When taking medication read and follow all instructions.
In general, I’m pro free trade, mostly because it help out 3rd world countries, in that it pumps monies into struggling economies.
Multilateralism seems to be a good approach to doing foreign policy. The more of our friends we have on board, the easier the job will be, both winning wars and winning peace. Also, not to invoke an ad populum, but the more of our trusted pals on board with things, the more likely we are to be right about things.
A democratic country, such as the UK, should be in the business of exporting democratic and classical liberal change across the globe. It should be the number two priority, however, behind national security.
The UK should adopt the Euro because it would encourage more trade, as a common currency would help to break down economic barriers both within Europe and without.
Although loss of jobs due to international trade is lamentable, it is nowhere near the gains of the same. If an industry cannot compete, it should find a new business model.
That being said, I believe that domestic companies should have to compete with slave labor. Working conditions should play a part in trade negotiations. If the country wants our money, they should be prepared to make sacrifices for the good of its citizens.
Cut taxes during depression. Raise them during prosperity. Keynsian economics. (Thus, I am towards the American left, but supported the Bush tax cut, though not the form it took. The poor are more likely to spend the money into the economy than the rich, who can save it. Also, I didn’t know about the impending war in Iraq, which cost the US massive dough.)
Censorship, in principle, is bad. Societies that burn books don’t have far to go to burn people.
Having said that, I believe that advertisers should not peddle pornography to third graders. As in all things, there are limits.
DNFTT
I would have to describe myself as a fiscal conservative, too. Although one of my primary problems with most government programs (liberal and conservative supported programs alike) is that I feel they are not making particularly efficient use of our taxpayer dollars.
Too much is mired down in beaurocracy, and I would venture to guess that only a very small portion of each tax dollar actually goes towards the “cause” that it is intended to help. So I lean towards the notion of smaller government. It should, of course, provide essential services, like Magiver mentions (education, infrastructure, etc).
But it irritates me to see a government program set up for everything under the sun, only to be implemented poorly and wastefully.
By the way, while I support the notion that the people of this country are taxed quite enough… what would I have done with the budget surplus of a few years ago? I would have applied most of it to the national debt. It would only pay off a small chunk, I realize, but that’s how individuals get out of debt – by paying off the principal. A large part of the reason why there are defecits more frequently than surpluses is the annual interest on the national debt.
Meanwhile, in other news… NotInAnger, do you have anything ON TOPIC to add here? Or do you need directions to a Port-A-Potty so that you can find some place other than Lobsang’s thread to empty your bowels?
Note: Lobsang – When I speak of specifics, like the surplus of a few years ago, and the national debt, and “this country”, I am of course referring to the country I am in (U.S.). Just to clarify. 
In the UK, is there a similar political divide (i.e. essentially the “liberal” and “conservative” sides of the aisle), or is there a
different general makeup of major political ideologies?
Well, being ultra-naive about politics myself I would say that there was a similar divide here. Labour was the ‘liberal’ party and the Conservatives are the, conservative party. But now Labour is ‘New Labour’ meaning it is virtually as conservative as the Conservatives. The Liberal Democrats are a truly liberal party, but they are seen by many as a Joke (although the incompetency of Labour and Conservatives is resulting in ever increasing support for the Liberal Democrats)
Someone with half a political brain from the UK is going to come along and say that was all a complete load of bollocks (probably)… I welcome them.
I think that’s fairly accurate, Lobsang. Except that the UK version of conservatism is nowhere near as conservative as the US version.
This is a good site for Liberal ideas and arguments:
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/tenets.htm
Covers all the basics.
Economic Left/Right: -4.38
Libertarian/Authoritarian: 5.69
Hey, me too! And didn’t you think it was interesting that Tony Blair, our Labour (and therefore alledgedly socialist) prime minister comes up as “Authoritarian Right Wing”?
Lobsang, what do you find more “unjust”:
A child starving in a rich country, or forcing a rich person to feed them?
That test has some shortcomings, s’far as I’m concerned, though that’s only to be expected from its requisite simplicity. I’d never trust a test too far.
Economic Left/Right: 8.62
Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.85
Be a libertarian. Libertarians do it by consent!
Anyway, I don’t see how a starving child could be all that unjust. Is he a bully?
Some rules of thumb on who to reject:
If they demonize those who oppose them.
If they present themselves as having some sort of “key to history” or other panacaea.
If they insist on constantly whining about having matters “stolen” from them if an election does not go their way.
If they keep claiming to be “persecuted” for their beliefs, even though their pundits manage to get plenty of air time.
Reject them and flee from their vileness.
In other words, you ought to reject liberalism. You ought to reject conservativism. These nearly identical forms of totalitarianism have nothing but slight cosmetic differences.
Lobsang,
You shouldn’t necessarily cleave to either political party. There may be some aspects of one that appeal to you and some from another. It is the uncommon person that agrees with everything as presented by one of the two major parties. In your quest for political direction I would suggest that you simply adopt those views which make the most sense to you and then support the candidates which exemplify them. If that happens to make you more conservative in some areas and liberal and others that’s fine. You’ll need to weigh your ideas on what makes good government by evaluating candidates based on their stated goals and their track record rather than relying on party platitudes but trust me when I say that it’s more rewarding.
I’m somewhat in agreement with DogFace but I wouldn’t say to reject liberalism or conservatism (or libertarianism for that matter). I would advise rejecting the leadership of people who do the things listed by DogFace.
When, in the history of this country, have we fed starving children? This is a serious question. Please think about it before answering.
Welfare programs feed starving children. Charity donations from private citizens go to starving children overseas. I don’t know the extent of the US’s foreign aid budget and I’m too lazy to google but I’d guess it was fairly big.
Noam “Great Wopping Loon in the Ivory Tower” Chomsky still claims that the Khmer Rouge never committed a single atrocity.
Um, cite?
Somebody’s drunk.
No, this is incorrect. Welfare programs, charities, and government agencies give money/and or food to the guardians of starving children.
So the obvious question is: why point this out?
Story time. When I was in the 8th grade I started to look at the world around me. Not in a cynical way. Just wanted to see what life was all about. One of the first observations I made was about long term Welfare (NOT SHORT TERM WELFARE). I thought it looked like a government sponsored breeding program for the socially inept. We actually pay people (with no parental skills) more money based on the number of kids they produce. The money was supposed to help feed the kids. Next followed the school lunch program to feed the kids of the parents we gave money to in the first place to help feed them.
It has been my contention since the 8th grade that if we really cared about our nation’s youth, we would remove kids from bad parents and give them the love, attention and skills necessary to survive in the real world.
Except that if you actually believed in the sanctity of the family as the basic unit of society, you would understand that children should never be removed from their families. I don’t understand the galloping hypocracy here. The socialization/collectivization of child care is basically a Communist idea that so-called anti-Communists have swallowed whole. I don’t like a half dozen, I’ll take 6 instead.
The “Sanctity of Family” criteria has been enforced (at least in my area) to the point of insanity. There has been a “stepping back” in just the last year to recognize that bad parents can actually exist.
I certainly share the fear of collectivization but the idea is to spend money to break the cycle of poverty as opposed to promoting it. Not sure what you are proposing as an alternative.