|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Unposter
Joined: 04 Jun 2006
|
 Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2012 5:26 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
For what it is worth, corporatism, partisanship and short-term thinking are done, to the extent they are done, because the people we elect think they are good.
There is nothing inherent about such behaviors because of the American Constitution, the American system of democracy and the American system of political parties.
If people in general, and elected officials in general, change their minds about these behaviors/issues/policies they will change.
Government debt would be example. For a long time, U.S. politicians and even academics thought "controlable" government debt was a good thing. Today, there is somewhat general concensus it is bad, though some of that concensus got muddled by military spending and recessional spending started in the Bush administration and continued under the Obama administration.
Another example would be race relations as I have discussed earlier.
In both cases, change did not require changes to the Constitution (at least since Reconstruction), the American system of democracy or the American system of political parties.
Does that mean that no legislation is necessary? Hardly.
Does this mean we cannot influence other people's way of thinking? Absolutely not. In fact, I cannot think of anything more human. But, we do have to be careful about how we go about it.
Anyway, just because you don't like the way the parties opperate, don't expect politics to get better by just getting rid of political parties. It starts with changes in thought and certainly requires political participation.
As they say (used to say?) if you do not like the way a corporation opperates, start your own. (Personally, I think this should include economic choices and political lobbying). If you do not like the way the political parties opperate, participate and make changes.
But, I personally think that starting new political parties or campaigning to change the political system is a less effective (and potential moral hazzard) compared to working within the system. Just my opinion.
I suspect some of you connotate money with power. And to a certain extent it is true. But, I would not rule out people power. When people are upset, change happens. I just don't see people upset enough, yet. Though, obviously it is growing.
But, it also starts with changing your mind as well. You can live the right way even if the government is doing wrong. We still have that much freedom, at least in my humble opinion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
northway
Joined: 05 Jul 2010
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 7:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| He's on the Daily Show as we speak. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
comm
Joined: 22 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2012 12:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Unposter wrote: |
For what it is worth, corporatism, partisanship and short-term thinking are done, to the extent they are done, because the people we elect think they are good.
...
As they say (used to say?) if you do not like the way a corporation opperates, start your own. (Personally, I think this should include economic choices and political lobbying). If you do not like the way the political parties opperate, participate and make changes. |
Politicians almost have no choice but to play the corporatist, partisan, short-term game in order to keep their jobs. It's not that they think these things are good, it's that they have to do it to keep their jobs. Modern elections are dominated by the person with the best media machine. The technology and art of marketing has surpassed the average person's ability to chose the logically best option.
So, the politician who panders to corporations for cash will have the best media machine to pull in the masses who only have a passing interest. Similarly, a politician who is willing to dive into dangerous deficit spending can effectively promise government largess to his or her voters. Again, the majority of citizens don't have the time, interest, intelligence or a combination thereof to understand the best choice here.
It would be impractical and somewhat immoral to discourage the uninformed or unintelligent from voting... so the next best thing is to limit a politician's "knee-jerk" appeal. If you take away the sports-team atmosphere of two political parties, the uninformed would have to actually understand the issues in order to make a choice.
A great example of this is gun control. Republicans obsessively rant about how Obama's going to strip them of their second amendment right to bare arms... But Obama has never signed a piece of gun control legislation as President. In fact, the "assault weapons ban" expired under his watch AND he signed into law the ability for States to allow concealed weapons in Federal parks. If there were no D's or R's behind people's names, ridiculous fear mongering like that would make no sense. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Unposter
Joined: 04 Jun 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 07, 2012 5:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Comm,
There are few things I don't understand in your last comment and I hoped you could explain in some more detail.
For example, you seem to think that advertising techniques are too powerful and the people are to feebleminded to see through them.
If all that is true, how do you think dropping party affiliation will change that. Why would politicians not continue to use such techniques against their opponents, regardless if they are identified with a particular political party?
You also seem to think that the general electorate is too apathetic or too overwelmed to do proper research of their political candidates.
Why do you think that removing party affiliation at the ballot will suddenly increase their interest?
If they are really so apathetic and overwelmed, isn't it just as likely or even more likely that they will become even less interested.
And, I would argue even less informed. At least party affiliation provides some information. Without that, apathetic and overwelmed voters will have even less information from which to cast a vote.
I don't understand why you think (some? many? most?) politicians are against corporatism et all... It is just as easy to say that corporatism started first and politicians filled in the need of corporations second. Politicians may actually be doing these things because they do think they are good and they run for office to do these good deeds or are paid by corporations to do their good deeds regardless of party affiliation.
Minimumly, your accusation demonstrates that politicians seriously lack ethics. If politicians really believe in good governing than they would not do what they believe to be bad governing.
Now, your case of fear mongering by Republicans against Obama on gun control is an interesting one in that it is a prime example of the lack of ethics in politics. Blatantly disregarding truth in order to scare people people to believe lies for your personal benefit is a dispicable act. It is the act of a scoundrel (sp?) of the worst kind.
It is further proof that we need to start teaching more ethics and more understanding of good governance in our schools.
But again, it is people that are doing this, not the "political system." Chnage begins with changing people's minds not the system.
I think part of the problem is we let the market dictate our ethics. Whatever is economically efficient is okay. We need to teach people that the markets only work ethically if the participants in the markets act ethically. Then, we can have ethical outcomes.
Right now, Republican scare mongers are being rewarded for their unethical behavior. They have to think of collective interest and not just personal interest. The problem is for the last 20 years, we have taught people that there is no collective interest, there is only personal interest. And, this has been the result of those beliefs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Unposter
Joined: 04 Jun 2006
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 09, 2012 10:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I watched the Gary Johnson interview on the Daily Show. Mr. Johnson seems like a decent guy. But, what interested me the most was one of the questions which Jon Stewart asked but unfortunately Mr. Johnson avoided the question and changed the subject so I never heard an answer.
Stewart's question went something like: You are a successful and talented man and libertarianism would probably benefit someone like you. But, what about all the not so talented people? What does Libertianism offer them?
Stewart did not have a chance to finish his question but I thought he might have gone on to ask but people make dumb mistakes, maybe even more than good decisions, what does libertarianism do in these situations?
And, I would add: what about the mentally and physically disabled? What would a libertarian government do for such people? How about single mothers? What about poor people struggling to finance their education and/or health care? What does libertarianism offer these people?
It reminded me of the movie: Where the Buffallo Roam. Hunter Thompson tries to track down Richard Nixon to ask him one simple questio: What about the doomed? Finally, they meet in the White House bathroom and Hunter asks his question to which Nixon replies: Fck the doomed! I just love that.
Anyway, libertarians, how would you have responded to these questions? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
comm
Joined: 22 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 09, 2012 11:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Unposter wrote: |
| Right now, Republican scare mongers are being rewarded for their unethical behavior. They have to think of collective interest and not just personal interest. The problem is for the last 20 years, we have taught people that there is no collective interest, there is only personal interest. And, this has been the result of those beliefs. |
And yet, even (perhaps especially) in societies which promote "collective interest" there is a high degree of corruption and lack of ethics for the sake of personal interest. Power corrupts regardless of "what people are taught", and the only way to constrain the power-corrupted is through a resilient system which restricts that power.
| Unposter wrote: |
| Anyway, libertarians, how would you have responded to these questions? |
I think that the best answers to those questions aren't going to be the same for 300 million people. So a libertarian central government would be well complimented by more involved State governments to conduct programs such as public healthcare and worker assistance.
I think that's a great thing that the U.S. has lost over the years; the ability of States to experiment with different ideas independently. California could create it's own drug laws without Federal interference, Massachusetts could run a public-option healthcare system without worrying about Federal guidelines, Texas could regulate abortion as they see fit, etc. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 10, 2012 11:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Unposter wrote: |
Stewart's question went something like: You are a successful and talented man and libertarianism would probably benefit someone like you. But, what about all the not so talented people? What does Libertianism offer them?
|
Freedom from private capture of gov't, as the Federal power is reduced to its rightful enumerated powers. The end of the current wars, including the disastrous and futile war on drugs, as well as avoiding new wars.
Social Security and Medicare won't go away, although likely they will be preserved through modest cuts and reforms.
More enlightened immigration policies, which will attract skilled workers rather than push them away.
| Quote: |
| And, I would add: what about the mentally and physically disabled? What would a libertarian government do for such people? How about single mothers? What about poor people struggling to finance their education and/or health care? What does libertarianism offer these people? |
A solvent gov't, which can afford the necessary discretionary spending on Food Stamps and the EITC. Remember, the Libertarian Party, unlike the Democrats or Republicans, are willing to meaningfully cut wasteful, and even some productive, military spending. A Gary Johnson Presidency would put a real and proven advocate of fiscal discipline in the White House at a time we need it most.
In addition, Libertarians would work to end the poverty trap.
| Greg Mankiw wrote: |
| As earned income rises from about $15,000 to $30,000, income after taxes and transfers is roughly flat. Indeed, it could even fall. The bottom line: If you are poor, the government is inadvertently ensuring that you have little incentive to try to improve your condition. |
A Libertarian President would try to narrow the scope of the office of the President. The Presidency has too much responsibility.
| Quote: |
| Among a handful of presidential historians NEWSWEEK contacted for this story, there was a general consensus that the modern presidency may have become too bloated. �The growth is exponential in these last 50 years, especially the number of things that are expected of the president,� says presidential biographer Doris Kearns Goodwin, who had dinner with Obama and a handful of other historians last summer. Obama aides speaking on background say that the president�s inner circle can become stretched by the constant number of things labeled �crises� that land on his desk�many of which, like the mistaken firing of Department of Agriculture employee Shirley Sherrod in Georgia or the intricacies of the oil cleanup in the gulf, could easily be handled by lower-level staff. �Some days around here, it can almost be hard to breathe,� says one White House official who didn�t want to go on the record portraying his boss as overwhelmed. Another senior adviser says that sometimes the only way to bring the president important news is to stake out his office and �walk and talk� through the hall. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Unposter
Joined: 04 Jun 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 10, 2012 5:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Kuros,
That was an interesting and thought provoking response. I will think about that.
Though, I am curious why you think social security and medicare will continue (Something I hope, as well) and in what capacity do you think it will change.
Do you think there will be a flater income tax or still a progressive income tax? Today, 50% of income earners do not pay any Federal income tax. Do you think that will continue or will low income earners be forced to pay income tax to pay for flatter taxes for the wealthy?
Are you at all worried about military coup if military spending is significantly reduced? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Unposter
Joined: 04 Jun 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 10, 2012 6:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Comm,
No doubt corruption will continue. But, I think our tolerance of corruption has become too great.
We all learn about the dangers of temptation in religion and occasionally in philosophy. We know that it has a strong allure. But, we are still required to be strong and brave and face up to our temptations.
The problem is today fewer are doing this. Of course, there were plenty of people in the past who gave into their temptations. And, small temptations may be worth the damage they cause such as an occasional dessert or drink.
But, we have abandoned morality and ethics for the most part. All we care about are results. And, we do not care how those results are derived at. It is okay to lie if it means we can get re-elected as in your example. It is okay if we sell blind derivitives we know will lose money because it is better someone else lose money than ourselves.
I think we have loosened the rules too much in our drive to glorify risk and in our hope for innovation and in return we tolerate too much corruption and too much economic failure. We need to find a much better middle ground where we can cultivate innovation without risking too much.
The system requires everyone's efforts. We need construction workers, teachers, policeman and commodity traders. The problem is we are giving all the rewards to the commodity traders and little to everyone else. Our government focuses too much on the stars of the system and too little on the grunts of the system. We need to find a better balance.
And, I think it begins with toning down the competition between political parties and focusing more on our common itnerests.
As for more state based solutions, I think for the most part that is how things work. Texas and other states may restrict abortion as they see fit as long as it is not totally outlawed. Massachussetts can have a state health insurance system. I know Illionois has one too. And, while the federal government has been interfering with California medical marijuana laws, much of that has been on a President by President basis and certainly the Federal government did not stop California and other states from putting such iniatives on the ballot. Now, the Governor of NY wants to decriminalize up to an ounce of marijuana. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
comm
Joined: 22 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 10, 2012 11:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Unposter wrote: |
I think we have loosened the rules too much in our drive to glorify risk and in our hope for innovation and in return we tolerate too much corruption and too much economic failure.
...
And, I think it begins with toning down the competition between political parties and focusing more on our common interests. |
"Loose rules" is exactly what I want to correct with our political system. Personally, I think it would be great if politicians had to take a vow of poverty in order to serve as Federal politicians. Anything we can do to de-incentivize corruption is a good thing.
| Unposter wrote: |
As for more state based solutions, I think for the most part that is how things work. |
In some cases, yes. However, the Federal government takes on MANY expensive obligations that could be left to the States. That would include all entitlements, the Department of Education, HUD, etc. There's no reason the Federal government should tax all citizens to impose these institutions on all Americans. Such programs should be proposed, implemented and paid for State-by-State. Doing it that way would bring the decision maker closer to the taxpayer (thereby making it a more moral way of governing) and help diffuse that ever-corrupting power we've been talking about. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 15, 2012 9:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
Endorsements for Gary Johnson:
| Quote: |
| The ACLU Liberty Watch Candidate Report Card lists Gov. Johnson as their civil liberties valedictorian. National Review Online anointed him �best job creator� among all presidential candidates, and Johnson has earned endorsements from renowned economists like Jeff Miron and Lynne Kiesling. Prominent constitutional and legal scholars Ilya Somin and Sasha Volokh of the popular legal blog The Volokh Conspiracy also offered their endorsements to Johnson. Even former Gov. Jesse Ventura (I-MN) and comedian/magician Penn Jillette recently hopped on the endorsement wagon. |
Be Libertarian with me...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=2X3QRSIXgns |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Titus
Joined: 19 May 2012
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2012 10:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| Titus wrote: |
| ontheway wrote: |
It's time to free America's Political Prisoners:
1/6 people in prison are there for marijuana.
750,000 people in prison for victimless crimes. |
He's weak. Even if by some act of God he became POTUS the various lobbies would grind him up. Only a very strong leader will be able to end things like the drug war or the empire. Liberal democracy is mobs of drooling masses passionately voting to support the system imposed on them by the elite. The only way to meaningfully change the system is to change the elite. Libertarians aren't psychologically there yet. Beltway libertarians like Johnson would only make things worse. |
Not a sentence you typed is true, so I'll focus on the last. Gary Johnson was governor of New Mexico. He's never served in Washington, either in Federal government or as a lobbyist there. |
What I wrote is entirely correct.
In the United States exists different types of libertarianism. There's the Ron Paul constitutionalist type. There's an anti-government branch that is mostly in the western states. We have social libertarians, conservative libertarians, nationalist libertarians, anarchist libertarians. The word is essentially meaningless given the ideological diversity (Bill Maher and Lew Rockwell have nothing in common, yet both identify as libertarians). Gary Johnson is a beltway libertarian. The beltway libertarians are ideologically centered around CATO and similar organizations. The beltway libertarians are the lest dangerous libertarians to the establishment. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 21, 2012 10:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Titus wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| Titus wrote: |
| ontheway wrote: |
It's time to free America's Political Prisoners:
1/6 people in prison are there for marijuana.
750,000 people in prison for victimless crimes. |
He's weak. Even if by some act of God he became POTUS the various lobbies would grind him up. Only a very strong leader will be able to end things like the drug war or the empire. Liberal democracy is mobs of drooling masses passionately voting to support the system imposed on them by the elite. The only way to meaningfully change the system is to change the elite. Libertarians aren't psychologically there yet. Beltway libertarians like Johnson would only make things worse. |
Not a sentence you typed is true, so I'll focus on the last. Gary Johnson was governor of New Mexico. He's never served in Washington, either in Federal government or as a lobbyist there. |
What I wrote is entirely correct.
In the United States exists different types of libertarianism. There's the Ron Paul constitutionalist type. There's an anti-government branch that is mostly in the western states. We have social libertarians, conservative libertarians, nationalist libertarians, anarchist libertarians. The word is essentially meaningless given the ideological diversity (Bill Maher and Lew Rockwell have nothing in common, yet both identify as libertarians). Gary Johnson is a beltway libertarian. The beltway libertarians are ideologically centered around CATO and similar organizations. The beltway libertarians are the lest dangerous libertarians to the establishment. |
He's a beltway libertarian? That would imply he's strictly about theory and policy (ie an academic) or a lobbyist. Obviously he doesn't fit that description since he was a successful two-term governor.
I really don't know why he didn't gain traction when trying to get the GOP nomination, but thanks to deciding to run as the Libertarian candidate, I don't think he'll have any type of political future... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
