Dictator for a Day

I know that dummy.

Benji and I have talked a bit about the difference between the liberal that is he and the liberal that is the democratic party.



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)

You suggest we need only laws that protect against physical harm/theft plus voting laws, traffic laws, etc. You ask what other laws we would need. 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.

I am all for eleminating laws that impose restrictions upon the freedom of individuals, but I really don't see tons and tons of laws we have now that we should just do away with.

onto the defense of my gas tax!!!

If we kill all Muslims and destroy the religion there won't be any Islamic terrorists.

The way you used this, it could be used as a counter to ANY ends justify the means argument. I could say that going all the way to the store to buy a beer is what I want to do. I believe that the ends (drinking my beer) justify the means (having to drive to the store to buy it). If you were to counter with this terrorist BS would that make my argument about my beer less valid? No. In your example, I don't think that the ends (no Islamic terrorists) justify the means (kill all Muslims).

Why is using gasoline a sin?

Using an excess amount of gasoline can be considered gluttony, which is not only a sin, but a Sin.

I guess that what I had in mind when I made the tread was that one could make a law which would go into effect. It wouldn't be any sort of precedent setting law or anything like that. Just a one time deal. This is what is going to happen no matter what. So forget the means. In this made up scenario, all I care about is the END result. Do you really think that we wouldn't be better off in the year 2015 if this policy had been put in place?

I shall continue to respond with links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_ ... rtarianism

It is often difficult to distinguish between 'Libertarianism' and 'Classical Liberalism'. Those two labels are used almost interchangeably... Libertarians see themselves as sharing many philosophical, political, and economic undertones with classical liberalism, such as the ideas of laissez-faire government, free markets, and individual freedom. Nevertheless, others reject this as a mere superficial resemblance... Those who emphasize the distinction between classical liberalism and libertarianism point out that some of the key thinkers of classical liberalism were far from libertarian... However, such a claim appears to be assuming "libertarianism" as a doctrine of absolute laissez-faire. While there are libertarians who oppose all government intervention, there are libertarians who do make exceptions to allow for government intervention and provision of some public goods such as roads and public utilities. Therefore the claim that libertarianism is not the same as classical liberalism because some classical liberals make exceptions to absolute laissez-faire may only hold for a particular type of libertarianism.

Further, some argue that libertarianism and liberalism are fundamentally incompatible because the checks and balances provided by liberal institutions conflict with the support for complete economic deregulation offered by most libertarians. However, arguments over the similarities are made difficult by the large number of factions in both classical liberalism and libertarianism.

...(I)f one difference remains between modern libertarians and their claimed classical liberal ancestors, it lies in suicide. According to Immanuel Kant's categorical imperative, a person may not take his or her own life, even if it is rational to do so. Modern libertarians believe suicide and assisted suicide should be legal. This singular difference does not necessarily negate the relationship between classical liberalism and libertarianism, especially considering the wide disparity between modern American liberalism and classical liberalism.

Ummmm, did you even read it?

Of course I did. Other than what you bolded it explains the differences pretty well, and what you bolded doesn't diminish the fact there is a difference in the slightest. I'm not going to sit here and defend every Wikipedia edit - I just thought you would benefit from reading something like that if you were going to take up the position that classical liberalism = modern libertarianism.

Of course I did. Other than what you bolded it explains the differences pretty well, and what you bolded doesn't diminish the fact there is a difference in the slightest. I'm not going to sit here and defend every Wikipedia edit - I just thought you would benefit from reading something like that if you were going to take up the position that classical liberalism = modern libertarianism.

No pretty much everything I quoted there, which was about 50% of the entry, supports the idea that there is little difference between the two. Not only that, but most of those passages are rebuttals to the claim that there is significant difference. The bolded text was simply for emphasis.

It doesn't support the idea that there is little difference between the two - it supports the idea that there is considerable debate on whether or not there is a difference. I happen to be in the camp that says there is a substantial difference, with many of those ideas (most of which you decided not to quote) as my justification along with several other things I would add.

In addition, unnecessary and unfounded ad hominem attacks on my reading ability do not advance discussion in any way.

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

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?

price controls, subsidies of gasoline, massive government apparatus to regulate gasoline

You keep saying this though I do not feel like this is what I said, or I guess if it was, then it wasn't what I intended to say. What I propose is a tax, not price control. Gasoline would be freely traded on the market as it is today. I would just add on more taxes than are already present. When I said "...gas over $6" what I meant was that gas should be freely traded, but have a tax on it of say, $4/gallon by 2015.

What about my alternative policy proposal, looking for a similar goal, but not imposing mandates and controls?

What kind of incentives are you talking about? I assume monetary. Where would this money come from? Would it come from say.... a tax?

I interpreted this: "a final price of $6/gallon" to mean the gas tax would be used to mandate the price at $6 a gallon and be increased or decreased to ensure the price stayed at $6. (Also, assuming no inflation requiring a change in the final price value.) Gasoline would not be freely traded if the price was controlled in such a manner. Why create a consumption tax, and not raise income taxes, which would hit the rich harder than the poor, where consumption taxes hit?

To me, it sounds a lot like the over-reaction to the "oil crisis" of the 70s. Setting prices, reducing speed limits, enacting CAFE, thinking Congress could control daylight, etc. The result of which was interestingly...more oil consumption, and a reactionary movement against alternatives such as coal and nuclear power.

Yes, monetary incentives. It would not come from a new tax, what reason is there to create a tax to take money from some to give it to others? Instead you create new tax benefits, lowering corporate taxes on those researching new technologies. Rather than companies flocking to the nipple of the government just to waste the money as there is no consequence, they can ascertain if the tax benefits will offset the cost of researching these technologies enough in the short term that they can profit off them in the long term.

It is the same concept for why there are marriage, child and so many other tax credits for individuals. (And many for businesses as well.) The government is attempting to use incentives in the form of lower taxes to promote what it sees as good ideas. While I am personally opposed to such a system, it is preferable to one where the state simply mandates an action and punishes everyone.

I'm still wondering why it is so necessary to get rid of gasoline by 2015 through any means necessary. Or why it would be assumed a cheaper fuel could be found by then simply by sucking money out of the economy and peoples pockets and throwing it at fuel companies who would be losing some money from said lower fuel sales. Especially considering there is considerable government action on this issue already.

So you suggest tax breaks, which mean major coporations are not paying as meany taxes, which means that the government is collecting less money, which means they either need to cut spending, increase the deficit, or levy a tax to make up the lost money. What do you propose?

This isn't necessarily getting rid of gasoline, it is just a way toward leading us away from being dependant on it. I really think that finding a super efficient energy source would solve so many of the world's problems. We could forget so many of the issues we have in the world today if we could just have that energy source.

It may be that we have beaten this issue to death by now, and if that is the case I have plenty of other suggestions that we could debate about. However, feel free to keep this going. Oh and to everyone else, feel free to join. If no one else is going to comment we may as well have this discussion via PM.

Oh, and I really don't understand why some of you people have such a problem with "rich" kids drinking coffee from Starbucks.

I really think that finding a super efficient energy source would solve so many of the world's problems. We could forget so many of the issues we have in the world today if we could just have that energy source.

Well, yes, but what are the chances we acquire it in under five years with a limited economic situation?

So you suggest tax breaks, which mean major coporations are not paying as meany taxes, which means that the government is collecting less money, which means they either need to cut spending, increase the deficit, or levy a tax to make up the lost money. What do you propose?

I would clearly cut spending as should be clear by now. We hardly need Bridges to Nowhere and subsidies for Scottie Pippen.

Also, tax cuts do not automatically mean less tax revenue. The Bush Tax Cuts of 2001/3, have resulted in record tax receipts and revenue for the federal government.

I have no problem with the federal government collecting less money and companies and individuals keeping more. Especially when what is being proposed is no tax increase on (indeed subsidies for) corporations and an 800% tax increase that hits the poor hardest.

Fine I am convinced. The article you sent me was really informative. I didn't read the whole thing, but did skim some relevent sections. For anyone else who has been following this argument, here it is:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-598.pdf

So, are you ready for my next idea?