I agree and support Paul's stance on the war and foreign affairs 100%. But I agree that I can not see these two on the same ticket. I feel their positions on the other issues are philosophically opposed. Kucinich is for national health care and improving social programs, etc. Paul's libertarian beliefs are directly opposed to such things and would work to dissolve things such as medicare and other social programs among other things. Libertarians are all about the individual and NOT society. I find the libertarian philosophy flawed as I feel human existence is inconceivable without society. For example, moral problems can no more be analyzed from the point of view of the individual, than strategy and rules of a team sport can be analyzed from the point of view of a single player.
I think because of the less than ideal democratic options many democrats are looking to Paul, but I'm not sure they understand the libertarian philosophy completely, they are 'cherry picking' certain positions without understanding all the positions. For those that that consider themselves liberal, I highly recommend researching the libertarian principles, so you can understand the ramifications of such a candidate. It is the concept and role of government, minimal vs. expansive, that most dramatically distinguishes the libertarian from the liberal.
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
I would support this ticket. It shows solidarity to thoughtful politicians and says a big fuck you to the the established partisan politics that exist now. Thoughtful debate is what the house and senate are supposed to be about and having two leaders as President and Vice President that can work together for compromise and progress could teach the world something.
I think because of the less than ideal democratic options many democrats are looking to Paul, but I'm not sure they understand the libertarian philosophy completely, they are 'cherry picking' certain positions without understanding all the positions. For those that that consider themselves liberal, I highly recommend researching the libertarian principles, so you can understand the ramifications of such a candidate. It is the concept and role of government, minimal vs. expansive, that most dramatically distinguishes the libertarian from the liberal.
Are you asking what my definition is in contrast to a libertarian? While the liberal (this is my opinion), acknowledges individual rights, goes further than that to me. I believe the liberal recognizes the 'social goods' as well as individual freedom, such as economic justice, domestic tranquility, and communal loyalty, all of which flourish under a system of laws, regulations, and enumerated welfare rights, which are best enacted, executed and protected by the institution of popular government. Perhaps I should have distinguish the 'social liberal' versus the libertarian.
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Are you asking what my definition is in contrast to a libertarian? While the liberal (this is my opinion), acknowledges individual rights, goes further than that to me. I believe the liberal recognizes the 'social goods' as well as individual freedom, such as economic justice, domestic tranquility, and communal loyalty, all of which flourish under a system of laws, regulations, and enumerated welfare rights, which are best enacted, executed and protected by the institution of popular government. Perhaps I should have distinguish the 'social liberal' versus the libertarian.
Would you concider that social action by the community would be preferential over bureaucrocy managed by government..?
Liberal is a hijacked term. Liberal used to mean Libertarian.
To suggest that the idealogical differences between those two have been "oversimplified" and then to go on to highlight only aesthetic similarities between the two candidates is at best foolish and at worst disengenous. You might as well propose putting Ayn Rand and Karl Marx on the same ticket. Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich represent nearly polar opposites on the spectrum of political philosophy.
political PHILOSOPHY, yes. but practical policy choices... not necessarily.
Would you concider that social action by the community would be preferential over bureaucrocy managed by government..?
Liberal is a hijacked term. Liberal used to mean Libertarian.
Interesting question Mestophar, but I'm not sure I see the difference. Perhaps you can expound.
Yeah, I agree there are many schools of thought when it comes to the term 'liberalism'. I think today is it applied more to 'social liberalism', but I may be wrong. I draw my conclusions from those in politics that deem themselves liberal.
Weird, I think you just edited your question. It is now different than the one I was replying to........... Again, I support system of laws, regulations, and enumerated welfare rights, which are best which are best enacted, executed and protected by the institution of popular government.
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
I agree and support Paul's stance on the war and foreign affairs 100%. But I agree that I can not see these two on the same ticket. I feel their positions on the other issues are philosophically opposed. Kucinich is for national health care and improving social programs, etc. Paul's libertarian beliefs are directly opposed to such things and would work to dissolve things such as medicare and other social programs among other things. Libertarians are all about the individual and NOT society. I find the libertarian philosophy flawed as I feel human existence is inconceivable without society. For example, moral problems can no more be analyzed from the point of view of the individual, than strategy and rules of a team sport can be analyzed from the point of view of a single player.
I think because of the less than ideal democratic options many democrats are looking to Paul, but I'm not sure they understand the libertarian philosophy completely, they are 'cherry picking' certain positions without understanding all the positions. For those that that consider themselves liberal, I highly recommend researching the libertarian principles, so you can understand the ramifications of such a candidate. It is the concept and role of government, minimal vs. expansive, that most dramatically distinguishes the libertarian from the liberal.
ron paul would be president, not dictator. he wouldn't have the power to singlehandedly dismantle all social programs in 4 years. nor in 8. the fact is, americans want those programs and he knows it. what he might be able to do is manage their budgets with an iron fist and have some serious downscaling and fiscal responsibility, which would be a step in the right direction. so paul's philosophical vision is appealing becos it moves in the right direction with the certainty that it can only go so far.
Interesting question Mestophar, but I'm not sure I see the difference. Perhaps you can expound.
You are wrong that Libertarians are only about the individual and not society/community. The things you stated: economic justice, domestic tranquility, and communal loyalty can flourish just as well or better in a more localized setting, it is a matter of scale and level of participation.
If a central government enforces its will on 300 million plus people, it is essentially trying to homogenize thought and behaviour and it disregards the fact that people are different in that morals and life priorites can be quite different from one locale to another. Being self responsible has little value with a backdrop of a huge government, but in a smaller setting it can very much hinder or enhance your life depending on the communities that one chooses to participate in.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
If a central government enforces its will on 300 million plus people, it is essentially trying to homogenize thought and behaviour and it disregards the fact that people are different in that morals and life priorites can be quite different from one locale to another. Being self responsible has little value with a backdrop of a huge government, but in a smaller setting it can very much hinder or enhance your life depending on the communities that one chooses to participate in.
Which is precisely why I oppose big states or overnational organizations deciding many of these things. One thing is truly global problems, which should be handled by a UN-like organization. But no state should be too large, as I think that corruption grows exponentially the bigger and less transparent it is.
Smaller states with "system of laws, regulations, and enumerated welfare rights, which are best enacted, executed and protected by the institution of popular government." (thanks baraka) sounds about right in my book. Centralized states of 300 million+ people will always be heavy-handed and ripe for corruption.
As for Paul/Kucinich ticket, that depends on what they would aim for. As an anti-establishment "let's rock the boat" ticket, it could certainly have an appeal I suppose. I dont see it winning though, as that would require more tense circumstances, and more people questioning the status quo. Even if some people say the US is heading for the edge, it isn't there yet.
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
You are wrong that Libertarians are only about the individual and not society/community.
Am I? Ffg has clearly stated other wise. He has explained that Libertarians believe the morally well-ordered society is a free gift, to which nothing is owed for its maintenance. Libertarians argue against care for the weak and unfortunate, support of education, the arts and the environment, etc none of these are required of the citizen. Libertarians believe in 'negative' rights, not 'positive rights'. Libertarians believe that any taxes that go to the above are considered 'theft'. They feel no moral obligation to society, only to the individual.
The things you stated: economic justice, domestic tranquility, and communal loyalty can flourish just as well or better in a more localized setting, it is a matter of scale and level of participation.
Are you talking about private charities? How can or will these flourish without a centralize gov't. Please expound
If a central government enforces its will on 300 million plus people, it is essentially trying to homogenize thought and behaviour and it disregards the fact that people are different in that morals and life priorites can be quite different from one locale to another. Being self responsible has little value with a backdrop of a huge government, but in a smaller setting it can very much hinder or enhance your life depending on the communities that one chooses to participate in.
Well, is it not true that the gov't is elected by the people? Also, most liberals contend, society it is a well-knit community of citizens, with loyalties to the community, and with an active understanding that rights must correlate with duties. For example, you can't expect a jury trial without yourself serving in a jury trial.
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
ron paul would be president, not dictator. he wouldn't have the power to singlehandedly dismantle all social programs in 4 years. nor in 8. the fact is, americans want those programs and he knows it. what he might be able to do is manage their budgets with an iron fist and have some serious downscaling and fiscal responsibility, which would be a step in the right direction. so paul's philosophical vision is appealing becos it moves in the right direction with the certainty that it can only go so far.
Ha ha, I realize that, but I don't think we should so quick to dismiss these libertarian agendas. I'm all for managing their budgets and fiscal responsibility. But the agenda here is not to IMPROVE on these issues, but eventual downfall of such ideas.
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
He has explained that Libertarians believe the morally well-ordered society is a free gift, to which nothing is owed for its maintenance. Libertarians argue against care for the weak and unfortunate, support of education, the arts and the environment, etc none of these are required of the citizen. Libertarians believe in 'negative' rights, not 'positive rights'. Libertarians believe that any taxes that go to the above are considered 'theft'. They feel no moral obligation to society, only to the individual.
Required is the key word here. Voluntary participation would still occur in programs that help the weak and unfortunate. The arts would flourish if not for the reason that people would feel more inclined to do what they want with their lives rather than fall in line and serve. Education standards would likely explode, as I have said before public schools ATM do not serve the people...they want your kids to not learn.
Required is the key word here. Voluntary participation would still occur in programs that help the weak and unfortunate. The arts would flourish if not for the reason that people would feel more inclined to do what they want with their lives rather than fall in line and serve. Education standards would likely explode, as I have said before public schools ATM do not serve the people...they want your kids to not learn.
so ... is it that those who seek voluntarily to contribute would prefer gov't intervention? ... assuming that gov't can be more efficient then individuals ...
I would support this ticket. It shows solidarity to thoughtful politicians and says a big fuck you to the the established partisan politics that exist now. Thoughtful debate is what the house and senate are supposed to be about and having two leaders as President and Vice President that can work together for compromise and progress could teach the world something.
End the partisan bullshit.
you and 12 others.
this would be the death of ron paul if he got it.
no need to go into why. the ticket wouldn't get 200 votes.
Ha ha, I realize that, but I don't think we should so quick to dismiss these libertarian agendas. I'm all for managing their budgets and fiscal responsibility. But the agenda here is not to IMPROVE on these issues, but eventual downfall of such ideas.
but he has said he would use savings from lack of war to fund those programs while they evaluate them. if his goal is elimination and kucinich is for entrenchment, they can talk it out and come to a realistic compromise that accounts for both views... for once. the way we operate now is the views refuse to even speak, let alone compromise.
Required is the key word here. Voluntary participation would still occur in programs that help the weak and unfortunate. The arts would flourish if not for the reason that people would feel more inclined to do what they want with their lives rather than fall in line and serve. Education standards would likely explode, as I have said before public schools ATM do not serve the people...they want your kids to not learn.
the arts would flourish? how would they eat?
i think you're banking a lot on innate human charity, which is a poor investment.
I agree and support Paul's stance on the war and foreign affairs 100%. But I agree that I can not see these two on the same ticket. I feel their positions on the other issues are philosophically opposed. Kucinich is for national health care and improving social programs, etc. Paul's libertarian beliefs are directly opposed to such things and would work to dissolve things such as medicare and other social programs among other things.
Right-on.
Libertarians are all about the individual and NOT society. I find the libertarian philosophy flawed as I feel human existence is inconceivable without society.
First, human existence is certainly conceivable without society. Human existence might suck without society, but to say it is "inconceivable" is downright silly.
Secondly, to suggest that Libertarians are all about the individual and "NOT society" is quite biased and misses the whole point behind Libertarian thought. Libertarians have nothing against society. They simply do not believe society has a right to supercede the individual, particularly by coersion or force. It's not-anti society. It's simply pro-individual and, as such, pro-society assuming the individuals in question wish (as most do) to form social networks.
Your point seems to assume a conflict between the individual and society. No such conflict exists, by default. One who is "pro-society" need not be "anti-individual", nor does one who is "pro-individual" need to be "anti-society".
For example, moral problems can no more be analyzed from the point of view of the individual, than strategy and rules of a team sport can be analyzed from the point of view of a single player.
This is a poor analogy. All morality extends from the choices of individuals. While in sport, points certainly arise from the combined effort of a team, but that combined effort is no greater than the sum of the efforts of each team member. Morality is no different. A society's "morality" is no greater or lesser than the moralities of each individual involved.
I think because of the less than ideal democratic options many democrats are looking to Paul, but I'm not sure they understand the libertarian philosophy completely, they are 'cherry picking' certain positions without understanding all the positions. For those that that consider themselves liberal, I highly recommend researching the libertarian principles, so you can understand the ramifications of such a candidate. It is the concept and role of government, minimal vs. expansive, that most dramatically distinguishes the libertarian from the liberal.
Agreed. I've been shocked to see the level of support for Paul amongst liberals and, to be honest, I don't feel very good about it. Anti-war liberals will find a much safer haven with Kucinich than they will with Paul. I'm not nearly naive enough to believe that the underlying political philosophies of the left in America are changing, even though I sincerely wish they would. Liberals would be very wise to examine Paul's underlying philosophies before jumping on the bandwagon.
political PHILOSOPHY, yes. but practical policy choices... not necessarily.
Yes, necessarily. "Practical policy choices" extend from political philosophies. And these two share almost nothing in practical terms, aside from their view on war.
Yes, necessarily. "Practical policy choices" extend from political philosophies. And these two share almost nothing in practical terms, aside from their view on war.
practical policy choices stem from philosophy with compromise and accommodation for opposing views, practical, necessity, and other factors. ron paul has his philosophical views, but he is intelligent enough to know that america opposes his ultimate vision. thus, he can work towards that view while making compromises for the views of others.
the ultimate basis of both of these candidates is that government has too much power and is abusing it. both believe that government should be responsive and answerable to the people, not the other way around. there is room for a lot of shared vision there. they both have differing ideas about the best way to effect this, but that does not mean they would not work well.
case in point, ron paul saying he would use savings from the war to fund social programs during transition. he would be working to scale them back and make they don't waste taxes while doing it, kucinich would be working to make sure they provide the services they espouse and are not ripping off citizens. yes, at a certain point, their goals would conflict. but we're talking YEARS of change and reform before it comes to that point. and neither of them would be in office by then.
practical policy choices stem from philosophy with compromise and accommodation for opposing views, practical, necessity, and other factors. ron paul has his philosophical views, but he is intelligent enough to know that america opposes his ultimate vision. thus, he can work towards that view while making compromises for the views of others.
Sure. However, one's willingness to compromise and one's chosen points of compromise also extend from one's philosophy. However, one needs only to look at Paul's voting record to see the extent to which he will choose to compromise. Those hoping for a moderate Ron Paul based on the forces of "compromise" might find his record a bit chilling. I think it's safe to say that Paul would use the veto pen more often than any president in history.
the ultimate basis of both of these candidates is that government has too much power and is abusing it. both believe that government should be responsive and answerable to the people, not the other way around. there is room for a lot of shared vision there. they both have differing ideas about the best way to effect this, but that does not mean they would not work well.
Dennis Kucinich believes that government has too little power. Kucinich does not dislike omnipotent government. Kucinich certainly believes that the current government is abusing its power, but to suggest that he believes it has "too much power" is, imo, wrong.
Furthermore, I have trouble accepting that Kucinich wants government to "be responsive and answer to the people", unless by "the people" you mean some people. Governments, by definition, rule by force and bodies that rule by force need not be responsive or accountable to anything but their own whims. This is the point of fundamental philosophical difference between Paul and Kucinich, and I see no way beyond it.
case in point, ron paul saying he would use savings from the war to fund social programs during transition. he would be working to scale them back and make them more cost-effective, kucinich would be working to make sure they provide the services they espouse. yes, at a certain point, their goals would conflict. but we're talking YEARS of change before it comes to that point. and neither of them would be in office by then.
Hehe...this is actually fair but makes me laugh because we're talking about such an incredibly low-probability event in the first place. Regardless, Paul is not seeking to make services "cost-effective". His entire message is that these services cannot be cost-effective. Certainly he understands that these programs cannot be quickly removed without creating problems, but Dennis Kucinich wants these programs extended and expanded. Both would completely disagree on the first step taken, not just the tenth.
does he have this published somewhere I can find? I would love to read it.
@FFG...its good to have ya back. I enjoy reading your posts.
Yes he has. Here's the paper's details: Sachs, Jeffrey D. and Warner, Andrew M., "Natural Resource Abundance and Economic Growth" (December 1995). NBER Working Paper No. W5398.
I don't have an electronic version, I could scan the one I have (if I find it). Nevermind, looks like I found a free link at the NBER, see if it works:
I'm going to expand on a point above and hopefully piss off a few liberals in the process
Dennis Kucinich, today, is suffering from a common leftish malaise that I like to call the Curse of the Central Planner. People like Dennis Kucinich continuously argue for absolute state power to accomplish their aims and are shocked when that absolute power is then granted to someone else to accomplish their own aims. Those like Kucinich cry foul without understanding that they helped set the stage.
If one examines the history of centrally planned economies and other forms of omnipotent and oppressive governments, one will always find a group of well-meaning individuals who helped create those bodies. Over time as the authorities begin abusing their powers and extending beyond the scope of their original intent, those well-meaning individuals become more and more frustrated and, in most cases, end up being executed, exiled, or simply cast aside. This all happens because of one significant flaw in their own reasoning, a flaw repeated time and time again in forums like this one. That flaw is the assumption that the centrally planned utopia you desire for will be planned by you and by your standards.
Those advocating for power should always ask themselves the following question: how would I feel if the same powers I am demanding were granted to my mortal enemy? Because, time and time again, they are.
Sure. However, one's willingness to compromise and one's chosen points of compromise also extend from one's philosophy. However, one needs only to look at Paul's voting record to see the extent to which he will choose to compromise. Those hoping for a moderate Ron Paul based on the forces of "compromise" might find his record a bit chilling. I think it's safe to say that Paul would use the veto pen more often than any president in history.
i don't think many liberals have a problem with that. most liberals are more concerned with losing current services than enacting new ones. ron paul vetoing tons of legislation would not be a problem to most liberals, im willing to wager.
Dennis Kucinich believes that government has too little power. Kucinich does not dislike omnipotent government. Kucinich certainly believes that the current government is abusing its power, but to suggest that he believes it has "too much power" is, imo, wrong.
Furthermore, I have trouble accepting that Kucinich wants government to "be responsive and answer to the people", unless by "the people" you mean some people. Governments, by definition, rule by force and bodies that rule by force need not be responsive or accountable to anything but their own whims. This is the point of fundamental philosophical difference between Paul and Kucinich, and I see no way beyond it.
i think that's unfair and useless rhetoric. yes, in democracy it will always be responsive to majority vote. the appeal of both these candidates is that they are more responsive to more people, rather than a narrower field of special interests. it may not be what you want, but you cannot deny that it's a step in the right direction to have candidates who are not bought and paid for by an even smaller number of the "some people." i also think you mischaracterize kucinich's governmental views. he wants a government with greater responsibilities, but since you're talking about philosophies you know it is a fallacy to state that he wants omnipotent government. paul and kucinich agree on things like civil rights and live and let live. the difference is libertarian place greater emphasis on market freedoms and liberals on lifestyle. an omnipotent government would tell its people how to live day to day lives. kucinich does not want this any more than ron paul. taxation and social services do not equate an omnipotent and fascist government and you know it. they certainly do not equate a libertarian government either though.
Hehe...this is actually fair but makes me laugh because we're talking about such an incredibly low-probability event in the first place. Regardless, Paul is not seeking to make services "cost-effective". His entire message is that these services cannot be cost-effective. Certainly he understands that these programs cannot be quickly removed without creating problems, but Dennis Kucinich wants these programs extended and expanded. Both would completely disagree on the first step taken, not just the tenth.
we keep talking about ron paul's ability to compromise. kucinich would be compromising too (esp since he'd be VP and we all know that means no power ). if ron paul has expressed willingness to wait on deleting services, you don't think kucinich would be willing to wait on adding them? the first step would be a freeze, which i think they could both agree on. i think between that and troop withdrawal they'd have enough to last a term before they got to butting heads on social issues.
the point is liberalism and libertarianism are not as opposed as you want to make them. they both just have different conceptions of what freedom means.
I originally was rooting for Kucinich. I do believe he is a man of honesty and integrity and his heart is in the right place. Since then I have come to really appreciate what Ron Paul is saying.
Right....Left it's all the same thing to me unless the message itself is different. It's really all about the message and the integrity of the person behind it.
Ron Paul is the only one who can get America back into its brilliance as a nation, and I sincerely hope (and pray) every American comes to realize this.
America needs a revolution. It needs to get back some of that golden integrity that made it such a great country in the first place.
I do think they (as a team) would be absolute perfect compliments to each other in finding the best balance of voice for the people.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
I'm going to expand on a point above and hopefully piss off a few liberals in the process
Dennis Kucinich, today, is suffering from a common leftish malaise that I like to call the Curse of the Central Planner. People like Dennis Kucinich continuously argue for absolute state power to accomplish their aims and are shocked when that absolute power is then granted to someone else to accomplish their own aims. Those like Kucinich cry foul without understanding that they helped set the stage.
If one examines the history of centrally planned economies and other forms of omnipotent and oppressive governments, one will always find a group of well-meaning individuals who helped create those bodies. Over time as the authorities begin abusing their powers and extending beyond the scope of their original intent, those well-meaning individuals become more and more frustrated and, in most cases, end up being executed, exiled, or simply cast aside. This all happens because of one significant flaw in their own reasoning, a flaw repeated time and time again in forums like this one. That flaw is the assumption that the centrally planned utopia you desire for will be planned by you and by your standards.
Those advocating for power should always ask themselves the following question: how would I feel if the same powers I am demanding were granted to my mortal enemy? Because, time and time again, they are.
not pissed off at all. just confused. i've never gotten the impression kucinich wants to give any sort of absolute power to the government. you're overstating the case to say that social programs inevitably lead to social engineering. just as i would be overstating the case to say libertarianism inevitably leads to anarchy.
Comments
I think because of the less than ideal democratic options many democrats are looking to Paul, but I'm not sure they understand the libertarian philosophy completely, they are 'cherry picking' certain positions without understanding all the positions. For those that that consider themselves liberal, I highly recommend researching the libertarian principles, so you can understand the ramifications of such a candidate. It is the concept and role of government, minimal vs. expansive, that most dramatically distinguishes the libertarian from the liberal.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
End the partisan bullshit.
You got to spend it all
What is your definition of a liberal?
You got to spend it all
Are you asking what my definition is in contrast to a libertarian? While the liberal (this is my opinion), acknowledges individual rights, goes further than that to me. I believe the liberal recognizes the 'social goods' as well as individual freedom, such as economic justice, domestic tranquility, and communal loyalty, all of which flourish under a system of laws, regulations, and enumerated welfare rights, which are best enacted, executed and protected by the institution of popular government. Perhaps I should have distinguish the 'social liberal' versus the libertarian.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Would you concider that social action by the community would be preferential over bureaucrocy managed by government..?
Liberal is a hijacked term. Liberal used to mean Libertarian.
You got to spend it all
political PHILOSOPHY, yes. but practical policy choices... not necessarily.
Interesting question Mestophar, but I'm not sure I see the difference. Perhaps you can expound.
Yeah, I agree there are many schools of thought when it comes to the term 'liberalism'. I think today is it applied more to 'social liberalism', but I may be wrong. I draw my conclusions from those in politics that deem themselves liberal.
Weird, I think you just edited your question. It is now different than the one I was replying to........... Again, I support system of laws, regulations, and enumerated welfare rights, which are best which are best enacted, executed and protected by the institution of popular government.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
ron paul would be president, not dictator. he wouldn't have the power to singlehandedly dismantle all social programs in 4 years. nor in 8. the fact is, americans want those programs and he knows it. what he might be able to do is manage their budgets with an iron fist and have some serious downscaling and fiscal responsibility, which would be a step in the right direction. so paul's philosophical vision is appealing becos it moves in the right direction with the certainty that it can only go so far.
You are wrong that Libertarians are only about the individual and not society/community. The things you stated: economic justice, domestic tranquility, and communal loyalty can flourish just as well or better in a more localized setting, it is a matter of scale and level of participation.
If a central government enforces its will on 300 million plus people, it is essentially trying to homogenize thought and behaviour and it disregards the fact that people are different in that morals and life priorites can be quite different from one locale to another. Being self responsible has little value with a backdrop of a huge government, but in a smaller setting it can very much hinder or enhance your life depending on the communities that one chooses to participate in.
You got to spend it all
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Which is precisely why I oppose big states or overnational organizations deciding many of these things. One thing is truly global problems, which should be handled by a UN-like organization. But no state should be too large, as I think that corruption grows exponentially the bigger and less transparent it is.
Smaller states with "system of laws, regulations, and enumerated welfare rights, which are best enacted, executed and protected by the institution of popular government." (thanks baraka) sounds about right in my book. Centralized states of 300 million+ people will always be heavy-handed and ripe for corruption.
As for Paul/Kucinich ticket, that depends on what they would aim for. As an anti-establishment "let's rock the boat" ticket, it could certainly have an appeal I suppose. I dont see it winning though, as that would require more tense circumstances, and more people questioning the status quo. Even if some people say the US is heading for the edge, it isn't there yet.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Am I? Ffg has clearly stated other wise. He has explained that Libertarians believe the morally well-ordered society is a free gift, to which nothing is owed for its maintenance. Libertarians argue against care for the weak and unfortunate, support of education, the arts and the environment, etc none of these are required of the citizen. Libertarians believe in 'negative' rights, not 'positive rights'. Libertarians believe that any taxes that go to the above are considered 'theft'. They feel no moral obligation to society, only to the individual.
Are you talking about private charities? How can or will these flourish without a centralize gov't. Please expound
Well, is it not true that the gov't is elected by the people? Also, most liberals contend, society it is a well-knit community of citizens, with loyalties to the community, and with an active understanding that rights must correlate with duties. For example, you can't expect a jury trial without yourself serving in a jury trial.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Ha ha, I realize that, but I don't think we should so quick to dismiss these libertarian agendas. I'm all for managing their budgets and fiscal responsibility. But the agenda here is not to IMPROVE on these issues, but eventual downfall of such ideas.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Required is the key word here. Voluntary participation would still occur in programs that help the weak and unfortunate. The arts would flourish if not for the reason that people would feel more inclined to do what they want with their lives rather than fall in line and serve. Education standards would likely explode, as I have said before public schools ATM do not serve the people...they want your kids to not learn.
You got to spend it all
so ... is it that those who seek voluntarily to contribute would prefer gov't intervention? ... assuming that gov't can be more efficient then individuals ...
you and 12 others.
this would be the death of ron paul if he got it.
no need to go into why. the ticket wouldn't get 200 votes.
but he has said he would use savings from lack of war to fund those programs while they evaluate them. if his goal is elimination and kucinich is for entrenchment, they can talk it out and come to a realistic compromise that accounts for both views... for once. the way we operate now is the views refuse to even speak, let alone compromise.
the arts would flourish? how would they eat?
i think you're banking a lot on innate human charity, which is a poor investment.
Right-on.
First, human existence is certainly conceivable without society. Human existence might suck without society, but to say it is "inconceivable" is downright silly.
Secondly, to suggest that Libertarians are all about the individual and "NOT society" is quite biased and misses the whole point behind Libertarian thought. Libertarians have nothing against society. They simply do not believe society has a right to supercede the individual, particularly by coersion or force. It's not-anti society. It's simply pro-individual and, as such, pro-society assuming the individuals in question wish (as most do) to form social networks.
Your point seems to assume a conflict between the individual and society. No such conflict exists, by default. One who is "pro-society" need not be "anti-individual", nor does one who is "pro-individual" need to be "anti-society".
This is a poor analogy. All morality extends from the choices of individuals. While in sport, points certainly arise from the combined effort of a team, but that combined effort is no greater than the sum of the efforts of each team member. Morality is no different. A society's "morality" is no greater or lesser than the moralities of each individual involved.
Agreed. I've been shocked to see the level of support for Paul amongst liberals and, to be honest, I don't feel very good about it. Anti-war liberals will find a much safer haven with Kucinich than they will with Paul. I'm not nearly naive enough to believe that the underlying political philosophies of the left in America are changing, even though I sincerely wish they would. Liberals would be very wise to examine Paul's underlying philosophies before jumping on the bandwagon.
Yes, necessarily. "Practical policy choices" extend from political philosophies. And these two share almost nothing in practical terms, aside from their view on war.
practical policy choices stem from philosophy with compromise and accommodation for opposing views, practical, necessity, and other factors. ron paul has his philosophical views, but he is intelligent enough to know that america opposes his ultimate vision. thus, he can work towards that view while making compromises for the views of others.
the ultimate basis of both of these candidates is that government has too much power and is abusing it. both believe that government should be responsive and answerable to the people, not the other way around. there is room for a lot of shared vision there. they both have differing ideas about the best way to effect this, but that does not mean they would not work well.
case in point, ron paul saying he would use savings from the war to fund social programs during transition. he would be working to scale them back and make they don't waste taxes while doing it, kucinich would be working to make sure they provide the services they espouse and are not ripping off citizens. yes, at a certain point, their goals would conflict. but we're talking YEARS of change and reform before it comes to that point. and neither of them would be in office by then.
Sure. However, one's willingness to compromise and one's chosen points of compromise also extend from one's philosophy. However, one needs only to look at Paul's voting record to see the extent to which he will choose to compromise. Those hoping for a moderate Ron Paul based on the forces of "compromise" might find his record a bit chilling. I think it's safe to say that Paul would use the veto pen more often than any president in history.
Dennis Kucinich believes that government has too little power. Kucinich does not dislike omnipotent government. Kucinich certainly believes that the current government is abusing its power, but to suggest that he believes it has "too much power" is, imo, wrong.
Furthermore, I have trouble accepting that Kucinich wants government to "be responsive and answer to the people", unless by "the people" you mean some people. Governments, by definition, rule by force and bodies that rule by force need not be responsive or accountable to anything but their own whims. This is the point of fundamental philosophical difference between Paul and Kucinich, and I see no way beyond it.
Hehe...this is actually fair but makes me laugh because we're talking about such an incredibly low-probability event in the first place. Regardless, Paul is not seeking to make services "cost-effective". His entire message is that these services cannot be cost-effective. Certainly he understands that these programs cannot be quickly removed without creating problems, but Dennis Kucinich wants these programs extended and expanded. Both would completely disagree on the first step taken, not just the tenth.
Yes he has. Here's the paper's details: Sachs, Jeffrey D. and Warner, Andrew M., "Natural Resource Abundance and Economic Growth" (December 1995). NBER Working Paper No. W5398.
I don't have an electronic version, I could scan the one I have (if I find it). Nevermind, looks like I found a free link at the NBER, see if it works:
http://papers.nber.org/papers/w5398
Good luck
Dennis Kucinich, today, is suffering from a common leftish malaise that I like to call the Curse of the Central Planner. People like Dennis Kucinich continuously argue for absolute state power to accomplish their aims and are shocked when that absolute power is then granted to someone else to accomplish their own aims. Those like Kucinich cry foul without understanding that they helped set the stage.
If one examines the history of centrally planned economies and other forms of omnipotent and oppressive governments, one will always find a group of well-meaning individuals who helped create those bodies. Over time as the authorities begin abusing their powers and extending beyond the scope of their original intent, those well-meaning individuals become more and more frustrated and, in most cases, end up being executed, exiled, or simply cast aside. This all happens because of one significant flaw in their own reasoning, a flaw repeated time and time again in forums like this one. That flaw is the assumption that the centrally planned utopia you desire for will be planned by you and by your standards.
Those advocating for power should always ask themselves the following question: how would I feel if the same powers I am demanding were granted to my mortal enemy? Because, time and time again, they are.
i don't think many liberals have a problem with that. most liberals are more concerned with losing current services than enacting new ones. ron paul vetoing tons of legislation would not be a problem to most liberals, im willing to wager.
i think that's unfair and useless rhetoric. yes, in democracy it will always be responsive to majority vote. the appeal of both these candidates is that they are more responsive to more people, rather than a narrower field of special interests. it may not be what you want, but you cannot deny that it's a step in the right direction to have candidates who are not bought and paid for by an even smaller number of the "some people." i also think you mischaracterize kucinich's governmental views. he wants a government with greater responsibilities, but since you're talking about philosophies you know it is a fallacy to state that he wants omnipotent government. paul and kucinich agree on things like civil rights and live and let live. the difference is libertarian place greater emphasis on market freedoms and liberals on lifestyle. an omnipotent government would tell its people how to live day to day lives. kucinich does not want this any more than ron paul. taxation and social services do not equate an omnipotent and fascist government and you know it. they certainly do not equate a libertarian government either though.
we keep talking about ron paul's ability to compromise. kucinich would be compromising too (esp since he'd be VP and we all know that means no power
the point is liberalism and libertarianism are not as opposed as you want to make them. they both just have different conceptions of what freedom means.
Right....Left it's all the same thing to me unless the message itself is different. It's really all about the message and the integrity of the person behind it.
Ron Paul is the only one who can get America back into its brilliance as a nation, and I sincerely hope (and pray) every American comes to realize this.
America needs a revolution. It needs to get back some of that golden integrity that made it such a great country in the first place.
I do think they (as a team) would be absolute perfect compliments to each other in finding the best balance of voice for the people.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
not pissed off at all. just confused. i've never gotten the impression kucinich wants to give any sort of absolute power to the government. you're overstating the case to say that social programs inevitably lead to social engineering. just as i would be overstating the case to say libertarianism inevitably leads to anarchy.