Cruentus
Grandmaster
For those of you who aren't sure, take the test! 
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?p=728844#post728844
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?p=728844#post728844
Where do you fall on the political spectrum?
- Thread starter Josh
- Start date
Cruentus
Grandmaster
And as it pertains to the thread, I would like to consider myself a socially conscious libertarian. I essentially believe that government has only 2 jobs; to keep us safe and to keep us free. Anything else is overstepping bounds.
However, I do consider myself socially conscious because some things we do need to pact together as a community, state or country in order to keep us safe. For example, our health care crisis here in the US needs to be addressed at all levels of government, but particularly federal because it is a nationwide crisis. It doesn't suffice for government to say, "let individuals and employers sort the problem out themselves and don't get involved" when it has become a legitimate safety issue for american people. Another example would be the unemployment crisis in Michigan. Michigan government needs to intervene because the umemployment rates are skyrocketing, and a legitimate safety and freedom (freedom to work and support oneself) issue.
So I am of the opinion that for those types of examples, government should intervene because that involves keeping us safe and free. It is important to mention, though, that government intervention does not have to mean regulating personal or organizational behavior. This should only be done as a last resort. It is regulating personal and organizational behavior (other then the case where extreme safety issues are created by the behavior) that I in general disagree with. I expecially disagree with regulating individual behavior for some sort of "collective ideal" or "greater good," because what is "good" is up to the subjective opinions of those in power. Operating this way is a fast track to a form of totalitarianism, whether of the facist, communist, or nationalist ilk.
However, I do consider myself socially conscious because some things we do need to pact together as a community, state or country in order to keep us safe. For example, our health care crisis here in the US needs to be addressed at all levels of government, but particularly federal because it is a nationwide crisis. It doesn't suffice for government to say, "let individuals and employers sort the problem out themselves and don't get involved" when it has become a legitimate safety issue for american people. Another example would be the unemployment crisis in Michigan. Michigan government needs to intervene because the umemployment rates are skyrocketing, and a legitimate safety and freedom (freedom to work and support oneself) issue.
So I am of the opinion that for those types of examples, government should intervene because that involves keeping us safe and free. It is important to mention, though, that government intervention does not have to mean regulating personal or organizational behavior. This should only be done as a last resort. It is regulating personal and organizational behavior (other then the case where extreme safety issues are created by the behavior) that I in general disagree with. I expecially disagree with regulating individual behavior for some sort of "collective ideal" or "greater good," because what is "good" is up to the subjective opinions of those in power. Operating this way is a fast track to a form of totalitarianism, whether of the facist, communist, or nationalist ilk.
Cruentus
Grandmaster
Also, a couple more points...
1. Corporations need to be reclassified by or government/legal system. Right now corps. are considered individual citizens as classified by a late 1800's court decision. I think this is wrong, and that a lot of problems tellner was expressing (like being unwilling to regulate a company in regards to pollution) stems from this framework, the idea (to simplify) being that you can't hinder an individuals freedoms due to a collective will.
Corporations are an organization of individuals brought together for a common purpose as defined in the corporate documents. They are a collective entity in and of themselves, and need to be reclassified and treated as such. I am not for willie-nillie regulation of corporate entities to the demise of the economy, but some things do need to be properly balanced.
This idea is sort of complex, but a reclassification would be the beginning of individual citizens winning the system back.
2. There is too much money conflict of interest in Washington. I believe that it isn't the parties dicking up the process as much as it is this. We need a strict campaign finance reformation, and strict regulation of any financial conflict of interest regarding politicians. I don't think that lobbying groups should be able to influence canidates or office holders financially. I would even be in favor of freezing investment accounts except for T-bills and muni bonds until politicians are no longer in office.
I am of the opinion that if you get elected, then you are there to serve your country and that is it. These people don't make sacrifices when we should expect them too for the honor of serving this nation. I think strict regulation of financial conflict of interest would weed out the opportunists in Washington, and leave us with canidates who truly want to serve this country.
1. Corporations need to be reclassified by or government/legal system. Right now corps. are considered individual citizens as classified by a late 1800's court decision. I think this is wrong, and that a lot of problems tellner was expressing (like being unwilling to regulate a company in regards to pollution) stems from this framework, the idea (to simplify) being that you can't hinder an individuals freedoms due to a collective will.
Corporations are an organization of individuals brought together for a common purpose as defined in the corporate documents. They are a collective entity in and of themselves, and need to be reclassified and treated as such. I am not for willie-nillie regulation of corporate entities to the demise of the economy, but some things do need to be properly balanced.
This idea is sort of complex, but a reclassification would be the beginning of individual citizens winning the system back.
2. There is too much money conflict of interest in Washington. I believe that it isn't the parties dicking up the process as much as it is this. We need a strict campaign finance reformation, and strict regulation of any financial conflict of interest regarding politicians. I don't think that lobbying groups should be able to influence canidates or office holders financially. I would even be in favor of freezing investment accounts except for T-bills and muni bonds until politicians are no longer in office.
I am of the opinion that if you get elected, then you are there to serve your country and that is it. These people don't make sacrifices when we should expect them too for the honor of serving this nation. I think strict regulation of financial conflict of interest would weed out the opportunists in Washington, and leave us with canidates who truly want to serve this country.
As long as politicians get to keep their war chest.....there will be out-of-control influence peddling in the Capitol (federal or state).
I really don't know how to answer this question - I despise the Republican party for their hypocrisy (Federal Deficit, Expansion of Federal Powers, LYING, etc. - all while falsely claiming to be "conservative"), but I also don't like the Democratic Party. Like most folks, I'm a mix of conservative and liberal on most issues. Conservative regarding fiscal responsibility, definitely, and non-interventionist (for the most part and barring a CLEAR national interest), in military matters. Yet, I also shudder at the power of the Religious Right in America and find their complaints of being "persecuted" more or less just complaining that they don't get to dominate everywhere anymore. I also strongly favor work related health and safety regulations.
