# Understanding Political Philosophy - Progressives vs Conservatives vs Independents **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 26, 2010, 9:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/understanding-political-philosophy-progressives-vs-conservatives-vs-independents/533855 "2010-03-26T09:37:31Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2010, 11:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/understanding-political-philosophy-progressives-vs-conservatives-vs-independents/533855/21 "2010-03-27T11:10:24Z")
> [@jrodefeld](#): > > It is my choice not to get vaccinated. Why can you not accept my personal choice on this matter? Because you put other people in danger. And because it’s really, really foolish of you. > [@jrodefeld](#): > > Yeah being skeptical about vaccines is the same as denying evolution and “claiming the lizard people were behind 9-11”. Pretty much, yes; the same class of lunacy, and often the same people. > [@jrodefeld](#): > > If vaccines are so important, why are people sicker than ever before with all these new mandatory vaccines? Don’t you think this is an area of medicine the begs long term cost-benefit analysis? And what evidence do you have that it isn’t? And people are not remotely " sicker than ever before". The opposite is true. > [@jrodefeld](#): > > By the way, I have to ask: Do you think all businessmen are inherently immoral and “evil”? Not inherently, but business by its nature rewards psychopathic behavior. Especially if there’s no strong government regulation and oversight to keep the predators in check. > [@jrodefeld](#): > > If you see businessmen as inherently evil, why don’t you see politicians and many governments the same way? Because unlike business, it isn’t their job to exploit people. And because democratic governments are more under the control of the people than any business. > [@jrodefeld](#): > > Certainly governments can steal and abuse and harass people, right? Why not extend your skepticism to government as well? What if our government has no interest in serving the people, but rather serving the interests of bankers, the politicians and their political contributers? Then it would be a libertarian government. > [@jrodefeld](#): > > Even if what you say is true, it would still gives kids a choice they didn’t have before. Why would you be against that? Because it would give them a worse set of choices, and the most likely result is they would get scammed and a worse education. > [@jrodefeld](#): > > Yeah, but the idea is that if a violent revolution were ever necessary, the public would be able to fight their oppressors. Why are you arguing this point? Do you not believe in the second amendment? I regard the Second Amendment as destructive to society, a danger to the freedom of the American public, and primarily used as a tool to manipulate people into surrendering liberty in the name of guns. And no, the public is no more safe from oppression with it than without it. ---
**Author:** ![jrodefeld](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/59ef9b/32.png) [@jrodefeld](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jrodefeld)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2010, 11:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/understanding-political-philosophy-progressives-vs-conservatives-vs-independents/533855/22 "2010-03-27T11:23:45Z")
> [@](#): > > Your article fails to mention how you will keep a monopoly or deregulated company from price-gouging or cutting costs. It continues the belief that the people who own a corporation are more interested in social justice then turning a profit. Specifically: Price gouging will only occur from a Monopoly because other will undercut their prices. As I said before, natural monopolies are rare, and antitrust laws should prevent them from occurring, keeping competition alive in all markets. Of course people who own a corporation are interested in turning a profit. But you are insinuating that that desire is inherently contrary to social justice. I disagree. Businesses that innovate and lead to a revolution in how we live and improve our quality of life contribute to social justice. This type of innovation should be encouraged in a free market. > [@](#): > > He’s right in that it would be comforting if businesses operated that way in the real world. Too bad they rarely do. > > If you had a monopoly and could increase your profit while decreasing your overhead you’d take it. The easiest way would be via cutting expenses such as employee benefits, relaxed safety and health standards, and decreased product quality. As long people have no alternative to buying your product you can save a lot of money. China does this. How do you like their product standards? How do you protect workers at all without any safeguards in place? People WOULD have an alternative to buying any product. But I understand your concerns are frequently held by those on the Left in reaction to a libertarian ideology. What if we had basic safeguards you could agree with, antitrust laws, minimum wage laws, food and safety requirements, restrictions on pollution, etc. And THEN we shrunk the government down to its Constitutional size and scope and adopted the other reforms I have suggested. Would you support them then? > [@](#): > > Doesn’t this assume that all businesses have zero start up costs? Look at the oil industry. It has extreme start up costs, but once it’s running it has enourmous profits. Say Exxon Mobile gains a monopoly. It’d be more efficient. Is the price of gas now whatever they say it is? Would you want to bet they wouldn’t price gouge? Do you think that anyone could afford the start up cost as a competitor, especially with Exxon Mobile doing all it could to protect it’s monopoly? The problem is we have been living with Corporatism for so long now many companies are vastly more powerful than they would be in a Free Market Libertarian society. I think it would be fair, in a transition phase, for the government to break up these monopolies and encourage new business and free enterprise through tax incentives and other means. Once we have achieved the reforms I am advocating, we would see every market have a vibrant, competitive energy with dozens of competitors vying for the public to patronize them. The issue is how to get from here to there. > [@](#): > > This is a complete topic shift, but the CDC, UK National Health Service, and Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences all disagree with you. > > You will want to look up herd immunity, holistic medcine, and (most importantly for the premise of this thread) how much money is saved on health care through the use of vaccines. Also, the plural of anecdote (your personal experience) does not equal data. Your right, I don’t want to focus on my beliefs about Vaccines. This is a topic about libertarian ideology. But suffice to say, I believe in the very near future we will be changing our tune drastically as we see increasingly negative health effects in our population from all the vaccines we are giving people. Just wait. > [@](#): > > Why are children and the elderly exempt? They can carry items through as well. Old people have a lot less life to lose in a suicide attack and kids will carry what they’re told without knowing what it is. Please provide an example of a non-rascist, non-bigoted way to determine high risk individuals. Because they are very low risk. Do you understand how low the risk for terrorism really is? You are more likely to be struck by lightning _twice_ in one year than to be the victim of a terrorist attack. Yeah, I don’t think every man, woman, child, young and old alike should be scanned and harassed at the airport. This is just me, but I would gladly take the risk to be free of this nonsense every time I fly. Are you really afraid of terrorism? Would you not feel safe on an airplane without having full body scanners at every airport and knowing that peoples toothpaste has been taken from them? I certainly wouldn’t feel any less safe without this bullshit. To each his own. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2010, 12:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/understanding-political-philosophy-progressives-vs-conservatives-vs-independents/533855/23 "2010-03-27T12:48:50Z")
> [@jrodefeld](#): > > As far as mandatory vaccinations are concerned, it is a far cry from acknowledging that the concept of the Vaccine is scientifically sound and studied, to believing that every vaccine given is necessary and safe. > > As far as opposing central banks setting interest rates, what exactly is crazy about that position? Many esteemed economists, political scientists, and historians have endorsed my position. I agree with you that many vaccines are inappropriate. The present flu vaccine may be a good example. (I wasn’t aware U.S. planned _mandatory_ administration of that vaccine). But it’s a far cry from “some vaccines are inappropriate” to “there should be no mandatory vaccines whatsoever” which is how you started. (I wonder if I could get you to retreat to a “centrist” position on many of your points by challenging you to think. BTW, I hope you realize that the anecdote “jrodefeld didn’t vaccinate and jrodefeld is still healthy” has little probative value.) On the subject of economists endorsing your position on interest rates, URL’s would be good. But first, let’s find out what your position is! It started as “central banks should not set interest rates” but seems to have migrated to “recently the Fed set inappropriate rates.” And as for short-term interest rates being set by the “free market” it would be nice to see a URL that demonstrates that to be even _plausible_ in today’s financial world. And of course, that government should sometimes adopt fiscal and monetary polices _opposite_ to what a “free market” would adopt is well-known in Keynesian theory. (I see Keynesian theory being denounced by some right-wingers; AFAIK, however, this is just more right-wing nonsense.) ---
**Author:** ![jrodefeld](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/59ef9b/32.png) [@jrodefeld](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jrodefeld)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2010, 12:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/understanding-political-philosophy-progressives-vs-conservatives-vs-independents/533855/24 "2010-03-27T12:59:24Z")
> [@](#): > > Oh boy. > > Oh boy oh boy oh boy oh boy. > > This is one paragraph. I’m just going to deal with the one. And it is absolute codswallop, beginning to end, wrong-headed on so many levels, it’s a real trial to sift through. I would personally have trouble fitting more factual inaccuracies and irrelevancies into the same amount of space, even if I were deliberately trying. Can I first ask, What are your qualifications and formal education in matters of economics? Since you take such a smug posture, you must be some kind of expert. :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > 1. People can already trade gold and silver for goods and services, if they so wish. The government isn’t stopping them. The government wants its taxes denominated in genuine green US dollars, but there are places to purchase and transfer electronic money “backed” by precious metals like gold, like the site “e-gold”. All debts, public and private, are apparently payable with dollars, at least according to the old dead white guys on my nifty little pieces of green paper. Okay, then. Make sure nobody gets in your debt. Demand contractually in advance that the transaction will be in gold. Voila. Problem solved. The government DOES NOT allow competing currencies PERIOD. To do this, we would have to repeal legal tender laws. Look at the following links: [http://www.dgcmagazine.com/blog/index.php/2009/08/01/liberty-dollar-suspends-operations-pending-counterfeiting-trial/](http://www.dgcmagazine.com/blog/index.php/2009/08/01/liberty-dollar-suspends-operations-pending-counterfeiting-trial/) > **[Let's Legalize Competing Currencies - LewRockwell](https://www.lewrockwell.com/2008/02/ron-paul/lets-legalize-competing-currencies/)** > > Let’s Legalize Competing Currencies by Ron Paul by Ron Paul DIGG THIS Before the US House of Representatives, February 13, 2008 I rise to speak on the concept of competing currencies. Currency, or money, is what allows civilization to flourish. In... [http://www.fame.org/HTM/Ron%20Paul%20Introduces%20HR2779%20The%20Honest%20Money%20Act%20-%20REPEAL%20OF%20LEGAL%20TENDER%20LAWS.htm](http://www.fame.org/HTM/Ron%20Paul%20Introduces%20HR2779%20The%20Honest%20Money%20Act%20-%20REPEAL%20OF%20LEGAL%20TENDER%20LAWS.htm) > **[HJR-192\_repealed.pdf](https://ww25.vinyasi-public-records.info/data/HJR-192_repealed.pdf?subid1=20251225-0001-57bc-9a4b-bb424b080b73)** > > 1250 B The creators of the Liberty Dollar were arrested and charged on the following reasons: _“conspiracy and other charges in connection with an alleged unlawful operation to publish, possess and sell for profit, coins in resemblance and similitude to U.S. coins. All four defendants are also charged in the alleged conspiracy with uttering and passing, and attempting to utter and pass, a coin of silver in resemblance of genuine coins of the United States in the denominations of five dollars and greater, and intended for use as current money.”_ Thus, it is ILLEGAL to circulate competing currencies. What I am advocating is repealing legal tender laws. > [@](#): > > 1. People can already put their savings in precious metals and other commodities. The primary purpose of a currency is not as a store of value. Currency is our meterstick of comparison, and our medium of exchange. Those are the important ones. There is no need for it to hold its value over truly long time periods. If you don’t want your savings to get eaten away by inflation, then don’t keep your savings in currency. Simple. Direct. So easy a child could understand. There is no point at all in empty whinging about the declining value of savings, when there is not, nor has there ever been, any requirement that you keep you savings in US dollars. There are real costs associated with an inflating currency, which people who actually have studied economics should know about. Shoeleather costs of money management is one of them, but that’s only a serious problem in hyperinflationary situations. The essential act of savings is not bothered in the slightest by a little inflation, if you don’t want it to be. You know, for many years it was illegal for americans to own gold. This existed from 1933 to 1974. You act like the effects of inflation are irrelevant because it occurs over a longer period of time. How many average poor or middle class families do you know who have the foresight and economic literacy to own gold to protect their savings? Very few do. For these people the standard of living has been steadily going down as their paychecks buy less and less each week. I understand the effects of inflation because I have studied economics. If you really want to understand inflation, try reading this link: > **[Mises Daily | Mises Institute](https://mises.org/mises-daily)** > [@](#): > > 1. There is nothing in the constitution about the Treasury having the Fed’s powers. Kinda self explanatory, that one. The constitution can’t possibly demand that the Fed’s powers, including printing money, be given to Treasury. The Treasury’s only mentioned three times, from what I can tell, once for taxation, once for Congressional compensation, and once to say, hey, no taking any money from it without a record. It’s actually Congress that has the power “To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin”. And the Federal Reserve is the manifestation of that power. Congress created the Fed, and they could potentially unmake it as well. In which case, the power to coin money would not necessarily devolve to Treasury, but rather would devolve to whatever new institution Congress chose. > > This is one of the points that goldbugs always have a hard time understanding, so I’m going to repeat that with special emphasis and explication: If we destroy the Fed without replacing it with another similar institution, we do not eliminate the government’s power to create new money. Instead, we put that power even more directly in the hands of Congress. In other words, we put our printing presses directly in the hands of people, politicians, who must face re-election every two, or six, years. And this seems like a good idea for some reason? No, that is why I advocate a Gold Standard. I don’t advocate a Fiat currency controlled by Congress. By the way, when the Constitution says Congress has the power to coin money and regulate the value thereof, it means that it is Congress’s responsibility! They are not allowed to defer their responsibility to a third party. The Federal Reserve is unconstitutional for that reason. Come on, man. Any true student of Constitutional law should understand that. As far as the Treasury is concerned, they hold the Gold reserves. And they print the money. > [@](#): > > 1. We could not possibly back our currency with gold, or other any tangible commodity, without completely undermining our current price system in an excessively costly deflationary way. We can’t back our currency with gold, because gold isn’t valuable enough. The value of the all the US dollars out there exceeds the value of all the gold. In order to back our currency with gold (or anything else), the government would have to purchase reserves. In purchasing those reserves, the government would then be artificially bidding up the value of gold. The attempt to re-establish the gold standard would result in an unprecedented shift of wealth from US taxpayers to all holders of gold. And for what? To re-establish a standard that failed because of its instability? That leads me directly to my next point: This is completely false. Consider what Congressman Ron Paul wrote about a similar complaint that there isn’t enough gold, which is another argument your side makes: \*"I find it amazing that economists can make statements like this, for it is an elementary principal of economics that if one raises the price of a commodity, one will always have enough of that commodity. What we saw in the run up of gold prices is in fact the raising of the price of gold to match the depreciation of the dollar that has occurred, and still is occurring. Simply put, there will always be enough gold so long as no one interferes with the free market mechanism. At $700 an ounce the United States government has enough gold reserves to more than cover all the Federal Reserves notes outstanding. If we were to establish a gold standard by the procedure I have outlined in my bill H.R. 7874, then the world would be fully informed of the gold holdings of the United States Government and the price of gold could adjust accordingly, so that when redemption of our greenbacks - our Federal Reserve notes - began, the price would be the market-clearing price. Quite simply, the statement that there is not enough gold is false. It is a scare tactic used by opponents of the gold standard."\* You clearly have no idea how relatively easy it would actually be to reinstate the Gold standard. There would be a transition, but after that, we would be prosperous once again. > [@](#): > > 1. The gold standard is a stupid stupid stupid system. We dig a yellow metal out of a cave in the ground. We then build another, artificial cave in a place we call a “bank”. We then move the little yellow pieces of metal from one cave to another. We then print pieces of paper, and promise that we will supply the yellow metal out of our new man-made cave for anyone who has our pieces of paper. But the system only works, see, if no one wants to take the metal. If everyone would rather have the yellow metal than the paper, then the standard collapses. So in order for it to work, we must have that metal in the artificial cave be in such a way that it stays, perpetually, in that artificial cave. Doing nothing. If it were taken out of that cave, after all, it wouldn’t work. We’d just have gold currency, not a gold standard, which would quickly be abandoned because carrying around gold is a gigantic pain in the ass. So the yellow metal must sit in its new cave, gathering dust. Forever. That’s a functioning gold standard. I don’t want to discount the idea of a currency peg in all situations. It can work in some contexts. But reliance on the gold standard, for its own sake, is just dumb. It makes no bloody sense at all. It is completely false that if someone exchanges certificates for gold, the system collapses. You clearly know nothing about how a gold standard would operate in reality. The only reason why anyone would want to exchange their certificates for gold is if they had some reason not to trust the government. Even then, not everyone would withdraw the gold at once. Just the threat keeps the banks and our government honest. Why do you think the Founders advocated that only gold and silver be legal tender? Because they recognized that was the only way to ensure governments don’t grow exponentially and abuse the rights of the people. It was to ensure freedom. Since you clearly need to learn more about the gold standard, read this article written by esteemed libertarian economist Murray N. Rothbard, > **[Mises Institute](https://mises.org/)** > > With the help of our extraordinary supporters, the Mises Institute is the world's leading supporter of the ideas of liberty and the Austrian School of > [@](#): > > 1. The Fed needs to “print money” in emergencies. Among professional economists, there are numerous topics of genuine disagreement. This is not one of those topics. If you take away the ability to expand the money supply at will, then you are dooming us to continually repeat the mistakes that caused the Great Depression. This is the view of everyone from hardcore libertarians like Milton Friedman to noted liberal economists like Paul Krugman. To deny this is to deny all of our modern economic theory and history. > > It is reasonable to believe that the Fed should not act on their own discretion when printing money, but rather work within clearly established guidelines and rules, e.g. 5% annual nominal GDP growth. It is not reasonable to refuse to print money in the face of catastrophe. The Fed, remembering its mistakes so many years ago, kept us from reliving the Great Depression with its expansion of the US monetary base. They need to have that power, even if they do not necessary need complete discretionary freedom to print at whatever level they see fit. See, you are adhering to the faulty logic of modern Keynesian economics which insists that the Federal Reserve “stimulate” our way out of recessions and depressions. This is utter nonsense. I adhere to the Austrian School of economic thought, which has given us great intellectuals and Nobel laureates alike. By the way, the great Austrian economist Ludwig Von Mises was one of the few to correctly predict the stock market crash and resulting depression of the thirties years before anybody else. The same is true today. Adherents of the Austrian School, such as Ron Paul and Peter Schiff, were able to correctly predict the current economic meltdown before anybody else because they believe in superior economic theories. The Great Depression was caused by excessive expansion of credit during the 1920s by the Federal Reserve drove the country into a great depression. And everything that our government did (Both Hoover and Roosevelt) greatly exacerbated the problems and prevented a recovery. See the following link: > **[Mises Daily | Mises Institute](https://mises.org/mises-daily)** If you care to, here is a much more involved “e book” about the Austrian explanation for the Great Depression: > **[America's Great Depression | Mises Institute](https://mises.org/library/book/americas-great-depression?d7_alias_migrate=1)** > > This book applies Austrian business cycle theory to understanding the onset of the 1929 Great Depression. Rothbard first summarizes the Austrian theory and We can hardly have a reasonable discussion of economics if you don’t even understand the causes of the Great Depression. As to your notion that no economists dispute that we need a central bank to “print money in emergencies”, nothing could be further from the truth. The following economists dispute that because they understand we should tackle the _ **causes** _ of the “emergencies” rather than just the effects: Ludwig von Mises F.A. Hayak, Nobel Laureate Henry Hazlitt Murray Rothbard Carl Menger Ron Paul Peter Schiff There is a reason these men were able to see these economic crises coming a mile away. It is because they understand the fundamental problems with our economy in ways the Keynesians can’t even comprehend. You would do well to study some Austrian economics before making ridiculous statements like, “If you take away the ability to expand the money supply at will, then you are dooming us to continually repeat the mistakes that caused the Great Depression.” What nonsense. Read up, man. > [@](#): > > And that was just one paragraph. Just about everything else in the OP was compete nonsense as well, but there are only so many hours in a day. But that makes this comment particularly special, in the olympic sense of that word: > > Quote: > Originally Posted by jrodefeld > Again, you really must be truly ignorant of basic economics if you believe that. > > A real peach of a comment. You probably thought you “got me”, right? Well, sorry to disappoint you, but it seems you are the one who needs to bone up on your economic studies. Since you did so well here, why don’t you take a shot at responding to the rest of my post? ---
**Author:** ![jrodefeld](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/59ef9b/32.png) [@jrodefeld](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jrodefeld)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2010, 1:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/understanding-political-philosophy-progressives-vs-conservatives-vs-independents/533855/25 "2010-03-27T13:20:17Z")
> [@](#): > > I agree with you that many vaccines are inappropriate. The present flu vaccine may be a good example. (I wasn’t aware U.S. planned mandatory administration of that vaccine). But it’s a far cry from “some vaccines are inappropriate” to “there should be no mandatory vaccines whatsoever” which is how you started. (I wonder if I could get you to retreat to a “centrist” position on many of your points by challenging you to think. BTW, I hope you realize that the anecdote “jrodefeld didn’t vaccinate and jrodefeld is still healthy” has little probative value.) I didn’t change my position. I think vaccines should be offered on a voluntarily basis, rather than being mandatory. But this doesn’t mean I think all vaccines are bad. Its just that I think people get way too many, and NONE of them should be forced on the population. What do you think would happen if we all stopped getting vaccinations tomorrow? There would be outbreaks of black plague and we would all die? I am personally opposed to most vaccines but I have no reason to deny them to anyone who wants to get one. > [@](#): > > On the subject of economists endorsing your position on interest rates, URL’s would be good. But first, let’s find out what your position is! It started as “central banks should not set interest rates” but seems to have migrated to “recently the Fed set inappropriate rates.” And as for short-term interest rates being set by the “free market” it would be nice to see a URL that demonstrates that to be even plausible in today’s financial world. You seem to be suggesting that I am somehow changing my position, when I don’t think I am at all. I stand by this statement: The Fed should not set interest rates. At all. The market should set interest rates. > [@](#): > > And of course, that government should sometimes adopt fiscal and monetary polices opposite to what a “free market” would adopt is well-known in Keynesian theory. (I see Keynesian theory being denounced by some right-wingers; AFAIK, however, this is just more right-wing nonsense.) Well, you may be disappointed to learn that I reject Keynesian economics because its effectiveness is refuted by history and it simply doesn’t work. I adhere to the Austrian School of Economics. You know the great Austrian economists correctly predicted the Great Depression before it occurred. Keynes didn’t do that. And they correctly predicted the current crisis years before anybody else. The reason is they believe in superior economic theories and understand the fundamental cause of recessions and depressions. If you want to learn more about this school of thought I suggest you read some of the literature at this link: > **[Mises Institute](https://mises.org/)** > > With the help of our extraordinary supporters, the Mises Institute is the world's leading supporter of the ideas of liberty and the Austrian School of I would be interested to hear your take on Austrian theory. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2010, 1:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/understanding-political-philosophy-progressives-vs-conservatives-vs-independents/533855/26 "2010-03-27T13:27:51Z")
> [@jrodefeld](#): > > I didn’t change my position. I think vaccines should be offered on a voluntarily basis, rather than being mandatory. But this doesn’t mean I think all vaccines are bad. Its just that I think people get way too many, and NONE of them should be forced on the population. What do you think would happen if we all stopped getting vaccinations tomorrow? There would be outbreaks of black plague and we would all die? A great many people would die, yes. Just as right now, thanks to the anti-vaxers people are dying of disease who wouldn’t be otherwise. [Herd immunity](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity) requires that enough people be vaccinated to work. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2010, 1:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/understanding-political-philosophy-progressives-vs-conservatives-vs-independents/533855/27 "2010-03-27T13:39:29Z")
> [@jrodefeld](#): > > I am personally opposed to most vaccines but I have no reason to deny them to anyone who wants to get one. > > I would be interested to hear your take on Austrian theory. I wonder if you understand that vaccination is _altruistic_. A parent is happy not to give his kid a rubella vaccine _because the kid isn’t going to get rubella!_ Why not? Because it’s caught by exposure to a contagious human, but all the other kids have been vaccinated, so don’t have rubella! But what if all parents refused the vaccine? I don’t know if the “Golden Rule” plays a key role in your philosophy, but reread the previous sentences until you understand why government forces your kid to get certain vaccines. I went to the website you mentioned; clicked on “The Federal Reserve as a Confidence Game: What They Were Saying in 2007” and found: > [@](#): > > The general lesson was not to listen to Greenspan’s deceptive testimony. Delete it from your mind like spam email messages… The victim is known as the mark, the trickster is called a confidence man, con man, or con artist, and any accomplices are known as shills. This start makes me doubtful that this “paper” is serious economic theory, but I will study it. Meanwhile, where’s your cite for a serious thinker that believes “free market” setting of short-term interest rates is plausible today? This “paper” certainly isn’t it. ---
**Author:** ![adhay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecd19e/32.png) [@adhay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adhay)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2010, 2:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/understanding-political-philosophy-progressives-vs-conservatives-vs-independents/533855/28 "2010-03-27T14:01:58Z")
Whew! This thread reminds me of a cat fight I once saw. All that was visible was a 5 ft cloud cloud of flying fur. Where to begin? As I’ve said before to the point of boring everyone, we live in a Corporate Kleptocracy. > [@](#): > > 1. The US Constitution legally “justifies” a wealthy oligarchy. > > In order to get the original 13 on board, the Constitution had to “legally” fuedalise 90% of the population namely women and the slaves and poor. The basic idea was that those who had been most successful in profiting from killing the indigenous natives and trafficking in human misery for 100’s of years were entitled to keep what they had extracted by force and had the “right” to protection from those from whom it had been extracted by a “popular” govt. > [@](#): > > However, the Founding Fathers would be aghast at the Corporate Kleptocracy America has become. After all, their real argument was with the British East India Company and the power that large accumulations of capital have to corrupt. [Our so-called revolution was really a civil war over who was to play tax man and benefit from the exploitation of a virgin continent]That’s why, until after our Civil War (another misnomer, it should be called The Northern Industrial Coup), corporations were very tightly regulated and they certainly were not considered persons with Bill of Rights protection. > > The lesson? Greed, once enshrined as virtue, will out. > [@](#): > > 1. We live in a feudal Corporate Kleptocracy. > > This was inevitable after The War of Northern Aggression (one thing the South got right 🙂 ) when Northern banks and industrial capital declared war on Southern agricultural capital. In an “incompetently” prolonged and brutal war, the South was colonized and Northern capital took over our “popular” govt as evidenced in our Gilded Age. The coup was completed in 1889 when SCOTUS granted corporations personhood and with the Sherman Anti-Trust Act in 1890, the first federal statute to identify corporations as people. > [@](#): > > The idea that a corporation is just another voice of Humanity and deserves no more govt regulation than John Doe has resulted the silliness we look upon today, namely, intelligent people arguing that free markets are self-regulating and govt regulation of corporations is not good for business. I say what’s the difference if the regulators have lots of friends in the industries they regulate? Wall Street, oil companies, defense contractors are all govt sanctioned criminal enterprises. They OWN the govt and hire their own “regulators”. > [@elucidator](#): > > Progressives, conservatives, and independents. The good, the bad, and the smugly irrelevant. Progressives, conservatives, and independents. All smugly irrelevant. Sweet dreams. ---
**Author:** ![Hellestal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/3ab097/32.png) [@Hellestal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hellestal)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2010, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/understanding-political-philosophy-progressives-vs-conservatives-vs-independents/533855/29 "2010-03-27T15:16:12Z")
> [@jrodefeld](#): > > Can I first ask, What are your qualifications and formal education in matters of economics? Since you take such a smug posture, you must be some kind of expert. :rolleyes: Yeah. I always use the rolleyes smilie, too, when I’m talking to a physicist who’s trying to explain that dark matter is matter out there in the universe. I’m not trained in physics, though I’ve probably read more about it in the last five years than you have in your entire life, but I always give the real physicists one of these, :rolleyes:, then explain that the real reason that there’s an unknown gravitic force in the universe is the exceptional size of my penis. > [@jrodefeld](#): > > The government DOES NOT allow competing currencies PERIOD. It’s always an interesting moment in a debate when someone shoots himself in the foot by being unable to read his own cite. > [@jrodefeld](#): > > _“conspiracy and other charges in connection with an alleged unlawful operation to publish, possess and sell for profit, coins in resemblance and similitude to U.S. coins. All four defendants are also charged in the alleged conspiracy with uttering and passing, and attempting to utter and pass, a coin of silver in resemblance of genuine coins of the United States in the denominations of five dollars and greater, and intended for use as current money.”_ > > Thus, it is ILLEGAL to circulate competing currencies. What I am advocating is repealing legal tender laws. No, it is not ILLEGAL. They were arrested, as your own cite explicitly states if you had actually bothered to read it, for creating coins resembling the US dollar. They could have, if they so wished, created coins called Sparmafunq Tollagars. They could have traded their gold and silver Sparmafunq Tollagars for any goods and services that other people agreed to. This is because–and please pay attention this time–they are free to use gold and silver however much they like. It’s for creating too close an imitation of the US dollar that they got busted for. The United States government is quite picky about that. A US dollar is what the gummint say it is, not what some poor dimwitted libertarian protester wants it to be. But you don’t even leave it there. In your blind haste, you’ve now demonstrated that you don’t understand legal tender, either. Legal tender simply means, as I alluded to in my post but did not explicitly point out, that any debt can be discharged with offering US dollars. What you obviously don’t realize is that debts can also be discharged, even now, _by whatever other means both parties agree to_. If I show up to pay my rent with Sparmafunq Tollagars, and my landlord is cool with it, I can pay my rent with Sparmafunq Tollagars. The legal tender law works in a different way: It means that if I’m in debt 500 bucks, the debt _must be discharged_ if I offer him 500 bucks. He can’t suddenly turnaround and demand Sparmafunq Tollagars (or _x_ ounces of gold) out of the blue. But again, that does not mean that we can’t find alternative methods of payment. I could pay in Euros, or RMBs, or in cow chips, as long as both of us agreed. It’s simply that, if I’m in debt, the debt must be discharged with legal tender. And by the way, Ron Paul is a nutter, not an economist. If we establish multiple currencies as legal tender, then people would pay their debts not with the strongest, but with the weakest currency available. It would lead to bad juju, [an reintroduction of Gresham’s Law as bad money would drive out the good.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gresham%27s_law) Everyone would pay their debts with the most worthless of the legal currencies, while they hoarded the more valuable currencies. Inflation would rise to the adjust to the value of the most worthless of the currencies. This is another very straightforward economic fact that you would know if you’d studied it formally. Look, an economics education takes a lot of math. Mathematics causes one to be familiar with the Greek alphabet. So I could, if I wanted, read through the ancient Greek philosophers in their original language and recognize all the letters. I could even do it for five years. But the result would be worthless, because I don’t understand Greek. I wouldn’t even know if I were reading the right books. > [@jrodefeld](#): > > You know, for many years it was illegal for americans to own gold. This existed from 1933 to 1974. You act like the effects of inflation are irrelevant because it occurs over a longer period of time. How many average poor or middle class families do you know who have the foresight and economic literacy to own gold to protect their savings? Very few do. Great. So we should both be in favor of government regulation mandating that everyone save an appropriate percentage of their income, in the proper inflation fighting form. Right? > [@jrodefeld](#): > > If you really want to understand inflation, try reading this link: > > [http://mises.org/daily/908](http://mises.org/daily/908) I’ve never had a blind man attempt to describe the sunset to me, but I guess there’s a first time for everything. > [@jrodefeld](#): > > No, that is why I advocate a Gold Standard. I don’t advocate a Fiat currency controlled by Congress. Someone has to enforce the standard. That’s why it’s a standard, and not just everyone carrying around ounces of gold everywhere. The gold standard is **paper that represents gold**. People use the paper because carrying the gold is a major pain in the ass. But someone has to ensure that, if Mr Foreign Speculator wants to trade in his paper for gold, he gets the gold. And who is that? It’s the government. And who decides whether to keep using the standard, to keep paying out gold or whether to stop? Why, it’s still the government. And which institution could be specifically empowered to drop the standard _whenever it fucking wishes_? Why, it’s still the government. A gold standard would not take away Congress’s power over the money supply. They could take a vote, any time they liked, and say: “We’re tired of this stupid standard. We’re the government and we’re keeping our gold in our cave, and all of you mofos can suck on it.” And poof! That’s the end of the gold standard. FDR dropped the gold peg to fight the Depression, and there was not damn thing that the idiot libertarians at the time could do about it. **Gold is not magic.** > [@jrodefeld](#): > > By the way, when the Constitution says Congress has the power to coin money and regulate the value thereof, it means that it is Congress’s responsibility! They are not allowed to defer their responsibility to a third party. The Federal Reserve is unconstitutional for that reason. Come on, man. Any true student of Constitutional law should understand that. As far as the Treasury is concerned, they hold the Gold reserves. And they print the money. I’m not a student of constitutional law, or any other kind of law, so I’m not going to argue the issue. I’ll stick to the econ. I will point out, however, that Congress delegates shit all the time. If it were impossible for them to do so, then the Supreme Court would’ve pointed that out about 5,000 years ago. (Or 100. Whatever.) You apparently have a different constitutional interpretation. Given your astounding ignorance of economics, I will henceforth assume that your knowledge of constitutional law is about as deep as the coffee table ring left by a cold beverage. > [@jrodefeld](#): > > This is completely false. Consider what Congressman Ron Paul wrote about a similar complaint that there isn’t enough gold, which is another argument your side makes: > > \*"I find it amazing that economists can make statements like this, for it is an elementary principal of economics that if one raises the price of a commodity, one will always have enough of that commodity. What we saw in the run up of gold prices is in fact the raising of the price of gold to match the depreciation of the dollar that has occurred, and still is occurring. > > Simply put, there will always be enough gold so long as no one interferes with the free market mechanism. > > At $700 an ounce the United States government has enough gold reserves to more than cover all the Federal Reserves notes outstanding. If we were to establish a gold standard by the procedure I have outlined in my bill H.R. 7874, then the world would be fully informed of the gold holdings of the United States Government and the price of gold could adjust accordingly, so that when redemption of our greenbacks - our Federal Reserve notes - began, the price would be the market-clearing price. Quite simply, the statement that there is not enough gold is false. It is a scare tactic used by opponents of the gold standard."\* > > You clearly have no idea how relatively easy it would actually be to reinstate the Gold standard. There would be a transition, but after that, we would be prosperous once again. I specifically pointed out that the government could buy up more gold, and drive up the price. I made special note of it. Then I pointed out the problems with the plan. This you ignored, because you’ve never thought this issue through before in any depth. > [@That Magnificent Bastard](#): > > In order to back our currency with gold (or anything else), the government would have to purchase reserves. In purchasing those reserves, the government would then be artificially bidding up the value of gold. The attempt to re-establish the gold standard would result in an unprecedented shift of wealth from US taxpayers to all holders of gold. We could, indeed, bid up the price of gold. Yes. True. I already specifically pointed that out. It would, however, be an entirely artificial method to bid up the price. It’s the _government_ entering the gold market. It’s the _government_ that has to enforce the standard. It’s the _government_ that has to tax its citizens to afford to be able to purchase gold reserves. And who benefits? All the wannabe Auric Goldfingers in the world who cackle in delight as the US government, by purchasing a lot of gold, suddenly makes their own private hoards much, much, much more valuable. If the US attempts to return to a gold standard, then it would be a transfer of wealth from US taxpayers to other people, like Russian government, which has some natural resource deposits. And it would not be easy. It would be hideously expensive and deflationary and would plunge the entire nation into a massive recession. [This is a previous thread on the topic](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=532602) in which I and others explain this process in excruciating detail. > [@jrodefeld](#): > > It is completely false that if someone exchanges certificates for gold, the system collapses. I did not mean to imply that, though on rereading my post, I can see how you might’ve gotten that impression. No, the system can withstand a person here or there withdrawing gold. What it cannot withstand is for that process to continue indefinitely. There must always be gold in the cave. In order for there to always be gold in the cave, people can’t keep taking gold out. There have to be enough incentives for people to want to keep the paper, and not take the gold. The gold reserves must be stable. You can lose some gold here and there, but most of that gold will stay exactly where it is, just as I said, gathering dust in the cave. > [@jrodefeld](#): > > You clearly know nothing about how a gold standard would operate in reality. The only reason why anyone would want to exchange their certificates for gold is if they had some reason not to trust the government. Even then, not everyone would withdraw the gold at once. Just the threat keeps the banks and our government honest. Except when it didn’t. _Which was all the time._ You _already_ cited a bunch of stuff about how the government used to regulate and control possession of gold. Well, of course they did. Why? Because controlling a gold standard is tough, and it helps to have some heavy-handed laws in place, even with the standard, to make sure that the government’s supply of gold is stable. The gold market didn’t become truly free until after Nixon dropped the standard completely. > [@jrodefeld](#): > > Why do you think the Founders advocated that only gold and silver be legal tender? Because they recognized that was the only way to ensure governments don’t grow exponentially and abuse the rights of the people. It was to ensure freedom. And now I can add the foundation of this country to the list of topics you claim to have knowledge about. Fantastic. Personally, I typically limit myself to the fields in which I have experience, but I guess there’s something to be said for naively believing whatever you’d like to believe, and then claiming that you’re an expert, while ignoring people with real knowledge. That’s certainly one way to go through life. > [@jrodefeld](#): > > Since you clearly need to learn more about the gold standard, read this article written by esteemed libertarian economist Murray N. Rothbard, > > [http://mises.org/rothbard/genuine.asp](http://mises.org/rothbard/genuine.asp) I keep telling the astrophysicists that my cock is responsible for all that unknown space stuff, but they never seem to believe me. But if I just keep repeating it to myself late at night, whispering incessantly through the tears, I’m sure they’ll eventually come around. > [@jrodefeld](#): > > See, you are adhering to the faulty logic of modern Keynesian economics which insists that the Federal Reserve “stimulate” our way out of recessions and depressions. This is utter nonsense. I adhere to the Austrian School of economic thought, which has given us great intellectuals and Nobel laureates alike. By the way, the great Austrian economist Ludwig Von Mises was one of the few to correctly predict the stock market crash and resulting depression of the thirties years before anybody else. The same is true today. Adherents of the Austrian School, such as Ron Paul and Peter Schiff, were able to correctly predict the current economic meltdown before anybody else because they believe in superior economic theories. The Austrian school had many important contributions to economic theory. They expanded the range of economic knowledge, broadened our horizons, allowed us to see things we had not seen before. And for that, I salute them. Newton gave us calculus. For that, I salute him. But Newton spent the rest of his life doing alchemy. The good contributions of the Austrians have already been incorporated. They are already accepted. The rest was, unfortunately, alchemy. It was wrong. It has been discarded by modern economic thinkers. _It has been discarded by modern libertarian economic thinkers._ Let me repeat that, with emphasis: Professional economists from all over the economic spectrum reject it. Milton Friedman rejected it. Paul Krugman rejects it. If you want input from the current popular libertarian blogs, the ones written by real professions, I can point to many of them. All prominent modern economists reject the notion. You are not just arguing with me, you’re not just arguing with the “Keynesians”. **You’re arguing with all of them.** Every last one of them. Hayek did some important work. von Mises did some important work. Adam Smith did some important work, too. But it’s outdated. The good ideas were incorporated, the bad ideas were discarded. You’re wondering around with all the bad ideas in your ideas, ideas from long dead economists, and you’re ignoring all of the economists, including the libertarians, who are telling you that you’re full of shit. _The Road to Serfdom_ is a great and important book. But that doesn’t mean that we should listen to Hayek forever. We have to pay attention to new ideas. **Gold is not magic,** and Hayek was not right about everything. > [@jrodefeld](#): > > The Great Depression was caused by excessive expansion of credit during the 1920s by the Federal Reserve drove the country into a great depression. The start of the recession is in dispute, even today. Citing the tired, sad scribblings of long dead economists, and their economically illiterate groupies who still try to carry the torch, does not erase the genuine research that have been done since that time. But the Federal Reserve was, indeed, the entity most responsible for driving the country from recession into depression. True. And the problem was that it did not maintain the money supply. It allowed deflation to happen. [Scott Sumner is a small-government libertarian economist](http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=4220). He thinks we should scale down the size of our government to something approaching the Singapore model. He is no friend to fiscal stimulus policies. But the graph in that link is one of the most fantastic pieces of evidence I’ve ever seen. He is posting parts of his book on the history of the depressing on his blog. Read them, if you’re interested in a bit of modern thought. I don’t necessarily agree with everything he says, but god damn if he doesn’t make the first compelling case I’ve ever seen against fiscal stimulus. It’s good economics, and I’m going to have to think long and hard about it, to see if I need to change my attitude toward government deficit spending in a time of economic crisis. I’ll listen to Sumner, because he’s knowledgeable, he’s given the issue a helluva lot of thought, and he argues his case convincingly. But even so, Sumner believes that the Fed didn’t stimulate the economy enough during the Depression. He thinks they didn’t do their job. He’s knowledge enough to make his case. You can cite the tired dead economists, or modern “Austrians” like Peter Schiff all you want. [Peter Schiff was wrong about most of the things he said.](http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/01/peter-schiff-was-wrong.html) He’s not an economist, and he doesn’t know what he’s talking about. And you are wrong as well. Repeatedly. About everything you write. > [@jrodefeld](#): > > You probably thought you “got me”, right? Well, sorry to disappoint you, but it seems you are the one who needs to bone up on your economic studies. Since you did so well here, why don’t you take a shot at responding to the rest of my post? No, I didn’t “get you”. You did this to yourself. And now you’re digging yourself deeper. All I did was give you a shovel. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2010, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/understanding-political-philosophy-progressives-vs-conservatives-vs-independents/533855/30 "2010-03-27T15:19:04Z")
> [@jrodefeld](#): > > Communism fails, socialism always fails eventually, and all other centrally planned economies fail under their own weight. And unregulated capitalism also fails. In fact, Marx’s particular form of Communism was an extreme reaction to the obvious failures of the unregulated free market. > [@](#): > > Are you saying capitalism is a bad system? No … I’m saying that \*unregulated \*capitalism is a bad system. You’re trying to solve complicated real-world problems with a simplistic one-size-fits all ideology. Sometimes the free market does wonderful things. Sometimes it produces cruelty and oppression. The sensible thing to do is decide which is which on a case-by-case basis instead of coming up with a grand utopian scheme and applying it universally to all situations. > [@](#): > > Will you acknowledge that government IS a threat to liberty? I don’t believe it is the only threat, but it is the most significant. It is A potential threat to liberty, but its certainly not the more significant threat that we face in America right now. > [@](#): > > Treating people well and providing good service will end up being more profitable in the long run. Which makes no difference if the more predatory companies already drove you out of business IN THE SHORT RUN. Exploitative business practices produce an obvious short-term gain so there is a constant pressure to engage in them to make just a little more profit. There’s a ratchet effect: Companies that are slightly more exploitative do slightly better in the short run, putting pressure on others to match their practices to stay in business in the short run. The result is a race to the bottom. It’s an example of the classic prisoner’s dilemma. The companies, by making the most rational decisions to protect their own interests at each step, eventually bring about a situation that’s worse for everyone. > [@](#): > > Liberty is the ideal that we should strive for. Liberty is AN ideal we should strive for. But not the only one. I would rank justice and compassion just as highly. And if you mindlessly pursue pure liberty without also seeking justice and compassion, you will find only oppression. > [@](#): > > With a very powerful Federal Government with no restraint … . Except for the elections we have EVERY TWO YEARS. :rolleyes: I’d be very happy if the federal government would work harder to prevent us more aggressively from corporatism. Unfortunately all the “free market solves everything” people keep stopping it. > [@](#): > > You can criticize my ideas for reform, but you must admit that a libertarian society is one that hasn’t been tried in a very long time. Why not at least be willing to give it a chance? Then start small and prove how well it works. First run a city on libertarian principles, or a state, and show how amazing your utopian ideas are in practice. ---
**Author:** ![Oldeb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ea666f/32.png) [@Oldeb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oldeb)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2010, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/understanding-political-philosophy-progressives-vs-conservatives-vs-independents/533855/31 "2010-03-27T16:06:30Z")
> [@jrodefeld](#): > > Of course people who own a corporation are interested in turning a profit. But you are insinuating that that desire is inherently contrary to social justice. I disagree. I’m not insinuating. I’m directly stating: **Continually increasing profits comes at the cost of reduced quality goods and the well being of employees.** My cite is the last 200 years of industrial history. Without government regulation we would still have:[ol] [li]No child labor laws[/li][li]No standardized work week and overtime pay[/li][li]No workplace safety standards[/li][li]No minimum wage[/li][li]No product safety standards[/li][li]No recourse to collusion between companies and blacklisting of people in a given field.[/li][/ol]All of these things get in the way of profit. > [@](#): > > People WOULD have an alternative to buying any product. But I understand your concerns are frequently held by those on the Left in reaction to a libertarian ideology. Many times in real life the alternative is to starve or otherwise be unable to function in society. Do you really think there is a viable alternative for purchasing gasoline for the majority of the US? Relying on public transport is not an option since it is very sub-par in many areas and moving next door to where I work is completely impractical. > [@](#): > > What if we had basic safeguards you could agree with, antitrust laws, minimum wage laws, food and safety requirements, restrictions on pollution, etc. And THEN we shrunk the government down to its Constitutional size and scope and adopted the other reforms I have suggested. Would you support them then? Such as dumping medicare and education spending? No. The problem with your statement of “Constitutional size and scope” is that is presumes that things such as medicare, membership in the UN, and education are somehow unconstitutional. I’m not even sure how you define “Constitutional size.” Besides, it’s not some sacred document that’s the Holy Word of God. It’s just a piece of paper with some decent guidelines on it. I don’t think it should be easy to change the Constitution, but it damn well should be mutable and ever changing. Time marches on and what was fine in 1787 is not what we need now. I think one of the best parts is that the framers of the US Constitution were smart enough to realize that and included the means to alter it from the start. If it’s truely bothering you that medicare is not specifically mentioned by name in the US Constitution that can be changed. Would you be okay with that? > [@](#): > > The problem is we have been living with Corporatism for so long now many companies are vastly more powerful than they would be in a Free Market Libertarian society. I think it would be fair, in a transition phase, for the government to break up these monopolies and encourage new business and free enterprise through tax incentives and other means. Once we have achieved the reforms I am advocating, we would see every market have a vibrant, competitive energy with dozens of competitors vying for the public to patronize them. The issue is how to get from here to there. You are still ignoring start up costs. All the tax breaks in the world aren’t going to suddenly allow for the building of more oil refineries by John Doe off the street. It’s fine to say businesses would be better off with more competion, but you have no plan for how to get there and stay there. Breaking up large companies and preventing them from reforming would be the height of government regulation on business. Breaking them up and then somehow not expecting them to promptly merge back into two or three megacorporations is ignoring the last 200 years of history. I’m still unclear on how you can rail against current corporations and the problems they cause and come to the conclusion that the best way to deal with them would be to stop forcing them to follow minimum standards and just work it out themselves. It’s like deciding that a 5 year old kid is going to figure out for himself that he needs to eat something besides candy if he want to stay healthy. > [@](#): > > Because they are very low risk. Do you understand how low the risk for terrorism really is? You are more likely to be struck by lightning _twice_ in one year than to be the victim of a terrorist attack. Yeah, I don’t think every man, woman, child, young and old alike should be scanned and harassed at the airport. > > This is just me, but I would gladly take the risk to be free of this nonsense every time I fly. Are you really afraid of terrorism? Would you not feel safe on an airplane without having full body scanners at every airport and knowing that peoples toothpaste has been taken from them? I certainly wouldn’t feel any less safe without this bullshit. To each his own. I know, you know, and many other people know just how low the risk is. But the majority of the US feels safer with it. This encourages them to fly more. I can promise you that if you stood up today and did away with all security screening you’d seen a massive drop in the number of passengers. TSA’s number one job is not keeping us safe, no matter how much they like to think so. It’s keeping people happy and spending money on air travel. The cat is out of the bag and it’s not going back in. Air travel has changed in the last 9 years and there is no returning to the way it was. You also did not provide an example of a non-racist, non-bigoted way to determine high risk travelers. Don’t feel bad if you can’t. Nobody else has yet either. I’ll repeat it again: \*\*Just like Communism, Libertarianism only works if you believe people will put the wellfare of others over a small gain for themselves. \*\*I know it’s weird that two directly opposite models have the same flaw, but there it is. If you could get businesses to take the high road and bypass profit for greater social good it would work out just fine. History is full of examples of this not being the case. ---
**Author:** ![jrodefeld](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/59ef9b/32.png) [@jrodefeld](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jrodefeld)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2010, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/understanding-political-philosophy-progressives-vs-conservatives-vs-independents/533855/32 "2010-03-27T22:00:44Z")
> [@adhay](#): > > Whew! This thread reminds me of a cat fight I once saw. All that was visible was a 5 ft cloud cloud of flying fur. > > Where to begin? > > As I’ve said before to the point of boring everyone, we live in a Corporate Kleptocracy. > > The coup was completed in 1889 when SCOTUS granted corporations personhood and with the Sherman Anti-Trust Act in 1890, the first federal statute to identify corporations as people. > > Wall Street, oil companies, defense contractors are all govt sanctioned criminal enterprises. They OWN the govt and hire their own “regulators”. > Progressives, conservatives, and independents. All smugly irrelevant. > > Sweet dreams. I don’t disagree with anything you have said. I do think our country has become a Corporate Kleptocracy. I also agree that it started with granting Corporate Personhood, thus giving corporations the same legal rights as people. It continued when we allowed the banks to form a cartel and take over our economy. This encouraged the corporations to look for a handout, rather than competing fairly in the market environment. Some liberals take your position and use it to justify a larger more intrusive government and moving towards socialism. I think this is wrong. We should reform capitalism and go back to Free Markets. We perhaps could put in additional safeguards to prevent the corporations from taking over again. ---
**Author:** ![adhay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecd19e/32.png) [@adhay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adhay)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2010, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/understanding-political-philosophy-progressives-vs-conservatives-vs-independents/533855/33 "2010-03-27T22:20:25Z")
> [@jrodefeld](#): > > I don’t disagree with anything you have said. I do think our country has become a Corporate Kleptocracy. … This encouraged the corporations to look for a handout, rather than competing fairly in the market environment. Its worse than that. They don’t ask for handouts, they steal it in plain sight. The only “legal” way to rob a bank is from a board room. > [@](#): > > Some liberals take your position and use it to justify a larger more intrusive government and moving towards socialism. I think this is wrong. We should reform capitalism and go back to Free Markets. We perhaps could put in additional safeguards to prevent the corporations from taking over again. Progressives, conservative, independents all suffer from the belief that there is some way to take our govt back from corporations. Corporations ARE the govt and they are not likely to give up their power. They OWN all three branches of our govt and are fronted abroad by the US military. In other words, all left/right debates in this country are moot. Reform Capitalism? 😛 ---
**Author:** ![jrodefeld](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/59ef9b/32.png) [@jrodefeld](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jrodefeld)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2010, 5:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/understanding-political-philosophy-progressives-vs-conservatives-vs-independents/533855/34 "2010-03-28T05:57:02Z")
> [@adhay](#): > > Its worse than that. They don’t ask for handouts, they steal it in plain sight. The only “legal” way to rob a bank is from a board room.Progressives, conservative, independents all suffer from the belief that there is some way to take our govt back from corporations. Corporations ARE the govt and they are not likely to give up their power. They OWN all three branches of our govt and are fronted abroad by the US military. In other words, all left/right debates in this country are moot. > > Reform Capitalism? 😛 Well, what should we do then? You seem to think that there is no hope. I agree it is a daunting taste, but we really don’t have a choice. We can roll over and passively allow the corporations and bankers to continually abuse us and steal every last penny from the working class, or we can stand up to them in whatever capacity we are able. Obviously we need to have some sort of a revolution in this country beyond just electing Democrats and Republicans. We need to stop watching tv, read more, become informed on the issues and get involved in our local communities. You know, as much as liberals like to make fun of the teabaggers, I have some sympathy for them. People are losing everything, their home, their job, and their standard of living, and they are lashing out. Many are misinformed on key issues, but they are right to be outraged. And for all their faults, the truth is they do for the most part direct their anger towards both Republicans and Democrats alike. So, for concerned liberals like yourself (I assume you are a liberal?), rather than making fun of these people you should be reaching out and uniting with them to take on this Corporatist system. We should not be fighting amongst ourselves, we should be fighting against the people who have screwed us over (Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, Military contractors, Blackwater, Big Oil, and politicians of all stripes). Do you have any better ideas of how to overcome this system we currently have? ---
**Author:** ![UTejas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/977dab/32.png) [@UTejas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UTejas)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2010, 7:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/understanding-political-philosophy-progressives-vs-conservatives-vs-independents/533855/35 "2010-03-28T07:23:36Z")
> [@jrodefeld](#): > > By the way, there are increasing numbers of scientists who dispute the wisdom of giving people (especially children) the number of vaccines that we do. > > You know, the Pharmaceutical industry is making a ton of money prescribing drugs for every illness under the sun. Many are unnecessary. Why wouldn’t they also be making money off of vaccines? Is it really so much of a stretch to think that they are pressuring us to get vaccines that we really don’t need? > > By the way, I have never gotten vaccinated and I am healthier than anyone I know. I never get sick. If vaccines are so important, why are people sicker than ever before with all these new mandatory vaccines? Don’t you think this is an area of medicine the begs long term cost-benefit analysis? This is not helping your cause, even slightly. In fact, it makes you sound perfectly irrational and hurts your credibility. I know it is hard for me to listen to someone who claims to be well-educated arguing for a perfectly free market when he is willing to listen to **Jenny McCarthy and Bill Maher** over the entire weight of scientific knowledge. Honestly, this just makes me think that a perfectly libertarian society would go to hell even faster than I previously assumed. Have you listened to yourself?! I mean what in the hell does “If vaccines are so important, why are people sicker than ever before with all these new mandatory vaccines?” even mean? You are 25, the same age as me. Do you honestly think more people are sicker now than ever before? How many of your peers are in wheelchairs from polio? Scarred from smallpox? Sterile from the mumps? Do you know ANYONE who has ever had the measles, diptheria, rubella, or whooping cough? Vaccines not only work but are possibly the greatest technological triumph of the past century. I applaud your belief in your body’s immune system and whatever the hell “natural supplementation” means. You should be thanking literally all of society for getting vaccinated so that you can take advantage of herd immunity. And why on earth is a libertarian arguing about the evils of a pharmaceutical company? You think without a CDC putting out reliable, scholarly, scientific data in a form consumable by the general public that things would be _better_? Yes, I am sure that not every medication in existence is necessary and that there is a tendency to overmedicate in general. _Vaccination has nothing to do with this_. Please, identify to me a vaccine that we “don’t really need”. If your answer involves something about preventing disease that people aren’t likely to get, just stop. There is a reason we don’t get those diseases anymore and it is called vaccination. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2010, 10:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/understanding-political-philosophy-progressives-vs-conservatives-vs-independents/533855/36 "2010-03-28T10:47:09Z")
> [@jrodefeld](#): > > We need to stop watching tv, read more, become informed on the issues and get involved in our local communities. In addition to avoiding the TV, I’d also recommend avoiding some of those crackpot websites! 😃 Hi again, jrodefeld. You’re obviously a young, intelligent person concerned about America’s direction. Good! We need more like you! It would be nice to all band together and change America’s direction (like Sarah Palin asks us to do :dubious: ); it’s just too bad we’ve trouble agreeing on the direction! If you’ve kept an open mind, you’ve learned a lot from this thread. You’ve learned why governments mandate vaccinations, something you didn’t seem to understand before. You know that serious economists regard your monetary ideas as silly. (I’m still waiting for the paper explaining “free markets setting short-term interest rates” 🆒 ) One of the hardest things to do, especially in political debate, is to admit one was wrong and then change one’s views. But you now have the opportunity to reflect on what you’ve learned, review some more balanced books. Many people, including yourself, would be delighted to see you come back in a few weeks with a more nuanced understanding. There are many intelligent Dopers who’ve addressed your questions; wouldn’t it be wonderful to see that their efforts weren’t wasted? Good luck. ---
**Author:** ![adhay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecd19e/32.png) [@adhay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adhay)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2010, 12:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/understanding-political-philosophy-progressives-vs-conservatives-vs-independents/533855/37 "2010-03-28T12:32:47Z")
> [@jrodefeld](#): > > Well, what should we do then? You seem to think that there is no hope. There is no hope for civilization as we know it. Rising population with increasing energy demands on finite resources coupled with our doomed-to-fail economic system which depends on increasing said demands along with global warming is setting up our global population for a big die off. The Big Transition is upon us. Humanity has NEVER faced anything like this before. Govt could help ease the transition but the folks in power really don’t give a shit … simply, they’re content to be the last to starve. And, by and large, the American people are complicit in their greed, myself included. I’m 69 and was born into what I can see was the truly privileged generation in this country. I’m retired on minimum SS and not counting the extras such as subsidized HUD rent and a generous Medicaid, my income puts me in the top 13% of the world’s population. And, paradoxically, I’m much better off than my fellow retirees who managed to put something away for their golden years. Because, by virtue of their “wealth”, they are not eligible for the numerous perks to which my “poverty” entitles me, they are struggling to pay for health insurance when I can walk into any clinic for a $2 co-pay. I have no illusions about my complicity as a beneficiary of Coporate America’s rape of the world and utter disregard for the welfare of this country and its people but, OTOH, I have have no guilt. Hey, everybody is born somewhere. I’m not a religious person but call it karma. > [@](#): > > I agree it is a daunting taste, but we really don’t have a choice. We can roll over and passively allow the corporations and bankers to continually abuse us and steal every last penny from the working class, or we can stand up to them in whatever capacity we are able. Obviously we need to have some sort of a revolution in this country beyond just electing Democrats and Republicans Short of herding the whole bunch into Gitmo, good luck. Blackwater will see to it that the question never arises. > [@](#): > > We need to stop watching tv, read more, become informed on the issues and get involved in our local communities. I agree. But there is really only one issue, what is my community going to look like when the shit comes down? What happens when the grid collapses and delivery trucks stop rolling into Safeway? The problem is, whenever you bring up the subject, folks think you’re being a bit melodramatic. > [@](#): > > You know, as much as liberals like to make fun of the teabaggers, I have some sympathy for them. People are losing everything, their home, their job, and their standard of living, … If my scenario outlined above proves true, prepare to join the crowd. > [@](#): > > Many are misinformed on key issues … Got it ? > [@](#): > > I assume you are a liberal? I’m a progressive anarchist. WTF, I’ll admit it, I voted for Obama but after a year of Bush in Blackface, I’ve had it. > [@](#): > > … you should be reaching out and uniting with them to take on this Corporatist system. We should not be fighting amongst ourselves, we should be fighting against the people who have screwed us over (Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, Military contractors, Blackwater, Big Oil, and politicians of all stripes). Do you have any better ideas of how to overcome this system we currently have? Stop using their money. ---
**Author:** ![adhay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecd19e/32.png) [@adhay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adhay)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2010, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/understanding-political-philosophy-progressives-vs-conservatives-vs-independents/533855/38 "2010-03-28T16:44:23Z")
Perhaps this will help. It’s A talk given by Dr. Albert Barlett Professor Emeritus Department of Physics University of Colorado at Boulder [“Arithmetic, Population and Energy”](http://www.albartlett.org/presentations/arithmetic_population_energy_video1.html) in 8 9+ min segments. Once this is digested, we can talk about our so-called financial system. ---
**Author:** ![Oldeb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ea666f/32.png) [@Oldeb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oldeb)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2010, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/understanding-political-philosophy-progressives-vs-conservatives-vs-independents/533855/39 "2010-03-28T16:54:13Z")
> [@jrodefeld](#): > > Do you have any better ideas of how to overcome this system we currently have? Oh sure, now you get into the hard questions. 😉 You’re certainly correct that it’s a lot easier to look at something and say it won’t work than it is to decide what the next step should be. To use the sports analogy you used way back in this thread, the US is the Detroit Lions. We use to be good enough to be gauranteed a spot on TV every Thanksgiving because everyone wanted to see us. Now we’re still in the spotlight but our level of play is getting embarrassing. First, we need to stop drafting wide receivers (calling for more deregulation) over and over again as if that’s the magic cure for our problems. We’ve gotten a new coach (Obama) and he seems to have some ideas and is at least willing to listen to his assistants on what needs to be done. (Although it remains to be seen if it all works out or not, but at least he’s trying) We have problems with the front office though. Some of them are trying to make things better and build up the club. Some of them are more like the owner in Major League and are hoping that by running the team into the ground they can move to a new city where everything will be unicorns and rainbows. (The current Republican strategy of “just say no” to anything and everything to get Obama to fail) As you’ve noticed this still leaves us with a terrible team, just in a new city. Even if the plan succeeds, what next? Well, in my opinion it’s time to stop drafting wide receivers. We can just say we’re in a building year or ten and hope to draft our way out of our problems. Or we can look around at the rest of the league and see if we can’t make a trade or two. Canada is right next door and has an incredibly stable banking system. For a long time our two banking systems were identical and both were faced with many of the same pressures. But in the 80’s the US decided to deregulate banks, leading to them taking on ever increasing amounts of risk and handing out loans to people who really, really should never have gotten them. This has backfired on us. Canada never allowed it’s banks to take on that much risk and is now sitting in a pretty good spot. Why can’t we move towards a system similar to theirs? It doesn’t have to be identical, but we could certainly learn from it. Or health care. Every other first world nation has national health care. Why do we continue to think that it’s going to destroy civilization? It seems that it works everywhere else. Again, I’m not saying we need to slavishly copy another country, but we could create one for ourselves based on the available examples. But this isn’t easy. We have the Teabaggers who as you noted are upset and ignorant. Not a good combination. They’re angry and they don’t know why. The problem with the Teabaggers is that for the most part they don’t want to know why. They _like_ their issues to come in soundbites and cliched phrasing. It makes everything simple to understand. Rather than taking the time to learn what’s going on they simply wait to be told why they are upset by others. They’re the ultimate in the “Microwave Generation” of politics. They don’t have the attention span to focus on any issue for more than a few minutes so whoever can grab their attention in the flashiest manner wins. Content doesn’t really matter. Ironically, almost all of the Teabaggers are far too old have grown up as part of the Microwave Generation. Go figure. What should we do with them? Nothing really. They don’t want to be educated and are not a significant demographic. The most optimistic polls of their numbers are 15% of the population with the true number probably much lower. The world is passing them by and it’s time the US did them same. Like Secessionist after the Civil War or Segrationist after the Civil Rights Movement they will either join the rest of us or fade out of existence. As for the companies you mention Goldman Sachs and Citigroup would be fine under increased regulation. Military Contractors do need more oversight. The oil comapnies? You’ve got me there. A Windfall Profits tax would make me feel good, but there are reasons why it may be a bad idea. Ultimately moving away from our dependence on oil would be the best solution, but I don’t see that happening any time soon and am just as guilty of depending on it as anyone else. Blackwater is an embarrasment to the US. And pretty much to humanity in general. Some steps have been taken, such as the decision not to renew their contract in Iraq. I’d like to see them just given the boot completely instead of waiting for a contract to expire, but at least it’s a start. Never letting them take a Federal contract again would be great. ---
**Author:** ![adhay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecd19e/32.png) [@adhay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adhay)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2010, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/understanding-political-philosophy-progressives-vs-conservatives-vs-independents/533855/40 "2010-03-28T22:31:15Z")
I don’t know whether to thank you or curse you for starting this thread. I subscribed some time before I first posted because, as I’ve pointed out, partisan debates are irrelevant at this point. Only because I have too much time on my hands (courtesy of World Inc.)) do I look in on these little slug fests and laugh for crying. But you sucked me in. I see in you, noted above by **Septimus** , an honest and inquiring open mind. Congrats! You’re 9/10 of the way there. And just 27?. You wouldn’t be on these boards w/o a vision and the testosterone/estrogen driven ambition to improve the world. You are much more likely to live well into the ‘interesting times’ promised by the Corporate Juggernaut (Obama ridden/driven at the moment) than I. I figure my minimum SS will be the last shoe dropped to announce the end of the charade of govt’s personal interest in anyone’s welfare. You and your children (and mine) will live with what we’ve been able to put together in the next 20 years. That’s the window. So what you gonna do? I suggest: 1. Move to a community somewhere in a bio-region (watershed) blessed with good sun, surface water and arable land, mild winters a plus. 2. Encourage your new mayor to work with neighboring colleagues to create the Greater Local Consolation Project. (Home Rule is sanctioned where I live) a) Protect the headwaters. b) While dollars are cheap, communally stock up on the technological spoils of Capitalism’s alternatives to oil. Howabout solar powered wifi for the local net, where can we drop your net book and solar panel? Windmill farms? Lots of plastic pipe for irrigation. Tightly rationed local fuel dumps to ease the transition to mule and plow and buggy? Community freezers? EMTs live free? Take it from there. Please. If you have any doubts, I offer you this little gem. [http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=404227395387111085#](http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=404227395387111085#) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/understanding-political-philosophy-progressives-vs-conservatives-vs-independents/533855.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/understanding-political-philosophy-progressives-vs-conservatives-vs-independents/533855.md?page=3)