Can You Sum Up Your Political Philosophy?

[CrusaderFrank]

I am a liberal. That is, I am accepting of change and i don't adhere to any strict doctrine or dogma. I am an anti-conservative insofar as conservatism is protection of the status quo or return to a fictional, rose colored past. I am a pragmatist. That is I advocate what works over moralistic arguments or adherence to any doctrine or dogma. I am a believer in the scientific method and if your ideology puts you in opposition to science, you need to change your ideology.

A conservative in 1776 was a loyalist to the throne of George III.
A conservative in 1860 was pro-slavery.
A conservative in 1920 was against the right of women to vote.
A conservative in 1932 was aginst the New Deal.
A conservative in 1965 was against the civil rights act and pro-Jim Crow.

One could go on and on. I am a liberal because I recognize that change in this country, for the most part, is for the good. I am a liberal because i recognize that conservatives, in the end, always advocate for repression and in the end, they always lose. The history of the United States is a history of liberal triumph. Sure, we back-peddle from time to time but in the end, the liberals always win.

See what I mean about Progressives being liars and idiots?

 

[antagon]

the man makes a point.

 

[loosecannon]

And can you elaborate on this anatomy?

with the hype of 'free market capitalism' whizzing around circuses like the heritage foundation, i think it is important to look at economies as a conglomerate of markets rather than a laissez faire clusterfuck. some markets within an economy dont benefit the larger economy through their freedom. labor/production markets aren't best left alone, while commerce/trade markets benefits from the freedom to express supply and demand across a market place. an economy comprises at least of a currency market, commerce market, job market, labor market, and an innovation/entrepreneurial/diversification market. these can each be divided in sectors (mfr, finserve, etc). viewing the economy as a component of society, and in turn a national asset, this is limited geographically. outsourcing is a domestic market participant jumping job markets to those of another nation. while international markets pit their prices against eachother, i see 'global market' as being bullshit because supply and demand is not fluid, globally, just the price outcome from these ratios in individual markets are made to compete.

now, for society, i think a good social model is the foundation of good socio-economic philosophy. marx had his bourgeoisie and proles, for example, and he's at least got my kudos for associating social class with social/economic function. this commonplace lower/middle/upper system based on income is retarded. it offers no philosophical direction. you can just give people enough money to be middle class and they will be. we've spent a century like that. even though it worked better than before we gave away middle class status, it is not brilliant.

so good analysis is looking at the status quo and picking winners which might do the economy/society well, overall.

owners - of the means of production, resources and property
workers - earners
wards - of the social state
outsiders - none of the above

very basic, and while nothing is so simple, i think these brackets come with their own mentalities and rational dispositions to social/economic conditions. these reflect ways which individuals are attached to the economy: their means of adhesion. the lines between the groups are also gray: some non-owners are workers whose disposition is aligned with ownership by the way they get paid. commissioned sales-people and upper management, for example, think like and side with ownership. some government workers are workers whose livelihoods are attached to the wards. they kinda think like and side with them, too. outsiders could be that homeless cynic, or a poker pro, or a trust funder. kids are some of the most abundant, but their roll is normally supported by their parents or the state.

One that you left out was marketing/distributing. And M/D has probably become the biggest sector of our national economy. In order for innovation/diversification to be independent you have to assume that manufacturing is fungible and marketing is a free and fair market. It isn't. At all, not even close. marketing/distribution is it's own kind of monopolistic lawless wild west. Which is where entrepreneurialism is central to your equation. It generally translates into the ability to market a niche product successfully. Or something close to that.

But manufacturing has become largely fungible.

You also made little of the financial economy which is probably larger than the balance of the markets combined, often owning most of the infrastructure of the other markets and living parasitically off of their opportunities.

the winner i pick are owners who function to recruit wards and outsiders into worker status -- owner status, even. because economies naturally trickle wealth upwards, this can be supported by pumping cash into the wards and it'll all be good. but i feel one better is pumping the same cash into the owner-worker relationship, the job/labor market interaction, facilitating this recruitment more directly.

small business owners definitely develop their own unique thinking. No legal vocation is more fraught with risk, more demanding of perfection, or more fragile than a small business. They almost always succeed on the strengths of a great owner or employee who "makes" the business.

It is too bad that a small business has to succeed on so many fronts to even survive. As a result a lot of really, really good ideas never come to fruition. If we could better capitalize on the offerings of small business owners and innovators we would all benefit immensely.

regulatory incentives, and some of this same cash-pumping could also improve demand for innovation/entrepreneurship/diversification which i see as a market in itself. circumstances arise which demand supply in these concerns, when it is heavily demanded in ratio to the supply, the returns (prices) are greater. regulations buffer demand. raising regulatory thresholds exempting small businesses and micro/start-up businesses accentuates demand. avoiding the popular association between # of employees and regulatory thresholds will improve recruitment, so i'd advocate ties to assets/earnings in that respect.

Do you think start ups deserve a tax holiday for the first few years of operation? What else specifically do you have in mind? More investment enticement seems practical, not only proprietary but also outside investment incentives.

Capitalism was supposed to be all about securing large opportunities for reward among folks who took the huge risks of starting new enterprises, not building monopolies from existing firms. It was the start up and the market for better ideas that capitalism was supposed to nurture. Dead wood and old ideas were expected to die and be left behind.

The immortal corporation has changed all of that, shifting the emphasis away from rewarding innovation and toward monopolization, no?

 

[loosecannon]

pragmatist:

OK

social capitalist:

I appreciate that you see the economy as a social function and that you rely on cohesion as your foundation.

What is that cohesion?

adhesion, really. i imagine the social-economic relationship to be analogous to that of a car body and it's motor. the adhesion would be the chassis which attaches each and transfers the energy to the ground, the world market. cohesion sounds like a social engineering term or something which directly targets separation of income within an economy. i'm not so concerned about that.

business ownership, employment (measured @ labor mkt utilization), land and resource utilization, the pervasiveness of the monetary circulation cycle (mainstreet penetration), investment, public/private safety net pervasiveness (anti-poverty)... these are not equal in value, but the idea focuses on the ways and the extent which humans, natural resources, and land are accessible to the economy. this is a social function, history indicates. all an economy can do is demand these resources. society must supply them; the fuel tank is in the body; the pedal is in policy. when it does so, the whole vehicle accelerates.

effectiveness can be measured in the ppi per capitas, labor market utilization or population utilisation... i wish there were better metrics which isolate exceptional earners from averages, to give a better idea of what the rest of us are working with, however, stat-driven analysis and policymaking misses the bus more often than not. you've got to look at what's actually happening and what more you can do.

OK, this seems a little too focused on the economy as the purpose of political philosophy (remember where you are).

Marx did the same thing but at least he opened with the assertion that the class struggle (competition for resources, power, mating rights, land, territory etc) was the basic equation in society.

Are you asserting a similar kind of foundation to your own political philosophy?

 

[Immanuel]

that is scary. subsidized theocracy.

Who you talking about? I never even mentioned the church nor do I have any desire for a Theocracy.

Immie

just having a laugh reading the socon fisclib bit out of the context you put it in.

It does seem a little odd doesn't it.

But here is my take on it, I can't take the Liberal stand on anything because liberals want abortion on demand (hell, I think if they could find a way to make it not sound so disgustingly sick, they would promote China's one child policy here in America) and they cum in their pants fantasizing on ways to steal from the hated rich and force the rest of us into their social programs and make us dependent upon them.

Then again the conservatives are authoritarian in nature and have wet dreams of Bush shredding the Constitution and torturing anyone that happens to look somewhat Middle Eastern and God help you if you are Latino and don't happen to have papers proving you are here legally.

I simply can't figure out how conservatives can be so hateful of those who are honestly in need and liberals can be so intolerant of other people when they seem to preach tolerance incessantly. So, I don't want to be associated with either side on the social issues.

As for fiscally, I believe we must raise taxes and cut spending and none of this bullshit about raising or lowering taxes will do the job. That is hogwash. We are going to have to bite the damned bullet and cut spending or we will spend our way into an economic collapse.

Immie

 

[antagon]

OK


I appreciate that you see the economy as a social function and that you rely on cohesion as your foundation.

What is that cohesion?

adhesion, really. i imagine the social-economic relationship to be analogous to that of a car body and it's motor. the adhesion would be the chassis which attaches each and transfers the energy to the ground, the world market. cohesion sounds like a social engineering term or something which directly targets separation of income within an economy. i'm not so concerned about that.

business ownership, employment (measured @ labor mkt utilization), land and resource utilization, the pervasiveness of the monetary circulation cycle (mainstreet penetration), investment, public/private safety net pervasiveness (anti-poverty)... these are not equal in value, but the idea focuses on the ways and the extent which humans, natural resources, and land are accessible to the economy. this is a social function, history indicates. all an economy can do is demand these resources. society must supply them; the fuel tank is in the body; the pedal is in policy. when it does so, the whole vehicle accelerates.

effectiveness can be measured in the ppi per capitas, labor market utilization or population utilisation... i wish there were better metrics which isolate exceptional earners from averages, to give a better idea of what the rest of us are working with, however, stat-driven analysis and policymaking misses the bus more often than not. you've got to look at what's actually happening and what more you can do.

OK, this seems a little too focused on the economy as the purpose of political philosophy (remember where you are).

Marx did the same thing but at least he opened with the assertion that the class struggle (competition for resources, power, mating rights, land, territory etc) was the basic equation in society.

Are you asserting a similar kind of foundation to your own political philosophy?

i've been meaning to get back to all this, but things are thankfully picking up on the biz end.

i do see politics and society as greatly concerned with economics and most heavily influenced by the state of the economy they're associated with. when you go back to my car and motor analogy, an policy being the chassis design, it lays a clearer premise for the importance of economics. without it, government and society would be as inane as a car with no drivetrain. like marx, i see social class as something which government needs to concern itself with. i also see them based in economic roles like marx, rather than merely outcomes like the upper/middle/lower system. the difference is that i see class in different species than he envisioned mainly because social reforms have since changed the landscape. i also choose different winners and a different objective for the same socioeconomic approach to politics.

 

[antagon]

And can you elaborate on this anatomy?

...an economy comprises at least of a currency market, commerce market, job market, labor market, and an innovation/entrepreneurial/diversification market. these can each be divided in sectors (mfr, finserve, etc)...

One that you left out was marketing/distributing. And M/D has probably become the biggest sector of our national economy. In order for innovation/diversification to be independent you have to assume that manufacturing is fungible and marketing is a free and fair market. It isn't. At all, not even close. marketing/distribution is it's own kind of monopolistic lawless wild west. Which is where entrepreneurialism is central to your equation. It generally translates into the ability to market a niche product successfully. Or something close to that.

But manufacturing has become largely fungible.

You also made little of the financial economy which is probably larger than the balance of the markets combined, often owning most of the infrastructure of the other markets and living parasitically off of their opportunities.

i do make little of the financial economy. i consider it a sector of commerce, just as i classify marketing and distribution. these are service products. some sectors have importance to the sustainability of the entire market they are in (or latched on to) and others straddle or interconnect these markets. there are components of financial services which drive commerce through their relationship with the currency market, laying the basis of demand in the innovation/e/d market. i'd argue the public sector is this big daddy of these sectors. they have a hand in every market, live off of and breathe life to each.

the winner i pick are owners who function to recruit wards and outsiders into worker status -- owner status, even. because economies naturally trickle wealth upwards, this can be supported by pumping cash into the wards and it'll all be good. but i feel one better is pumping the same cash into the owner-worker relationship, the job/labor market interaction, facilitating this recruitment more directly.

small business owners definitely develop their own unique thinking. No legal vocation is more fraught with risk, more demanding of perfection, or more fragile than a small business. They almost always succeed on the strengths of a great owner or employee who "makes" the business.

It is too bad that a small business has to succeed on so many fronts to even survive. As a result a lot of really, really good ideas never come to fruition. If we could better capitalize on the offerings of small business owners and innovators we would all benefit immensely.

i think its a fact of life that the smaller the boat the rougher the seas, but i think that there should be some additional resources available to small businesses to help them get by. there is a danger in overinvesting in the idea that there is a great deal of great ideas being lost to the trials of small business because i think that truly great ideas do really well. i cant deny that some ideas and a great deal of potential commerce is stricken from participation by business failures.

Do you think start ups deserve a tax holiday for the first few years of operation? What else specifically do you have in mind? More investment enticement seems practical, not only proprietary but also outside investment incentives.

Capitalism was supposed to be all about securing large opportunities for reward among folks who took the huge risks of starting new enterprises, not building monopolies from existing firms. It was the start up and the market for better ideas that capitalism was supposed to nurture. Dead wood and old ideas were expected to die and be left behind.

The immortal corporation has changed all of that, shifting the emphasis away from rewarding innovation and toward monopolization, no?

obviously monopoly is a cancer to capitalism, but it is a proceed from the fact that certain endeavors are not easily entered as small businesses, and for that reason there is an advantage which larger and larger businesses can hold over a market on both the supply and demand side.*** beyond monopoly there is conglomerate which is not nearly as bad, but it does pick narrow profitability over broad adhesion if it is done right. conglomeration aka diversification is one of the elements which i cant leave out of the i/e/d market. it is a major source of supply for this market, and while it competes with and often drowns out the little guy, it cant be directly targeted as a negative like monopoly.

i struggle with holiday policy. it is effective from an affordability standpoint, but i dont like the idea that after a certain time, the rug gets snatched out.

i've discussed my broad expensibility of labor concept. this would help startups as well as well established firms. political structures could be tweaked. for example, i thought bush was an idiot for disbanding the SBA's cabinet-level position. with some detail in the structure, i would subsume the SBA and the labor secretary's departments into the department of commerce and round-table the several concerns of labor vs small biz vs big/international biz. something needs to push small business advocacy to the forefront. i'm a member, but it is not the chamber of commerce's best suit.

***there is a shift in this capacity for big-biz to dominate markets. it is mostly tech driven, with the internet and other techs empowering small businesses in ways which only huge firms would have access to. it spells the end for the big-biz model, perhaps. it is not far-fetched that near-future technology could enable you to buy a vehicle designed and manufactured from a local boutique where automated assembly and design has eliminated the economies of scale which toyota and GM are sheltered with. policy will have to change to recognize and enable small(er) business in this way, even if it entailed disabling the protection which big businesses like automakers have afforded ($) themselves.

other than that, recognizing that there are micro-businesses which might entail a small apartment complex or rental property, an internet peddler or blog which augment the national income for middle income households is crucial. i think tax incentives and thresholds should be scaled in a way which invites this sort of business because it is what seeds most successful ventures. then, as it seems that a concern is accumulating assets (not employees) that qualify small business or medium business, they might be exposed to more liability or regulatory compliance. the system already works like this, but there needs to be more room offered for these micro-businesses to propagate. fertilize the petri dish.

 

[Liberty]

I am a liberal. That is, I am accepting of change and i don't adhere to any strict doctrine or dogma. I am an anti-conservative insofar as conservatism is protection of the status quo or return to a fictional, rose colored past. I am a pragmatist. That is I advocate what works over moralistic arguments or adherence to any doctrine or dogma. I am a believer in the scientific method and if your ideology puts you in opposition to science, you need to change your ideology.

A conservative in 1776 was a loyalist to the throne of George III.
A conservative in 1860 was pro-slavery.
A conservative in 1920 was against the right of women to vote.
A conservative in 1932 was aginst the New Deal.
A conservative in 1965 was against the civil rights act and pro-Jim Crow.

One could go on and on. I am a liberal because I recognize that change in this country, for the most part, is for the good. I am a liberal because i recognize that conservatives, in the end, always advocate for repression and in the end, they always lose. The history of the United States is a history of liberal triumph. Sure, we back-peddle from time to time but in the end, the liberals always win.

another ignorant fool who does not know the difference between a classical liberal and a social liberal. Good job, idiot.

 

[antagon]

Progressivism as a political term doesn't really mean progressive. It's a label like neocon or democrap or republitard. I assume you are using the word in it's literal sense as in preemptive innovation and advance planning etc....? You will have to make more concrete statements as the use of labels is not very descriptive of your real meaning.

We all know what fiscal conservative means to us, but not to somebody else, as an example. And that's an easy one compared to "cherry picked conservatism".

quite true. the theme of the thread that these sorts of things are not easily summarized, if accurately.

progressive is increasingly pejorative to some, but i do use it to associate what i believe to be good capitalist policy. the progressive era proved without a doubt that capitalism is dependent on policy which harnesses it's proceeds and recycles them into the system.

to further beat the car analogy to death, early motors did not have batteries or alternators to circulate and distribute the electrical proceeds of the motor. you can still run a car without a battery as long as you roll start it and don't turn the headlamps or stereo on. i find my ideas juxtaposed to the brand of conservatives who believe the country is better run without batteries, alternators, headlamps and stereos with US history to wit. i'll take the progressive flack on that basis. i propose that progressive policy is a thing of innovation and the hundred y/o approach has had it. there is an onus to develop new proposals for the next few decades.

And how can everybody participate in becoming a business owner? Should they? and why?

no. everyone cant or shouldn't. i pick them as winners because they provide the jobs whereby those who dont enter their own enterprise are employed. if there was more to gain and less in the way, more people would want to participate in their own enterprise, vacating the labor market for the job market, resulting in demand in the labor market from two fronts. this is the best way for workers to benefit. witness the employees market during the dot-com boom.

american nationalist: i think the politics in the US is fine. the constitution is fine, the way its been interpreted is fine, the politicians are fine, etc... the worst of them are just a couple or 4 years from recall if they've really upset their constituents. the system works adequately.. maybe tweak some things here or there.

WOW! really? All of that is fine?

yeah. i voted for bush the first time he ran because al gore is an idiot. i realized that bush was an idiot, and didnt vote for a president at all when he ran against that idiot john kerry. notwithstanding, that's just because there was a lull of talent in the government. it is bound to happen as it has in the past. i dont feel political angst quite like others. i'm too much of a lifegoesonist to get real worked up. am i missing something?

ideally policies i have in mind would offer america the advantages which policies in the past have afforded the nation. i see there as being a global economy and all and can appreciate the ways which going global has benefited the economy and society. i also believe that the US is obliged to operate within this global economy as a nation with the interest of its constituents considered most dearly. i've got no problem with indoctrination of a reciprocal loyalty between government, the nation and its constituents through the promotion of values which make an economy and society tick. brainwashing purpose and responsibility into americans in and out of politics.

This sounds pragmatic and technocratic. It also sort of scares me in that technocrats tend to be flexible enough to adapt extremely awkward solution sets to deal with problems, focusing on results first and foremost. An example being that they might completely enable political and financial corruption, entirely sidestepping correction or reform in favor of a real politik solution that is politically attainable. Geithner and Obama spring to mind.

"brainwashing purpose and responsibility into americans in and out of politics."

police state?

nah. police couldn't lead by example with the purpose and responsibility bit.

i think that the american narrative has lost the drive that was once associated with it. discipline and hard work - triumph over adversity - have given way to freedom nostalgia on the right wing and bar dropping on the left. bullshit not keeping with what has brought us as far as we've come.

i think the social education - 'indoctrination' even - is a vital component missing from american public education. i was almost entirely privately educated, so my first-hand experience is limited, but in the glimpses which i've been afforded and the observations which i've made of what works for people who succeed in public or private education has lead me to believe that purpose and responsibility among other values were ingrained into them at a level as fundamental as handwriting and basic addition and subtraction. that observation would be institutionalized in american education if i had a hand in it, and i feel there will be less in the way of socioeconomic illiteracy in the US in the first generation to emerge thusly indoctrinated. i say this type of illiteracy is what pours over into functional math and language illiteracy and the unruly ineffective nature of public education. this is like activating the epoxy by which my adhesion is effected: it is voluntary and it is time sensitive.

we dont have to operate our society like china, but we have to recognize that values have to be taught and maintain a grip on the idea that some values are better and more important than others. the loss of this grip - the loss of ideology - is a precursor to roman-model social obliteration in a world with nations which are driven by ideology and purpose.

now that i've harped on ideology, i'll talk about pragmatism. it is fair to lump me in with obama and his realpolitik pragmatists. i dont line up with their policies on many points, but i do believe that there is more and deeper relevance to pragmatism than the band-aid characterization which you've made. i see moralpolitik as projecting a pretense over issues like fiscal conservatism as a smoke-screen for policies which do the exact opposite. bullshitting for votes in cruder terms. i actually associate political expediency with this type of ideology-based rather than pragmatist or policy-based politics. talking point expediency instead of real reform or policy expediency.

i see movements like the tea-party as death throes (or a comeback) of the bullshitting for votes mechanism in american politics.

 

[antagon]

I am a liberal. That is, I am accepting of change and i don't adhere to any strict doctrine or dogma. I am an anti-conservative insofar as conservatism is protection of the status quo or return to a fictional, rose colored past. I am a pragmatist. That is I advocate what works over moralistic arguments or adherence to any doctrine or dogma. I am a believer in the scientific method and if your ideology puts you in opposition to science, you need to change your ideology.

A conservative in 1776 was a loyalist to the throne of George III.
A conservative in 1860 was pro-slavery.
A conservative in 1920 was against the right of women to vote.
A conservative in 1932 was aginst the New Deal.
A conservative in 1965 was against the civil rights act and pro-Jim Crow.

One could go on and on. I am a liberal because I recognize that change in this country, for the most part, is for the good. I am a liberal because i recognize that conservatives, in the end, always advocate for repression and in the end, they always lose. The history of the United States is a history of liberal triumph. Sure, we back-peddle from time to time but in the end, the liberals always win.

another ignorant fool who does not know the difference between a classical liberal and a social liberal. Good job, idiot.

this is because 'libertine' or 'libertarian' has largely superseded the use of 'classical liberal'. if you use 'liberal' to describe classic liberalism, you would be an idiot. one would have to say 'classical liberal' any time in the last 80 years or so, and have to explain what that was more than likely. deprecated terminology.