ChiefsPlanet

ChiefsPlanet (https://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/index.php)
-   Washington DC and The Holy Land (https://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/forumdisplay.php?f=30)
-   -   General Politics My Liberalism (https://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=315462)

Direckshun 05-20-2018 03:08 PM

My Liberalism
 
I believe in the free market as the engine of a progressive society. A government that owns the means of production rather than allowing it to flourish and regulate it when necessary is a government that strangles innovation and therefore can uphold progression in our quality of life.

As such, I am a free market capitalist. My goal is to make life for everyone in society as promising as possible, and you squander that with any other economic model.

However capitalism is a competition, and it carries with it, for all its benefits, one indisputable downside: there will be some that do extremely well for themselves, most of us will do pretty well to well, and there will be some folks at the bottom of the economic ladder who do very poorly. You could put the fire of god into every working-age adult, but it won't matter, at the end of the day, not everybody can "win." A fair percentage will struggle, and I don't see any way that the free market can rectify that on its own.

As a result, I believe a social safety net is necessary for those who fall through the cracks of our capitalist society. Food stamps for those who are hungry. Section D housing for those that qualify. Unemployment for those looking for work. Medicaid for the poor. Medicare/social security for the elderly. Disability for those that cannot work. And there are other aspects to the net that I think should be added but for now that's a fair start.

The people who need and deserve this support cannot pay for it on its own, so I am a supporter of economic redistribution to support those in the social safety net. I believe it is humane as well as beneficial: for every dollar you put into food stamps, something like four dollars ends up getting pumped into the economy.

The government does have a regulatory role in economics, as well. Keep in mind, the goal is to make society a progressively better place for everyone at all economic levels. So while companies should remain privately owned and operated with maximum freedom of choice and contract, the government should ensure they are not gouging customers. The government should ensure that they are not producing products that risks our lives. The government should ensure that we are not globally altering the planet's climate at our peril. The government should ensure that companies pay their workers a living wage, that minorities' rights are protected, that women can take time off after giving birth. That contracts are honored. That employees are not fired and have their lives upended indiscriminately. That employees can band together if they wish and collectively debate their employers for what they consider fair treatment/compensation.

To my mind, that's the precarious, imperfect balance that liberalism strives for. Balancing the freedom of a progressive society while also managing the worst impulses of capitalism that has little incentive to care about the disadvantaged and tends to consolidate power in the hands of very few.

This is, I think, the "cocktail napkin" description of mainstream American liberalism. And I think that's a lot more reasonable that many in the conservative movement give it credit for.

Scooter LaCanforno 05-20-2018 03:11 PM

So.....You're a Commie.

Direckshun 05-20-2018 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scooter LaCanforno (Post 13563244)
So.....You're a Commie.

Communism is when the government owns the means to production, and basically operates a government-run economy that is intended to provide for all sectors of society fully but instead just ends up raping the population for its own gain.

I think there's a very strong difference between that and capitalism, which is what I described in the OP.

BucEyedPea 05-20-2018 03:13 PM

You, Direckshun, are no liberal. You're socialist—the indirect kind otherwise known as economic fascism and/or corporatism.

BucEyedPea 05-20-2018 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Direckshun (Post 13563246)
Communism is when the government owns the means to production, and basically operates a government-run economy that is intended to provide for all sectors of society fully but instead just ends up raping the population for its own gain.

I think there's a very strong difference between that and capitalism, which is what I described in the OP.

Define the "means of production." If you don't include "you and I" or all the "people", then you haven't got that term down fully. It's not just machinery and structures of business. Then define ownership—what is its nature for something to be truly owned.

Communism is the last phase of socialism where there is no government. Since there's no govt how can it own anything? This has never come about. The Soviet Union officially the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. It was implement via violent revolution called Marxism-Leninism.

Socialism is communism with a fist, because it's the dictatorship phase.

Name all the different kinds of socialism. That would help. But the key words are knowing what ownership means and what the means-of-production includes. This is where the left uses verbal sleight of hand to fool you. Don't be fooled.

GloucesterChief 05-20-2018 03:17 PM

Of the things that you listed that the government should do in regulating business only one of them is something the government actually should do: being the arbiter when contracts are in dispute.

Hoopsdoc 05-20-2018 03:18 PM

There will always be poor people. Not even Pol Pot and his collective farms and mass deportations to the countryside eradicated poverty.

Direckshun 05-20-2018 03:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GloucesterChief (Post 13563252)
Of the things that you listed that the government should do in regulating business only one of them is something the government actually should do: being the arbiter when contracts are in dispute.

I would disagree.

Direckshun 05-20-2018 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hoopsdoc (Post 13563254)
There will always be poor people. Not even Pol Pot and his collective farms and mass deportations to the countryside eradicated poverty.

I think poverty is a lot less cemented than you may think, but even admitting that we can't end it overnight, there are a lot of basic, foundational things that would alleviate a ton of hardship and provide more opportunity for those below the poverty line.

Raiderhader 05-20-2018 03:35 PM

We already have this so called social safety net in place and we still have people in poverty. Why you think it would work when it clearly already isn't, is a mystery to me.

Direckshun 05-20-2018 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raiderhader (Post 13563277)
We already have this so called social safety net in place and we still have people in poverty. Why you think it would work when it clearly already isn't, is a mystery to me.

So, what exactly are you arguing here?

That the social safety net is fine as is? I would disagree.

vailpass 05-20-2018 03:50 PM

No1curr

Raiderhader 05-20-2018 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Direckshun (Post 13563303)
So, what exactly are you arguing here?

That the social safety net is fine as is? I would disagree.

I am arguing that it does not work, has never worked and will never work.

Direckshun 05-20-2018 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raiderhader (Post 13563311)
I am arguing that it does not work, has never worked and will never work.

...doesn’t work at what, exactly?

Raiderhader 05-20-2018 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Direckshun (Post 13563342)
...doesn’t work at what, exactly?

It's your thread, how do not know what is being discussed?

It does not work at helping people.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:06 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.