I am eager to submit to a barbarian master to show my regret for the imperialism of Western culture.

(01-31-2015 04:41 PM)bevotex Wrote:  I am eager to submit to a barbarian master to show my regret for the imperialism of Western culture.

Liberal Logic: Are against the death penalty but abortions are ok.

What's an acceptable alternative to being a Liberal?

(01-31-2015 07:20 PM)miko33 Wrote:  What's an acceptable alternative to being a Liberal?

Conservative or moderate would be better. I'll compare all three:

Ronald Reagan > Arlen Specter > Barack Obama

(01-31-2015 07:40 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(01-31-2015 07:20 PM)miko33 Wrote:  What's an acceptable alternative to being a Liberal?

Conservative or moderate would be better. I'll compare all three:

Ronald Reagan > Arlen Specter > Barack Obama

Where would you place a guy like Barry Goldwater or Ron Paul? I believe this is the fatal flaw in the thinking about this. The problem is people are talking about conservative vs liberal within the framework of a specific focus area. I also loathe the thought that someone or group at some point in the 20th century turned the definitions of what a conservative is vs what a liberal is on their heads. But that is for another discussion.

The problem is that this continuum ultimately means a restriction of freedoms no matter where you fall within the scale. To conservatives, the goal is to maximize freedom for personal property rights and your ability to manage these portion of your affairs. But these same people have no qualms about restricting your personal freedoms for the sake of "values". Let's get tough on crime, let's beef up the police, let's maximize prison sentences for non violent crimes - especially if it relates to the war on drugs (for one great example). Let's pour billions of dollars into it and encourage MORE criminal enterprises because we will in reality create highly lucrative black markets because we know that drugs are morally wrong no matter how powerful or inane the drug of choice may be. We used to be strong supporters of temperance leagues, we used to feel this way about alcohol and we tried to prohibit the sale and manufacture of it for the sake of morality - for the sake of decency - for the sake of humanity... That's what your conservative is. Great on the economic side (usually but not always), but has a raging hardon to go after those things that may not be harmful to the general public but is EVIL in the eyes of the morality police.

Liberals... SUCK at the economic side. Most would want to abolish as much private property as possible for the sake of the so-called "greater good". Most think that it's moral to take away from someone who earned what he/she got for the sake of giving it to people who can't (or won't) try to take care of themselves. But they defend your civil liberties more effectively. Feel you have a right to have equal protection under the law whether you are straight or gay. They feel it should be within your rights to consume alcohol and drugs so long as you are only hurting yourself - but feel most likely you are mature enough to handle this responsibly. They feel that mixing religion with gov't is a BAD IDEA - and I agree with that. Generally, the are the primary defenders of the first amendment. But they want to make you completely subservient to the state in matters of private property and your existence financially.

So there you have it. Which freedoms are more important to you? Which ones are you OK with throwing away? That's what you have to do when you pick conservative vs liberal in today's world.

Wanna know a dirty little secret? In the end it does not matter all that much. All the politicians do is to make cosmetic changes to the facade. Look under the facade, and you'll see that the gov't has ran in a very uniform fashion for decades upon decades no matter who was in power. The only difference is today. We have an idiot in the White House. Once he's gone, both parties will work in concert again after a little time has gone by. They always do.

I prefer a 3rd alternative that allows us to have free minds, free markets and the freedom to exercise our civil liberties as we see fit - provided we are not infringing on others rights to life, liberty and their pursuit of happiness.

(01-31-2015 10:40 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(01-31-2015 07:40 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(01-31-2015 07:20 PM)miko33 Wrote:  What's an acceptable alternative to being a Liberal?

Conservative or moderate would be better. I'll compare all three:

Ronald Reagan > Arlen Specter > Barack Obama

Where would you place a guy like Barry Goldwater or Ron Paul? I believe this is the fatal flaw in the thinking about this. The problem is people are talking about conservative vs liberal within the framework of a specific focus area. I also loathe the thought that someone or group at some point in the 20th century turned the definitions of what a conservative is vs what a liberal is on their heads. But that is for another discussion.

The problem is that this continuum ultimately means a restriction of freedoms no matter where you fall within the scale. To conservatives, the goal is to maximize freedom for personal property rights and your ability to manage these portion of your affairs. But these same people have no qualms about restricting your personal freedoms for the sake of "values". Let's get tough on crime, let's beef up the police, let's maximize prison sentences for non violent crimes - especially if it relates to the war on drugs (for one great example). Let's pour billions of dollars into it and encourage MORE criminal enterprises because we will in reality create highly lucrative black markets because we know that drugs are morally wrong no matter how powerful or inane the drug of choice may be. We used to be strong supporters of temperance leagues, we used to feel this way about alcohol and we tried to prohibit the sale and manufacture of it for the sake of morality - for the sake of decency - for the sake of humanity... That's what your conservative is. Great on the economic side (usually but not always), but has a raging hardon to go after those things that may not be harmful to the general public but is EVIL in the eyes of the morality police.

Liberals... SUCK at the economic side. Most would want to abolish as much private property as possible for the sake of the so-called "greater good". Most think that it's moral to take away from someone who earned what he/she got for the sake of giving it to people who can't (or won't) try to take care of themselves. But they defend your civil liberties more effectively. Feel you have a right to have equal protection under the law whether you are straight or gay. They feel it should be within your rights to consume alcohol and drugs so long as you are only hurting yourself - but feel most likely you are mature enough to handle this responsibly. They feel that mixing religion with gov't is a BAD IDEA - and I agree with that. Generally, the are the primary defenders of the first amendment. But they want to make you completely subservient to the state in matters of private property and your existence financially.

So there you have it. Which freedoms are more important to you? Which ones are you OK with throwing away? That's what you have to do when you pick conservative vs liberal in today's world.

Wanna know a dirty little secret? In the end it does not matter all that much. All the politicians do is to make cosmetic changes to the facade. Look under the facade, and you'll see that the gov't has ran in a very uniform fashion for decades upon decades no matter who was in power. The only difference is today. We have an idiot in the White House. Once he's gone, both parties will work in concert again after a little time has gone by. They always do.

I prefer a 3rd alternative that allows us to have free minds, free markets and the freedom to exercise our civil liberties as we see fit - provided we are not infringing on others rights to life, liberty and their pursuit of happiness.

I'm sure what you want has been done before; I just can't find it on the internet right now. Just place two axes on a graph. The vertical (economic index) axis would go from the bottom (communism) to the top (unfettered capitalism). The horizontal axis (social index) would go from the left side (tight government control/Sharia) to the right side (no government control/anarchy).

A hyper-libertarian would be plotted in the far upper right corner. A radical Islamist/communist would be plotted in the far lower left corner. Miko33 would probably be in the upper right portion (but probably not all the way in the extreme corner). I think most of the posters on this board would be near you. Rand Paul would be there, too.

Obama would be somewhere in the lower right quadrant. Reagan and Romney would be at the top of the graph, but to the left of you.

I know I'm not telling you anything you don't already know. It appears you're a libertarian. I think someone posted a graph like this on this board a few years ago. It was interactive and pretty cool.

(01-31-2015 11:50 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(01-31-2015 10:40 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(01-31-2015 07:40 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(01-31-2015 07:20 PM)miko33 Wrote:  What's an acceptable alternative to being a Liberal?

Conservative or moderate would be better. I'll compare all three:

Ronald Reagan > Arlen Specter > Barack Obama

Where would you place a guy like Barry Goldwater or Ron Paul? I believe this is the fatal flaw in the thinking about this. The problem is people are talking about conservative vs liberal within the framework of a specific focus area. I also loathe the thought that someone or group at some point in the 20th century turned the definitions of what a conservative is vs what a liberal is on their heads. But that is for another discussion.

The problem is that this continuum ultimately means a restriction of freedoms no matter where you fall within the scale. To conservatives, the goal is to maximize freedom for personal property rights and your ability to manage these portion of your affairs. But these same people have no qualms about restricting your personal freedoms for the sake of "values". Let's get tough on crime, let's beef up the police, let's maximize prison sentences for non violent crimes - especially if it relates to the war on drugs (for one great example). Let's pour billions of dollars into it and encourage MORE criminal enterprises because we will in reality create highly lucrative black markets because we know that drugs are morally wrong no matter how powerful or inane the drug of choice may be. We used to be strong supporters of temperance leagues, we used to feel this way about alcohol and we tried to prohibit the sale and manufacture of it for the sake of morality - for the sake of decency - for the sake of humanity... That's what your conservative is. Great on the economic side (usually but not always), but has a raging hardon to go after those things that may not be harmful to the general public but is EVIL in the eyes of the morality police.

Liberals... SUCK at the economic side. Most would want to abolish as much private property as possible for the sake of the so-called "greater good". Most think that it's moral to take away from someone who earned what he/she got for the sake of giving it to people who can't (or won't) try to take care of themselves. But they defend your civil liberties more effectively. Feel you have a right to have equal protection under the law whether you are straight or gay. They feel it should be within your rights to consume alcohol and drugs so long as you are only hurting yourself - but feel most likely you are mature enough to handle this responsibly. They feel that mixing religion with gov't is a BAD IDEA - and I agree with that. Generally, the are the primary defenders of the first amendment. But they want to make you completely subservient to the state in matters of private property and your existence financially.

So there you have it. Which freedoms are more important to you? Which ones are you OK with throwing away? That's what you have to do when you pick conservative vs liberal in today's world.

Wanna know a dirty little secret? In the end it does not matter all that much. All the politicians do is to make cosmetic changes to the facade. Look under the facade, and you'll see that the gov't has ran in a very uniform fashion for decades upon decades no matter who was in power. The only difference is today. We have an idiot in the White House. Once he's gone, both parties will work in concert again after a little time has gone by. They always do.

I prefer a 3rd alternative that allows us to have free minds, free markets and the freedom to exercise our civil liberties as we see fit - provided we are not infringing on others rights to life, liberty and their pursuit of happiness.

I'm sure what you want has been done before; I just can't find it on the internet right now. Just place two axes on a graph. The vertical (economic index) axis would go from the bottom (communism) to the top (unfettered capitalism). The horizontal axis (social index) would go from the left side (tight government control/Sharia) to the right side (no government control/anarchy).

A hyper-libertarian would be plotted in the far upper right corner. A radical Islamist/communist would be plotted in the far lower left corner. Miko33 would probably be in the upper right portion (but probably not all the way in the extreme corner). I think most of the posters on this board would be near you. Rand Paul would be there, too.

Obama would be somewhere in the lower right quadrant. Reagan and Romney would be at the top of the graph, but to the left of you.

I know I'm not telling you anything you don't already know. It appears you're a libertarian. I think someone posted a graph like this on this board a few years ago. It was interactive and pretty cool.

http://theadvocates.org/quiz/quiz.php

Most likely simpler than what you had in mind, but the point is the same. I do in fact believe that judging where you stand on political issues needs to be based on a 2-D plane not a 1-D line. Most think that conservatives are for freedom while "liberals" are for statism. Truth is...it depends on what the issues are. Maybe it would be even more realistic to view it as 3-D space by including a third axis that could have a foreign policy component to it, i.e. the degree to which the U.S. should intervene in another nation's affairs, or the degree to which the U.S. should have troops stationed on foreign soil.

(02-01-2015 12:46 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(01-31-2015 11:50 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(01-31-2015 10:40 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(01-31-2015 07:40 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(01-31-2015 07:20 PM)miko33 Wrote:  What's an acceptable alternative to being a Liberal?

Conservative or moderate would be better. I'll compare all three:

Ronald Reagan > Arlen Specter > Barack Obama

Where would you place a guy like Barry Goldwater or Ron Paul? I believe this is the fatal flaw in the thinking about this. The problem is people are talking about conservative vs liberal within the framework of a specific focus area. I also loathe the thought that someone or group at some point in the 20th century turned the definitions of what a conservative is vs what a liberal is on their heads. But that is for another discussion.

The problem is that this continuum ultimately means a restriction of freedoms no matter where you fall within the scale. To conservatives, the goal is to maximize freedom for personal property rights and your ability to manage these portion of your affairs. But these same people have no qualms about restricting your personal freedoms for the sake of "values". Let's get tough on crime, let's beef up the police, let's maximize prison sentences for non violent crimes - especially if it relates to the war on drugs (for one great example). Let's pour billions of dollars into it and encourage MORE criminal enterprises because we will in reality create highly lucrative black markets because we know that drugs are morally wrong no matter how powerful or inane the drug of choice may be. We used to be strong supporters of temperance leagues, we used to feel this way about alcohol and we tried to prohibit the sale and manufacture of it for the sake of morality - for the sake of decency - for the sake of humanity... That's what your conservative is. Great on the economic side (usually but not always), but has a raging hardon to go after those things that may not be harmful to the general public but is EVIL in the eyes of the morality police.

Liberals... SUCK at the economic side. Most would want to abolish as much private property as possible for the sake of the so-called "greater good". Most think that it's moral to take away from someone who earned what he/she got for the sake of giving it to people who can't (or won't) try to take care of themselves. But they defend your civil liberties more effectively. Feel you have a right to have equal protection under the law whether you are straight or gay. They feel it should be within your rights to consume alcohol and drugs so long as you are only hurting yourself - but feel most likely you are mature enough to handle this responsibly. They feel that mixing religion with gov't is a BAD IDEA - and I agree with that. Generally, the are the primary defenders of the first amendment. But they want to make you completely subservient to the state in matters of private property and your existence financially.

So there you have it. Which freedoms are more important to you? Which ones are you OK with throwing away? That's what you have to do when you pick conservative vs liberal in today's world.

Wanna know a dirty little secret? In the end it does not matter all that much. All the politicians do is to make cosmetic changes to the facade. Look under the facade, and you'll see that the gov't has ran in a very uniform fashion for decades upon decades no matter who was in power. The only difference is today. We have an idiot in the White House. Once he's gone, both parties will work in concert again after a little time has gone by. They always do.

I prefer a 3rd alternative that allows us to have free minds, free markets and the freedom to exercise our civil liberties as we see fit - provided we are not infringing on others rights to life, liberty and their pursuit of happiness.

I'm sure what you want has been done before; I just can't find it on the internet right now. Just place two axes on a graph. The vertical (economic index) axis would go from the bottom (communism) to the top (unfettered capitalism). The horizontal axis (social index) would go from the left side (tight government control/Sharia) to the right side (no government control/anarchy).

A hyper-libertarian would be plotted in the far upper right corner. A radical Islamist/communist would be plotted in the far lower left corner. Miko33 would probably be in the upper right portion (but probably not all the way in the extreme corner). I think most of the posters on this board would be near you. Rand Paul would be there, too.

Obama would be somewhere in the lower right quadrant. Reagan and Romney would be at the top of the graph, but to the left of you.

I know I'm not telling you anything you don't already know. It appears you're a libertarian. I think someone posted a graph like this on this board a few years ago. It was interactive and pretty cool.

http://theadvocates.org/quiz/quiz.php

Most likely simpler than what you had in mind, but the point is the same. I do in fact believe that judging where you stand on political issues needs to be based on a 2-D plane not a 1-D line. Most think that conservatives are for freedom while "liberals" are for statism. Truth is...it depends on what the issues are. Maybe it would be even more realistic to view it as 3-D space by including a third axis that could have a foreign policy component to it, i.e. the degree to which the U.S. should intervene in another nation's affairs, or the degree to which the U.S. should have troops stationed on foreign soil.

Taking this from one axis to three axes (3-D) would be like going from checkers to 3-D chess, which Spock played on Star Trek.

And to plot it in 3-D, maybe a hologram would be needed.

(01-31-2015 10:40 PM)miko33 Wrote:  Where would you place a guy like Barry Goldwater or Ron Paul? I believe this is the fatal flaw in the thinking about this. The problem is people are talking about conservative vs liberal within the framework of a specific focus area. I also loathe the thought that someone or group at some point in the 20th century turned the definitions of what a conservative is vs what a liberal is on their heads. But that is for another discussion.
The problem is that this continuum ultimately means a restriction of freedoms no matter where you fall within the scale. To conservatives, the goal is to maximize freedom for personal property rights and your ability to manage these portion of your affairs. But these same people have no qualms about restricting your personal freedoms for the sake of "values". Let's get tough on crime, let's beef up the police, let's maximize prison sentences for non violent crimes - especially if it relates to the war on drugs (for one great example). Let's pour billions of dollars into it and encourage MORE criminal enterprises because we will in reality create highly lucrative black markets because we know that drugs are morally wrong no matter how powerful or inane the drug of choice may be. We used to be strong supporters of temperance leagues, we used to feel this way about alcohol and we tried to prohibit the sale and manufacture of it for the sake of morality - for the sake of decency - for the sake of humanity... That's what your conservative is. Great on the economic side (usually but not always), but has a raging hardon to go after those things that may not be harmful to the general public but is EVIL in the eyes of the morality police.
Liberals... SUCK at the economic side. Most would want to abolish as much private property as possible for the sake of the so-called "greater good". Most think that it's moral to take away from someone who earned what he/she got for the sake of giving it to people who can't (or won't) try to take care of themselves. But they defend your civil liberties more effectively. Feel you have a right to have equal protection under the law whether you are straight or gay. They feel it should be within your rights to consume alcohol and drugs so long as you are only hurting yourself - but feel most likely you are mature enough to handle this responsibly. They feel that mixing religion with gov't is a BAD IDEA - and I agree with that. Generally, the are the primary defenders of the first amendment. But they want to make you completely subservient to the state in matters of private property and your existence financially.
So there you have it. Which freedoms are more important to you?

All of them.

Quote:Which ones are you OK with throwing away?

None of them.

Quote:That's what you have to do when you pick conservative vs liberal in today's world.

Yep.

Quote:Wanna know a dirty little secret? In the end it does not matter all that much. All the politicians do is to make cosmetic changes to the facade. Look under the facade, and you'll see that the gov't has ran in a very uniform fashion for decades upon decades no matter who was in power. The only difference is today. We have an idiot in the White House. Once he's gone, both parties will work in concert again after a little time has gone by. They always do.
I prefer a 3rd alternative that allows us to have free minds, free markets and the freedom to exercise our civil liberties as we see fit - provided we are not infringing on others rights to life, liberty and their pursuit of happiness.

Well stated (referring to entire post).

I would add that I believe you can
1) build a safety net to provide sufficient resources for basic needs--food, clothing, shelter, health care--and
2) have that safety net paid for by everyone--not just the rich, not just the poor, and especially not the middle class--and
3) couple this with a legal and regulatory system designed to preserve life, liberty, property, and the planet, and
4) otherwise limit government to those functions which only government can perform, and structure those functions to be performed and the lowest possible level, and
5) beyond that maximize the power of free minds, free markets, and free exercise of civil liberties.

And that's the approach I would take.

Basically build a framework through which basic needs are met, and beyond that turn it over to free markets.

(02-01-2015 03:19 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I would add that I believe you can
1) build a safety net to provide sufficient resources for basic needs--food, clothing, shelter, health care--and
2) have that safety net paid for by everyone--not just the rich, not just the poor, and especially not the middle class--and
3) couple this with a legal and regulatory system designed to preserve life, liberty, property, and the planet, and
4) otherwise limit government to those functions which only government can perform, and structure those functions to be performed and the lowest possible level, and
5) beyond that maximize the power of free minds, free markets, and free exercise of civil liberties.

And that's the approach I would take.

Basically build a framework through which basic needs are met, and beyond that turn it over to free markets.

Once again, there you go spouting off common sense.

But the Dems' path to power has always been to expand government and maximize government payouts. Republicans generally try to slow that process as much as they can, but they don't try too hard because the media will call them racist.

And only a few lonely voices question the status quo.

(01-31-2015 10:40 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(01-31-2015 07:40 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(01-31-2015 07:20 PM)miko33 Wrote:  What's an acceptable alternative to being a Liberal?

Conservative or moderate would be better. I'll compare all three:

Ronald Reagan > Arlen Specter > Barack Obama

Where would you place a guy like Barry Goldwater or Ron Paul? I believe this is the fatal flaw in the thinking about this. The problem is people are talking about conservative vs liberal within the framework of a specific focus area. I also loathe the thought that someone or group at some point in the 20th century turned the definitions of what a conservative is vs what a liberal is on their heads. But that is for another discussion.

The problem is that this continuum ultimately means a restriction of freedoms no matter where you fall within the scale. To conservatives, the goal is to maximize freedom for personal property rights and your ability to manage these portion of your affairs. But these same people have no qualms about restricting your personal freedoms for the sake of "values". Let's get tough on crime, let's beef up the police, let's maximize prison sentences for non violent crimes - especially if it relates to the war on drugs (for one great example). Let's pour billions of dollars into it and encourage MORE criminal enterprises because we will in reality create highly lucrative black markets because we know that drugs are morally wrong no matter how powerful or inane the drug of choice may be. We used to be strong supporters of temperance leagues, we used to feel this way about alcohol and we tried to prohibit the sale and manufacture of it for the sake of morality - for the sake of decency - for the sake of humanity... That's what your conservative is. Great on the economic side (usually but not always), but has a raging hardon to go after those things that may not be harmful to the general public but is EVIL in the eyes of the morality police.

Liberals... SUCK at the economic side. Most would want to abolish as much private property as possible for the sake of the so-called "greater good". Most think that it's moral to take away from someone who earned what he/she got for the sake of giving it to people who can't (or won't) try to take care of themselves. But they defend your civil liberties more effectively. Feel you have a right to have equal protection under the law whether you are straight or gay. They feel it should be within your rights to consume alcohol and drugs so long as you are only hurting yourself - but feel most likely you are mature enough to handle this responsibly. They feel that mixing religion with gov't is a BAD IDEA - and I agree with that. Generally, the are the primary defenders of the first amendment. But they want to make you completely subservient to the state in matters of private property and your existence financially.

So there you have it. Which freedoms are more important to you? Which ones are you OK with throwing away? That's what you have to do when you pick conservative vs liberal in today's world.

Wanna know a dirty little secret? In the end it does not matter all that much. All the politicians do is to make cosmetic changes to the facade. Look under the facade, and you'll see that the gov't has ran in a very uniform fashion for decades upon decades no matter who was in power. The only difference is today. We have an idiot in the White House. Once he's gone, both parties will work in concert again after a little time has gone by. They always do.

I prefer a 3rd alternative that allows us to have free minds, free markets and the freedom to exercise our civil liberties as we see fit - provided we are not infringing on others rights to life, liberty and their pursuit of happiness.

Well said Miko. I actually prefer multiple alternatives. The more the better.

(02-01-2015 09:51 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(01-31-2015 10:40 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(01-31-2015 07:40 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(01-31-2015 07:20 PM)miko33 Wrote:  What's an acceptable alternative to being a Liberal?

Conservative or moderate would be better. I'll compare all three:

Ronald Reagan > Arlen Specter > Barack Obama

Where would you place a guy like Barry Goldwater or Ron Paul? I believe this is the fatal flaw in the thinking about this. The problem is people are talking about conservative vs liberal within the framework of a specific focus area. I also loathe the thought that someone or group at some point in the 20th century turned the definitions of what a conservative is vs what a liberal is on their heads. But that is for another discussion.

The problem is that this continuum ultimately means a restriction of freedoms no matter where you fall within the scale. To conservatives, the goal is to maximize freedom for personal property rights and your ability to manage these portion of your affairs. But these same people have no qualms about restricting your personal freedoms for the sake of "values". Let's get tough on crime, let's beef up the police, let's maximize prison sentences for non violent crimes - especially if it relates to the war on drugs (for one great example). Let's pour billions of dollars into it and encourage MORE criminal enterprises because we will in reality create highly lucrative black markets because we know that drugs are morally wrong no matter how powerful or inane the drug of choice may be. We used to be strong supporters of temperance leagues, we used to feel this way about alcohol and we tried to prohibit the sale and manufacture of it for the sake of morality - for the sake of decency - for the sake of humanity... That's what your conservative is. Great on the economic side (usually but not always), but has a raging hardon to go after those things that may not be harmful to the general public but is EVIL in the eyes of the morality police.

Liberals... SUCK at the economic side. Most would want to abolish as much private property as possible for the sake of the so-called "greater good". Most think that it's moral to take away from someone who earned what he/she got for the sake of giving it to people who can't (or won't) try to take care of themselves. But they defend your civil liberties more effectively. Feel you have a right to have equal protection under the law whether you are straight or gay. They feel it should be within your rights to consume alcohol and drugs so long as you are only hurting yourself - but feel most likely you are mature enough to handle this responsibly. They feel that mixing religion with gov't is a BAD IDEA - and I agree with that. Generally, the are the primary defenders of the first amendment. But they want to make you completely subservient to the state in matters of private property and your existence financially.

So there you have it. Which freedoms are more important to you? Which ones are you OK with throwing away? That's what you have to do when you pick conservative vs liberal in today's world.

Wanna know a dirty little secret? In the end it does not matter all that much. All the politicians do is to make cosmetic changes to the facade. Look under the facade, and you'll see that the gov't has ran in a very uniform fashion for decades upon decades no matter who was in power. The only difference is today. We have an idiot in the White House. Once he's gone, both parties will work in concert again after a little time has gone by. They always do.

I prefer a 3rd alternative that allows us to have free minds, free markets and the freedom to exercise our civil liberties as we see fit - provided we are not infringing on others rights to life, liberty and their pursuit of happiness.

Well said Miko. I actually prefer multiple alternatives. The more the better.

Maybe you guys would prefer a parliamentary system with multiple parties?

That's a sincere question, not meant to be provacative or condescending. That system probably has some advantages (and disadvantages) over the two party system. It's been over 20 years since I studied that issue.

(02-01-2015 09:01 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(02-01-2015 03:19 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I would add that I believe you can
1) build a safety net to provide sufficient resources for basic needs--food, clothing, shelter, health care--and
2) have that safety net paid for by everyone--not just the rich, not just the poor, and especially not the middle class--and
3) couple this with a legal and regulatory system designed to preserve life, liberty, property, and the planet, and
4) otherwise limit government to those functions which only government can perform, and structure those functions to be performed and the lowest possible level, and
5) beyond that maximize the power of free minds, free markets, and free exercise of civil liberties.
And that's the approach I would take.
Basically build a framework through which basic needs are met, and beyond that turn it over to free markets.

Once again, there you go spouting off common sense.
But the Dems' path to power has always been to expand government and maximize government payouts. Republicans generally try to slow that process as much as they can, but they don't try too hard because the media will call them racist.
And only a few lonely voices question the status quo.

If republicans actually had a coherent plan to do things differently, they could sell it. But their idea seems to be more just to take democrat programs but spend less on them, so we have more money to go to war. I remember when democrats were the party of war. Of course that was when neocons were democrats.

I think SOMEBODY could win with a platform combining the Friedman negative income tax or the Boortz-Linder rebate/prefund plus French Bismarck health care as a cheaper and more comprehensive safety net that the mishmash of our current welfare system and Obamacare, paid for by broader and lower and flatter taxes, with elimination of loopholes and a consumption tax, privatization of a number of government activities that replicate commercial activities, eliminating infringements of civil liberties that don't pass strict constitutional scrutiny, treating our friends better than we treat our enemies in foreign affairs, and building the strongest military in the world and never using it except in wars we intend to win. I certainly think that is the prescription this country needs. I just don't know if either party can embrace that.

(02-01-2015 01:59 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(02-01-2015 12:46 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(01-31-2015 11:50 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(01-31-2015 10:40 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(01-31-2015 07:40 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  Conservative or moderate would be better. I'll compare all three:

Ronald Reagan > Arlen Specter > Barack Obama

Where would you place a guy like Barry Goldwater or Ron Paul? I believe this is the fatal flaw in the thinking about this. The problem is people are talking about conservative vs liberal within the framework of a specific focus area. I also loathe the thought that someone or group at some point in the 20th century turned the definitions of what a conservative is vs what a liberal is on their heads. But that is for another discussion.

The problem is that this continuum ultimately means a restriction of freedoms no matter where you fall within the scale. To conservatives, the goal is to maximize freedom for personal property rights and your ability to manage these portion of your affairs. But these same people have no qualms about restricting your personal freedoms for the sake of "values". Let's get tough on crime, let's beef up the police, let's maximize prison sentences for non violent crimes - especially if it relates to the war on drugs (for one great example). Let's pour billions of dollars into it and encourage MORE criminal enterprises because we will in reality create highly lucrative black markets because we know that drugs are morally wrong no matter how powerful or inane the drug of choice may be. We used to be strong supporters of temperance leagues, we used to feel this way about alcohol and we tried to prohibit the sale and manufacture of it for the sake of morality - for the sake of decency - for the sake of humanity... That's what your conservative is. Great on the economic side (usually but not always), but has a raging hardon to go after those things that may not be harmful to the general public but is EVIL in the eyes of the morality police.

Liberals... SUCK at the economic side. Most would want to abolish as much private property as possible for the sake of the so-called "greater good". Most think that it's moral to take away from someone who earned what he/she got for the sake of giving it to people who can't (or won't) try to take care of themselves. But they defend your civil liberties more effectively. Feel you have a right to have equal protection under the law whether you are straight or gay. They feel it should be within your rights to consume alcohol and drugs so long as you are only hurting yourself - but feel most likely you are mature enough to handle this responsibly. They feel that mixing religion with gov't is a BAD IDEA - and I agree with that. Generally, the are the primary defenders of the first amendment. But they want to make you completely subservient to the state in matters of private property and your existence financially.

So there you have it. Which freedoms are more important to you? Which ones are you OK with throwing away? That's what you have to do when you pick conservative vs liberal in today's world.

Wanna know a dirty little secret? In the end it does not matter all that much. All the politicians do is to make cosmetic changes to the facade. Look under the facade, and you'll see that the gov't has ran in a very uniform fashion for decades upon decades no matter who was in power. The only difference is today. We have an idiot in the White House. Once he's gone, both parties will work in concert again after a little time has gone by. They always do.

I prefer a 3rd alternative that allows us to have free minds, free markets and the freedom to exercise our civil liberties as we see fit - provided we are not infringing on others rights to life, liberty and their pursuit of happiness.

I'm sure what you want has been done before; I just can't find it on the internet right now. Just place two axes on a graph. The vertical (economic index) axis would go from the bottom (communism) to the top (unfettered capitalism). The horizontal axis (social index) would go from the left side (tight government control/Sharia) to the right side (no government control/anarchy).

A hyper-libertarian would be plotted in the far upper right corner. A radical Islamist/communist would be plotted in the far lower left corner. Miko33 would probably be in the upper right portion (but probably not all the way in the extreme corner). I think most of the posters on this board would be near you. Rand Paul would be there, too.

Obama would be somewhere in the lower right quadrant. Reagan and Romney would be at the top of the graph, but to the left of you.

I know I'm not telling you anything you don't already know. It appears you're a libertarian. I think someone posted a graph like this on this board a few years ago. It was interactive and pretty cool.

http://theadvocates.org/quiz/quiz.php

Most likely simpler than what you had in mind, but the point is the same. I do in fact believe that judging where you stand on political issues needs to be based on a 2-D plane not a 1-D line. Most think that conservatives are for freedom while "liberals" are for statism. Truth is...it depends on what the issues are. Maybe it would be even more realistic to view it as 3-D space by including a third axis that could have a foreign policy component to it, i.e. the degree to which the U.S. should intervene in another nation's affairs, or the degree to which the U.S. should have troops stationed on foreign soil.

Taking this from one axis to three axes (3-D) would be like going from checkers to 3-D chess, which Spock played on Star Trek.

And to plot it in 3-D, maybe a hologram would be needed.

Sure it would be more complicated, but foreign policy is becoming ever more important since economic effects in Asia have a direct impact on the U.S. economy. Choosing to remove a despot in Iraq and to engage in nation building has had huge implications on the U.S. The removal of Saddam, Hosni Mubarak plus soon to be Assad is making it possible for the Iran to become the voice of the middle east plus make it possible for ISIS to exist in the first place.

(02-01-2015 10:07 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(02-01-2015 09:51 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(01-31-2015 10:40 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(01-31-2015 07:40 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(01-31-2015 07:20 PM)miko33 Wrote:  What's an acceptable alternative to being a Liberal?

Conservative or moderate would be better. I'll compare all three:

Ronald Reagan > Arlen Specter > Barack Obama

Where would you place a guy like Barry Goldwater or Ron Paul? I believe this is the fatal flaw in the thinking about this. The problem is people are talking about conservative vs liberal within the framework of a specific focus area. I also loathe the thought that someone or group at some point in the 20th century turned the definitions of what a conservative is vs what a liberal is on their heads. But that is for another discussion.

The problem is that this continuum ultimately means a restriction of freedoms no matter where you fall within the scale. To conservatives, the goal is to maximize freedom for personal property rights and your ability to manage these portion of your affairs. But these same people have no qualms about restricting your personal freedoms for the sake of "values". Let's get tough on crime, let's beef up the police, let's maximize prison sentences for non violent crimes - especially if it relates to the war on drugs (for one great example). Let's pour billions of dollars into it and encourage MORE criminal enterprises because we will in reality create highly lucrative black markets because we know that drugs are morally wrong no matter how powerful or inane the drug of choice may be. We used to be strong supporters of temperance leagues, we used to feel this way about alcohol and we tried to prohibit the sale and manufacture of it for the sake of morality - for the sake of decency - for the sake of humanity... That's what your conservative is. Great on the economic side (usually but not always), but has a raging hardon to go after those things that may not be harmful to the general public but is EVIL in the eyes of the morality police.

Liberals... SUCK at the economic side. Most would want to abolish as much private property as possible for the sake of the so-called "greater good". Most think that it's moral to take away from someone who earned what he/she got for the sake of giving it to people who can't (or won't) try to take care of themselves. But they defend your civil liberties more effectively. Feel you have a right to have equal protection under the law whether you are straight or gay. They feel it should be within your rights to consume alcohol and drugs so long as you are only hurting yourself - but feel most likely you are mature enough to handle this responsibly. They feel that mixing religion with gov't is a BAD IDEA - and I agree with that. Generally, the are the primary defenders of the first amendment. But they want to make you completely subservient to the state in matters of private property and your existence financially.

So there you have it. Which freedoms are more important to you? Which ones are you OK with throwing away? That's what you have to do when you pick conservative vs liberal in today's world.

Wanna know a dirty little secret? In the end it does not matter all that much. All the politicians do is to make cosmetic changes to the facade. Look under the facade, and you'll see that the gov't has ran in a very uniform fashion for decades upon decades no matter who was in power. The only difference is today. We have an idiot in the White House. Once he's gone, both parties will work in concert again after a little time has gone by. They always do.

I prefer a 3rd alternative that allows us to have free minds, free markets and the freedom to exercise our civil liberties as we see fit - provided we are not infringing on others rights to life, liberty and their pursuit of happiness.

Well said Miko. I actually prefer multiple alternatives. The more the better.

Maybe you guys would prefer a parliamentary system with multiple parties?

That's a sincere question, not meant to be provacative or condescending. That system probably has some advantages (and disadvantages) over the two party system. It's been over 20 years since I studied that issue.

A parliamentary system is not desirable because it morphs the 3 branches into 2. The President and Prime Minister is at the mercy of the legislature at all times - since if it was in effect today our president would be Boehner and our prime minister would be whoever the house whip is on the GOP side. You would either eliminate the senate completely or maybe make it analogous to the House of Lords in the UK to act as a weak check and balance. Plus there is no assurance that moving to a parliamentary system eliminates the duopoly we see today. Our form of gov't had a number of more prominent parties in the past beyond just the two we have today, but for some reason that 3rd (and 4th) party never had staying power to last long term.

(02-01-2015 03:19 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I would add that I believe you can
1) build a safety net to provide sufficient resources for basic needs--food, clothing, shelter, health care--and
2) have that safety net paid for by everyone--not just the rich, not just the poor, and especially not the middle class--and
3) couple this with a legal and regulatory system designed to preserve life, liberty, property, and the planet, and
4) otherwise limit government to those functions which only government can perform, and structure those functions to be performed and the lowest possible level, and
5) beyond that maximize the power of free minds, free markets, and free exercise of civil liberties.

And that's the approach I would take.

Basically build a framework through which basic needs are met, and beyond that turn it over to free markets.

I believe in a safety net overall, and I can understand the need for Keynesian approaches too in times of recession provided that the gov't follows the other part of Keynesian theory that never gets applied, i.e. shrinking gov't spending to balance out the largesse in lean times. I love your list overall, and probably why I don't get that perfect score on the economics side (but significantly higher than most of the general public I assume).

I am a liberal, I actually care for children after they are born.