Ideological preference?

[Darth Wong]

I didnt men that to be the exact phrasing of the law, but rather to be it spirit. Building codes do of course need to large because of the various stresses buildings are put through. Have to make sure they dont collapse and have a method in place to punish the builders if they do (and if it was the builders fault)

And what makes you think there aren't justifications for most laws?

The common sense stuff can stay, but do we really need laws on (example, may or may not exis) The length of the knife used to cu the meat at a meat packing plant?

No, but unless you have some concrete proof that most laws are like this example which you just made up out of thin air, this point goes nowhere.

ANd yes, we can have a functioning government with a reduced budget. SOme of the services the government provides will be cut however.

And which services would you eliminate? Face it; most of the services which people scream about for wasting money require tiny amounts of money next to the biggies such as Social Security, defense spending, Medicare/Medicaid, welfare, public education, law enforcement, and interest on the national debt. I hope you've come up with something better than your onetime scheme of eliminating public education.

[CrimsonRaine]

*just hides* Ya'll will beat up on me if I say.

Raine

[Alyrium Denryle]

And what makes you think there aren't justifications for most laws?

Justifucations, possibly. Do they need to be laws? That would depend on the law, and it's justification. SOmeone will have to go through all the legal code.

And which services would you eliminate? Face it; most of the services which people scream about for wasting money require tiny amounts of money next to the biggies such as Social Security, defense spending, Medicare/Medicaid, welfare, public education, law enforcement, and interest on the national debt. I hope you've come up with something better than your onetime scheme of eliminating public education.

Weening people off social security for one. It would take a few decades to do(because it really isnt right to suddenly strip old people of something they depend on) But private investment funds would work just as well. Mny companies provide them. People pay into FICA their entire working lives, they could easily pay that money into 401k or mutual fund set up by their employer that transfers from job to job. Or we could let them do it on their own. But of course, that would require personal responsibility and foresight.

Welfare gets a nice spending cut, and is base subsistence level for a set time period. SOmeone on welfare wont loose their house, or starve, or in the case of extreme climates freeze/be poached, but luxuries are gone, and if they cant find a jb in say... 6 months, or if they are not retraining to be something else, cut them off, if they have children, place them with a neighbor or relative.

Medicare/Medicaid, also cut that one down nicely. No blanket safty net. If you cant pay for private insurance(as in you spend all your income on your house, car etc) then yeah, sure, we can help you out. but if you can, and choose not to(as in, you make enough money but dont live within your means/ Wanted to build an addition to your house etc) then that s your choice, and you should live with your mistakes. The hospital cant refuse you care if you come in an ambulence. But no feeding from the trough.

Public education... no real way to cut that one.

Law enforcement... Hey, this is actually the real reason government exists... keep it. But cancel the war on drugs

Military, same thing.

And we dont have a choice but to pay our interest. HOWEVER We should at least try to pay that down without printing more money.

[SWPIGWANG]

Monster raving loonie murder much death kill all stainist 1337ism.

Ideology is for lazy people. The devil is always in the details that ideology is not designed to cover.

Though death DO solve all problems.

I'm not scribing to any ideology until there is a comprehensive and unified theory of social psychology and an general solution to problems of morality and lots of experience making systems out of those conclusions.

I think the people will LOVE the massive taxcut that is a fixed percentage of their income tax for everyone.

If the results from British Columbia (canadian province) liberal party from taking power is an indication, not quite. They cut a lot of costly leftist programs and only attracted endless protesters on the lawns infront of government buildings that benefited from the programs and laid off employees.

The general masses sees less deficit and such, but they can't really be motivated political by this (still enough to vote though). Below a certain threshold people are just apathic.

[Rogue 9]

The sig. Read. Comprehend. Join me.

[Darth Wong]

And what makes you think there aren't justifications for most laws?

Justifucations, possibly. Do they need to be laws? That would depend on the law, and it's justification. SOmeone will have to go through all the legal code.

Yet without doing so, you have already assumed that the vast majority of them are useless. This is precisely why I have a problem with most libertarians.

Weening people off social security for one. It would take a few decades to do(because it really isnt right to suddenly strip old people of something they depend on) But private investment funds would work just as well. Mny companies provide them. People pay into FICA their entire working lives, they could easily pay that money into 401k or mutual fund set up by their employer that transfers from job to job. Or we could let them do it on their own. But of course, that would require personal responsibility and foresight.

Ask the people of Enron about this one. You obviously do not grasp the concept of the social safety net.

Welfare gets a nice spending cut, and is base subsistence level for a set time period. SOmeone on welfare wont loose their house, or starve, or in the case of extreme climates freeze/be poached, but luxuries are gone, and if they cant find a jb in say... 6 months, or if they are not retraining to be something else, cut them off, if they have children, place them with a neighbor or relative.

Exactly how luxurious do you believe welfare currently is in the United States, if you figure you can save huge amounts of money by cutting it down to base subsistence level?

Medicare/Medicaid, also cut that one down nicely. No blanket safty net. If you cant pay for private insurance(as in you spend all your income on your house, car etc) then yeah, sure, we can help you out. but if you can, and choose not to(as in, you make enough money but dont live within your means/ Wanted to build an addition to your house etc) then that s your choice, and you should live with your mistakes. The hospital cant refuse you care if you come in an ambulence. But no feeding from the trough.

That's the current system, which is fucking stupid. Middle-class people end up getting fucked because medical bills mean they can't afford to save money for their future retirement, and you have simultaneously taken away their Social Security! So the net result is that poor people are taken care of while the middle-class gets fucked over. Nice plan

Public education... no real way to cut that one.

Glad to see you understand that. Too bad you can't see your way clear to sanity on the other points.

Law enforcement... Hey, this is actually the real reason government exists... keep it. But cancel the war on drugs

Military, same thing.

The military is America's sacred cow. No one will admit that they don't really need a military as large as the one they've currently got, unless they start inventing tasks for it such as occupying foreign nations.

And we dont have a choice but to pay our interest. HOWEVER We should at least try to pay that down without printing more money.

All things are magically possible when you simply cut out all spending and pretend that the resulting mess will actually work.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Yet without doing so, you have already assumed that the vast majority of them are useless. This is precisely why I have a problem with most libertarians.

WHich is one of my points of departure from the party, one of a few.

Ask the people of Enron about this one. You obviously do not grasp the concept of the social safety net.

Transfers from job to job, and because it would be contractual, can you say "class action lawsuit"? or "Insurance"

Exactly how luxurious do you believe welfare currently is in the United States, if you figure you can save huge amounts of money by cutting it down to base subsistence level?

Read the statistics, people on welfare in low income housing projects Generally have cable TV, two cars etc. They live like the middle class and have no comfort/financial incentive to actually work. welfare should be base-subsistence, nothing more.

That's the current system, which is fucking stupid. Middle-class people end up getting fucked because medical bills mean they can't afford to save money for their future retirement, and you have simultaneously taken away their Social Security! So the net result is that poor people are taken care of while the middle-class gets fucked over. Nice plan

44 million americans are uninsured in this country, last time I checked. That isnt the middle class, that is the working/lower class. Just a minor nitpick, and those are the people that would be covered by the social safety net.

Not all companies are Enron, not all of them will intentionally fuck people over, and if that happens, I will admit that they should be compensated on a case by case basis, possibly something like the FDIC.

The military is America's sacred cow. No one will admit that they don't really need a military as large as the one they've currently got, unless they start inventing tasks for it such as occupying foreign nations.

My philosophy on the military is to walk sofly and carry a big fucking stick and massive nuclear arsenal...

[Col. Crackpot]

I would remove 99% of government regulations in order to demonstrate once and for all the utter folly of libertarianism. In the ensuing disaster, I would avoid political suicide by blaming it on liberals, because libertarianism starts with "liber".

because the fall of the USSR taught everyone once and for all thet Communism doesn't work. oh wait... nevermind.

[Darth Wong]

I would remove 99% of government regulations in order to demonstrate once and for all the utter folly of libertarianism. In the ensuing disaster, I would avoid political suicide by blaming it on liberals, because libertarianism starts with "liber".

because the fall of the USSR taught everyone once and for all thet Communism doesn't work. oh wait... nevermind.

Look up "black/white fallacy" before you make more of a fool out of yourself.

[Darth Wong]

Ask the people of Enron about this one. You obviously do not grasp the concept of the social safety net.

Transfers from job to job, and because it would be contractual, can you say "class action lawsuit"? or "Insurance"

Obviously, you don't understand what happens when you attempt to sue a bankrupt entity.

Read the statistics, people on welfare in low income housing projects Generally have cable TV, two cars etc. They live like the middle class and have no comfort/financial incentive to actually work. welfare should be base-subsistence, nothing more.

Please show me these "statistics" indicating that welfare recipients live in luxury.

44 million americans are uninsured in this country, last time I checked. That isnt the middle class, that is the working/lower class. Just a minor nitpick, and those are the people that would be covered by the social safety net.

And you figure that expanding health-care insurance to cover these people will make it cost LESS? I'd love to know what brand of calculator you use.

Not all companies are Enron, not all of them will intentionally fuck people over, and if that happens, I will admit that they should be compensated on a case by case basis, possibly something like the FDIC.

Ah, so in case your preferred route of expensive and perhaps futile lawsuits fail, we would need to maintain something like a "fund" which would provide "security" for "social" purposes ... wait a minute, that sounds familiar.

My philosophy on the military is to walk sofly and carry a big fucking stick and massive nuclear arsenal...

The question is how large that stick really needs to be.

[RedImperator]

All right Mike, I'm curious: what's YOUR philosophy, or platform, or whatever you want to call it? I've heard bits and pieces before but never seen the whole thing laid out in one place.

[Darth Wong]

All right Mike, I'm curious: what's YOUR philosophy, or platform, or whatever you want to call it? I've heard bits and pieces before but never seen the whole thing laid out in one place.

I don't have an over-arching fortune-cookie philosophy. Every piece of policy should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, with only a few key touchstones, such as:

1) Public education
2) Universal health-care
3) A social safety net
4) Respect for human rights

[Gil Hamilton]

*just hides* Ya'll will beat up on me if I say.

Raine

Let me guess. Violent anarchism?

Seriously, I don't think people will be bothered one way or the other, Raine.



On topic: My political ideology is hard to explain, because it grabs from alot of sources.

-On social issues, like gay marriage and marijuana, I think that the government should mind it's own business.
-I think that alot of things should happen and stay at local and at most state level, like education related stuff. However, I also recognize that federal programs, if handled right, work better than lots of private ones. After all, alot of the things that many people want to privatize, like power, fail miserably when privatized.
-I also recognize that Big Business cannot be completely trusted and will gladly screw people over if they can get away with it, thus need regulations and people looking over their shoulder, not to mention that people should have the right to form unions when their employers decide it's time to fuck them*, though I also recognize that unions can get corrupt and stupid, so they should form as a last resort.
-I'm in favor of lowering taxes, but also realize that the government is incapable of cutting it's own spending, so it may not always be possible.
-I think people should be able to own firearms, with in reason and even carry them on their person for protection, but should have incredibly strict penalties should they break the law with said firearms.
-I'm very much in favor of tort reform, simply due to the vast amount of stupid litigation out there.
-I recognize the need for a welfare system, as my family managed to not become homeless thanks to it when my father was laid off, but recognize the need for some reform.
-I'm in favor of freedom of speech and think people get offended way too easily and that decency laws are nothing but shit.
-I think 18 is the age when people become adults and should have all the rights of adults at that age (that means drinking is legal then).
-I'm against affirmative action as it stands right now, and think that it should be changed so that you get acedemic awards based off of economic status, not race.
-I think religion has no part in government and the sooner people realize that, the better.

(*an good example of this is the US Postal Service. If the US Postal Services union disappeared tomorrow, the sonic boom you'd hear directly following it would be upper management removing everybody below managements worker benefits. It's not like maintainance and the clerks can find work elsewhere, most of the people who work at places like the Bulk Mail Center are Vietnam-era veterans who cannot find work that would pay them a livable wage otherwise. The philosophy of "employers should do whatever they want and if the employees don't like it, they can find work elsewhere" that many conservatives put out would royally dick over these guys.)

[SWPIGWANG]

After thinking about it a bit, I believe political ideology is effectively pure BS.

First of all, political ideology is founded by people's sense of morality and there is never a solution to this problem and I doubt its derivatives can be purged of its contradiction. Put a Randian "I'm pround of being utterly selfish" with a bleeding heart "we must save the world" hippy and they'll never come to agreement on what the government should be even if they are perfectly logical and omniscient of government system effects.

Second of all, politics in real life is not about abstract people or even homogeneous sistuations. A country with 30% literacy and $500GDP per capita have a completely different set of needs and challenges than a country with 98% literacy and $30,000GDP capita. Run a laissez-faire free market in the latter and it might work somewhat, in the former it can cause sheer anarchy as people lack the means, the education or the tradition to make rational decisions required by free markets. Gun control is completely different in country where were more people die of accidental discharges than countries where law enforcement is on average 5 days way and thugs roam the countryside. National level democracy makes alot more sense when the population can contact someone in any part of the country in 40 seconds and watches national news every night than a population that never went a dozen kilometers from home and the communication infanstructure means that national level news if usually months old and travel by unreliable word of mouth.

To adopt an ideology is petty much to assume that there is a single solution to all the complicated mess that is real life.

Each political decision should require careful assesment of the sistuation and the goals because people and sistuations are not homogenous, not constant and not universal, shouldn't be and can't be.

Political solutions should be made to fit the environment, and not vice versa. After all, communism would have worked if people are perfect. Annoying enough, many ideologues share the common trait, like how someone told me that people should be "perfectly rational". *sigh*

In the long run, we are all dead. If one wants to do something in life rather than dreams, throw ideologies out the window.