Topics for Debate: Political Philosophies

[Thundercrack85]

The issue with fascism is that it's rather inherently unstable (hence most regimes are fairly short-lived, at least compared to other systems). Hitler wanted to get rid of the big corporations, and control their assets directly, but he couldn't, because he needed their cooperation to wage his wars (not to mention their help in orchestrating the Holocaust).

So, fascism being in bed with big business, is more of an alliance of convenience, than anything else.

America has sort an interesting thing going on, with big business being the jockey, and the state being the horse.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

I'd say the plutocrats are the farm owners.

The government is the farm itself.

and the public are the farm animals.

So blaming government for all the problems is misdirected.

The farm owners (plutoctats) may complain about the cost of upkeeping the farm but ultimately they have more power and gains than anyone else.

 

[hippie_hunter]

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

Not at all. Take a look at the GOP as the best example. The biggest reason why it is such a mess right now is because it is a mishmash of various, and often incompatible, right-winged ideologies. The GOP is made up of moderates, neoconservatives, libertarians, evangelicals, paleoconservatives, Rockefeller Republicans, etc. It's just far too many incompatible views here where you have factions like the paleoconservatives and libertarians be more non-interventionalist compared to the neoconservatives. Libertarians and moderates aren't going to agree with the evangelicals on social issues. Moderates, neo-conservatives and Rockefeller Republicans aren't going to agree with libertarians on government spending. It just goes on and on and on.

The Democrats have a bit of a schism between their more progressive base and moderate base, but they're nowhere near as bad as the GOP because at least the progressives and moderates can agree that there at least should be things like basic government regulation and a basic social safety net. But you can still see factions that don't agree, particularly with Southern Democrats who are far more conservative than their national brethren. Hell, the West Virginia Democratic Party really shouldn't be considered a part of the Democratic Party IMO.

 

[CConn]

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.

Wait, what do you mean by false choice? I pretty much agree with you.

 

[Thundercrack85]

I have to say what the Republicans are doing right now with voter disenfrachisement is really outrageous (see the other thread for details). Disagreeing with your opponents is one thing, but preventing them from voting? That's just un-American.

Lincoln would be ashamed of this party.

 

[CConn]

Also, on the matter of corporations vs. Government, I have to say, I think a lot of the bad things that corporations have done in more recent history is at least in part due to this rampant crony capitalism/corporatism we have currently in America.

IMO, the advent of this kind of fallacy of capitalism, and obvious enemy of socialism, should be one of those things that supporters of most ideologies rail against.

 

[CConn]

I have to say what the Republicans are doing right now with voter disenfrachisement is really outrageous (see the other thread for details). Disagreeing with your opponents is one thing, but preventing them from voting? That's just un-American.

Lincoln would be ashamed of this party.

Are you sure?

Lincoln bent the hell out of US and Constitutional laws to do get what he wanted, setting some bad precedents along the way that still haunt our political system.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Are you sure?

Lincoln bent the hell out of US and Constitutional laws to do get what he wanted, setting some bad precedents along the way that still haunt our political system.

Lincoln was trying to prevent half the country seceding.

What are Republicans trying to prevent? Another four years without execitive power?

How does that justify bending anyone's rights?

 

[CConn]

The correct answer is nothing justifies bending people's rights, but I was more commenting on putting words into dead guys' mouths, not defending any wrongdoing currently.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Not putting words into anyone's mouth. But modern day Republicans like to tout themselves as the party of Lincoln, yet they pull crap like this.

 

[SV Fan]

Not putting words into anyone's mouth. But modern day Republicans like to tout themselves as the party of Lincoln, yet they pull crap like this.

Let's not forget another favorite line of theirs how it was the Democrats who reeked havoc to black people in the 50s so you should punish them now.

Personally I don't understand why the GOP doesn't claim they are the party of unions since both Teddy Roosevelt and Eisenhower were fairly pro union.

 

[Kelly]

Let's not forget another favorite line of theirs how it was the Democrats who reeked havoc to black people in the 50s so you should punish them now.

Personally I don't understand why the GOP doesn't claim they are the party of unions since both Teddy Roosevelt and Eisenhower were fairly pro union.

Teddy Roosevelt was more of a Progressive than Obama will ever be.......

 

[CConn]

Invoking the assumed thoughts of dead people is wholly foolish, no matter who does it for what reason.

 

[Comics N' Toons]

Invoking the assumed thoughts of dead people is wholly foolish, no matter who does it for what reason.

I disagree. The 19th century Revolutionaries had some great ideas about a great many things that could be applied to the modern world... Max Stirner, Emma Goldman, Proudhon and Pter Kropotkin all despised big government in all its forms, yet believed in the freedom to do as you wished as long as there was no harm to another individual.

I am a Libertarian (in the classical European sense). The word Libertarian in America has been perverted to mean left leaning Republican (which I despise). Noam Chomsky once said that true Libertarians are socialists (again in the classical sense) with anarchist tendencies. That is how I define my politics. EXTREMELY LEFT on NEARLY everything and EXTREMELY RIGHT on money and CIVIL LIBERTIES. NO TAXES, ANTI-WAR, NO NATIONALISM, NO PATRIOTISM, EQUAL RIGHTS FOR ALL.

 

[Hemi'Cuda]

I disagree. The 19th century Revolutionaries had some great ideas about a great many things that could be applied to the modern world... Max Stirner, Emma Goldman, Proudhon and Pter Kropotkin all despised big government in all its forms, yet believed in the freedom to do as you wished as long as there was no harm to another individual.

I am a Libertarian (in the classical European sense). The word Libertarian in America has been perverted to mean left leaning Republican (which I despise). Noam Chomsky once said that true Libertarians are socialists (again in the classical sense) with anarchist tendencies. That is how I define my politics. EXTREMELY LEFT on NEARLY everything and EXTREMELY RIGHT on money and CIVIL LIBERTIES. NO TAXES, ANTI-WAR, NO NATIONALISM, NO PATRIOTISM, EQUAL RIGHTS FOR ALL.

Libertarianism is embodied in the US by Ron Paul. The Tea Party has hijacked the liberty movement and is perverting it. Followers of true liberty still know what it means.

 

[Hemi'Cuda]

Also, on the matter of corporations vs. Government, I have to say, I think a lot of the bad things that corporations have done in more recent history is at least in part due to this rampant crony capitalism/corporatism we have currently in America.

IMO, the advent of this kind of fallacy of capitalism, and obvious enemy of socialism, should be one of those things that supporters of most ideologies rail against.

Exactly. Both parties support big government because it means more power for them! Few people understand the true destructive power of government intervention into the marketplace. They blame such atrocities on capitalism, yet what we have today is corporatism. Big government helping big business and vice versa. Competition is stifled due to the monopoly of force that is the US federal government and the average consumer loses on both fronts. Less liberty and less prosperity.

 

[Comics N' Toons]

Libertarianism is embodied in the US by Ron Paul. The Tea Party has hijacked the liberty movement and is perverting it. Followers of true liberty still know what it means.

Ron Paul is dangerous and not really a Libertarian. He stands for some great things that would ultimately shrink the government, sure, but he still doesn't stand against corporatism and has dangerous "gold bug" Austrian economic ideas. Noam Chomsky's Socialist-Libertarian (classical Libertarian) ideals rail against the majority of what Paul stands for.

Again, Libertarians (in the true sense of the word) are cousins, if you will, to anarchists. Paul and the Tea Party still rail against certain freedoms such as women's reproductive rights which Libertarians do not.

 

[Hemi'Cuda]

Ron Paul is dangerous and not really a Libertarian. He stands for some great things that would ultimately shrink the government, sure, but he still doesn't stand against corporatism and has dangerous "gold bug" Austrian economic ideas. Noam Chomsky's Socialist-Libertarian (classical Libertarian) ideals rail against the majority of what Paul stands for.

Again, Libertarians (in the true sense of the word) are cousins, if you will, to anarchists. Paul and the Tea Party still rail against certain freedoms such as women's reproductive rights which Libertarians do not.

Of course he stands against corporatism! All Austrian economists do. It's the basis of their economic arguments. I fail to see how a gold-based currency is a bad thing. So many of our current economic ails can be traced right back to the government intruding into the market, picking and choosing winners and losers. The Fed and fractional reserve banking have all led to the corporatist environment we live in today.

Is debatable as to the true sense of libertarianism and abortion. I happen to agree with him that life begins at conception. Since most all libertarian theory states that government exists solely to protect a persons individual and property rights, it can be argued that abortion is the ultimate violation of a persons right to life. This is the stance he takes and I agree. I can certainly see the other side of the argument, however. I just don't agree with it. Not to start a debate on the big A, I just wanted to explain how one can be pro-life and still be a libertarian.
The Tea Party has been corrupted. People call him the father of the tea party, but what it has become is GOP-lite. Ron Paul is a truer libertarian than most anyone in political office. To ignore this fact is to ignore his beliefs and all of his writings.

 

[Comics N' Toons]

Nope. Ron Paul has many good ideas (such as non-intervention in war, ending the IRS and the abolition of many government agencies) which stem from anarchist philosophy (aka Libertarian-Socialism). The truth is anarchism encompasses a broad range of ideologies and is not anything like it is portrayed in American society, but Libertarianism (again, in the REAL sense) is a fixed ideology that advocates VERY LIMITED GOVERNMENT, respect for civil liberties (which Mr. Paul talks about often) and no regulation of any kind on social issue and a tightly regulated economy.

As far as corporatism, Ron Paul, Peter Schiff and the like claim to want to get the government out of the markets, but what they really want is to give the market to the super-rich who are not affiliated with government so it can be completely unregulated. If this were to happen, the power would shift completely to Wall Street and THE FED, who would be unstoppable in robbing the Middle Class and the poor to feed their own self-interests. I take a lot of stock in MMT, so, naturally, I believe that on a gold-standard we would be set up for another GREAT DEPRESSION as it would limit the money supply.

The general Libertarian stance is pro-choice on abortion (or women's reproductive rights) as it is seen as a civil liberty because it is ultimately a choice. Libertarians do not believe in legislating either way on the issue and just letting it be the choice of the individual. Be pro-life all you want, the fact remains that Libertarian philosophy would not be congruent with legislating FOR OR AGAINST abortion.

I think we can agree, the Tea Party started as a grass-roots movement to take the country in a different direction and shrink the size of government. It started with an idea about liberty but became perverted by middle aged and elderly people who have not studied politics and who chose to act on emotion and take FOX NEWS as gospel. Ideas became too many and as a esult were unorganized. Paul never wanted to be seen as the face of this movement however.

Ron Paul may believe himself to be Libertarian, but he is really more of a classical conservative (which the Republican Party ignores). He doesn't take his philosophies from Libertarian-Socialism (which again is real Libertarianism). Instead he looks to the Founders (which isn't a bad thing) and believes in a simpler time. The man may have a lot of moral and correct beliefs with respect to shrinking government, but his ideals are ultimately that of a classical conservative.

Anyway, a pleasure to debate with you and take part in the great marketplace of ideas!

 

[Hemi'Cuda]

Nope. Ron Paul has many good ideas (such as non-intervention in war, ending the IRS and the abolition of many government agencies) which stem from anarchist philosophy (aka Libertarian-Socialism). The truth is anarchism encompasses a broad range of ideologies and is not anything like it is portrayed in American society, but Libertarianism (again, in the REAL sense) is a fixed ideology that advocates VERY LIMITED GOVERNMENT, respect for civil liberties (which Mr. Paul talks about often) and no regulation of any kind on social issue and a tightly regulated economy.

As far as corporatism, Ron Paul, Peter Schiff and the like claim to want to get the government out of the markets, but what they really want is to give the market to the super-rich who are not affiliated with government so it can be completely unregulated. If this were to happen, the power would shift completely to Wall Street and THE FED, who would be unstoppable in robbing the Middle Class and the poor to feed their own self-interests. I take a lot of stock in MMT, so, naturally, I believe that on a gold-standard we would be set up for another GREAT DEPRESSION as it would limit the money supply.

The general Libertarian stance is pro-choice on abortion (or women's reproductive rights) as it is seen as a civil liberty because it is ultimately a choice. Libertarians do not believe in legislating either way on the issue and just letting it be the choice of the individual. Be pro-life all you want, the fact remains that Libertarian philosophy would not be congruent with legislating FOR OR AGAINST abortion.

I think we can agree, the Tea Party started as a grass-roots movement to take the country in a different direction and shrink the size of government. It started with an idea about liberty but became perverted by middle aged and elderly people who have not studied politics and who chose to act on emotion and take FOX NEWS as gospel. Ideas became too many and as a esult were unorganized. Paul never wanted to be seen as the face of this movement however.

Ron Paul may believe himself to be Libertarian, but he is really more of a classical conservative (which the Republican Party ignores). He doesn't take his philosophies from Libertarian-Socialism (which again is real Libertarianism). Instead he looks to the Founders (which isn't a bad thing) and believes in a simpler time. The man may have a lot of moral and correct beliefs with respect to shrinking government, but his ideals are ultimately that of a classical conservative.

Anyway, a pleasure to debate with you and take part in the great marketplace of ideas!

You're correct in stating that Austrians want to get the government out of the marketplace. You insinuate, however, that The Fed is an inherent market institution. It, most certainly, is not. Your assumptions are correct that if the government got out of the market, save the The Fed, then the richest class would continue to gain at the expense of the poor and middle class. Printing money out of thin air isn't part of a laissez-faire economy, though. It only causes inflation and, coupled with fractional reserve banking, results in credit expansion. This only creates the illusion of wealth, not actually wealth. If that we're true, then we could just print out way into prosperity...which, ironically, is what Keynesian theory proposes.

The issue I have with MMT is this, inflation does not equal wealth. Deflation (which is seen as a negative in MMT) results in a fall in prices and, when commodity-backed money is in place, the market naturally aligns prices accordingly. No wealth is lost, only the illusion of wealth that was created via inflation is revealed. There's still the same amount of 'stuff' in the economy, the only difference is that recession (which is not inherent to a laissez-faire economy) reveals how certain segments of the economy were over-priced and production misaligned due to the artificial credit expansion and inflation brought about due to The Fed. In a boom and bust cycle, which is inevitable in a 'controlled' market, the damage is done in the boom. The boom is where artificial credit expansion creates product and capital misallocation and props up certain segments of the economy that would not otherwise be invested in. Real savings in the economy dictates where investment should go, not artificial credit expansion. The 'bust' part of the cycle is where the illusion of wealth is revealed and the market re-aligns itself into a proper production structure.
The true answer the government can do to 'fix' the economy is completely cease all intervention in it (regulations, fractional reserve banking requirements, The Fed, etc.) and let the market fix itself. Of course this will likely never happen because of the power the government likes to wield, and the fallacy of Keynesianism that's been drilled into our heads by the academia propaganda machine.

As for abortion, I agree that a libertarian government would not be for or against it as a matter of policy. A libertarian government should enforce the protection of personal liberty of all people..including the unborn people. This is my view, and it is shared by many, including Dr. Paul himself. My point is, though, that libertarians are divided on this issue. So to say that one side is not valid ignores the reality of the argument.

Nice to debate with you too!

 

[Venom'sDad]

https://townhall.com/columnists/wayneallynroot/2018/03/22/draft-n2463362

 

[Tempus Fugit]

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?

Well, no they aren't coherent in an over-arching sense.
Someone else already pointed out the various factions inside the Republican party, the Democratic party is similarly fractured, moreso historically (in my opinion).

An example of what I mean would be comparing the politics of a 90 year old male Democrat from rural Maine to the politics of a 35 year old female Democrat from Chicago. Yes, they're both part of the same party, but I'm willing to bet they don't have similar views except possibly in the very broadest sense.

Human beings though like to be able to pigeon hole things into easily defined boxes. We can't help it as a species, it's a survival instinct left over from when we were living in caves, hunting mammoths and worrying about being eaten by tigers. It's just easier for us to categorize anything be it a group of people, a philosophy, a social problem, whatever as "us and not us" or "dangerous and safe" and to compound the problem it's really much easier to move the dial of a groups perception towards dangerous than it is to alter it towards safe. After all, that snake might not be poisonous, but we'd better kill it to protect the tribe just to be sure.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that they aren't coherent, but for a great many people you choose a side, the one that seems safe, and stick with it no matter how self-destructive that choice actually is.

Or, to quote Agent K:
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it."

 

[STINGRAY]

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

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

Both parties are hypocrites, but the Republicans espouse the supreme hypocrisy by posturing themselves as 'The Party Of The People' and against 'Big Government Interference'....

Then they hand out in-perpetuity tax breaks to the wealthy and big corporations, and issue blanket edicts dictating to the States how they should deal with immigrants.

The Republican Party seems to exist by fostering FEAR in it`s constituency and by throwing dirt at it`s opposition, all the while posturing as The Savior Of The Common People.

I`ve seen Loan Sharks with more truth in them.

MEANWHILE....

The Democratic Party thrashes around with lofty goals and ideas, but without the practical plan to attain any goal or enforce any ideal.
They`re great at dreaming, lousy at execution.

Take so-called 'ObamaCare'....
The Affordable Care Act was A Good Idea!
But, it was Poorly Executed.
The U.S. does need to reform it`s health care--People should not have to go broke, and be in debt for the rest of their lives if they need life-saving medical procedures or drugs.

That is not hard to understand, right?

Yet, when a plan is attempted, do the two sides ban together to address flaws and make it work?
NNNOOOOO ! Of course not!
A Democratic President came up with this ! The Republicans do nothing to help--they latch onto this with a derisive nickname, evoking the man who enacted it, rather than the true name' AFFORDABLE CARE ACT'...and set themselves to getting rid of it!
What is the replacement?....Nothing !
Here we are, back at square one with a problem that needs addressing.
Our system is nothing but partisanship and counter-productive BS.

BOTH SIDES are hypocrites. they serve themselves, not We the people.

 

[Hobgoblin]

Sometimes I wonder if every form of government is doomed to fail. People that are interested in politics are naturally critical. We look at trends and human nature. This makes us form "categories" of people and generalize how they act, accurately or not. This is true of people inside and outside of the government. The problem is, like I said, these categories aren't always accurate. Take into account that the people in power are often separated from the people on the ground and a rapidly changing situation in that society, and conflict arrives.

I think this is especially true in countries that have had a stable continuation of that form of government for generations. The people in power get complacent and overconfident in the system.

 

[ComicBookNerd]

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?

Definitely, American politics have become a complete joke where people root for their team instead of ideology, principles, or pragmatic solutions. Wish we could adopt a science council like they had on Krypton, except where we’re allowed to forge our own destiny & pursue space exploration.