BK2 wrote:Prose, with links and quotes.
Look, just because Reaginists, Republicans and their fellows used "liberal" as an attack and smear, therefore allowing the completion of the Progressives and FDR's Fascists theft of the term and the alteration of liberal to mean someone who wants greater state control over society and restrictions of individuals does not mean I have to join amateur political scientists and media figures in screwing up terms and reversing their meanings.
Politics is not bipolar, not even a sweet
motherfucking cube as I usually use to define it. Yet, because we have two major political parties in this country someone allowed politics to be defined on a left-right spectrum that makes zero sense. At one end is authoritarianism, and also at the other...suddenly two words that do not possess opposite meanings are the two political philosophies. Liberal and conservative are not opposites, and often more complementary. "Libertarianism" is a stupid phrasing that means the same thing as liberalism, and is adopting a non-existant historical movement splintered from anarchism because there was no serious challenge to the authoritarians who draped themselves in positive terms against their meanings.
My liberalism is clearly set in an originalist and federalist reading of the Constitution, per the Federalist Papers, and early Jefferson Republicanism. I am opposed greatly to a strong federal government on domestic issues. I am in line with Coolidge and Cleveland on federal/state seperation of powers, and allow for greater actions by individual states. Because I am a liberal who believes in the triforce of inalienable rights, and otherwise freedoms but not rights, I would write, if told to, American-style Constitutions for the states placing further limitations on state governments, but allowing them broader powers than any federal government ever should possess. It is also important for the judicial branch to protect freedoms, limiting government and not invent rights and make demands of government to legislate.
I am not a revolutionary liberal in practice, although if granted absolute power I would certainly take the opportunity on the chance for a second attempt. It is irrelevant to me, in this thought experiment, if we screw it up again, it is more for personal interest than any faith in people to get it right in this political culture we have today where people accept being told they are too stupid to do something on their own and applaud it.
If the path to authoritarianism is chosen then, in disregard to the Constitution, I would also mandate Fukuyama has to be publicly flogged and wear a placard that says "I was wrong."
I am evolutionary, progressive, conservative and liberal. For example, I would not eliminate Social Security but restructure it and make an optional investment based system. Similarly, I would allow the deduction infused tax code or a two-tiered tax with no deductions. On domestic matters, Cleveland and Coolidge are my peers, although I am progressive like George W. Bush in terms of having no fear of taking on everything. The eventual goal would be a liberal system, allowing the more authoritarian aspects to be knocked off. In a way, Bill Clinton's post-1995 Presidency in conjunction with the Contract with America, in terms of political policies is a good example of a evolutionary, progressive, conservative and liberal time in recent American politics.
Anyway, I lost my train of thought while talking to a Canadian and making tea. So my friend from potato country...
Benji, who gets to rewrite the laws in this case? Just you? People you choose? Who's to say that if this took place we wouldn't end up with even more laws then we have now? Part of the purpose of the Constitution is to protect people from having laws about certain issues, so if we eleminated it, it would open up the possibility for more laws couldn't it? (I understand that it is equally likely that just the opposite could happen)
I would not eliminate the Constitution, merely the laws. Yes, as I noted above, it could be worse, but I would like to in this completely hypothetical example take the chance.
The problem with not having any other laws is that it puts an awful lot of power in the hands of those who enforce them. I believe we do need the three branches of the government in order for checks and balances to occur. Power corrupts, and abosute power corrupts absolutly.
Well, that is why the Constitution and it's limitation of federal power, and post-Ratification, state power, would be left intact. I had no intention of eliminating it. We currently have those checks and balances yet that has not stopped the government from granting itself new powers it is not Constitutionally allowed to have.
I really don't see tons and tons of laws we have now that we should just do away with
Wiki, because it was the first place I went for a page count wrote:he 2006 Federal Register is 69,428 pages long
Break.
If you were to counter with this terrorist BS would that make my argument about my beer less valid? No.
Yes, Muslims don't drink alcohol.
In your example, I don't think that the ends (no Islamic terrorists) justify the means (kill all Muslims).
And I don't think the ends (possible new technologies) justifies the means (price controls, subsidies of gasoline, massive government apparatus to regulate gasoline).
Do you really think that we wouldn't be better off in the year 2015 if this policy had been put in place?
Yes.
What about my alternative policy proposal, looking for a similar goal, but not imposing mandates and controls?