Lets say it happened where one side totally got everthing thing they wanted and the other side didn’t resist. In otherwords the govt would be totally republican or totally democratic through the federal and state levels. Which one would be a “better” country and why?
Gun Control and Crime: For some examples lets say the liberals won out. They would get rid of all the guns. Would there be less or more crime?
Abortion and free love taught in schools: Would there more or less unwanted pregnancy? More or less STDs?
Economy: I guess the taxes would be real high on the rich and the poor would be given everything(until the rich were rich no more wait that is a song huh). Would the economy would be better or worse?
Religion: God would be taken out of everything I suppose so would the nation be more or less moral?
That’s just a start I am sure there are some other issues that will be presented but I think this will be pretty interesting to see how it will play out.
Actually this sounds like an excellent thread!!! Can I add a few more qualifications? If so how about this:
Lets assume there are two parallel worlds one in which there is a US controled entirely by the Rebubs and one in which the US is controled entirely by the Dems. Now lets further assume Rawls orginal position, we don’t know our lots in life. Throw away everything we know about our positions in life now (whether we are to be rich/poor, black/white/asian/ect. and all other socioeconomic factors as well). Now which world would you choose to live in.
NOw this is just a suggestion, if you don’t like this, then you can do it your way, but I think this would force people to think a little more:D.
So what do ya think? Should we add these qualifications as well? I will save my response until you decided:D.
Funny you should make those suggestions. Because I thought about really the same thing. Almost like dividing the country in two. With the conservatives on one side and liberals on the other. So yea I’ll go with the first premise of your modification.
But I don’t see how you can eliminate your position in life especially color and religion. I mean those just don’t go away unless you are dreamer like Lennon or something.
Actually, the second assumption was along these lines. Assume you were not born yet, you don’t know who you are gonna be, so now what world would you want to live in. My point being, assume that you are a very wealthy CEO now, which would you choose? Or rather what if you are poor in abscess poverty now, again which would you choose? The thing is we will have certain biases depending where we fall into the socioeconomic spectrum. If I were the CEO clearly living in the Rebub world would be in my best interest. Similarly, if I was in poverty, with no means to escape from it, I would choose the Dem world. However, if I didn’t know in advance which position I would be in, the decision would be much harder to make.
So what do ya think? Doesn’t it make it so you have to be a lot more objective?
Actually maybe that would be too tough because people would not really assume this case. If so people may present biased responses even though they do do not believe they are.
Ok to be honest, I would choose the 100% repub world knowing my current lot in life. However, if we add the second assumption, I’m not quite so sure. Let me think about it for a while. Like I said that would change everything.
Good points but I still think there are problems with the poor side. I think alot of poor people still wouldn’t choose the democratic side because some of the smart ones would know that without the capitalistic republicans the country would end up being nothing but a third world county in no time. So at least they would have a better chance to thrive in a republican based country than in a third world country. See what I mean?
While, this is an interesting concept in theory, there is no one set of ultimate objectives that all democrats or conservatives subscribe to. Your portrayal of democrats/liberals in particular is not exactly accurate.
**
As has been discussed in another thread, there are few liberals that want to “get rid of all the guns.” That’s about as reasonable as saying, “If the conservatives got their way, everyone would get free machine guns when they turn 18. Would there be more or less crime?”
**
What do you mean by “free love”? The counterpart to this is that I could say, “If the conservatives got their way, the word ‘sex’ and everything related to sex would not be taught in school. Would there be more or less sexual responsibility?”
**
The poor would be given everything? What does that mean? I think you’ll be hard pressed to find a single Democrat anywhere in this country that advocates “giving the poor everything.”
**
Again, this is bloody ridiculous. There may be a few extremist liberals that would like God “taken out of everything” by governmental force, but believe it or not, most of us support freedom of religion. That’s why we want religious favoritism taken out of school. Conservatives like to think that liberals are trying to destroy religion, but that is completely false. We are trying to preserve religious freedom for everyone, even people of minority religions. My nonsensical counterpart to your proposition is, “If the Republicans got their way, Christianity would be the nationally mandated religion. Would there be more or less religious freedom?”
**
This has the potential to be an interesting subject, but you’ll have to keep one things in mind: not all Democrats agree on everything. Neither do all Republicans. However, I can’t even find words adequate to describe how truly inaccurate your assumptions of what Democrats want are. The word “asinine” springs to mind, but I’m trying really hard to stay civil so this thread stays out of the pit. I find your suggestions for what would happen if the “liberals won out” to be very insulting and condescending.
I think you are too much of an optimist;) I don’t think the poor in general are educated well enough to realize they need capitalism to prosper. Yes, we know that allowing capitalism and the free maket to function unfettered by regulations and massive redistribution will rise the level of all, such that the same size slice of a bigger pie so to speak, would actually allow greater benefits even at the same rates. However, I seriously doubt that less educated people will come to this conclusion. Now I’m assuming poor people, in general, are less educated, which in general should hold. Now I agree that there are exception to every rule, however, I doubt the number of exceptions would be large enough to be significant. As partisian as you come across, I must say, you truly are an optimist:D. Theres nothing wrong with that I guess:D. I only wish I could be so optimistic.
Because then the thread would be, “If Gadarene or Wildest Bill Totally Got Their Way Which Country Would Be Better?” In that case, you might as well have the discussion over email because it would only really apply to two people in this universe. There are a wide variety of viewpoints that fall under the broad categories of “liberal” or “conservative.” Gadarene doesn’t speak for all liberals and you don’t speak for all conservatives.
It’s a moot point. If the Republican Party seized absolute control, it would break into two - Conservative Republican and Liberal Republican. Same thing with the Democrats. In a democracy, people never agree with each other. That’s what’s so great about the system.
…but if, in fact, you’re saying that we won’t be maintaining a democracy, then the answer to your question is simple - just look at Communist Russia and Nazi Germany. Left- and Right-wing harmony taken to the logical extreme.
Republican.
Free machine guns, hell yeah! There’d be more vandalism, probably, but less violent crime. But, gun control thread this ain’t. Sooner or later I’m gonna open an IMHO create-your-own utopia thread, though my IMHO polls never seem to garner much attention.
Gadarene…man, love those qualifiers. I guess since I’m not a self-proclaimed member of either those wild ass accusations just don’t bother me. Honestly, I don’t think the republicans or democrats have a stand on anything with politics being the way it is nowadays. But what stances they have (ready to shift at any minute!) I’d still take the republicans. Viva la revolucion. Lets have the wealthy take back what was theirs in the first place! SPLAT
Hey, could you at least throw fresh tomatoes?
Since 1933, liberals in America have favored increased regulation, on what appears to be the theory that people will not make good informed choices if left to themselves. This has tended to constrict many freedoms.
On the other hand, conservatives, taken to a similar extreme, tend to favor absolutely no government assistance to anyone except possibly in the nature of economic development. On the other hand, they are strongly in favor of legislation that produces a semblance of what they would consider “good morality” and a minimum of public controversy – “law ‘n’ order” and “family values.” This also has tended to constrict many freedoms.
I think the stances that get devised here need to be more constructed along the Pournelle Axes than on the linear left-right continuum.
Finally, the idea that the two parties are stringently equivalent to the two ends of that continuum is an artifact of recent years. There has always been a strong conservative Democratic tradition and nearly as strong a liberal Republican one. Even today you can point to men who “are in the wrong party” by these standards. An obvious example is Representative Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY), who has been declared an endangered species: a liberal Republican. Jim Kolbe defies categorization. I don’t have an example right at hand for a conservative Democrat, but I’m confident there are quite a few left.
Ahh yes…trickle down economics raises its head again. Well, I hate to tell ya but it turns out it doesn’t work as you propose even if it does look good on paper (read up on Reaganomics for more info…the poor didn’t fare too well). Unfortunately the economy is far too complex to be wrapped up in such a neat sound bite.
Personally I consider myself an economic conservative and a social liberal (and no…they don’t have to be mutually exclusive terms). As such, I’m going to take a different track from what the OP specifically asked.
I think either system would suck big time if it was strictly one way or the other. Frankly, the best answers are usually (not always) found in the middle. Your extreme Nazi conservative skinhead or your tree hugging blow-up all of the dams and let’s run around naked people are generally not those you’d like running your country. (And as has been mentioned exactly how far right or left are these idealized governments?)
I’m a firm believer in balance. The Yin and the Yang and all of that. Having both sides duke it out tends to keep the more extreme and usually undesirable folks away from making policy.
My vote: I’ll take this system, screwed up and sad as it is, over an all liberal or all conservative system any day.
Yeah, I agree gridlock is best. I don’t want either of them to have their way, but the question as what if one or the other gained absolute power. Granted, I would prefer our do nothing in either direction system, but if I had to pick I would choose the repubs. And like I said, assuming my second assumption, I don’t know what I’d choose:D.
Well, your take on trickle down economics, I’m not sure I agree with that. Assuming politics occurs, yep your right, but under an “ideal” situation, trickle down econ works just fine. Granted politics is gonna be played and things will get taken from the poor, but not because of trickle down economics, but rather because of their weak political coalition. The poor aren’t exactly a group that any political party really wants to court favor with, in general they don’t vote, they don’t contribute campaign contributions, and in general, neither party expects this to ever change. Thus, they are neglected in a political sense.
I’m not gonna get into a debate about whether or not “trickle down economics” works, because I don’t feel like trying to cover 2 or 3 semesters worth of Macro right now, furthermore, its off the topic of the general debate. Maybe we can discuss it at a later date in another thread if you wish:D.
Gadarene, you’ve got to stop sighing so much. It’s so mainstream liberal ;).
I think the OP was meant to be framed as a choice between the Jesse Jackson Democrats and the Pat Robertson Republicans. With either scenario there would be an enormous stream of humanity headed for the borders. My first inclination would be to join them. But given the overriding preoccupation of all politicians with power and pork, and the sheer magnitude of will needed to overcome bureaucratic inertia, I’m not sure the differences between the two extremes would be all that startling.
First off, everyone disagreeing is what makes all governments suck, including democracy. If everyone agreed it wouldn’t really matter what the government was. I’d pick republicans knowing what I know now (even if I’d be reborn into some random body without that knowledge again) because I agree with the very general ideology. I’d be an economic conservative social liberal too, I guess. But mainly I’m a non-conformist: I don’t like labels. (joke)
As far as trickle-down econ, I think its pretty obvious it works too, it just depends on how much you expect to trickle and how long you think it should take
Hush, or I’ll put you in a lockbox with Social Security.
Guinastasia:
Yup, and as much consumer purchasing power as feasible spread up and down the income spectrum–which is why credit cards have been so useful in the last half-century in obscuring the state of our economy and its repercussions.
But I suppose that belongs more in my thread. Which I’m getting to, eventually…
Honestly, I don’t think the republicans or democrats have a stand on anything with politics being the way it is nowadays. But what stances they have (ready to shift at any minute!) I’d still take the republicans. Viva la revolucion. Lets have the wealthy take back what was theirs in the first place!
(joke)