# Liberal (American) dopers, a question **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 12, 2010, 2:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-american-dopers-a-question/563845 "2010-12-12T02:32:53Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Le\_Jacquelope](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e0b2c6/32.png) [@Le\_Jacquelope](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Le_Jacquelope)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2010, 5:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-american-dopers-a-question/563845/41 "2010-12-13T05:05:50Z")
I would push a trickle-up economics policy that pushed wealth down into the working class. Strong tariffs to protect tech and knowledge-based work. Require ALL space industry work servicing this country to be done here. Then I’d laugh in the face of anyone who says the space industry is ever going to become obsolete, or that America is better off laying off space workers in favor of sending the work overseas and having them do something else like sit on the unemployment line. (As in, I would haul these people out on television and make fun of them on a daily basis). I’d kick start Bush’s program to go to Mars and then get to mining resources from the asteroid belt and the moon until it is economically feasible for private industry to do so. I’d get the Government hopping on large scale development of solar farms and installing solar panels on all Government buildings, state or Federal. I’d use the old tactic of tying solar deployment to increased education or road funding. Require all solar products be made in the US. I’d establish an honest to God Government program to reward and glorify students who excel in math and science. Put them on the same level as quarterbacks and basketballers. Then I’d build a giant wall cordoning off the Southern United States and let them become their own nation. Except Florida. I’d need the launch platforms 'n stuff. 😛 ---
**Author:** ![Le\_Jacquelope](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e0b2c6/32.png) [@Le\_Jacquelope](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Le_Jacquelope)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2010, 6:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-american-dopers-a-question/563845/42 "2010-12-13T06:03:07Z")
I’d get troops out of foreign countries, and establish a bigger network of spy satellites and aircraft carriers to strike at any target that threatens us. Close all foreign bases. Redeploy the troops as border patrol. Amnesty for existing illegals… frankly this country was stolen from them to begin with, so what are we doing kicking them out? Border security would be checking rigorously for incoming terrorists but that’s it. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2010, 6:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-american-dopers-a-question/563845/43 "2010-12-13T06:31:54Z")
[ul] [li]Work and re-education camps for unrepentant banksters.[/li][li]Nationalization of the commanding heights of the economy by the federal government.[/li][li]Management via worker’s councils, with approval by the Central Democratic Party.[/li][li]Death panels.[/li][li]Campaign finance reform and free abortion on demand.[/li][li]Legalize and tax pot, crack, meth and LSD. Mandatory glue-sniffing for all teens.[/li][li]Price supports for wheat, corn and dairy products.[/li][li]Wait, we already have that. [/li][/ul] ---
**Author:** ![godix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/278dde/32.png) [@godix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/godix)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2010, 6:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-american-dopers-a-question/563845/44 "2010-12-13T06:43:23Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > WWII is a great example of why my proposal **isn’t** bad. We didn’t have an enormous standing military at the time that Pearl Harbor was bombed. Germany’s invasion of Poland got Roosevelt to increase the military to a quarter-million soldiers. By 1942, we were at more than five million soldiers. While that’s true, WWII started in 1939? If another Hitler rose up do you think it’s a good thing that America wouldn’t and couldn’t do anything about it for three years? > [@gonzomax](#): > > We are not the policemen of the world. Why not? Seriously, if someone has a goal of ending genocide, ethnic cleansing, etc. then why shouldn’t the US military be used as the worlds police? I’ve often heard that the US shouldn’t be the worlds policeman, but I don’t think I’ve ever heard an actual reason of why we shouldn’t. If we have the ability to save lives, then shouldn’t we do so? > [@Chronos](#): > > Quoth **godix** :OK, so how about this? We match North Korea on a one-to-one basis, staring right across their border at them, with the assurance than we’ll bring down an even bigger hammer if they step out of line, plus whatever the South Koreans and the rest of our allies are doing. We also do the same thing with Russia, China, Pakistan, Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, and any other country where there’s even a plausible chance that they might start being nasty to us. In fact, we match everyone in the whole world on a one-for-one basis, excepting only our close friends and allies like Canada, most of Western Europe, Israel, and Australia. Would that be an acceptable level of military strength to you? That would be an acceptable level of military strength if you want to have lengthy wars that make Iraq look like a cakewalk where US casualties are in the tens of thousands per year. Equal military strengths achieves that. OTOH if you want to be able to win a war with minimal US casualties, we’d need superior strength. ---
**Author:** ![elfkin477](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/a9a28c/32.png) [@elfkin477](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elfkin477)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2010, 7:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-american-dopers-a-question/563845/45 "2010-12-13T07:30:10Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > I’d don’t consider myself a liberal but here’s some parts of the liberal agenda I’d like to see enacted. > > 1. Real universal health care. A program that’s open and accessible to everyone. > > 2. Decriminalization of marijuana and other recreational drugs. It’s a waste of law enforcement resources to use them against drugs. > > 3. Gay civil rights - Gays should have the same rights as everyone else, including the right to get married and the right to serve in the armed forces. > > 4. Close down the Guantanamo system. Try the detainees or let them go. > > 5. And, of course, the complete banning of Christianity and a constitutional amendment making Satanism the national religion. All Praise the Dark Lord! I’m not very liberal, but I like the first 3.5 points you make. I’d like to see everyone at Guantanamo tried, but not simply let go. And as for five, well… > [@BrainGlutton](#): > > What’s in China’s? For one, they make the vast majority of solar panels sold throughout the world. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2010, 7:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-american-dopers-a-question/563845/46 "2010-12-13T07:57:55Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > 1. Reinstate Glass-Steagal. Getting rid of it was a terrible idea … it CAUSED our current recession, along with ARMs and pretty much illegal lending practices by the banks. Good idea > [@](#): > > 1. Reinstate limits on electoral spending. Seal off third party monies. Let everyone speak their mind, but don’t let money control the electoral process as it has. How do you resolve freedom of speech issues? > [@](#): > > 1. All political jurisdictional lines to be drawn by independent boards not appointed by any politician or political group. End political redistricting. the present process is insanely stupid. HEFTY criminal penalties for trying to influence such boards. Not possible, the lines should be drawn based on a geographic formula. > [@](#): > > 1. health care to be managed as follows: all federal, state and local government employees are merged into a single health care pool. Private employers may opt to enter their employees into the same pool, at the same rates. Private individuals may do so as well. No restrictions on what private health care plans can do. They just have to compete with the government health care pool. If corporations are so fucking much better at everything, they should do just fine! (Hint: effective single payer inside a decade or two). Would prefer to see competitive, regulated free enterprise for insurance. > [@](#): > > Creation of a new bank charter, a “main street bank” which is ONLY allowed to invest in non-financial products. (I.e., no derivatives, no currency speculation, no loan packages) they can only invest in companies that make things and provide non-financial services. Offer differential guarantees for fund recovery in Main Street Banks vs. “Gambling Banks” that invest in financial services industry. Like, cut back government guarantees to $25,000 in Gambling Banks (one account per person or corporation) and increase guarantees in Main Street Banks to $250,000. Idea is, get banks back in the business of supporting productive corporations and individuals instead of casino gambling in currency markets and exotic financial instruments. And write it into law that Gambling Banks MUST be allowed to fail if they do badly at the financial market’s gaming tables. Good sentiment, needs much more detail > [@](#): > > Sanctity of American Women’s Bodies Act. All decisions regarding abortions are to be made between a woman and her doctor. The government to have no power to intervene. Using the Republican tactics taints the concept. Why is the doctor a necessary part also? Can’t she just take a pill? > [@](#): > > Gay Marriage Act. Any gay person that wants to be married to a member of the same sex may do so. What the hell. Why do you have be gay to marry a member of the same sex? You don’t have to be straight to marry a member of the opposite sex. > [@](#): > > Free Speech act. Censorship is illegal. Neither the government nor any corporation may forbid freedom of speech, or punish free speech in any way. This applies to ANY form of communication on ANY topic, including sexual topics, in ANY medium. Any individual, person or group may limit what they say on certain topics (children’s TV programming, etc.) but no third party may COMPEL them. Be more specific. Can someone be free to publicly criticize their employer without getting fired? Can someone reveal your medical records? > [@](#): > > Government investment programs to lead the way in investment during recessions like this one. The tax structure can make investment happen without dictating who gets invested. ---
**Author:** ![Argent\_Towers](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e8c25b/32.png) [@Argent\_Towers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Argent_Towers)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2010, 8:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-american-dopers-a-question/563845/47 "2010-12-13T08:04:20Z")
> [@Le\_Jacquelope](#): > > I’d establish an honest to God Government program to reward and glorify students who excel in math and science. Put them on the same level as quarterbacks and basketballers. The only way to do this would be to offer high school girls monetary incentives to sleep with the nerds. You can make programs and awards and accolades and scholarships for the brainy students all day long but they’ll never be on the level of the star athletes unless they’re getting laid! ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2010, 8:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-american-dopers-a-question/563845/48 "2010-12-13T08:10:06Z")
Universal publicly funded health care An increase in social security benefits A repeal of all tax cuts that began in 1981 to date and a lifting on the payroll tax ceiling to pay for it all An increase in the minimum wage The right of any citizen to all the tax deductions that corporations can use End the war on marijuana. I’ve never smoked, but it is obviously stupid. End the embargo of Cuba. It’s stupid and doesn’t work. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2010, 1:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-american-dopers-a-question/563845/49 "2010-12-13T13:11:04Z")
> [@godix](#): > > Why not? Seriously, if someone has a goal of ending genocide, ethnic cleansing, etc. then why shouldn’t the US military be used as the worlds police? I’ve often heard that the US shouldn’t be the worlds policeman, but I don’t think I’ve ever heard an actual reason of why we shouldn’t. If we have the ability to save lives, then shouldn’t we do so? Two reasons. First, filling this role costs us a shitload. We spend a ridiculous amount of our GOP on maintaining our standing military. If we cut it drastically, we’d have a lot of money to spend on other goals. If you want us to be the world’s nice guys, let’s put half of the savings into foreign aid: think of the difference it’d make to increase, say, malaria vaccination programs funding by $100 billion a year. THink of how many more lives we could save that way. Second, having a big military around provide a subtle but very powerful incentive to get into wars, or just to make military strikes. If we adopted the Dorkness Doctrine, and limited our military engagement to actual defense of our soil or participation in joint treaty ventures, we wouldn’t do things like bombing medicine factories in Sudan. And we definitely wouldn’t get mired in another Iraq or Vietnam. Again, it’d save lives. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2010, 1:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-american-dopers-a-question/563845/50 "2010-12-13T13:48:49Z")
But there is a deterrent value in having a sizable military. Yes, having a standing army costs more than not having one. But having an actual war costs more than having a standing army. So having a standing army can actually be cost-effective if it prevents an actual war from occurring. ---
**Author:** ![Acid\_Lamp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d6d6ee/32.png) [@Acid\_Lamp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acid_Lamp)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2010, 1:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-american-dopers-a-question/563845/51 "2010-12-13T13:52:09Z")
Hmm. Well there are lots of things that would be good. 1. Universal health care. All Us citizens would have the right to free basic medical care, along with the doctor recommended treatment at no cost. This also goes for optical and dental. If you would like additional procedures, alternative or fancier options you can pay for them yourself through an insurance provider or out of pocket. 2. Corporate Reinvestment Act. Under this act, corporate tax breaks will expire. They will be given the option of either paying the money in taxes, or using those funds to directly reinvest in their business. Funds may be used for R&D, non executive worker wage increases, hiring additional staff, or opening additional locations/ purchasing manufacturing locations/ equipment. They may NOT be utilized, for bonus programs, executive pay, stock investments, or held to gain interest. 3. Fairness in Media. Media outlets must be factually accurate if they are licensed as _news media_. Entertainment media may do whatever they wish, but programs that toe the line will run a disclaimer preceding, in credits, and returning from commercial breaks stating that the following content is entertainment, and has not been checked for accuracy, or facts and should not be confused with factually accurate news. Dissolution of censorship in entertainment media. The market is perfectly capable of dictating how much naughtiness is too much. Nearly all television have parental controls. 1. Legalization of recreational drugs. The market can compete better than drug runners and we waste way too much money fighting this and incarcerating minor offenders. Tax this heavily and make the penalties for DUI considerably tougher. 2. Legalization of gay marriage. 3. Slash the defense budget considerably. Use the resulting funds for investment in sciences and education. 4. Institute a PAYGO system. 5. Institute a progressive minimum wage, set by the State, rather than the government. Wage levels MUST be sufficient to cover cost of living expenses as averaged by an interstate commission. ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2010, 1:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-american-dopers-a-question/563845/52 "2010-12-13T13:55:00Z")
> [@godix](#): > > Why not? Seriously, if someone has a goal of ending genocide, ethnic cleansing, etc. then why shouldn’t the US military be used as the worlds police? Sure, we should, but we’re not. If we’re not _really_ going to be using our forces to stop genocide and ethnic cleansing we can go about it in a much cheaper way. As it is, we incur all of the expenses of _pretending_ to be the world’s policemen without actually doing any crime prevention. We’re the detectives who rope off the crime scene and shout at passersby “move along, nothing to see here”. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2010, 2:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-american-dopers-a-question/563845/53 "2010-12-13T14:05:49Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > 1. All political jurisdictional lines to be drawn by independent boards not appointed by any politician or political group. End political redistricting. the present process is insanely stupid. HEFTY criminal penalties for trying to influence such boards. It’s easy to identify the problem but it’s very difficult to come up with a good solution. The drawing of voting districts has a major impact on who gets elected and therefore on the political process. With that being the case how do you prevent the political process from seeking to control the drawing of electoral districts? You say you want an independent board that isn’t appointed by politicians. Then who is appointing the members of this board? If the board members are directly elected, how will those elections be any less partisan than regular elections? Political parties will just seek to influence the redistricting board elections. If you hand redistricting over to the court system, political parties will seek to influence the appointment of judges. If you try to create some panel of university statisticians, the politicians will just try to influence the academic system. Worse yet, even if you convince a majority of politicians to play fair and abide by a genuine impartial system, you are still going to have a problem. There’s going to be some minority of politicians who will not play fair - they’re going to try to rig the system in their favor. And these dishonest politicians will end up beating honest politicians in elections because they will have rigged those elections. How can honest politicians fight back? By rigging elections so they can get elected to defend the sanctity of elections? ---
**Author:** ![Sitnam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Sitnam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sitnam)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2010, 2:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-american-dopers-a-question/563845/54 "2010-12-13T14:16:04Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > I don’t consider myself a Liberal, and here’s one reason why. I believe we need our strong military…We should also start charging the rest of the world for the protection they recieve from our military. Countries all over the world benefit from free trade because they can ship their products through safe waters, that we make safe with very little help from anyone else. We need to openly declare that we will not protect ships that do not pay us a fee for their protection. If pirates, terrorists, or anyone else attacks a ship at sea that doesn’t pay us, we will do nothing to help the owners of that ship. We may want to go after the attackers for our own interests, but if we recover stolen property, we keep it. You want our armed forces to get involved in a shakedown racket? How is that different from the pirates? :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2010, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-american-dopers-a-question/563845/55 "2010-12-13T16:16:40Z")
> [@Sitnam](#): > > You want our armed forces to get involved in a shakedown racket? How is that different from the pirates? :rolleyes: Well a protection racket usually involving the client buying protection from YOU, which I do not believe is what Tripolar has in mind. The U.S. Navy is under no compulsion to protect the shipping of other nations from Somali pirates or other pirates, that I know of. That said, the U.S. benefits greatly from world commerce, so they have a general interest in fighting piracy. So, I’m not sure that the navy can afford NOT to attack pirates. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2010, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-american-dopers-a-question/563845/56 "2010-12-13T16:55:29Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > If pirates, terrorists, or anyone else attacks a ship at sea that doesn’t pay us, we will do nothing to help the owners of that ship. We may want to go after the attackers for our own interests, but if we recover stolen property, we keep it. > [@Sitnam](#): > > You want our armed forces to get involved in a shakedown racket? How is that different from the pirates? :rolleyes: > [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > Well a protection racket usually involving the client buying protection from YOU, which I do not believe is what Tripolar has in mind. The U.S. Navy is under no compulsion to protect the shipping of other nations from Somali pirates or other pirates, that I know of. That said, the U.S. benefits greatly from world commerce, so they have a general interest in fighting piracy. So, I’m not sure that the navy can afford NOT to attack pirates. I never contended that we should not fight piracy, nor conduct a shakedown racket. I said that we should not help victims of piracy who do not participate in the common defense, but garner the benefits. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2010, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-american-dopers-a-question/563845/57 "2010-12-13T22:44:15Z")
Quoth **godix** : > [@](#): > > That would be an acceptable level of military strength if you want to have lengthy wars that make Iraq look like a cakewalk where US casualties are in the tens of thousands per year. Equal military strengths achieves that. OTOH if you want to be able to win a war with minimal US casualties, we’d need superior strength. No, Iraq is what you get _from the military we actually had when we got involved in Iraq_. A limited military doesn’t get you stuck in quagmires, it keeps you from getting involved in them in the first place. Or, look at it another way: You claim that it is rational for the US to spend more on its military than the entire rest of the world combined. Is it also rational for the UK to do the same thing? Russia? China? This isn’t Lake Woebegon, where everyone’s spending is above average. Real-world math doesn’t work that way. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2010, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-american-dopers-a-question/563845/58 "2010-12-14T01:03:02Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > It’s easy to identify the problem but it’s very difficult to come up with a good solution. The drawing of voting districts has a major impact on who gets elected and therefore on the political process. With that being the case how do you prevent the political process from seeking to control the drawing of electoral districts? > > You say you want an independent board that isn’t appointed by politicians. Then who is appointing the members of this board? If the board members are directly elected, how will those elections be any less partisan than regular elections? Political parties will just seek to influence the redistricting board elections. If you hand redistricting over to the court system, political parties will seek to influence the appointment of judges. If you try to create some panel of university statisticians, the politicians will just try to influence the academic system. > > Worse yet, even if you convince a majority of politicians to play fair and abide by a genuine impartial system, you are still going to have a problem. There’s going to be some minority of politicians who will not play fair - they’re going to try to rig the system in their favor. And these dishonest politicians will end up beating honest politicians in elections because they will have rigged those elections. How can honest politicians fight back? By rigging elections so they can get elected to defend the sanctity of elections? It’s inevitable that some politicians and political types will try to corrupt any conceivable redistricting plan. But even a badly enforced plan would be an enormous improvement over our current method of giving supervision of the henhouse to whichever set of foxes gets elected. We could have judges appoint the judiciary, perhaps not a guarantee of objectivity, but a much better shot than we presently have. We would probably need an independent law enforcement body enforcing the laws against corrupting redistricting bodies, to prevent the sort of hijinks the Bush Administration got up to with the justice department. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2010, 1:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-american-dopers-a-question/563845/59 "2010-12-14T01:29:45Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > Good idea > How do you resolve freedom of speech issues? You can say anything you like within the economic margins set by the law. What’s the problem? One side’s “right” to buy twice as much air time might be limited, well let me get my very teeny violin and play a little tune for 'em. > [@](#): > > Not possible, the lines should be drawn based on a geographic formula. There is NO chance that a method of drawing districts that does not give SOME party an advantage in every instance can be created. Even a geographic formula, or a “fill in the blank” formula will accidentally favor one party or another. So what? We can product districts that are ORDERS of MAGNITUDE fairer than what we have with our present “system.” > [@](#): > > Would prefer to see competitive, regulated free enterprise for insurance. I’m proposing free enterprise for insurance, competing directly against government sponsored health insurance. I don’t think free enterprise is the answer to every need, and I suspect health care management is one of them. > [@](#): > > Good sentiment, needs much more detail Yes, there would be a lot of further work done before it could actually be enacted into law. We would have to carefully define what “financial activities” are and create a mechanism for quickly and effectively dealing with whatever twists the financial industry comes up with to get their hands on bank deposits to gamble with. > [@](#): > > Using the Republican tactics taints the concept. Why is the doctor a necessary part also? Can’t she just take a pill? Both political parties have long given their legislation names that they think people will find appealing, it’s not a Republican tactic. And no, the doctor need not be involved. > [@](#): > > Why do you have be gay to marry a member of the same sex? You don’t have to be straight to marry a member of the opposite sex. I would bet that the overwhelming majority of people interested in marrying members of the same sex would be gay. But I don’t really care, straights could do it to. I really don’t care who marries who. > [@](#): > > Be more specific. Can someone be free to publicly criticize their employer without getting fired? Can someone reveal your medical records? Well you could not broadcast someone’s bank account number of the Web or incite people to murder a specific individual or group of individuals … and I think whistleblower protections should apply for individuals, and speech that is counter to the political interests of corporations should be protected, even if it is spoken/written by employees of said corporations. Hence, health insurance employees may speak out for single payer, etc. > [@](#): > > The tax structure can make investment happen without dictating who gets invested. Well leaving it to the banks right now has not been a very good move. We bailed them out to the tune of billions and they are sitting on the money cause they have suddenly developed an aversion to risk of any kind. The government can and should lead at such times. There are simply things the government does better than the free enterprise system, especially REGULATING it, and it’s about time we recognized that. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2010, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-american-dopers-a-question/563845/60 "2010-12-14T01:56:46Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > You can say anything you like within the economic margins set by the law. What’s the problem? One side’s “right” to buy twice as much air time might be limited, well let me get my very teeny violin and play a little tune for 'em. If I want to spend enormous sums of money promoting a candidate I think should have a right to. I’m not talking about giving the money to the candidate, a party, or someone else, I consider that literally to be a bribe. My own expenditure could be considered a figurative bribe, but my own speech should be protected. > [@](#): > > There is NO chance that a method of drawing districts that does not give SOME party an advantage in every instance can be created. Even a geographic formula, or a “fill in the blank” formula will accidentally favor one party or another. So what? We can product districts that are ORDERS of MAGNITUDE fairer than what we have with our present “system.” The problem is your idea of ‘independent boards not appointed by any politician or political group’. Where do you expect them to come from? And do you expect them to be independent? > [@](#): > > I’m proposing free enterprise for insurance, competing directly against government sponsored health insurance. I don’t think free enterprise is the answer to every need, and I suspect health care management is one of them. I see that as a problem, if the government can use the force of law and dip into the general taxes in this competition. That’s why I’d like to see a minimal government plan, and regulation of the insurance industry to enforce a competitive environment. That way most people would want to seek private insurance, and the private insurers would have to be competetive. I’d even accept the government covering catastrophic care so that private insurers wouldn’t have to worry about the riskiest aspect of the business. > [@](#): > > Yes, there would be a lot of further work done before it could actually be enacted into law. We would have to carefully define what “financial activities” are and create a mechanism for quickly and effectively dealing with whatever twists the financial industry comes up with to get their hands on bank deposits to gamble with. I like this line of thinking. I just know the all the financial language involved, but I think banks which receive can borrow money from the government should be in the business of borrowing and lending, not speculative investment. > [@](#): > > Both political parties have long given their legislation names that they think people will find appealing, it’s not a Republican tactic. And no, the doctor need not be involved. I guess the naming of a bill isn’t as important as it’s content. > [@](#): > > I would bet that the overwhelming majority of people interested in marrying members of the same sex would be gay. But I don’t really care, straights could do it to. I really don’t care who marries who. > > Well you could not broadcast someone’s bank account number of the Web or incite people to murder a specific individual or group of individuals … and I think whistleblower protections should apply for individuals, and speech that is counter to the political interests of corporations should be protected, even if it is spoken/written by employees of said corporations. Hence, health insurance employees may speak out for single payer, etc. np > [@](#): > > Well leaving it to the banks right now has not been a very good move. We bailed them out to the tune of billions and they are sitting on the money cause they have suddenly developed an aversion to risk of any kind. The government can and should lead at such times. There are simply things the government does better than the free enterprise system, especially REGULATING it, and it’s about time we recognized that. I didn’t mean leaving it to banks. As I stated a few lines up, they shouldn’t be in the business of speculative investment. I think we need higher tax rates that can be offset by actual investment that creates jobs, and real capital investment, not gambling with financial instruments. Anybody with a dollar should be able to take advantage of this, not just the rich. You sound too reasonable to fit in the Liberal category. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-american-dopers-a-question/563845.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-american-dopers-a-question/563845.md?page=4)