What political inclination would you describe yourself as?

[Char. Limit]

I was "branding" your stated belief as a core tenet of communism and socialism, since a core tenet of both is the belief that government should control/manage/regulate the economy. And use force to prevent "non-compliant" private enterprise.

Of course there are different degrees, and full communism is at the extreme, but every "label" has different degrees.

I have asked several times before on this board for an alternate "label" that would be unobjectionable but accurately describe that belief system.

How about "economically anti-libertarian"?

How about "fiscally progressive"?

Your wish to be "unobjectionable" sickens me, you PC Police Chief.

Sorry about the insult, but that's how American politics seem to work nowadays. Just look at McCain calling Obama a radical Nazi Muslim Kenyan terrorist (and the Republicans are still calling him each of these things)

 

[Al68]

How about "fiscally progressive"?

Your wish to be "unobjectionable" sickens me, you PC Police Chief.

LOL. I see you don't have that problem.

But I don't think "fiscally progressive" is specific enough to mean anything, or could mean multiple things.

Given the progress made on economic freedom post-Enlightenment (pioneered by the U.S.) I'd call more restrictions on that freedom setbacks, not progress.

 

[Char. Limit]

Thats true, maybe...

 

[BobG]

I never said that liberals didn't not believe that the reason they want publicly funded is because they believe that it would benefit the economy as a whole. That might be a reason for their support of universal healthcare . But from my experience, when looking at liberals blogs, articles written by liberals on liberal websites, some of the reasons you mentioned for publicly funded healthcare I don't often hear why there should be universal healthcare. The reasons I often hear/read are 'that the federal government should assist the poor', or 'that the free market should have complete hands off the service of providing healthcare because health is a crucial part of life ' and 'you should not make a profit off of someone's health'. Rarely do I ever hear/read from liberal blogs/articles that we should have universal health care because it benefits the economy when its in a recession.

I never gave any economic reasons for publicly funded health care (just education). There are some for the average American, but only because we're not going to deny health care just because people can't pay for it (limit it, maybe, but it's hard to let people actually die on the street). In other words, once people have already made the decision that health care is a universal right, you have to figure out the most cost effective way to provide it. But, the tail wags the dog and the economic benefits aren't the root reason for providing health care.

I said it was likely that some people could give you reasons why universal health care was an investment, not an entitlement - not that I would. (And I do think a reason unrelated to the entitlement aspect would be interesting to hear.)

On the other hand, if improving people's health is a right the government should provide, then inept handling of the economy means the government is doing its job well - Is the recession good for your health? That last is added a bit tongue in cheek since it's always dangerous to assume two phenomena must be related just because their cycles mirror each other.

 

[WhoWee]

How about "fiscally progressive"?

Your wish to be "unobjectionable" sickens me, you PC Police Chief.

Sorry about the insult, but that's how American politics seem to work nowadays. Just look at McCain calling Obama a radical Nazi Muslim Kenyan terrorist (and the Republicans are still calling him each of these things)

Can you elaborate (and maybe support)?

 

[mheslep]

In other words, once people have already made the decision that health care is a universal right, you have to figure out the most cost effective way to provide it.

I think that idea (a common one) is self-contradictory. If the thing is truly a fundamental right then cost can not be a basis for it.

 

[Char. Limit]

Can you elaborate (and maybe support)?

I assume you mean my second statement, so I'll go from there if you don't mind.

McCain has personally named Obama a radical via guilt by association with Bill Ayers, repeatedly.

As for Nazi, I've seen enough Tea Party signage showing Obama with a Hitler 'stashe or something else relating him to Nazism to fill the Empire State Building with.

Muslim is so obvious as to not need clarification.

There are still conservatives claiming that Obama wasn't born in America, that he is a Kenyan. I can't believe these "Birthers".

Terrorist was just something I threw in there, it seemed pretty likely.

Sorry I have no links, but I'm on an iPod.

 

[mheslep]

I assume you mean my second statement, so I'll go from there if you don't mind.

McCain has personally named Obama a radical via guilt by association with Bill Ayers, repeatedly.

As for Nazi, I've seen enough Tea Party signage showing Obama with a Hitler 'stashe or something else relating him to Nazism to fill the Empire State Building with.

Muslim is so obvious as to not need clarification.

There are still conservatives claiming that Obama wasn't born in America, that he is a Kenyan. I can't believe these "Birthers".

Terrorist was just something I threw in there, it seemed pretty likely.

Sorry I have no links, but I'm on an iPod.

Then why not edit your earlier post and remove the part where you attribute ALL of this to Senator McCain?

 

[Char. Limit]

Simple.

At a previous forum, the rule was that you only edited your post if no one posted since then. This has become my personal rule. I don't erase my mistakes.

You are right: I was wrong to attribute this all to the good Senator. Senator McCain is only responsible for two-fifths of the accusations, unless he's called Obama a terrorist at some point.

McCain did call Obama a Muslim at some point, right?

 

[mheslep]

McCain did call Obama a Muslim at some point, right?

Wrong.

 

[Char. Limit]

Dang...
Why am I so certain that I've heard McCain call Obama a Muslim?

At least I'm 161.8% sure that McCain implied rather strongly of Obama's radicalism via Bill Ayers. That much I'm sure of.

 

[jacksonwalter]

Actually, I could almost be a Libertarian. I just couldn't vote for one. They have a strict criteria of only allowing slightly off kilter characters to run for office.

Rand Paul doesn't seem too off kilter (granted he's technically running as a Republican, I think he can safely be viewed as a Libertarian).

 

[BobG]

In other words, once people have already made the decision that health care is a universal right, you have to figure out the most cost effective way to provide it.

I think that idea (a common one) is self-contradictory. If the thing is truly a fundamental right then cost can not be a basis for it.

It's an absolute necessity that I need food to survive. In fact, I need to go grocery shopping today. Still, even though it's a necessity, I plan to go shopping at the commissary on base, where I'll save around 30% compared to the grocery store less than a mile from my house.

And the savings on Bertolli's is more like 40% to 50% (prices vary because of specials, etc). Bertolli's obviously isn't a necessity, but it's so much better than the meals I can cook for myself in less than half an hour.

Cost can be a basis for decisions about how you fulfill needs. Other qualitative factors can also be a basis for decisions about how you fulfill needs. The need is food - there's a lot of options on how to fulfill that need.

Same for health care, even if it's decided that it's a fundamental right and has to be provided in some form or another. You still have to weigh cost and quality when deciding how to provide the health care.

It's the options, having more than one way to fulfill a need, that make you wrong. Your statement is only correct for some essential item that can only be obtained one way (which is why people don't like monopolies).

 

[mheslep]

It's an absolute necessity that I need food to survive. In fact, I need to go grocery shopping today. Still, even though it's a necessity, I plan to go shopping at the commissary on base, where I'll save around 30% compared to the grocery store less than a mile from my house.

And the savings on Bertolli's is more like 40% to 50% (prices vary because of specials, etc). Bertolli's obviously isn't a necessity, but it's so much better than the meals I can cook for myself in less than half an hour.

Cost can be a basis for decisions about how you fulfill needs. Other qualitative factors can also be a basis for decisions about how you fulfill needs. The need is food - there's a lot of options on how to fulfill that need.

Same for health care,

Yes, and for housing, clothing, any number of things. I assert that we don't have fundamental rights to any of them, as I understand the meaning.

even if it's decided that it's a fundamental right and has to be provided in some form or another.

My point is that a fundamental right can not be something that is provided by another. If so, it can (and will ) be taken away, hence the contradiction. This is not to say that there's anything wrong, per se, with a system that sets out to provide as many as possible with health care, but if that system comes into being with the assertion that health care is a fundamental right, versus a 'good' or an obligation, then it has built in self-contradictions and is hindered in making decisions. E.g. what lifetime caps should be spent on a single person? $1 million? $10m? $1B? If the thing is a fundamental right, it can not be denied at any cost. Person X's fundamental right is no less than person Y's, and so on.

 

[Char. Limit]

Health care is a prickly issue, that much is obvious. Would religion or abortion be a less... Heated argument, I wonder?

Just a joke, don't want to start THOSE arguments.

 

[Andromache]

I guess I'm liberal-libertarian or liberal-moderate. Somewhere in between. Socially very liberal, anyway.

 

[Nebula815]

Anything that takes someone else to provide it cannot be a right, because then that means you must infringe on the rights and freedoms of those who provide that good or service.

For example, you have a right to go out and have sex with whomever you want, right? But are you entitled to sex from people? Are men entitled to sex from women? Or women from men?

Does the Second Amendment mean we need a federal program to provide people with weapons?

Rights are abstract things. You have a right to freedom of speech, that doesn't mean government must provide you with a podium. You have a right to freedom of religion, that doesn't mean government must provide you a place of worship. You have a right to bare arms, but that doesn't mean government must provide you with arms.

And so forth.

Rand Paul doesn't seem too off kilter (granted he's technically running as a Republican, I think he can safely be viewed as a Libertarian).

Ron Paul has a history of being tied into conspiracy theories and also his campaign took money from a white supremacist organization, Stormfront. There is a picture somewhere on the Internet of him with the founder of Stormfront.

Paul likes to present himself as just a plain-spoken Texan who is against big-government and for a more isolationist foreign policy, but he is a lot more radical than that, at least from what I can tell, if you start looking into his background.

 

[Al68]

Anything that takes someone else to provide it cannot be a right, because then that means you must infringe on the rights and freedoms of those who provide that good or service.

For example, you have a right to go out and have sex with whomever you want, right? But are you entitled to sex from people? Are men entitled to sex from women? Or women from men?

Does the Second Amendment mean we need a federal program to provide people with weapons?

Rights are abstract things. You have a right to freedom of speech, that doesn't mean government must provide you with a podium. You have a right to freedom of religion, that doesn't mean government must provide you a place of worship. You have a right to bare arms, but that doesn't mean government must provide you with arms.

I think the main confusion here is the current habit of using the word "right" to mean entitlement. An entitlement, as implied by the word's root, is the result of a contract or agreement between people. It's just a different concept than "rights", and although I never used the words interchangeably, many do, which just adds to the confusion.

I especially find it frustrating when people ask if one believes health care, for example, is a right. Of course it's a right, but that by no means suggests that any entitlement exists.

Like you say, no one is going to court demanding free guns because the second amendment guarantees the right. As with all rights guaranteed by the constitution, there is no implied entitlement whatsoever. And the U.S. founders didn't use the words interchangeably.

 

[Char. Limit]

I want free guns!

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Dang...
Why am I so certain that I've heard McCain call Obama a Muslim?

At least I'm 161.8% sure that McCain implied rather strongly of Obama's radicalism via Bill Ayers. That much I'm sure of.

I distinctly remember Obama stating that McCain had never made any comments about him being a muslim. I remember because Rush and the like were cranking it up as a gaffe. He said, paraphrasing... "he hasn't brought up my muslim heritage". It was rather obvious he meant "supposed muslim heritage", you could practically hear the finger quotes, but they made it sound as if he slipped up and admitted to being muslim.

Anyway, as far as I know and according to Obama, at that time, McCain never jumped on that bandwagon.

 

[Char. Limit]

Thanks for the explanation, Statu.

I am right on the Bill Ayers thing, right?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Thanks for the explanation, Statu.

I am right on the Bill Ayers thing, right?

I am pretty sure I remember McCain bringing up Bill Ayers. I mostly listened to commentary and not so much actual interviews.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...d=1&ved=0CAUQBSgA&q=mccain+bill+ayers&spell=1
A quick google seems to confirm that McCain came down hard on the Ayers connection.

 

[Char. Limit]

Thank God I'm right at something, at least.

 

[Nebula815]

McCain went after Obama on Ayes, he wouldn't touch the Reverand Wright issue. As for him declaring Obama a Muslim, a woman asked McCain specifically if he thought Obama a Muslim, he said no and that he thought Obama was a good man.

 

[Char. Limit]

McCain went after Obama on Ayes, he wouldn't touch the Reverand Wright issue. As for him declaring Obama a Muslim, a woman asked McCain specifically if he thought Obama a Muslim, he said no and that he thought Obama was a good man.

Wait, what?

Why would being a Muslim impede Obama's ability to be a good man?

 

[Nebula815]

In and of itself it wouldn't, but in conjunction with some of the other people in his background, if Obama was a Muslim, it probably would have raised some questions. Also I think McCain just was sort of "on-the-spot" with that question and just threw that in.

 

[jacksonwalter]

Ron Paul has a history of being tied into conspiracy theories and also his campaign took money from a white supremacist organization, Stormfront. There is a picture somewhere on the Internet of him with the founder of Stormfront.

Paul likes to present himself as just a plain-spoken Texan who is against big-government and for a more isolationist foreign policy, but he is a lot more radical than that, at least from what I can tell, if you start looking into his background.

Unfortunately, he does tend to go along with conspiracy theories a little more than I'm comfortable with in the background (he believes in the NAU), though I've never heard him support those claims outright outright while he's campaigning. Actually, he takes a formal position http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v60TWZNVgtk" multiple times. I think Don Black showed up to one of his campaign events and had a picture taken with him, which I can't really see how Mr. Paul could have avoided unless he knew what the guy looked like before he came, etc. The main reason for not returning the money was his staunch belief that you don't necessarily support every viewpoint from every supporter that gives you money over the internet. If you looked into every donation to the Obama campaign, I'd be completely surprised if you didn't find the occasional extremist liberal. Anyways, Ron Paul doesn't come off as crazy as most libertarians, and his son Rand even less so.

 

[Nuno Amiar]

Humanist.

 

[zakbrown0308]

What about independent?

Independent separates you from the demarcation of a "party." But if you can't even say where on the political spectrum you fall, then you just don't have an opinion.

 

[Char. Limit]

Actually, if you are independent, you still have opinions. They just don't fall into place on a party line.

Also, haven't you been looking at Massachusetts? There were three times as many Democrats as Republicans, but Independents outnumbered them both, and Independents were responsible for the Republican victory.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Actually, if you are independent, you still have opinions. They just don't fall into place on a party line.

Also, haven't you been looking at Massachusetts? There were three times as many Democrats as Republicans, but Independents outnumbered them both, and Independents were responsible for the Republican victory.

"Independent" does not describe any sort of political philosophy/inclination other than, perhaps, an aversion to party politics. For the question in your OP it is not a very useful descriptor.

 

[Char. Limit]

That's true.

I just wanted to defend the idea that Independents have opinions and power.

 

[Nuno Amiar]

That's true.

I just wanted to defend the idea that Independents have opinions and power.

Isn't independence an assumption when talking about political views? In other words, how do you define politically dependent.

 

[aquitaine]

I would best describe myself as an outcast.

 

[mikhailpavel]

Personally i support neo marxist theory...