Centrist and Small Government debate
[s]I thought it would be appropriate to post here since the political philosophy sub-forum keeps on deleting my post so I will post here instead.[/s]
I just thought about what the most significant areas of discussion is when it comes to government and politics, and after a few years of thinking about, I've come to realize that it essentially boils down between the debate on liberty vs government power, in that without government liberty cannot be guaranteed (and life), and government without liberty leads to tyranny and corruption. Both have their advantages, such as government is effective on protecting the nation from outside invaders, but terrible when it comes to economics and regulation, which it often creates monopolies (whether it knowingly or unknowingly from what lobbyists do), Thomas Sowell and Milton Friedman have explained these points further in their discussions. A government should be interested in regulating behavior as far as it impacts the liberty and right to life of individuals which is why government should be interested in eudaimonic liberty rather than hidonistic based liberty, which if a population is educated and moral, that would bypass this problem almost completely and government can be effectively be kept small (as the free market only reacts and operates based on how the people affect it, so if global warming is an issue, it's the market's fault which is the fault of the people giving money to those businesses that contribute to that). Well I can go on and on, but I feel like this graph encapsulates this effectively.
So in your opinion, is this the central debate when it comes to politics?
I just thought about what the most significant areas of discussion is when it comes to government and politics, and after a few years of thinking about, I've come to realize that it essentially boils down between the debate on liberty vs government power, in that without government liberty cannot be guaranteed (and life), and government without liberty leads to tyranny and corruption. Both have their advantages, such as government is effective on protecting the nation from outside invaders, but terrible when it comes to economics and regulation, which it often creates monopolies (whether it knowingly or unknowingly from what lobbyists do), Thomas Sowell and Milton Friedman have explained these points further in their discussions. A government should be interested in regulating behavior as far as it impacts the liberty and right to life of individuals which is why government should be interested in eudaimonic liberty rather than hidonistic based liberty, which if a population is educated and moral, that would bypass this problem almost completely and government can be effectively be kept small (as the free market only reacts and operates based on how the people affect it, so if global warming is an issue, it's the market's fault which is the fault of the people giving money to those businesses that contribute to that). Well I can go on and on, but I feel like this graph encapsulates this effectively.
So in your opinion, is this the central debate when it comes to politics?
Comments (70)
You weren't censored, you were caught in the spam filter. Either that or big government did it.
I never stated that either more government or no government were bad or good, just asked if centerists or proponents of small governments both agreed with the scale, that in terms of political debate if the most important factor really boils down to government size or not. Btw, there are other factors to such as the morality of the population, as well as external circumstances, such as are they living in a harsh low resource environment, are they surrounded by hostile groups, or are we talking about the middle ages or present day? Important factors, but all in context of today for this discussion.
Hahaha, alright I'll change my title and question then to reflect that [I take a charitable position when it can be reasonable, give others the benefit of a doubt when I have sufficient reason].
I wasn't attacking you, I was just stating my personal opinion.
As a centrist myself I will say yes but I would like to point out that this is a misleading diagram because it shows government influence rather than an actual big government. Though I understand they can be congruent however not always.
I somewhat agree and disagree. I agree that this chart presents influences of big government, or characteristics or ways in which big government may act, but that's just the top labels on the graph, on the bottom however, those are the actual structures and theories on the structures of government that determines the size, so the top is sort of influence/characteristics, and the bottom is the actual formulation of certain groups that move them more left or more right based on how much, structurally they formatted the government, which allows the government to have more or less power. This quote from John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton sort of accurately portrays this tendency of big governments eventually using their power to gain more power and reduce the liberty of their citizens,
which historical trends have proven this very close congruency to virtually always be the case (although I wished human nature wasn't corrupted, and that there could be righteous leaders who can over power and outsmart corrupt ones, that can create a longstanding peaceful civilization, which is why the founding fathers went for a smaller government route rather than a big structured one, which made the United States the most prosperous nation by objective standards). Which this challenge that's often made and thrown around by a lot of conservatives seems to be to make sense, which is to find at least one successful pure socialist country in history that's prosperous, or one that is mixed socialism and would not be better without it (which many of the nordic countries seem to have been better when they were more capitalistic or free market than when they started to adopt more socialist elements in the mid 20th century)
quote][/I have no problem with the size of government. Just the motivations behind the government]
The principal behind the American philosophy of small government is man’s motivation is always self seeking.
‘Men are not angles, if they were, we would not need government in the first place’, Madison.
Therefore, government is a necessary evil and for many reason should be kept small and used only in certain areas of life.
I consider for the Left to consist of everything from Marxism-Leninism to libertarian Communism. It's the whole school of thought proceeding from what can more or less be described as Socialism. I consider for myself to be a libertarian Socialist. I also happen to be an Anarcho-Pacifist, but that isn't terribly relevent to this discussion. We do not advocate for what is meant by "Big Government".
Where, for instance, would you put George Orwell? He fought with the Anarchists in Spain during the civil war.
George Orwell worked with Anarchists because the enemy of my enemy is my friend, or at least a friend until that common enemy is gone.
I think we should discuss what we mean by “big government” and “small government” as well. Both Republicans and Democrats in the US are for big government, even though the Republicans claim not to be.
But by no means am I a Democrat or Republican, more like a Libertarian that's center leaning. Big Government essentially means a government structure that allows the government to have more power or control over a nation rather than a limited or small government structure, where a government has little to no restraint on what it can do, which could be nuanced further of course, but this would be a bare minimum definition. There are different types of governments in a limited government structure, such as one that is composed of checks and balances, or a federalist structure which has local, state governments and federal governments and each of those have their independent checks and balances, as long as not one group has dominant control, which was a genius idea that the founding fathers structured US politics to revolve around this dichotomy of one group that believes that government should have a little more power and the other that the government should have the least power, and the citizens vote between that range and they both sort of correct themselves. But that's just my understanding on the subject.
The graph assumes that Socialism necessarily results in totalitarianism. I don't agree. Perhaps you would like to justify such a claim with an argument.
Btw, how do you define socialism? It seems that you define things in a certain ways (maybe you're from europe and I'm from america?). Socialism by definition is a government structure that allows the government to have a lot of power over the means of production or other aspects of the economy (artificial control). Besides the historical fact that many hard socialist countries eventually became communists (not all, although some like Venezuela sure were sympathizers of it), logically when you take seriously and consider mankind's tendency to be proned to corruption, you eventually get government taking away rights and more power away from the people until they eventually become a totalitarian state. I could nuance this further if you want, just point out some specific parts where you disagree and explain why.
About the internet though, and the private companies that are involved, it really depends if they become a publisher or a platform, and depending on what those internet companies and government agree on, then I think a fruitful discussion could go on about what government should do that would be most effective on resolving anything that it can through it's powers (rather than creating a cure that's worse than the disease or issue that it is trying to solve, like if it will create a slippery slope where because a certain action was taken, it would create more serious issues as a result). People who vote need to prioritize their values, what they consider most important between liberty and safety and protection for their lives and find the best trade-offs that'll suit their needs.
I agree.
I define Socialism as being a political philosophy that prefers egalitarianism. I'm also from the States, but I don't think that the American attitude towards politics adequately assesses political situations.
The historical examples of the atrocities incurred under Stalin and Mao are a fair enough argument. Dogmatic Marxism did lent itself too well to totalitarian ideology. I think that those regimes were bastardizations of Marx, and not just simply what Marx advanced, however.
I don't necessarily agree with Marx, but I do think that he deserves more credit than to be thought of as the testator of totalitarianism.
Do you think that egalitarianism is inherently flawed or do you just take issue with Socialism?
About the gun thing, I would agree, and I guess some interpret guns to be the means that the people have means to fight off the government and force change it or prevent a totalitarian government from completely taking them over, which sounds like a conspiracy theory, especially in the West, but with the recent social unrest that has been dominating much of europe, and that the normal trends of world government is that governments usually become corrupt and take over the lives of people, in the grand scheme of things this seems like a reasonable position to take, sort of like a token that symbolizes a mutual (or in this case a mutual destruction) respect a government should have with its population in order to show that both intend to keep their end of the deal and not try to abuse one over the other, so that both can co-exist, well that's how I interpret the whole gun rights debate, but I could be wrong.
I didn’t give my views on the free speech vs. surveillance and intervention debate. I think we need to have that debate as a society, though. I also have a nuanced view on abortion like yourself.
Both. Functional egalitarianism necessitates an equitable distribution of resources. How that is to be done, I honestly don't know. I don't think that it should be done through the implementation of an allegedly temporary totalitarian regime. I think that it somehow possible to equitably redistribute resources without relying on a governing body at all, but I'm also of the opinion that a genuine participatory democracy would not constitute what we understand as a "government".
Sowell, T. (2012). Trickle-down theory and tax cuts for the rich. Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution\
Press, Stanford University, (pp. 13).
I haven't argued for forced egalitarianism, though. I'm an Anarcho-Pacifist. I feel like we're talking at cross paths here.
I think that there ought to be a loosely affiliated set of freely associated societies who decide upon matters through participatory democracy. I kind of started my own Leftist sect, though, so, I understand that my political stance may be somewhat difficult to parcel out.
Reagan at least doubled the national debt with his tax cuts, and the debt was virtually nonexistent until he came along. We have had supply side economics for the last 40 years. Low taxes do not lead to more revenue. They may create bubbles that for a short time increase revenues from corporate profits, but those bubbles always burst.
I agree with this, but I disagree on tax policy.
https://www.capitalismmagazine.com/2000/11/how-bill-clinton-rode-the-reagan-supply-side-boom/
Keynesian economics worked to pull us out of a recession in 2009, and you’re probably not old enough to remember the 90s. The economy was doing great for almost everyone.
Capitalism magazine? And they’re not biased? They don’t have an axe to grind?
The economic environment is like the wildlife environment, when something major happens, or a drastic change occurs (think of the meteor that essentially killed off the dinosaurs) the environment will change, and all factors that are conducive to life will change a long with it (whether it's natural selection, or whatever adaptive tool is most effective, perhaps the creative minds of individuals collaborating together to reason through it?), the different circumstances will present new opportunities, and we'll find new ways to encourage innovation and economic growth/work, like people will have more free time to become philosophers and economic value will find ways to incentive that, like in that past, most people were farmers, but since the economy grew from innovation and technology from some smart thinkers, it allowed most people to have office jobs which to farmers doesn't seem productive, but in a way they are impacting the real world and their work and innovation is creating new opportunities from which the economy grow. Btw, don't forget to remember what money is, which is just the value we ascribe to certain things, which depending on how much of it there is and how others value your things and how you value their things, both come to a mutual agreement on the agreed end value, and this value is essentially the value of how much someone likes, wants or desires those things, which can be transmitted and be applied to different economic structures or environments.(A sort of universal bare basic of what economics and value are)
Not true. He got elected because there was a recession. The deregulation of the banking sector in 2000 was the Republican Congress’s legislation that Clinton signed into law. Clinton was all about triangulation, something I disagree with.
Here's this article that goes more in depth and explains why those keynesian approaches actually prevented the recession to end quicker than it actually did since it contributed to its prolonged effects.(which was the same with the Great New Deal in the 30's from that recession)
https://www.nber.org/papers/w16420
This is unverifiable, and you cannot compare the collapse of 08-09 to 91-92 or 2001.
As a matter of fact, Capitalism creates oligopolies. Market concentration has increased rapidly over the last 30 years as corporate lobbyists pushed for relaxed anti-trust laws. Oligopolies follow the twisted logic of Capitalism. On one hand they scale production nationally and internationally leading to more product turnover and lower unit cost, faster distribution, a larger labor force to control, and therefore increase capital flow. On the other hand, it is dangerous for a company to actually be a monopoly because it puts them a severe risk should there be a change in demand, an act of God, etc.. If several large companies produce the same type of good, and there is a sudden decrease in demand for that good, then they all bear the burden, and it would be easier to lower prices to remain competitive against the other firms, thereby mitigating loss.
Anyway, Libertarianism is bad political philosophy. Just garbage. Do yourself a favor and start with Rob Larson's Capitalism vs. Freedom and then move on to Amartya Sen's Development as Freedom to rid yourself of the silly liberty vs. Government crap.
Anyway, since we’re not going to agree on basic matters of fact, I don’t see the point of continuing this discussion.
I wish you well in the coming years when there’s no more jobs.
I agree that the Republican Congress missed up by signing that bill that led to that recession, but I don't see how that really changes the main point, about supply side economics (when taken and practiced consistently) would not be beneficial when compared to all the other policies.
One can make the case of the different nuances, of the different cases, but this is from the National Bureau of Economic Research and they don't publish just any papers, it is worth examining as to the reasoning why they believe it to be the case. But I guess the main point about how the keynesian approach or any other approach that raises taxes actually stagnates growth, I mean almost all economic policies create debt, but some have returns, while other prologue the debt or recessions even further, which may be why those recession were similar (although may be not entirely, although I reading this article right now to see what their reasoning is)
I was just thinking of mentioning how incredibly anemic this kind of libertarian political ontology is: the only actors that exist are 'free individuals' and 'governments'. That it. It's such a pale caricature of society. It'd be laughed off in any other setting except apparently, the actual world we live in.
Easily one of the worst things I've read from any political book was the very first sentence of Murray Rothbard's For A New Liberty, which starts off with this pathetically facile and impoverished line: "The libertarian creed rests upon one central axiom: that no man or group of men may aggress against the person or property of anyone else." Just so absurd it's kind of hilarious.
That's explains why the United States is the most and has been the most prosperous nation in all history, which american exceptionalism is almost an objective fact by almost all standards (that really matter). I mean I'm a first generation american (who was a socialist leaning liberal at first), and me and my parents agree that the rest of the countries are garbage, which is why everyone wants to come over here, which I mean no offense to people of other countries, but when you examine the political frame works of other countries comparatively, it's no contest. No need to over complicate things, and the Founding Fathers were right about making liberty vs government distinction, which was unique compared to all other countries in history (where true liberty and freedom is virtually non-existent).
Show me one example where this is the case? Quite the contrary, whenever government get involved and passes laws that supposedly regulates competitions, it usually favors bigger businesses as they are far more better with coping with those regulations. for the most part government does not need to intervene in a free market as the self correcting mechanisms in the free market will allow consumers to make businesses conduct their business in such a more effective way that governments cannot, which will pass policies with loophole, which suffers the death a million stipulations/qualifications.
Creating more government regulations only favors a few companies and creates monopolies. So in my view, I'm not an anarchist as my view is a minimal as possible government rather than no government which is effective in only those areas that our founding fathers recognized as important to safegaurd (which is why they emphasized the checks and balances system).
Now as for how more government and regulations creates monopolies, it is important that I explain these issues; trickle down objection, predatory pricing, Antitrust law, and Regulatory Capture
The main premise of the trickle-down objection is that wealth would be stored and hoarded by the rich, and that it won’t circulate in the economy, so the government needs to pass policies so that wealth will be redistributed into the economy. The issue with this claim is that redistribution of wealth is not the key factor to economic growth, but rather what spurs the economy is the creation of new products and services. Expendable capital is key which allows resources to be used to generate products and services that create demand.
Banks for example store the income of the wealthy or anyone else, and they in turn use those funds to invest and loan that money to projects that will allow that investment to grow, so wealth that is stored in banks is not lost or does it ever stop circulating. About the “predatory pricing objection”, this assumes that Supply Side economics (as well as Free Market Capitalism) creates monopolies and then those monopolies in turn create predatory pricing that would destroy the competition and allow a monopoly to issue customers any price they want since customers will no longer have any other business options.
In a Supply Side economics approach, if all five innovations (Entrepreneurship, The Rule of Law, Property Rights, Free Trade, and Globalization) are intact, then consumer choice is the main aspect of a Supply Side economic model that would minimize almost completely or if not completely any cartels or monopolies from forming. Historically, the term monopoly is derived from the 16th and 17th century era of a Mercantilistic society where Dukes and Kings would accept bribes from business partners that would in turn allow them to be grant with exclusive rights to sell goods in certain areas.
Although the socio-political land scape has changed, a Mercantilistic economic system would be incompatible with our society today. Although monopolies may form in a Supply Side system like a new exclusive technology is introduced into the market, or a new medicine that is patented and is legally bound for some duration of time by brand named pharmaceutical company, they are almost never left unchallenged for too long because many aftermarket companies or other competition will begin to try to offer the same or a similar service at a discount.
What if the company engages in predatory pricing, and causes the competition to be outcompeted through this practice? In a Supply Side system many things can occur that may back fire on that firm. First, if that firm is able to do predatory pricing every time there is competition, that competition will come back once they are able to compete at competitive pricing, which that firm will be losing revenue by selling its products cheaply.
Some companies that have done predatory pricing in the free market had their competition buy out their products at a discount, where they would resell their products for a profit, which the firms doing predatory pricing will eventually give up due to the inefficiency of such practices.
Another possibility in a Supply Side system is that the shareholders who become aware of such practices can decide to discontinue their business with said firm and pull out their stocks causing the stock value of that firm to plummet, until new stockholders take control of that firm and change it.
Also, the customer is an important factor in the Supply Side system, where customers who experience predatory pricing through a business will be left unsatisfied, which will cause those customers to discontinue their business relationship with that firm since under this system, customers have freedom to do consensual business.
The only other times when monopolies and predator pricing occur is almost always traced back to when a government gets involved in a market and introduces a policy that sometimes leads to those consequences. For example, in a Keynesian system, a government may want to stop monopolies by passing an Antitrust law or policy, but inadvertently bigger businesses benefit from many of these penalties and policies compared to their competition since they can afford those heavy regulations that usually smaller competition can’t compete with.
Lobbyists from the larger firms also help manipulate those rules in their favor. Taylor, J. B. (2011) in his paper “Regulatory Capture and Reckless Endangerment” goes more in depth and shows the possible consequences that inadequate policies which are difficult to avoid from a Keynesian approach, and how that may negatively impact an economy by creating unwanted monopolies.
Since reducing taxes helps people have more disposable income, the private market will have more wealth flowing through it, and more innovation can take place that drives demand and incentives competitive pricing. Although I appreciate government assisted programs, I find that the competitive nature of the market without interference from the government will help drive prices down more efficiently since those who are able to provide services to more people are more likely to succeed.
With more people with more income they may have more disposable income to be able to afford these services. As Swain, J. W., & Reed, B. J. (2010) points out "Efforts to redistribute wealth may undercut the incentives that people have to engage in productive economic activity, thereby lessening the sum total of wealth in a community", meaning that this system encourages everyone to be productive unless someone isn’t physically able to like a physical disability or similar complications.
Refernce
Swain, J. W., & Reed, B. J. (2010). Budgeting for public managers. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe,
(pp. 59-74, 90-91, 199, 210)
although this may be a concern, when you compare the benefits with the possible risks and costs as to being the only competition that usually results from Regulatory Capture and Reckless Endangerment (which I explain in a bit why most fortune 500 companies donate to the hard left), it's no comparison, there will be costs like these, but they wont break the monopolies
in this Forbes Article,
https://howmuch.net/articles/the-30-biggest-political-donors-on-the-fortune-500
when it comes where they donate, it's pretty obvious that most of them tend to vote and finance for the left. Not by a small amout but by a substantial amount, $54.9708 Billion as opposed to those who donated about $38.3338 Billion for the right. This does not account for Factors such as how platforms like Twitter, Facebook, and Google (as well as traditional new media) controlling the flow of information to a left leaning bias, and these corporations as well as Apple and Microsoft employ lobbyists to pass laws and regulations that favor them and influences the population to vote left, which are factors that are significant, but difficult to quantify.
Most business owners are more likely to lean right,
https://www.infogroup.com/todays-key-voter-profile
but most of these business tend to be small to mid-size. (According to the Census Bureau's Annual Survey of Entrepreneurs, there are approx. 5.6 million firms in the US and 99.7% of them have less than 500 workers
.
Never heard of Rob Larson, and Sen I believe is a liberal that's socialist leaning, which if I'm wrong please correct me, but I totally disagree with socialists positions, which I'll look at their work when I have time, but I don't believe it'll really change my perspective, although I'm not a hard libertarian, I usually go between libertarianism, conservatism, and liberalism perspectives since all those have strengths and weaknesses.(which were close to the positions of the Founding Fathers originally)
Quoting Shushi
Quoting Shushi
Quoting Shushi
Quoting Shushi
Oh wow you actually believe all this, incredible.
You and your parents might consider educating yourselves on the wider world. The US certainly has its good points, but on most quality-of-life indicators (crime, education, health, poverty levels, environment, corruption, democracy indices) it's behind the leading OECD nations, the majority of whose inhabitants have no desire to move there.
From where my family is from, I can at least attest to the fact that many would love to live in the US. I admit about using the word “garbage” when comparing other countries sounds off putting, but there is a reason for my indignant remark (which isn’t towards the people of those countries mind you, only the governmental structure of those countries, which many of those citizens would agree with that, which I believe to be a fair criticism), and no me and my family don’t believe so uninformed. We as human beings have natural rights, no government can create or grant us the rights to some of them, government when it does its job properly, is suppose to only recognize them, and protect them, that’s it. I can’t say from where my family is from because that information is sensitive because it’s one of many examples of political asylum which even happens in countries like the UK, France, Germany, etc. An important pillar, even before economic freedoms, that is properly basic and logically fundamental to a prosperous country is free speech (which comes right after freedom to life), and I’ll explain how this fundamental right is being abused and misused (which makes the US unique).
I mean that, I can go and list the innovations of the US, market freedom that benefits consumers and entrepreneurs (where the US is the largest exporter of important goods, like medical, technology, industrial goods that other industrial nations depend on, as well as media and entertainment which in most other countries is pretty bland, and don't forget that the US' economic surpluses allows it to be more involved in humanitarian aid/as well as general economic aid and military aid such as spending on NATO that provides free national security to the rest of the industrial world, which if left up to them their expenses and security would drastically take a hit as well as their standards of living, which because other countries don't spend as the US, this is a big handicap that the US has compared to the rest of the Nations), people having more significant political freedom over the country and over their own rights (which relates more to what I'm about to list), access to cheap and affordable products as well as places to live, private property laws in the US being unrivaled by all other countries (protection and liberty of your property or assets which the government can't take away easily) etc, etc, which are more important than the figures that the OECD(which are at odds with similar studies from the Fraser Institute and the Heritage Foundation, and the OECD better life index doesn't even consider free speech, freedoms, private property laws, or equates ) believes to be more important, which those along with the American values of prioritizing to life, liberty and property depend on the more fundamental right of free speech. Btw, poverty is relative to many factors and in nature, such as in the US, poverty is a choice while in other places (including OECD nations), it really isn't, the poor in the US live significantly better in terms of well being vs those poor or middle class everywhere else, which these, private property rights and other significant economic factors that tie into well being are included in a "absolute level of economic well-being" metric, but let's focus on the most important factors which is free speech.
It's because (when one does a survey on the laws of other countries) there isn't the same kind of freedom (which is qualitatively better) in other countries as it is in the United States, where those who may have similar ones, they aren’t guaranteed (not enshrined in their constitution, or written in legal documents that aren't authoritative and overridden on a regular basis) and they are lacking. Canada doesn't have absolute free speech, because the government can regulate speech that it deems to be offensive like the ambiguous term “hate speech” (one of many laws include Motion 103), while in America hate speech is still protected speech because the price to live in a free society is accepting the risk of being offended. What about the UK? They passed the Communications Act 2003/Section 127, where anyone could be arrested for sending a message to someone where it may be perceived to be obscene, grossly offensive or menacing in character, with up to 6 months for it, or perceived to be seen as annoying to someone (like if someone is trolling, or someone that sends repeated messages), which is absurd because who get to decide what is deemed to be offensive, grossly offensive, annoying or what is persistent? Certain press reporters like Tommy Robinson are being arrested for completely following the rules (which the kings or rulers of Britain have a notorious track record of doing what they want, violating the laws that should be in theory like United States).
At least 3,400 people have been arrested in one year for making these types of online comments with this arbitrary law, that’s not freedom, that’s Orwellian. Sure, the US isn’t perfect, it’s not as free as it used to be but relative to the rest of the world US citizens own a lot of guns who can fix that issue if and when they do decide which the far left doesn’t understand. The fact that anyone could walk into a coffee shop and order their latte with an AR-15 slung across their chest is epic. There are two schools of thought in play in these debates. The left says, “I can’t believe that you can do that in this country! (angry)” while the right is like “I can’t believe that you can do that in this country! It’s epic!”. It’s a privilege to live in such society, which many Americans take for granted. I’m focusing on personal freedom, but we’ll also look at economic freedom as well. Freedom is defined as the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hinderance or restraint.
This definition describes either the power or right to, which are two different things. I have the power to murder somebody, but I don’t have the right to do it. This difference is extremely important because in other countries you may have the power to speak, you may have the power to exercise the freedom of religion, or to petition the government, but that power isn’t absolute because it can be taken away from you by those governments, which isn’t the case with a right. In the US you have a right to these freedoms and if the government tries to fringe upon those rights, the Americans have their kill switch (which is the second amendment). If that right wasn’t cemented in the US constitution, America would be perpetually ignorantly optimistic, crossing its fingers and hoping that nothing ever bad happens (which historically speaking, something bad always happens, corrupt leaders and dictators).
The US is only 1 of 3 countries in the world that protects the right of its citizens to bear arms in its constitution (which is interesting to note that a truly free society creates the most powerful nation that has the greatest influence In the world, sort of like a natural law, or natural selection mechanism, where a country that recognizes human nature and the necessity to respect their natural rights flourishes and influences the rest of the world as a result). Not that it should, but ought to, not that it would be nice, no, it has to be that way. The US ranks #1 for freedom of speech
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/10/12/americans-more-tolerant-of-offensive-speech-than-others-in-the-world/ft_16-10-15_freedom-of-expression/
and also gun ownership,
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/gun-ownership-country-us-legal-firearm-citizens-statistics-a8406941.html
I don’t believe that this is a coincidence. I believe that there are only 20 countries where one can have free speech, but its not really free speech. Brazil has free speech except for racism or hate-speech, Mexico has free speech except that they are notorious for censorship (which the political system that is entrenched with organized crime will have you killed if you challenge that system), the filipins also has free speech, except you can’t say anything that goes against how the law of that country defines good customs, public order, or morality (like you can’t publish books with pornographic elements). Sort of amazing that those like the far left who decry bigotry and claim how the US is chauvinistic, belittle the US by their own standards while throwing away those standards when it comes to these other countries like defending Sharia Law adherent countries and not condemning when they pass laws like a recent one with Brunei passing a law where homosexuals can be stoned to death.
The far left and Islam’s unholy alliance, I’m an ally with few muslims like Imam Mohamad Tawhidi, but unfortunately he is seen as heretical by all muslims schools, like if he were an occultists, but this is going to another debate on Islam, Sharia Law, and muslim countries, but it’s an important note to point out. I can keep on going, on how all the other countries don’t have free speech, but its all the same. I may appear to be triggered for silly reasons, like being indignant because other countries don’t want to protect my right to say hateful things.
You can frame me like that, but when you examine my points consistently and with an honest perspective, I just like freedom, I don’t like it when people say hateful things, or when they watch porn (and I could cite dozens upon dozens on the destructive nature of pornography in society from mental health, stable families, sex trafficking issues, slavery etc.), but the difference between what you can do and what you ought to do, I don’t want the government deciding what I ought to do when it comes to my personal freedom, so as long it doesn’t infringe upon the rights of others (the left is notorious for banning freedoms in order to get “free stuff” and what they call free speech, and the right for behavior they see as detrimental to social cohesion, which isn’t the case all the time as there are some in both camps that do all of these things).
And when talking about the countries that have free expression, without gun ownership, good luck! The rankings that are similar to the one you posted, they usually publish reports like the US ranking 28thh when it comes to personal freedom, but when you look at their methodology, like when they examine the US having a high murder rate, they knock down its score, or when there are instances of discrimination in the US, they knock down more points, or a media that’s heavily influenced by politics, they knock down more and more, so the data is corrupted with irrelevant factors (or equating or not properly valuing different factors appropriately) which means that these studies should be taken with a grain of salt.
You're kind of all over the place with this. I get it you like your country. It's just maybe not as superior as you think. But I'm not going to waste time arguing that point with you. I only suggest you consider travelling and maybe working abroad and see how that affects your perspective. Good luck.
Wait, so in 2012, just as the Obama administration is pulling the country out of one of our biggest recessions ever...Sowell is going to point to increased tax revenue generated by tax cuts in the early 2000s? Great it worked for 3 years, then what happened in 2007?
I think economics is far more complicated than this and operates in long cycles with many questionable factors being significant, but if Sowell wants to over-simplify, I can make him LOOK dumb. Unquestionably, Thomas Sowell is not dumb. But I stopped reading his work years ago...once he proved to me he was smart enough that he had to be cherry-picking his examples while ignoring obvious counters...just so he could reach people who were not smart enough (or interested enough more likely) to look it up.
Just to make sure we're in the same page, let me define some terms properly. Essentially supply side economics is the idea that if producers are given back their money, they're going to produce new and better products (improve quality and drive down prices through competition, and new technology and innovation [like Iphones and small computer become affordable and which is why this is an essential factor in order for Moore's Law to keep the same trend]), and that supply will generate its own demand, thus the economy will keep rolling and the cash will be flowing, unlike the strawmans that its going to trickle down slowly into the entire economy where the economy and innovation are stagnating. This is different from a demand side economics which tries to focus the wealth to non producers who don't create new technology or innovation, meaning that funds stagnate because there isn't anything inherently innovative or incentive for funds and value to grow, I mean you can distribute the wealth to everyone but not everyone will multiply those funds, whereas entrepreneurs and producers will do more with those funds. This doesn't impoverish people as those investments to produces drives down prices of older products as more demand increases for new technology, products, and innovation as people are welling more to spend for those things thus the poor can afford these cheaper products as well, as well as efficiency goes up with the introduction of new technology and innovation, and many other factors which you agree that economics has a myriad of factors, but of course not all factors are as significant in impact which I feel you're not considering.
Supply side as Sowell points out generated success after the JFK tax cuts, after the Reagan tax cuts in 81, or the Bush tax cuts in 2001, there was sustained economic growth (which is often forgotten because of the crash that happened in 2007-2008 which the causation correlation fallacy was discussed in refernce to supposed bubbles and supply side economics). Even Obama maintained low rates in 2010 and 2013. Supply side even works in europe which is why Denmark has been cutting its taxes too, and other european countries that realize that taxes aren't benefitial and that the government is ineffecient with funds and is not a successful wealth generator.
I can, but I don't know why I would. You seem pretty bright. Most libertarians are smart people, they just seem trapped in partially justified dogma.
Quoting Shushi
If there was clear data supporting a position then economics would be easy...and we wouldn't need opinions. So when someone presents economic data as ENTIRELY supporting a certain view, I question their academic integrity (or their intelligence, but notice Sowell is unquestionably intelligent, so he must be championing incomplete data on purpose).
Quoting Shushi
Good idea :smile:
Quoting Shushi
Your description of supply side econ fits my general idea...but this whole section seems to be trying to point at the 'fact' of supply side economics. It is a theory about what MIGHT be good for the economy, right?
Quoting Shushi
Wouldn't demand-side proponents call this a strawman? All those drones that don't create stuff SPEND money. That is the point of demand side, I thought? While the innovators have just spent the last decade hording. They are not reinvesting into R & D. Just manipulating stock markets for personal gain.
And demand-side vs supply-side is the dogmatic stuff I am talking about. Surely there are infinite options other than just supply-side and demand-side (just by saying it could be some combination of the two creates infinite possibilities - let alone if we start looking at economic models beyond capitalism). Is anything in economics that simple?
If lowering taxes for the rich, directly and consistently worked in the way you have described, there would be no argument. Unfortunately, if we look at the history of economics, NOTHING works consistently. Economists are finally coming around to the realization that THEY CAN'T PREDICT SHIT, because they don't have all the necessary information. And the 'necessary information' includes the emotional whims of every human...so it seems like we are not that close to making predictive economics more science than philosophy.
Quoting Shushi
I am happy to concede that we have not learned a better way to maximize GDP than laissez-faire capitalism. But we have reached a point where the GDP of industrialized nations is enough that every citizen could live well (not in poverty)...and yet they don't. So, we no longer need to worry about raising the GDP, but finding a way for that higher GDP to actually benefit the majority. So if we take measures that cause GDP growth to slow to 2% instead of 4% (a HUGE difference, especially when compounded over a few decades), it is worth it, if more people benefit from that 2% growth.
Surely, it can be acknowledged by now that charity will never be significant on a large scale. So if libertarians want to argue that the dumb and unmotivated should just be allowed to die in the streets, then that is fair and consistent. But if they act like unregulated capitalism actually benefits a majority of poor people, it is naive or disingenuous.
Quoting Shushi
Remember that Reagan then raised taxes in 1986, suggesting it did not work quite as hoped.
Quoting Shushi
This is the dogmatic thinking..."all tax cuts are good". How can we compare Denmark lowering its tax rate to 55% to the US? When they drop to 30% and their economy soars and their citizens are happy, then it matters relative to the US. As of now, I would just agree and say, "yeah! we should have the same taxes as denmark."
Oh, and @Virgo Avalytikh has a fairly busy thread where they have been defending libertarian ideas. People in that thread (Anarchy, State, and Market Failure) seem to know more than me, but more importantly, are willing to dive into the details; whereas I struggle to get past what I consider to be a few major flaws. Just thought you should check that one out, if you haven't already.
The issue of the federal government's size has become a hot topic in recent years. Conservatives, buoyed by the Tea Party movement, argue that government has become too intrusive and gargantuan for its own good, advocating tax cuts and other cutbacks in its size. Liberals argue that the government is necessary to meet the needs and demands of America's growing population. My take is that the American people seem to want it both ways: they want the expansive social safety net that government provides, yet they chafe at the level of taxation necessary to maintain it. In order for America to develop a sane, sensible domestic policy, these two conflicting beliefs must be reconciled.