Can Some Progressives Help Me Understand A Few Issues?

[kidkaos2]

Originally Posted by Opin_Yunated

Thanks for the well thought out OP. I will try my best.

I'm a left-libertarian.. I vote Democrat but I'm not a card carrying Dem.

There is no such thing as a left-libertarian. No libertarian would ever vote Democrat. Core curriculum is anti-libertarian. Obamacare is anti-libertarian. Progressive taxation is anti-libertarian. Opposing states rights is anti-libertarian.

Multiple parties. More legislation placed on general ballots for citizens to vote on. Keep the structure the same. Limits to campaign contributions, term limits, and gerrymandering.

Oh, so a desire for multiple parties is why progressives do everything they can to marginalize everything they disagree with. Sorry, but actions speak louder than words. Sure, progressives give lip service to valuing freedom and diversity. But when it comes to anyone using their freedom to do something the progressives don't like, or diversity from progressive thought rather than just racial or sexual orientation diversity, suddenly the progressive tolerance disappears.

Justice means every American citizen has an opportunity to succeed to their own fullest potential. Universal health care, public higher education or vocational job training, and publicly funded roads.

None of those things are libertarian.

Partisanship is irrelevant. Believe it or not liberals don't control the Democratic Party. Not even close. I would like liberals to have more control over the Democratic Party if the two are to be associated with each other.

Wanting liberals to have more power isn't libertarian. Liberals and libertarians are opposed to each other.

100% of any economy cannot be employed. Full employment is generally 4% unemployment.

That's just dodging the question. Whatever your definition of full employment is, what is your specific plan to reach it? That's the question. Disagreeing over what full employment is isn't an answer. It's avoidance.

There is nothing wrong with our anti-trust regulations. We just need to get corporations out of the Democratic process. I have no desire to desolve corporations.

And I suppose we need to get labor unions out of the process as well?

For starters, union membership needs to be higher. We also need to raise minimum wage and re-examine the tax code. I'm for limited protectionism and strict, skills-based immigration based on a point system.

Minimum wages are not libertarian. For someone who calls himself a libertarian you really seem to have no concept whatsoever of what libertarianism is. You're a libertarian who wants universal healthcare, public higher education, government mandated wages, and limits on the political speech of business owners. Sorry but being pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, and pro-marijuana legalization does not make you a libertarian. You can't simply take the portions of libertarianism that coincide with liberalism and then call yourself a libertarian. The social freedoms that libertarians advocate do not exist by themselves. They are part of an overall philosophy. That philosophy involves getting government out of the lives of private citizens. That means allowing gay people to marry, yes. But that also means government not running a universal healthcare system. It means government not forcing kids into public schools. It means government not promoting labor unions. It means government not controlling firearm ownership. It means government not instituting affirmative action programs for minorities.

Health care is not free.

No, it isn't. It also isn't one size fits all. It shouldn't be the government's place to decide what sort of treatment private citizens can and cannot have. It shouldn't be the government's place to mandate what services insurance companies cover and what services they don't. Health care is not free, and therefore the people who are actually paying for that healthcare should be the ones making the decisions, not Democrat politicians in Washington.

My health care goal is the following:

All citizens are guarenteed preventative and catastropic health care, paid for by payroll taxes. Elective care (dental, vision, MRIs, specialists, etc.) will remain private. Health care will be rationed as follows:

Every citizen gets one annual check up per year and an additional two "sick" doctor visits. Any visits after that are paid for on a fee-only basis. Drug abuse related visits / ailments (smoking, etc.) will be subject to a surcharge.

To answer your question, it is mostly medicare for all, but retains some private elements.

So the government decides what is and what is not covered, and then forces you to pay for it whether you like it or not. That sounds just great.

Again, I have no desire to rid the world of gasoline. Another accusation based on a strawman argument. My goal would be to rid excessive oil consumption. Our goal should be to implement more solar power and electric vehicles. Roads are paid by income and local taxes anyway, so I would abolish the gas tax. I would replace with a carbon tax. Solar roadways and HSR would be primary goals as shovel ready jobs ASAP. If all roads in America were converted into solar roadways, it would generate enough power to supply this country by a factor of 3!

Yes, that's wonderful. A carbon tax. More government deciding your life for you. If you use energy the government likes then you're fine. If you use energy the government doesn't like, then you have to pay extra.

So your plan is that your education is decided for you by the government. Your energy is decided for you. Your healthcare is decided for you. Your wages are set for you. So much for America being a free country if you get your way.

[WiseManOnceSaid]

Originally Posted by TheCityTheBridge

Here's my view. I am not a member of the Progressive Party, but I am on the left.



Dramatic limitation on corporate financing of political campaigns.
"Insider trading" rules and enforcement for members of the legislative, executive, and judicial branches.
Requirement that elected and appointed officials place assets over a certain amount in a blind trust for the duration of their time in office.
Easier voting, including voting online.




No wars of aggression. Approach foreign policy with a preference for limited involvement and neutrality (but be prepared to defend legitimate national interests through diplomatic means, and military means if the interests are vital).

Promote peace, justice, and liberty everywhere, but only act where the coalition is broad and united, and where the risk/benefit analysis allows.



Justice is a big concept. At the very least, it means respecting the rights of citizens and people. It is not my mission statement. Too much falls under this category for the space available.



Meh.



I would not dissolve corporations and monopolies (although natural monopolies would be regulated, and unnatural monopolies would be subject to antitrust sanction).



National healthcare, like the rest of the rich countries, would be my policy (it is not free, but paid for as part of the national budget). Hospitals, like doctors, would simply have to seek payment for their services from the national health agency.



No. Climate change must be limited through national and international cooperation on limiting greenhouse gas emissions. Energy generation and transportation are big components of the necessary change, but they are not alone. We are also not going to be rid of energy companies, Saudi Arabia, or Russia--nor do we want to be.



No problem.

Thanks again for taking the time to offer your perspectives!

[WiseManOnceSaid]

Originally Posted by TheCityTheBridge

I would require disclosure of amounts (or any other form of gift), candidates, issues, and corporate ties, regardless of the form of the financing entity.

I would also subject every corporate entity to the existing individual funding limits and eliminate the categories of PAC, National Party Committee, State/local Party Committee, Multicandidate PAC, and Authorized Campaign Committee (this last to the extent current law allows donation to issue-based or other candidate elections).

I would also limit uncoordinated independent expenditures in support of candidates and (possibly) eliminate donations to a campaign in which an individual is not authorized to vote.

What would you do with Super PAC's?

[TheCityTheBridge]

Originally Posted by WiseManOnceSaid

What would you do with Super PAC's?

Like other organizations, I would require disclosure of donors and amounts contributed. I think I would also require their independent expenditures to allocate donor money to elections in which the donor is eligible to vote.

[ChrisFromChicago]

1 - would reform the senate and house. Senate elected as is. House elected via a random draw from voting public. Confirmation process of house members would include: must have high school graduation or equivalence. Must have average understanding of Science, Economics, and health. Test to be determined and reformed by house by year.

1b - Supreme court justices serve 2 years. each house/senate member can nominate. Must have appropriate constitutional law degrees. Supreme court members randomly selected from senate/house nominations (each senator/house member gets one nomination)


2 - peace is irrelevant

3 - Justice is a a unbiased election system

4- parties are irrelevant in the above scenario

1

Originally Posted by WiseManOnceSaid

So I started to take this all in and I have some questions for you progressive dems out there:

1) Ok, so hypothetically let's say you win. Clean Sweep, every level, City, State, National, every seat. 100% control, what would a government controlled by citizens look like?

2) What is peace to you? Does this include other nations or just ours? How would you accomplish peace in such countries as Dafur?

3) What is justice in the terms of your mission statement mean?

4) Are your goals to destroy the Democratic party or to absorb it somehow? What's the game plan to do so?

If you could help clear those up I'd appreciate it.

Also, with 100% control, how would you employ 100% of America, while at the same time dissolving corporations and monopolies?

Do you support free health care like Canada and England or Obama's healthcare, or a hybrid? How would you accomplish this without corporations involved? (Like Hospitals/Big Pharma)

Do you feel that by ridding the world of gasoline (big oil) and the corporate entities that control the oil (Exxon, BP, Saudi Arabia, Russia, etc) that this will solve global warming?

I appreciate all the help with answering these questions for me. Thanks in advance.

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by kidkaos2

There is no such thing as a left-libertarian. No libertarian would ever vote Democrat.

By definition, every true libertarian votes for Libertarians, and there are 0 in either major party, So there shouldnt be a single libertarian claiming to be Republican or voting Republican at all.

[WiseManOnceSaid]

Originally Posted by dsjj251

By definition, every true libertarian votes for Libertarians, and there are 0 in either major party, So there shouldnt be a single libertarian claiming to be Republican or voting Republican at all.

Same with Progressives, but they can't get anything accomplished without majority of the general public behind them. It's a numbers game I'm sure.

[Opin_Yunated]

Originally Posted by kidkaos2

There is no such thing as a left-libertarian. No libertarian would ever vote Democrat. Core curriculum is anti-libertarian. Obamacare is anti-libertarian. Progressive taxation is anti-libertarian. Opposing states rights is anti-libertarian.

Oh, so a desire for multiple parties is why progressives do everything they can to marginalize everything they disagree with. Sorry, but actions speak louder than words. Sure, progressives give lip service to valuing freedom and diversity. But when it comes to anyone using their freedom to do something the progressives don't like, or diversity from progressive thought rather than just racial or sexual orientation diversity, suddenly the progressive tolerance disappears.

None of those things are libertarian.

Wanting liberals to have more power isn't libertarian. Liberals and libertarians are opposed to each other.
That's just dodging the question. Whatever your definition of full employment is, what is your specific plan to reach it? That's the question. Disagreeing over what full employment is isn't an answer. It's avoidance.
And I suppose we need to get labor unions out of the process as well?

Minimum wages are not libertarian. For someone who calls himself a libertarian you really seem to have no concept whatsoever of what libertarianism is. You're a libertarian who wants universal healthcare, public higher education, government mandated wages, and limits on the political speech of business owners. Sorry but being pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, and pro-marijuana legalization does not make you a libertarian. You can't simply take the portions of libertarianism that coincide with liberalism and then call yourself a libertarian. The social freedoms that libertarians advocate do not exist by themselves. They are part of an overall philosophy. That philosophy involves getting government out of the lives of private citizens. That means allowing gay people to marry, yes. But that also means government not running a universal healthcare system. It means government not forcing kids into public schools. It means government not promoting labor unions. It means government not controlling firearm ownership. It means government not instituting affirmative action programs for minorities.

Before you spend an entire essay trying to invalidate left-libertarianism, I encourage you to do some of your own reading.

Libertarians are anti-statist. There are two main political specutrums; economic and social. One can be a social libertarian (government stay out of my life) or an economic libertarian (government stay out of the markets). A "right" libertarian is both... which is darn near anarchist. A "left" libertarian thinks the government should regulate the markets, but stay out of private citizen affairs.

By contrast, Reagan Republicans are neoliberals... socially authoritarian (government legislating morality), but economic libertarian.

I encourage you to do some research before you proclaim yourself an expert on liberals and libertarians. Most millenials actually lean center / left- social libertarian. There is a difference between a left-libertarian and a left-authoritarian. Those socialists / Marxists you speak of, they are left-authoritarians (government control of the economy).

[WiseManOnceSaid]

Originally Posted by Opin_Yunated

Before you spend an entire essay trying to invalidate left-libertarianism, I encourage you to do some of your own reading.

Libertarians are anti-statist. There are two main political specutrums; economic and social. One can be a social libertarian (government stay out of my life) or an economic libertarian (government stay out of the markets). A "right" libertarian is both... which is darn near anarchist. A "left" libertarian thinks the government should regulate the markets, but stay out of private citizen affairs.

By contrast, Reagan Republicans are neoliberals... socially authoritarian (government legislating morality), but economic libertarian.

I encourage you to do some research before you proclaim yourself an expert on liberals and libertarians. Most millenials actually lean center / left- social libertarian. There is a difference between a left-libertarian and a left-authoritarian. Those socialists / Marxists you speak of, they are left-authoritarians (government control of the economy).

Good descriptions of the subtleties between left and right inside the Libertarian party.