Kind of like a football game.
Basically, it dumbs politics down to the point of being superficial and more about spectacle than substance. The left/right narrative is useful because it allows dumb people to participate in politics.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Electoral college
