Topics for Debate: Political Philosophies

[CConn]

Okay, I have a rather vague question to ask...

Are the philosophies of both major US political parties coherent or hypocritical?

By that I mean, when you look at a party's various beliefs over both an economic and social (and even foriegn policy) sphere, do they all operate by the same logic?

For instance, say how Republicans generally support free market, unregulated economics, but socially will generally favor more restrictive policies and laws (such as illegalizing gay marriage or abortion, etc).

Does the logic behind these two concepts sync up? Or are they totally separate of each other and contradict each other?

Moreover, do you find that your own personal political/social/economic beliefs all align inside the same resolute logic system?

And I guess, lastly, does it really matter? Does it matter if you're of one philosophy in one area, and a different philosophy in another?

 

[Schlosser85]

I have a mixture of liberal and conservative views.

I'm fiscally conservative and extremely socially liberal. I support gay marriage, abortion rights, legalization of marijuana...but I also support capital punishment and am against illegal immigration.

So while I consider myself liberal and am a registered Democrat, I don't completely fit into one philosophy, and I don't think most people do.

 

[SV Fan]

And I guess, lastly, does it really matter? Does it matter if you're of one philosophy in one area, and a different philosophy in another?

I don't think it's bad(or hypocritical) to be more liberal on issue A and more conservative on issue B but that being said don't make sweeping generalizations like

I hate Big Government
I hate Regulations
I am all for States Rights
We should cut spending(except for stuff I feel is important of coarse(ie you're big defense spenders))
etc

if you are for anything that goes against one of those generalizations

Beyond that I have nothing against politicians who go have sex with hookers or whoever else out of wedlock but if you are campaigning on "family values" or against Prostitution I call hypocrite

 

[113]

I'm a proud liberal progressive on almost everything. Only part where I often have disagreements with fellow liberals is on defense spending. I guess you could describe me as a Rawlsian liberal.

I reject the big/small government dichotomy because it's a conservative talking point. I view the world as a set of problems that need to be solved, whichever entity is most capable (and willing) of addressing the problem(s), should.

Having said that if we do use the big/small government paradigm then you could say I much prefer big government (an entity whose primary goal is to serve us) over big business (entities whose primary goal is to separate us from our money and line their pockets). One is incentivized to be liars, cheats, and thieves (business) while the other is incentivized to be accountable to their citizenry (government). I'll always trust democratic government over corporations.

 

[floreairfoot]

I much prefer big government (an entity whose primary goal is to serve us) over big business (entities whose primary goal is to separate us from our money and line their pockets).

Alrighty.

 

[SV Fan]

I'll always trust democratic government over corporations.

That's sacrilegious talking about the almighty job creators like that.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Civic libertarian.

Civil liberties are the only thing I need socially other than family.

These fiscal arguments are endless and those in charge realize this.

Just keep your grubby paws off my civil liberties.

 

[Thundercrack85]

I think there are plenty of contradictions.

I could never identify with one party. Even if I had more than two bad choices.

My politics don't fit into either box. I like me guns, I think abortion is wrong, I don't care if two men want to get married, and I think it's ridiculous that people are being imprisoned for smoking a plant. A certain president should be ashamed of himself, for his hypocrisy in prosecuting people who smoke it. If it isn't obvious which president I am referring to - it's the last three. I'm undecided on the death penalty.

When it comes to illegal immigration, I think a sensible, humane approach is needed, i.e. gradual naturalization.

 

[floreairfoot]

I agree with everything you've listed, right down to being undecied for the death penalty.

I think most of us in the US have a mix of both liberal and conservative viewpoints, depending on the issue.

Unfortunately we're inundated with polarized propaganda from commentators like Chris Hayes and Sean Hannity. If you're not watching a news network, you're being trained to see liberal values as superior or "right", from most popular programming.

 

[Hobgoblin]

Personally I think it is foolish to be purely for one party all the time. Neither side has a monopoly on the truth and I hope that people do pick and choose issues from both parties that they believe are best.

That said, I think politics are inherently hypocritical. Government is all about setting rules and regulations, which always limit someone's liberty, somewhere. Yes, even the Libertarians are guilty of this. It is all well and good to live in a Libertarian government society, when you have money and power. Good intentions speak loudly, but money speaks even more loudly. Yes, every form of government is guilty of corruption but in a Libertarian government, those with the power have no requirements to look after the weakest of society.

 

[SV Fan]

Yes, every form of government is guilty of corruption but in a Libertarian government, those with the power have no requirements to look after the weakest of society.

Take libertarianism to it's extreme and you basically have anarchy(and that isn't an indictment against libertarianism since take any political philosophy to it's extreme and you have a crappy political structure basically)

 

[Victarion]

Unfortunately we're inundated with polarized propaganda from commentators like Chris Hayes and Sean Hannity. If you're not watching a news network, you're being trained to see liberal values as superior or "right", from most popular programming.

This so much.

I am fiscally conservative; otherwise I am Libertarian. I believe in being responsible to oneself and accepting whatever consequences my actions bring upon me. Basically: the buck stops with me. I won't blame someone else, some other party, the Illuminati or reptilians. I think legalizing marijuana and finding a way to tax it would be the best step in fixing the financial mess. I don't support illegal immigration, and don't mind using drones so long as it isn't on our soil.

 

[Kelly]

Having said that if we do use the big/small government paradigm then you could say I much prefer big government (an entity whose primary goal is to serve us) over big business (entities whose primary goal is to separate us from our money and line their pockets). One is incentivized to be liars, cheats, and thieves (business) while the other is incentivized to be accountable to their citizenry (government)

Problem with that is, the government today, thinks its a big corporation.

How you ask? They separate us from our money and line their pockets. And they have the incentive to be liars, cheats and thieves to keep their power. As Jefferson has said...

A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circlue of our felicities. Thomas Jefferson

Right now there is nothing good about our government, unless you are one that is willing to give them all of your power in order for the government to feed, cloth, and keep you healthy. All of which you could do for yourself.

With all of that said, my philosophy is a very fiscal conservative, and socially liberal. I understand that we must help those that are truly in need, but the legislation of the 60's has turned our country into a country of millions of invalids that can walk. So, I am happy for my taxes to fund entitlement programs, as long as they are fully accountable, which today they are far from that....I am pro-choice with strict regulations on time and place for lack of better terms, I am pro same sex marriage (mainly because if you are a US citizen you deserve the same liberties that everyone who is a citizen enjoys). I am all for Immigration Reform, as long as the border is truly secure first, and we have a step by step, REGULATED, profit free way for immigrants to become citizens. What do I mean by profit free? It means that people (lawyers specifically) cannot profit from helping people through the process. It should be a process that is as low in cost as we can possibly make it. I also believe that those that are already here illegally, should be at the end of the line, BUT THAT LINE needs to be moving effectively and efficiently towards citizenship. I am all for the Dream Act as written here in Texas, not the Federal version of it. I absolutely HATE war, and if we could we would go back to a more isolationist foreign policy, but I am realistic enough to know that that will never happen. I am a state's rights person as far as education is concerned. I believe the states have financially become far to dependent on the Federal government. I believe that marijuana should be legalized, but I believe we should decriminalize first, take it slowly and be intelligent about it. Other drugs are a no for me, it really depends on drug by drug.

 

[Hemi'Cuda]

Take libertarianism to it's extreme and you basically have anarchy(and that isn't an indictment against libertarianism since take any political philosophy to it's extreme and you have a crappy political structure basically)

That's not entirely accurate. Libertarianism relies on the essence of property rights, both personal and physical. There is a need for some institution of government to protect and enforce these rights.

 

[CConn]

Well, if you keep going past libertarianism you do come to anarchism eventually.

But the same goes for socialism/communism.

Political philosophies are really circular, with totalitarianism on one side of the circle and anarchism on the other.

In any case, I don't think most of you understood what I meant with my initial question. I'm not asking or advocating an adherence to strict party politics. That's just plain dumb. This is what I'm saying...

Behind every belief on a singular political topic is a general philosophy.

For instance, if you believe in the minimum wage, you're essentially supporting governmental intervention for economic prosperity.

So thusly, that believe should then be transferable to other things; it would make sense for you then to support the federal reverse or subsidies, or whatever else essentially is government control of economics.

That's what I mean, wherein which to the political parties violate their own philosophies? Where do they favor high governmental involvement in one area, and less involvement in another.

Is this right? Is this sensible? Is it unrealistic to expect a singular philosophy of statism or anarchism to be adaptable across the entire spectrum of economic and social spheres?

 

[CConn]

Having said that if we do use the big/small government paradigm then you could say I much prefer big government (an entity whose primary goal is to serve us) over big business (entities whose primary goal is to separate us from our money and line their pockets). One is incentivized to be liars, cheats, and thieves (business) while the other is incentivized to be accountable to their citizenry (government). I'll always trust democratic government over corporations.

As an aside, I will say I find this viewpoint an extremely interesting one as, logically, you mostly make sense*. You're right, a democratically elected government is supposed to be accountable, is supposed to be there purely for the benefit for its citizens, it should be a great source of good for its people.

But, unfortunately, that has, I believe, been proven entirely untrue by history. A few obvious points spring to mind...

1). The incumbency rate of elected officials is something like 90%, which immediately insinuates an underlying lack of change, choice, and most importantly, accountability.

2). Of the 30 largest governments in the world, 26 have directly committed genocide or ethnic cleansing.

3). Unlike any corporation, when the government makes a decision, it enforces those decisions with laws, punishable by imprisonment and enforced by armed extensions of the government. Which is something no corporation could ever do (at least not without full governmental support).

4). A democracy isn't always a good thing, as all a democracy is is a majority forcing a minority to adhere to their rules. For instance, in 1950, 96% of Americans believed interracial marriage to be wrong. Does that mean it should've been illegal? Absolutely not.

5). I'd argue that in the present day, corporations are far more aware of their reputations than the government is. For instance, Paula Deen is found to have said something racist, Target immediately discontinues her line of cookware, costing her a ton of money. In the governmental sphere, Mayor Bloomburg is found to have instituted a policy that violates people's constitutional rights, and no direct reprimand is given outside of discounting the program (pending an appeal by Bloomburg).

I'm not saying corporations are a bunch of good, altruistic guys. They're not. They are very much out for their own good. And while they very much can screw people over and ruin lives, for every Enron, there's an example of state-supported slavery, or ethnic cleansing. For every mortgage crisis, there's an example of state-supported inequality and abuse of powers.

To be as objective as possible, I could at best comment that both government and corporations are on equal footing when it comes to their moral goodness. Which, I would add, makes sense considering they're both made up of people, and in a lot of cases, made up of the exact same people, bobbing back and forth between the public and private sectors. Which is actually another problem in and of itself.

*although your description of corporation's only goal being to take our money is categorically untrue as for that money, goods or services are exchanged, so the relationship is inherently beneficial for both entities in some way.

 

[SV Fan]

That's what I mean, wherein which to the political parties violate their own philosophies? Where do they favor high governmental involvement in one area, and less involvement in another.

I think you only look like a hypocrite if you campaign on hating "big" government, because as you say at some point you don't

 

[CConn]

So you're saying I wouldn't be a hypocrite if I supported gay marriage but at the same time favored a strict prohibition of drugs?

 

[SV Fan]

So you're saying I wouldn't be a hypocrite if I supported gay marriage but at the same time favored a strict prohibition of drugs?

As long as you didn't use you hate big government interfering with peoples lives as an excuse to why gay marriage should be legal

 

[CConn]

So you're saying it's essentially okay to pick and choose how you assert your opinions on others as long as you stipulate that government should be allowed to control the inner workings of people's lives?

 

[SV Fan]

So you're saying it's essentially okay to pick and choose how you assert your opinions on others as long as you stipulate that government should be allowed to control the inner workings of people's lives?

No I am saying hating on Big Government is a ridiculous political slogan unless you are an anarchist, in which case I would say well at least your views are consistent

If you hate the government sticking it's nose in one aspect or another of life, fine argue on the basis of that, but don't use the slogan in generalized terms. It's sort of like the slogan "I hate regulations", it's like I am sorry I am guessing at some point I can find a regulation you are for(anarchists excluded).

 

[CConn]

No I am saying hating on Big Government is a ridiculous political slogan unless you are an anarchist, in which case I would say well at least your views are consistent

If you hate the government sticking it's nose in one aspect or another enough of life fine argue on the basis of that, but don't use the slogan in a generalization terms. It's sort of liek the slogan "I hate regulations", it's like I am sorry I am guessing at some point I can find a regulation you are for(anarchists excluded).

What if you're a minarchist? Couldn't you merely support government in that limited form and not be a hypocrite?

 

[Thundercrack85]

Just cause you're pro-gay marriage, or gay (and presumably pro-gay marriage) doesn't mean you have to be in favor of decriminalizing drugs.

I'm sure you can find people with that position.

It doesn't make you a hypocrite, just an idiot and a ****** for ruining people's lives because they like to smoke a plant.

Or you know, the president. Though he's a hypocrite because he smoked himself, liberally, and now sentences people to lengthy prison sentences for something he did.

 

[SV Fan]

What if you're a minarchist? Couldn't you merely support government in that limited form and not be a hypocrite?

Sure as long as they don't use slogans like they hate Big Government and regulations(basically be specific about what you dislike and why, not making sweeping generalizations) :P

 

[The Overlord]

As an aside, I will say I find this viewpoint an extremely interesting one as, logically, you mostly make sense*. You're right, a democratically elected government is supposed to be accountable, is supposed to be there purely for the benefit for its citizens, it should be a great source of good for its people.

But, unfortunately, that has, I believe, been proven entirely untrue by history. A few obvious points spring to mind...

1). The incumbency rate of elected officials is something like 90%, which immediately insinuates an underlying lack of change, choice, and most importantly, accountability.

2). Of the 30 largest governments in the world, 26 have directly committed genocide or ethnic cleansing.

3). Unlike any corporation, when the government makes a decision, it enforces those decisions with laws, punishable by imprisonment and enforced by armed extensions of the government. Which is something no corporation could ever do (at least not without full governmental support).

4). A democracy isn't always a good thing, as all a democracy is is a majority forcing a minority to adhere to their rules. For instance, in 1950, 96% of Americans believed interracial marriage to be wrong. Does that mean it should've been illegal? Absolutely not.

5). I'd argue that in the present day, corporations are far more aware of their reputations than the government is. For instance, Paula Deen is found to have said something racist, Target immediately discontinues her line of cookware, costing her a ton of money. In the governmental sphere, Mayor Bloomburg is found to have instituted a policy that violates people's constitutional rights, and no direct reprimand is given outside of discounting the program (pending an appeal by Bloomburg).

I'm not saying corporations are a bunch of good, altruistic guys. They're not. They are very much out for their own good. And while they very much can screw people over and ruin lives, for every Enron, there's an example of state-supported slavery, or ethnic cleansing. For every mortgage crisis, there's an example of state-supported inequality and abuse of powers.

To be as objective as possible, I could at best comment that both government and corporations are on equal footing when it comes to their moral goodness. Which, I would add, makes sense considering they're both made up of people, and in a lot of cases, made up of the exact same people, bobbing back and forth between the public and private sectors. Which is actually another problem in and of itself.

*although your description of corporation's only goal being to take our money is categorically untrue as for that money, goods or services are exchanged, so the relationship is inherently beneficial for both entities in some way.

See this is a false choice though, you distrust both corporations and the government and that's likely the smartest thing to do.

I always believed in a balance of powers, I don't trust institutions, so I think you have to balance the power between them.

And let's face it, society and the market often rewards bad corporations for bad things or least does not punish them enough for their sins.

Halliburton destroyed evidence in regards to the Gulf Oil Spill and the government made them pay 200,000 dollars, that's chump change to Halliburton and the market certainly does not seem to punish Halliburton for its vile behavior

And let's face it, most corporations don't want a small government, many need the military industrial complex to serve as a customer for their wares.

It has been said that fascism is merely the combination of big government and big business.