Would you be willing to contradict your political ideology

[LockeJaw]

I am a staunch supporter of Austrian economics, I hate the idea of the fed, like most libertarians. But I realize the majority of voters would freak out at this point in time & some people, particularly the poor would be hurt, some may even die, if this country decided today to adopt Austrian school economic theory in full right this moment today. I'd be willing to be pragmatic and find a way to ween the country off of it's Keynesianism and welfare statism in order to make the transition less hurtful to those who would be harmed by cutting food stamps and other welfare programs. Probably would be hard to do, but Id atleast try.

So my question is would any of you all be willing to compromise and be attacked as a sell out by your fellow travellers in order to make things less combative & transitions run smoother? I'm not talking about just economic policies but any and everything.

Look forward to the responses. Thanks in advance.

Locke

 

[Samson]

I am a staunch supporter of Austrian economics, I hate the idea of the fed, like most libertarians. But I realize the majority of voters would freak out at this point in time & some people, particularly the poor would be hurt, some may even die, if this country decided today to adopt Austrian school economic theory in full right this moment today. I'd be willing to be pragmatic and find a way to ween the country off of it's Keynesianism and welfare statism in order to make the transition less hurtful to those who would be harmed by cutting food stamps and other welfare programs. Probably would be hard to do, but Id atleast try.

So my question is would any of you all be willing to compromise and be attacked as a sell out by your fellow travellers in order to make things less combative & transitions run smoother? I'm not talking about just economic policies but any and everything.

Look forward to the responses. Thanks in advance.

Locke

How would agreeing to be attacked make things less combative?

 

[LockeJaw]

Taking Verbal snipes from zealots within your own movement once elected is different than getting it from your opposition. I meant to say making things less combative with the opposition movement.

I am a staunch supporter of Austrian economics, I hate the idea of the fed, like most libertarians. But I realize the majority of voters would freak out at this point in time & some people, particularly the poor would be hurt, some may even die, if this country decided today to adopt Austrian school economic theory in full right this moment today. I'd be willing to be pragmatic and find a way to ween the country off of it's Keynesianism and welfare statism in order to make the transition less hurtful to those who would be harmed by cutting food stamps and other welfare programs. Probably would be hard to do, but Id atleast try.

So my question is would any of you all be willing to compromise and be attacked as a sell out by your fellow travellers in order to make things less combative & transitions run smoother? I'm not talking about just economic policies but any and everything.

Look forward to the responses. Thanks in advance.

Locke

How would agreeing to be attacked make things less combative?

 

[Samson]

Taking Verbal snipes from zealots within your own movement once elected is different than getting it from your opposition. I meant to say making things less combative with the opposition movement.

I am a staunch supporter of Austrian economics, I hate the idea of the fed, like most libertarians. But I realize the majority of voters would freak out at this point in time & some people, particularly the poor would be hurt, some may even die, if this country decided today to adopt Austrian school economic theory in full right this moment today. I'd be willing to be pragmatic and find a way to ween the country off of it's Keynesianism and welfare statism in order to make the transition less hurtful to those who would be harmed by cutting food stamps and other welfare programs. Probably would be hard to do, but Id atleast try.

So my question is would any of you all be willing to compromise and be attacked as a sell out by your fellow travellers in order to make things less combative & transitions run smoother? I'm not talking about just economic policies but any and everything.

Look forward to the responses. Thanks in advance.

Locke

How would agreeing to be attacked make things less combative?

So let's review:

A. You want me to volunteer to be attacked.

B. But only by people that agree with me.

C. This will make opposition less combative.

Do I have this down correctly?

 

[Derideo_Te]

I am a staunch supporter of Austrian economics, I hate the idea of the fed, like most libertarians. But I realize the majority of voters would freak out at this point in time & some people, particularly the poor would be hurt, some may even die, if this country decided today to adopt Austrian school economic theory in full right this moment today. I'd be willing to be pragmatic and find a way to ween the country off of it's Keynesianism and welfare statism in order to make the transition less hurtful to those who would be harmed by cutting food stamps and other welfare programs. Probably would be hard to do, but Id atleast try.

So my question is would any of you all be willing to compromise and be attacked as a sell out by your fellow travellers in order to make things less combative & transitions run smoother? I'm not talking about just economic policies but any and everything.

Look forward to the responses. Thanks in advance.

Locke

Ever heard of the term compromise?

It means neither side gets everything it wants and there will always be people who accuse their own representatives of being "sell outs" because they were willing to compromise.

So what you are proposing is just good old fashioned compromising. Used to work really well in the past. At least it did before the same folks who demanded "free stuff" in the form of tax cuts for themselves are now demanding that no one else should have any "free stuff" in the form of healthcare and social security.

 

[DriftingSand]

I am a staunch supporter of Austrian economics, I hate the idea of the fed, like most libertarians. But I realize the majority of voters would freak out at this point in time & some people, particularly the poor would be hurt, some may even die, if this country decided today to adopt Austrian school economic theory in full right this moment today. I'd be willing to be pragmatic and find a way to ween the country off of it's Keynesianism and welfare statism in order to make the transition less hurtful to those who would be harmed by cutting food stamps and other welfare programs. Probably would be hard to do, but Id atleast try.

So my question is would any of you all be willing to compromise and be attacked as a sell out by your fellow travellers in order to make things less combative & transitions run smoother? I'm not talking about just economic policies but any and everything.

Look forward to the responses. Thanks in advance.

Locke

I can generally stay the course where my political ideology is concerned but there are times where I can see where I might compromise if a particular ideal seems to contradict the norm. In fact, I was listing to Ralph Nader the other night and he actually made some sense. I was watching Bill O'Reilly.

 

[Samson]

I am a staunch supporter of Austrian economics, I hate the idea of the fed, like most libertarians. But I realize the majority of voters would freak out at this point in time & some people, particularly the poor would be hurt, some may even die, if this country decided today to adopt Austrian school economic theory in full right this moment today. I'd be willing to be pragmatic and find a way to ween the country off of it's Keynesianism and welfare statism in order to make the transition less hurtful to those who would be harmed by cutting food stamps and other welfare programs. Probably would be hard to do, but Id atleast try.

So my question is would any of you all be willing to compromise and be attacked as a sell out by your fellow travellers in order to make things less combative & transitions run smoother? I'm not talking about just economic policies but any and everything.

Look forward to the responses. Thanks in advance.

Locke

Ever heard of the term compromise?

Here?

On USMB?



no.

 

[Derideo_Te]

I am a staunch supporter of Austrian economics, I hate the idea of the fed, like most libertarians. But I realize the majority of voters would freak out at this point in time & some people, particularly the poor would be hurt, some may even die, if this country decided today to adopt Austrian school economic theory in full right this moment today. I'd be willing to be pragmatic and find a way to ween the country off of it's Keynesianism and welfare statism in order to make the transition less hurtful to those who would be harmed by cutting food stamps and other welfare programs. Probably would be hard to do, but Id atleast try.

So my question is would any of you all be willing to compromise and be attacked as a sell out by your fellow travellers in order to make things less combative & transitions run smoother? I'm not talking about just economic policies but any and everything.

Look forward to the responses. Thanks in advance.

Locke

I can generally stay the course where my political ideology is concerned but there are times where I can see where I might compromise if a particular ideal seems to contradict the norm. In fact, I was listing to Ralph Nader the other night and he actually made some sense. I was watching Bill O'Reilly.

Yes, when politicians climb down off their political posturing grandstands and start talking like normal people it is surprising what We the People have in common. Far more than what divides us.

 

[Derideo_Te]

I am a staunch supporter of Austrian economics, I hate the idea of the fed, like most libertarians. But I realize the majority of voters would freak out at this point in time & some people, particularly the poor would be hurt, some may even die, if this country decided today to adopt Austrian school economic theory in full right this moment today. I'd be willing to be pragmatic and find a way to ween the country off of it's Keynesianism and welfare statism in order to make the transition less hurtful to those who would be harmed by cutting food stamps and other welfare programs. Probably would be hard to do, but Id atleast try.

So my question is would any of you all be willing to compromise and be attacked as a sell out by your fellow travellers in order to make things less combative & transitions run smoother? I'm not talking about just economic policies but any and everything.

Look forward to the responses. Thanks in advance.

Locke

Ever heard of the term compromise?

Here?

On USMB?



no.

Hmmm, I could have sworn I have mentioned it more than once and sure enough, the USMB search engine finds it about 500 times with even a couple of threads using the term in the subject line.

 

[LockeJaw]

I don't want you to do anything. I'm asking if you'd be willing to if it would make the process go smoother with the people who are against you the most & lessen the harm the transition may cause to poorer people. That's all. Like Dirty Sand said...compromise for the sake of of peaceful transition.

Taking Verbal snipes from zealots within your own movement once elected is different than getting it from your opposition. I meant to say making things less combative with the opposition movement.

How would agreeing to be attacked make things less combative?

So let's review:

A. You want me to volunteer to be attacked.

B. But only by people that agree with me.

C. This will make opposition less combative.

Do I have this down correctly?

 

[Samson]

I don't want you to do anything. I'm asking if you'd be willing to if it would make the process go smoother with the people who are against you the most & lessen the harm the transition may cause to poorer people. That's all. Like Dirty Sand said...compromise for the sake of of peaceful transition.

Taking Verbal snipes from zealots within your own movement once elected is different than getting it from your opposition. I meant to say making things less combative with the opposition movement.

So let's review:

A. You want me to volunteer to be attacked.

B. But only by people that agree with me.

C. This will make opposition less combative.

Do I have this down correctly?

You don't want me to do anything....

But your asking if I'd be willing to compromise.

How can I not do anything and compromise?

 

[LockeJaw]

You know what, that did sound stupid. I assume people follow my thoughts without being clear. My bad, Samson. I am saying if you were an elected official...so yeah it is wanting you to do something in this hypothetical situation.

I don't want you to do anything. I'm asking if you'd be willing to if it would make the process go smoother with the people who are against you the most & lessen the harm the transition may cause to poorer people. That's all. Like Dirty Sand said...compromise for the sake of of peaceful transition.

So let's review:

A. You want me to volunteer to be attacked.

B. But only by people that agree with me.

C. This will make opposition less combative.

Do I have this down correctly?

You don't want me to do anything....

But your asking if I'd be willing to compromise.

How can I not do anything and compromise?

 

[oldfart]

I am a staunch supporter of Austrian economics, I hate the idea of the fed, like most libertarians. But I realize the majority of voters would freak out at this point in time & some people, particularly the poor would be hurt, some may even die, if this country decided today to adopt Austrian school economic theory in full right this moment today. I'd be willing to be pragmatic and find a way to ween the country off of it's Keynesianism and welfare statism in order to make the transition less hurtful to those who would be harmed by cutting food stamps and other welfare programs. Probably would be hard to do, but Id atleast try.

So my question is would any of you all be willing to compromise and be attacked as a sell out by your fellow travellers in order to make things less combative & transitions run smoother? I'm not talking about just economic policies but any and everything.

Look forward to the responses. Thanks in advance.

Locke

The most fundamental tenet of the Austrian School is to ignore all data and make decisions on a priori principles. This also requires making no verifiable predictions. In such a universe it doesn't matter what other viewpoints think at all. The only thing that matters is dedication to the philosophical principles. Austrians by self-definition cannot compromise or be pragmatic. Therefore the endeavor is a contradiction in terms.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I am a staunch supporter of Austrian economics, I hate the idea of the fed, like most libertarians. But I realize the majority of voters would freak out at this point in time & some people, particularly the poor would be hurt, some may even die, if this country decided today to adopt Austrian school economic theory in full right this moment today. I'd be willing to be pragmatic and find a way to ween the country off of it's Keynesianism and welfare statism in order to make the transition less hurtful to those who would be harmed by cutting food stamps and other welfare programs. Probably would be hard to do, but Id atleast try.

So my question is would any of you all be willing to compromise and be attacked as a sell out by your fellow travellers in order to make things less combative & transitions run smoother? I'm not talking about just economic policies but any and everything.

Look forward to the responses. Thanks in advance.

Locke

In order for me to compromise my conservative principles I would have to know what specific changes are being proposed since I'm not acquainted with Austrian school economic theory.

 

[sameech]

I am a staunch supporter of Austrian economics, I hate the idea of the fed, like most libertarians. But I realize the majority of voters would freak out at this point in time & some people, particularly the poor would be hurt, some may even die, if this country decided today to adopt Austrian school economic theory in full right this moment today. I'd be willing to be pragmatic and find a way to ween the country off of it's Keynesianism and welfare statism in order to make the transition less hurtful to those who would be harmed by cutting food stamps and other welfare programs. Probably would be hard to do, but Id atleast try.

So my question is would any of you all be willing to compromise and be attacked as a sell out by your fellow travellers in order to make things less combative & transitions run smoother? I'm not talking about just economic policies but any and everything.

Look forward to the responses. Thanks in advance.

Locke

You might want to consider reading about universal pragmatism and/or the work of Jürgen Habermas.

To answer your question, it would depend on how strongly held my particular value/opinion at issue is.

 

[Samson]

You know what, that did sound stupid. I assume people follow my thoughts without being clear. My bad, Samson. I am saying if you were an elected official...so yeah it is wanting you to do something in this hypothetical situation.

I don't want you to do anything. I'm asking if you'd be willing to if it would make the process go smoother with the people who are against you the most & lessen the harm the transition may cause to poorer people. That's all. Like Dirty Sand said...compromise for the sake of of peaceful transition.

You don't want me to do anything....

But your asking if I'd be willing to compromise.

How can I not do anything and compromise?

So, the hypothetical situation is:

I'm an elected official given the opportunity to compromise.

The question is: Would I be willing to contradict my political ideology.

Why is compromising the same as contradicting? I can see where this may be the case, but not in every case.

For example: George Bush said, "READ MY LIPS, NO NEW TAXES!!!"

Then he signed a bill creating new taxes, then he lost re-election.

 

[Zombie_Pundit]

I am a staunch supporter of Austrian economics, I hate the idea of the fed, like most libertarians. But I realize the majority of voters would freak out at this point in time & some people, particularly the poor would be hurt, some may even die, if this country decided today to adopt Austrian school economic theory in full right this moment today. I'd be willing to be pragmatic and find a way to ween the country off of it's Keynesianism and welfare statism in order to make the transition less hurtful to those who would be harmed by cutting food stamps and other welfare programs. Probably would be hard to do, but Id atleast try.

So my question is would any of you all be willing to compromise and be attacked as a sell out by your fellow travellers in order to make things less combative & transitions run smoother? I'm not talking about just economic policies but any and everything.

Look forward to the responses. Thanks in advance.

Locke

There is a book you might like called The Limits of Idealism: When Good Intentions Go Bad

"It doesn't matter whether a cat is white or black, as long as it catches mice."
-Deng Xiaoping

Politics is the art of the possible, not any one person's ideal. So my answer is yes.

 

[midcan5]

Austrian economics? Is there such a thing? The hippies are gone, the freedom loving communitarian is extinct, the self sufficient farmer is rarer than the dodo bird, but somehow, someway, the libertarian thrives in America, usually in the dorm, the basement of their parent's home, or even the kitchen table. Long live the libertarian, for without fantasy how would we survive, where would hope go.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-flame-zone/189696-libertarian-flame.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/50564-libertarianism-in-a-nutshell-ii.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...od-books-on-libertarianism-3.html#post7425296

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...hich-is-the-shorter-distance.html#post5830256


"Core morality tells us that people have a right to what they earn by their own efforts freely exercised. It is this part of core morality that Ayn Rand objectivists, libertarians, and other right wingers tap into when they insist that taxation is slavery... The trouble with such arguments is that nothing is earned, nothing is deserved. Even if there really were moral rights to the fruit of our freely exercised abilities and talents, these talents and abilities are never freely acquired or exercised. Just as your innate and acquired intelligence and abilities are unearned, so also are your ambitions, along with the discipline, the willingness to train, and other traits that have to be combined with your talents and abilities to produce anything worthwhile at all.... We don't earn our inborn (excuse the expression "God given") talents and abilities. We had nothing to do with whether these traits were conferred on us or not. Similarly, we didn't earn the acquired character traits needed to convert these talents into achievements. They, too, were the result of deterministic processes (genetic and cultural) that were set in motion long before we were born. That is what excludes the possibility that we earned or deserve them. We were just lucky to have the combination of hardwired abilities and learned ambitions that resulted in the world beating a path to our door....No one ever earned or deserved the traits that resulted in the inequalities we enjoy - greater income and wealth, better health and longer life, admiration and social distinction, comfort, and leisure. Therefore, no one, including us, has a moral right to those inequalities. Core morality may permit unearned inequalities, but it is certainly not going to require them without some further moral reason to do so." Alex Rosenberg 'The Atheist's Guide to Reality'

 

[Mac1958]

.

In the intensely narcissistic world that is contemporary American politics, mature cooperation has been confused with abject capitulation.

Why?

I think the primary culprits are the division pimps, those (primarily in the media) who have a vested financial/career interest in keeping their flocks angry at the "other side". Everything is binary, all or nothing, kill or be killed. And you simply cannot have that in a civilized republic. It has spread from the division pimps to their flocks to our "representatives", and that's where the damage is really done.

USMB is a perfect example of this behavior.

Someone needs to come along and somehow inspire the more mature and clear-thinking among us to marginalize these people before it's too late.

That is, if it isn't too late.

.

 

[PredFan]

I'm a libertarian as well but I'm not an idealog. I compromise on a few issues.