Political Issues and Positions List

Jer--

I disagree. I think you're operating from a beginning point that includes an existing govt. Start from anarchy. No government.

I haven't settled on it--but this is the model that has been forwarded by my Government professor.

He posits that this continuum is a zero sum. Wherever you put "your mark" on the continuum--you are representing your relationship with "the state"-->order------------and complete freedom, or unfettered individuality.

<-------------------------(Sofia)----->
order freedom

Per him-- You have to give up a degree of freedom to receive any public goods from a government. (Order, safety, food stamps, roads...) Unless I can come up with an original idea (so far, I can't), I agree with him.

If anarchy is the absence of govt--and I think we could agree that in anarchy, one is free---then doesn't it follow that any degree of government is going to encroach on your freedom? Even if you are blissfully happy in the trade off with your government, they do call some shots in your life. You've sold off some freedom.

If you are hungry, and a totalitarian dictator promises to feed you--you'll likely make that contract. And, you'll lose an incredible amount of freedoms.

Can you make an argument against
big gov = decreased freedoms?

Sofia, the example that comes to mind almost immediately is Italy which has been operating as an anarchy for 1,000's of years.

Is it anarchy--or blisteringly fast changes of govt that for almost all purposes results in anarchy?

(little laughs)

Ciao, baby. Let's do a three hour lunch...

I'm stepping into this thread somewhat late but just wanted to make one quick comment.

On many of the bullets the level listed appears to be " regulatory" (i.e. either something is permitted or not) but there are additional aspects to almost every iussue.

On the 1st page Sophia expanded the Abortion issue to include:

- on demand
- restricted
- outlawed

I'd add "On demand and government funded" to that list. That could even be broken down into "fully funded" and "partially funded" as well.

That is, IMO, the problem with most of the existing tests. They simply list either/or choices instaad of allowing one to choose for 10 or so options. You need more granularity to be able to make distinctions.

Too much structure!

Have you considered meditation?

Too much structure; too many preconceived ideas based on conjecture, not experience.

How much time is one expected to waste on this particular bit of nebulousness?

Bush = big incompetent government.

My comment is that it "ought to be interesting" bought often isn't.

This poster and some of his yes-persons lose me on suggestions like making National Security the top priority. Who was Lee Harvey Oswald working for?

Tell us the answer to that and that particular suggestion will make sense.

Otherwise this whole huge thread is a morass of dialectic strewn balls of yarn in complementary colors like red and green. It's like comparing thought processes to meditation for gaining insight; one must quiet the mind in order to have a clear notion. From the first entry, this thread is all about trying to measure the universe and to put moral value on our actions.

You have successfully taken us to square one. You have create the position of DNI before coming to the Nixon Wish as you conclusion. Don't forget that Richard Helms told Nixon to stick it and it was shown that Nixon had masterminded the burglarization of the other party.

National security shouldn't be the top priority if as in that case it would imply covering up for bad actions in the executive branch. One might conclude from that - that whoever blew Mrs. Plame's cover should be protected on the grounds that someone in the cabinet wanted the rumor of African U235 to be taken as truth.

How dull are the public? That is the eternal question. And will the republicans actually attempt to tamper with voting machines and all the other remaining questions.

The curious thing about many of your other issues is that they are issues here more than elsewhere. In Italy it seems they let their scientists go wild with research. Here we make a moral issue of whether to allow the biproducts of legal abortion to go to science, while most of us eat dead cows, sheep, chickens, chicken ova, and occasional horse dog or cat (perhaps without realizing it).

I'll stick to tofu; and I plan to think less and meditate more. It seems to work better for the flow of insight. But do what thou wilt. It's still the whole of the law, isn't it?

And I agree with sofia. . .

Sofia writes


An interesting idea but I think it is wrong. In a true anarchy in which no humans worked together there would certainly not be freedom to do whatever anyone wanted. It would be survival of the strongest.

I think that it is actually human interaction that has created real freedom. Without some form of society, which means a govt of even the most basic type, humans could have never advanced. We would all still be trying to fulfill our basic needs on Maslow's heirarchy. When it comes down to reality, it is govt that has allowed humans to rise above just being able to subsist. Trade is what really sets humans apart. And we can't trade if we can't agree upon values for the trade items which usually requires a currency and trade routes protected in some way.

This leads to the conclusion that goverment is really a double edged sword in that it creates freedoms as well as taking some away.

A simple example of how government creates more freedom than anarchy does would be in travel. In a true anarchy you would reasonably only be able to travel as far as the boundries of your own property. (Which would not really be property since you could only hold the territory by force.) Any encroachment on a neighbor can and would be met with force without a government to mediate. So in reality, governments make it easier to travel thus giving you more freedom. Of course the flip side is governments can restrict your travel.

categories
Craven,

Be careful of some of your categories. You seem to have a built in bias to begin with. For instance:

Taxation and govt size should be on a scale but to state, Less is more and more is more indicates a bias. I think we can all agree that 0% taxation is not going to increase revenues and that 100% taxation will reduce revenues. The libertarian veiwpoint is probably one of 0 taxation but that doesn't mean they think it is more. Rather they just see taxation as bad. The other thing to keep in mind is that government size position will be pretty closely related to taxation size. You need to ask specific questions about what government should do and then make your conclusions as to what size the person answering thinks govt should be.

To try to give an example: If you were to ask me if I think my taxes are too high. I would probably say yes. But when asked about government programs and if I would pay more to provide some other government services like universal health care I would again say yes.

You have set for yourself a real task because you have to ask enough questions that are similar so you can get the true feelings of people and not what they THINK you want to hear.

Under Education, I think your scale should be govt controlled to no govt control. To do "govt vs private" implies the present attempts to move it to private institutions and ignores a school of thought that it is entirely up to the family to decide if children will be educated or not.

Government size probably needs to be broken down into several categories. Social issues and Security issues. Some possible ideas
Social Issues
health care
social security
welfare

Security issues
military
immigration and naturalization policies
foreign relations and diplomacy and other international issues

The answers will probably relate to govt size and social spectrum of the respondent.

And on the social spectrum you left out the entire argument of what the govt should provide to its citizens as benefits and protections. A large category that will be extremely difficult to break apart.

I guess I am unclear as to what you are really attempting to do with this. Are you simply trying to do a left/right spectrum or are you trying to get even more complicated than a social/fiscal conservative/liberal charting.

From the time of the Ancient Greeks to the present the development of Government has been the very mark of what makes us civilized.

The filibuster is not a Greek notion to the best of my knowledge. Why filibuster when you can get someone who asks too many questions to drink poison hemlock?

Even Anarchy (no rules) is a form of government. In fact the Bush economic policy is quite anarchistic. That's what distinguishes it. There is not even the slightest attempt at managing the country like a business. In fact it breaks all the rules and follow no rules.

In my household, one rule is that if you spend more than you have you will be charged 21 percent on cash advances. Some call that usury. I call it the difference between you the private citizen and Bush the Carte Blanche Invader.

The Republicans have conveniently learned that until their "education president" actually educates anyone that voodoo economics and imaginary mathematics will be more acceptable to a republican voter than to an educated person.

Ironic isn't it? Are half of us smart enough to do the math?

I don't know. For now an accurate count of votes is more of concern to me than Bush lack of economic savoir faire. When someone is in the wrong job he must replaced. If only one could replace the people who vote for incompetent politicians.

It's the flaw in Democracy that (if they can claim to have one) that they call the Tyranny of the Majority. When Kerry wins that's what they'll call the Will of the People.

Why is this dull thread still in this "featured" spot? There's nothing worth featuring more than any other thread; nothing that makes it particularly notable or outstanding.

This site appears to be as dis managed as certain other forums that I remember.

This administration not only split the world community, but also the American People. All the other damage done are small in comparison.

I think we gave Craven a headache.

I can sympathize. I have been appointed to lead a political party in Govt class. I am the liberal amid some pretty hardline conservative, 18 year olds. (Let me say not only are the gays not getting married per our Gay plank--but I'm just trying to get them safe passage through the US...) Anyway I'm writing an opposing opinion to attach...

The issues are so widely strewn, even among so-called "like-minded" people. They agree to legalize pot--but they (18 year olds) are very concerned about the moral message this sends to kids. I wish all of you could hear these kids talk. For those of you who may believe moral issues are faked to earn votes--there are really young people who are concerned about the country's "morality".

The young guys who comprise my group, though, did surprise me by falling in line with waiting periods, registries and the ban on assault weapons. I was further surprised at how they agonized over stem cell research.

Anywho-- Hope Craven gets the time and further interest to dazzle us with his ideas.

PS--
If nature's law (the survival of the fittest) is in place without human administration (anarchy), isn't that still the pinnacle of human freedom? No human administration? To submit to any human administration does require some loss of freedom, some conformity, correct?

I never understod all the fuss over stem cell research.



I'm not sure I understand, are you promoting social darwinism?



Yes, but keep in mind that government is not the only entity limiting freedom. It could be argued that kids raised in a country with mandatory state run education are more free to choose what to do with hteir lives than children raised in a country where only the welthy can afford education, even though they are forced first to attend school, and then to fund it by paying taxes. Many Laws enforced by police are intended to keep individuals from unjustly limit the freedom of others and could, despite limiting the individuals controll of spending by increasing taxes, be considered to increase individual freedom rather than decrease it.

Einherjar--

It horrifies some people that humans could be cloned for "parts". These kids really hated the idea and were adamantly opposed. They even discussed the social and moral implications of using stem cells from aborted fetuses, worried that abortion may become more prolific, due to an enhanced financial considerations of abortions, though after a rather emotion-laden discussion, they agreed to allow it in our platform, with the stipulation we enter a couple of lines about the sanctity of human life...

To be sure, I don't advocate social Darwinism. I was just forwarding my point that anarchy allows for the most personal freedom, as opposed to other forms of govt. And, big govt (liberal policies)reduces those freedoms moreso than limited govt. (conservative policies), generally speaking.

sofia, good comments on theory, can you also apply them to actualities in the US?

dys--

Oh, dang. Time for my thesis already!? I'm not qualified to address your question adequately.

Very generally, I guess the "free" end of Maslow's hierarchy sort of puts us back toward social Darwinism...?

<------------------------------------>
poor..............................wealthy
physiological needs.........no real needs
big govt...................limited govt

The part of our population that still has physiological needs (shelter, food, water) need the benefits of "big government" to supply their basic needs...?

Its sorta weird, because anarchy is thought to be leftist, but it winds up on the right, or small govt, side of the continuum... IMO

Disclaimer--I definitely don't want to screw with safety nets--and definitely don't see myself WAY to the right of the continuum. Just getting acquainted with the zero sum idea, and where I fit on it, and where the country/state should/does fit.

But, what are your ideas re application? I'd like to hear what you think.

Einherjar-- I did want to say I got your point. I had just set more limited parameters per my discussion than you did.

well, as a starting point, the zero-sum methodoly of analysis came into prominence during the 60's used by right wingers wanting to avoid civil rights legislation expressing the theory that giving additional rights (voting, etc) would in effect take away rights from the majority (whites). Yes anarchy is and always has been a rightist, or at least, on the right side of the political spectrum. The vast majority of political ideology be it left or right, springs from the philosophies of Plato and Aristotle and encompasses (for the past +3 centuries)virtually all of western civilization. This profound influence as been esentially un-challanged other than by a few (Henry Adams comes to mind)

another thought, Maslow was essentially, a behaviorist who developed ideas enhanced by B.F. Skinner which I tend to refer to as "rat-o-morphic" analysis.