Political Idealogy

[cystic crypt]

@Wargaming_nut:

It’s the second one, CC; I’m opposed to socialized medicine, etc., and so I’m opposed to Socialism, Communism, Nazism, etc.

And what do you think is wrong with sociallized medicine? Do you actually know anything about it?

I know that it involves taking one person’s money, and giving it to another person, to pay medical bills. This is wrong. If person A wants to give his money to person B, then that is his business. But the government cannot forcibly take person A’s money to give it to person B (and, while they’re at it, persons C, D, and E too). Remember this: the government cannot give anything to one person without taking it away from someone else.

This is VERY shortsighted, and nearly inaccurate.
The fact is that EVERYONE needs medical attention at some point. The less likely they are to seek it early, the more trouble they get into later, and the more expensive their care becomes.
So you are a 35 year old single mother. Your child develops a cough and a fever, but you can not afford to take your child to the ER. You delay your child’s treatment. SURPRISE! Your child’s epiglottitis worsens and she dies a couple of hours later as her airway narrows and closes.
You are a 65 year old veteran who’s pension keeps you alive in your single bedroom appartment. It is too expensive to see your family doctor to keep your diabetes in check, so it gets a little out of control, you get retinopathy (blinded), neuropathy (loss of sensation in your extremities) and gangrene requiring your foot to be amputated. Of course that doesn’t matter because the chest pain you’ve ignored as you could not afford the hospital bill turns into a massive infarct killing you.
Example 1) this is a very significant outcome as an important measure for our society is PYLLs (potential years of life lost) (we will, of course, ignore the value of the child’s life or her mother’s psyche as why should society care about those things?). This is millions of dollars of lost productivity with many thousands of dollars of tax revenues lost over the long term.
Example 2) obviously this does not appear as important an issue as the guy is “old” he already has a nasty disease, and it would cost a sociallized society a lot of money to keep him alive. Still does society not “owe” him anything? Never mind the “vet” line, how about the fact that he’s worked most of his life, contributing to society by working, putting money into the system, paying taxes, etc. What if he is STILL the sole breadwinner for a family? Then who’s burden is it? Obviously his family should pull together, but . . . .
Consider a third example. 18 year old man walking down the street, trips over a piece of sidewalk into the path of an oncoming car who runs him over. The owner of the car is uninsured as it was a couple of days ago to renew and he hasn’t had time to, plus he has more debts than assets so there is no use suing him. Now the 18 y/o man has extensive injuries - many of them disabling on their own without medical attention. He is not insured because of how unlikely this kind of thing is to happen.
The funny thing is that despite Americans’ wails about the horrors of sociallized medicine, a third of the populace is uninsured, and the system STILL costs 50% more than a system where the medicine is sociallized.

[Guest]

And another thing: I don’t think the government should be a moral authority on abortion, homosexual marriage, etc. What makes the people we put up there any more capable of deciding what is right and what is wrong, than us? The decision on all those current controversial topics should be left to the state governments:

But if gov’t itself is fundamentally unable to address these moral issues what makes the state gov’ts more able? Let us not forget that one of the duties of gov’t is to legislate morality.

Actually, the thing that most distinguishes a conservative from a “liberal,” is that conservatives believe that the government should have as little power as is necessary to protect the people. This does not mean huge welfare programs, massive social institutions, and ungodly high taxes.

That is a very simplistic and overly favorable view don’t you think. The last few conservative presidents have increased gov’t spending as have the liberal ones. Nixon, Reagan, BushI and BushII have increased defense spending by ungodly amounts. They have also increased foreign aid as well. So I don’t see the benefit of switching one evil for another. And if we assume gov’t is going to inherently grow and act as an leviathan should we not prefer the one that acts on the principle of the greatest good for the greatest number?

It wouldn’t hurt these “liberals” to read the constitution once in a while. Preferably without dark glasses on.

Actually liberalism in America can most directly be traced back to Jefferson who was very pro-states rights which I tend to be more in favor of the Federalist perspective. You also have misinterpreted the 10th Amendment commonly known as the elastic clause. The elastic clause is historically intrepreted by courts to mean that all powers not mentioned to be federal are given to the states. For example, the Constitution doesn’t make murder or robbery illegal but because of this clause it doesn’t need to as the states have the power to do so. Also, the Bill of rights does not detail how gov’t works ie federal versus state only what the individuals rights against the gov’t are.

Oh, and as to the voting right; obviously there must be some limitations to it

Yes but historically it was conservatives that fought against universal suffrage, black sufferage, and female sufferage. They even fought against the common man gaining the right to vote.

[Guest]

I know that it involves taking one person’s money, and giving it to another person, to pay medical bills. This is wrong. If person A wants to give his money to person B, then that is his business. But the government cannot forcibly take person A’s money to give it to person B (and, while they’re at it, persons C, D, and E too). Remember this: the government cannot give anything to one person without taking it away from someone else.

What are you talking about gov’t redistributes wealth all the time. I live in Iowa yet my tax dollars go to supporting a navy which does not directly benefit me in anyway. However, on to the health care debate the assumption here is that gov’t wastes money therefore cannot be trusted to provide health care to the citizenry at a reasonable cost, however, it is not mentioned that 1)this is happening already anyway, and 2)the insurance industry which provides care operates on profit motive which in theory gov’t doesn’t which should allow them to undercut them. Also, HMOs and others are as susceptable to fraud, waste and mismanagement as gov’t is.

[Desertfox]

My beliefs in full
1. Small national government, responsible for protection, diplomacy, and making national laws.
2. Pro-life, there are places called adoption agencies.
3. Health care should be taken care of by the employer. When you begin a full time job and have it for ten years, the company should be required to pay for health care for the rest of your life and for all dependents.
4. Have a three month unemployment program for physically and mentally fit people. If they can’t find a job, apparently they aren’t trying hard enough.
5. The mentally and physically unfit can go to charities for money. The government should not force, but rather encourage the giving of donations.
6. Local matters should be handled on a local level.
7. Stupid people shouldn’t be allowed to vote. The should be a simple test requiring the person to write all the states and their capitals. (Spelling doesn’t count.) This test only needs to be taken one time when you register to vote.
8. No solitary confinement. Also, their is nothing wrong with capital punishment if it is approved by the jury.
9. Gay marriage is wrong. However, homosexually may be done with in the confines of ones home.
10. Polution is bad.
11. If someone breaks a treaty, they should have there butt kicked.

[Guest]

Health care should be taken care of by the employer. When you begin a full time job and have it for ten years, the company should be required to pay for health care for the rest of your life and for all dependents.

This is totally unenforceable, what do you do when a company goes under? It sounds to me like you are still going to have people relying on gov’t for health care services. Also what about the problem of double coverage, eventually dependents grow up to be workers and there for gain their own economic resources yet a company their father worked for 40 years ago still pays their health care costs. Doesn’t make a lot of sense, does it?

Pro-life, there are places called adoption agencies…Also, their is nothing wrong with capital punishment if it is approved by the jury.

So you’re Pro life, but not all the time. Obviously your pro-life convictions aren’t that strong are they.

Have a three month unemployment program for physically and mentally fit people. If they can’t find a job, apparently they aren’t trying hard enough.

I believe that currently it is 5 or 6 months so what greater good is served by reducing it an arbitrary amount you’ve decided upon.

The mentally and physically unfit can go to charities for money. The government should not force, but rather encourage the giving of donations

One could argue this isn’t best for them in that it encourages a dependency cycle. Current treatment of the mentally ill and handicapped encourages them to get help and jobs so they can feel normal by being a productive member of society. So essentially, you want to encourage a program that will set them back 50 years, great!

Small national government, responsible for protection, diplomacy, and making national laws.

Yes this always sounds good, but read the fine print you end up substituting federal gov’t for large state gov’t. Isn’t that just substituting one evil for another.

[Guest]

@Desertfox:

4. Have a three month unemployment program for physically and mentally fit people. If they can’t find a job, apparently they aren’t trying hard enough.
9. Gay marriage is wrong. However, homosexually may be done with in the confines of ones home.

Not trying hard enough when unemployed: If you read newer economic theories, with imperfect flow of information, then unemployed (and long term unemployment) will happen. I don’t see why you then can say “not trying hard enough”. I have seen people try hard, and not get a job, because they were “over-qualified” for one half of the jobs, and had “not enough experience” for the other half.

[CommissarYarric]

I never did understand the whole “over-qualified” reason for not hiring someone. I know it happens, but you would think you would want someone who is too good for the job, he would be amazing at it.
Anyway, on the topic of unemployment, if you had nationalized industries the government could correct it much more efficiently by expanding those industries and creating new jobs. Im quite sure Britian did this after world war 2, when they nationalized the coal, railroad, and steel industry, and it worked quite well (although steel was recently re-privatized, the fools :x ). With a reduced unemployment rate, the costs of supporting the unemployed for longer amounts of time would be easily managable, so you would not need to cut them off at a specific time.

[Guest]

I never did understand the whole “over-qualified” reason for not hiring someone.

The thinking behind this is that 1)you will cost too much as most employers pay more for experience, and when they can get 20 year olds to do the same job why pay more? 2)You will take your experience and qualifications and get a better job. Employers don’t like to hire overqualified applicants who are likely to turn around and use their job as a springboard to another job.

on the topic of unemployment, if you had nationalized industries the government could correct it much more efficiently by expanding those industries and creating new jobs. Im quite sure Britian did this after world war 2, when they nationalized the coal, railroad, and steel industry, and it worked quite well (although steel was recently re-privatized, the fools

The problem here is that this assumes heavy industry is vital to national welfare, and the contrary may be true. In many industrialized countries there has been a trend away from these industries. Further, outsourcing say Steel isn’t bad as it can be done cheaper in developing nations which keeps inflation at home artifically low. So nationalizing non-essential or non optimal industries only retards your economy in the long run.

[Guest]

I don’t agree on the non-optimal.
If you are a developing country, you are severely limited in how much you can import. that means that you need to have some non optimal working industries (and protect them with tariffs) to save your money for other, more vital imports (which may even allow you to optimize these protected industries, and then you can drop the tariffs).
One prime example there is agriculture in many develpping countries: they can’t compete with industrial agriculture (and the subsidies, and the subsidies on energy used to transport it there … which are all too common in the west), so they should put up tariffs there, to get their economy started from the very basics.
I don’t think the western countries would have become what it is now if it had not had protectionist policies and tariffs for some time (and don’t forget China, Korea, Japan).

I do agree that non-essential industries can be dropped, but then: what is not essential? There is a wide field of possible disagreement there.

[Janus1]

the poll is inaccurate because the left/right aspect is only one part of political ideology. go to politcialcompass.org to find out where you really are.

[Guest]

You’re link isn’t correct it should be

www.politicalcompass.org

This was a fun test to take I ranked close to Ghandi and Mandela. Good company to keep.

[rushhour1221]

Communism is for sure the perfect gov’t, and if it was not for the human desires of power and wealth, we would see communism as a desiding factor in the ways of the world. If someone could put their wants behind them communism would still exist in many world superpowers.

[Desertfox]

I am against abortions because a baby has never done anything wrong. However, the death penalty is good because it is cheaper than feeding someone for 20+ years.

[Desertfox]

I am
Economic Left/Right: 2.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 4.00

[CommissarYarric]

I got
Economic left/right: -8.00
Social Libertarian/Authortarian:2.87

Im close to Sadamm Hussien…fear me…

[Guerrilla Guy]

Econ. L/R -1.80
Social Lib/Auth. -2.10

Tony blair and Milton Friedman would like me!

[Guest]

I am against abortions because a baby has never done anything wrong. However, the death penalty is good because it is cheaper than feeding someone for 20+ years.

But if you are going to take the moral highground and state it is wrong to kill a baby then this shoul be applied to the death penalty as well. However, were you to envolke a Utilitarian argument that gov’t should run society on the principle greatest good for the greatest number then you could argue Abortion is wrong and the death penalty is right. However, I believe you rejected Utilitarianism earlier.

[Guest]

I found the map interesting where they put the presidency candidates on.
All (but 2) are in the economic right, authoritarian corner, the other two in the opposite…. Just as in England it seems not to matter wether you vote Labor or Conservatives… and the “who said it” quiz was fun as well.

while i am still -9.12 economic and -7.28 political.

[Desertfox]

The government has to pay to keep someone in jail. Cost for a 2 bullets and a blank, a black hanky, and a last meal (supposing you can just use standard police force rifles) = $30. As apposed to 6 dollars per day times 20 years. That comes out to 43,800. Also, I estimated it on the low side. It is probably any where from 50,000-70,000. Just think of all the money saved! And if you do this for 100 criminals the numbers are 30,000 compared to 5,000,000-7,000,000.

Secondly, a company would only pay for the insurance for dependents of a worker until the dependent reaches the age of 18 unless they are married to the worker, in which case they are always covered except if they receive insurance from another source.

[Guest]

Secondly, a company would only pay for the insurance for dependents of a worker until the dependent reaches the age of 18

But this still leaves many people uncovered especially in the 18-35 year old range where despite, entering the workforce, have yet to establish a firm footing in it. For example say I get a full time job at 18 years old and work for one year, but then quit to go to school. Now this company has to give me health insurance for the rest of my life? Jeez that hurts, and especially companies that have a high turnover rate due to low wages or low prestige eg McDonalds. In actuality I think you’d see skyrocketing wages to deter job switching, and in turn this causes massive inflation. More important in those industries where jobs are currently being outsourced you would see this trend increase dramatically as the cost of lifetime health insurance far outweighs the benefits of keeping those jobs here.

The government has to pay to keep someone in jail. Cost for a 2 bullets and a blank, a black hanky, and a last meal (supposing you can just use standard police force rifles) = $30. As apposed to 6 dollars per day times 20 years. That comes out to 43,800. Also, I estimated it on the low side. It is probably any where from 50,000-70,000. Just think of all the money saved!

This is highly debatable considering the enormous costs of court proceeding costs which becomes inevitable with capital punishment. In fact most pseudo-intellectual arguments for capital punishment focus on the morality as it is pretty much granted it isn’t cost effective. Anyway now you are trying to argue utility as a means to justify a pro-life/pro capital punishment stand, yet previously you claimed it was okay as there was nothing ‘wrong’ with it which is a moral justification.

Furhter, if cost efficiency is going to be the model for which we base our justice system upon why not reduce the harsh drug laws which punish users as harsh as dealers. You’d figure it would be cheaper to not incarcerate mere addicts. Also, if cost is again the main criteria why not go after corporate malfeasence more than drugs because it costs gov’t more in dollars and cents than drugs do.

How about a good moral argument against capital punishment though, and here goes. Why is it not considered that it is wrong to kill a convict because utimately it is difficult to determine guilt or innocence and capital punishment is irreversable. In fact in recent years there has been an alarming number of inmates found to be innocent through DNA evidence. If it is wrong to kill a baby that has done nothing wrong via abortion then what about killing a person who was convicted of a crime he didn’t commit. I’d say you have to give him his full due process in order to prevent this, and because of that it is best to not kill him.