From a (semi) Free Country to a Marxist Autocracy?

[jtabeb]

Re: From a (semi) Free Country to a Marxist Autocracy?

Ah, ok. That makes sense.

As I wrote back in August of 2002, still visible on the web at http://www.freerepublic.com/~thepythoniccow/:

Are you a "liberal"? I am.

(here is a test to see, don't balk, read it and see if this fits your political persuasion).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism

I don't like labels per say. Esp today when most don't have a good enough understanding of the definitions at play (present company excluded, of course).

BTW, this used to be what was once called a "Republican", a very great stretch in today's environment if you ask me.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: From a (semi) Free Country to a Marxist Autocracy?

Are you a "liberal"? I am.

Yes, a classic liberal, likely so, give or take.

In the context of what I quoted of my own words from 2002 above, "liberal" referred to the socialist big government mutant of that word.

[jtabeb]

Re: From a (semi) Free Country to a Marxist Autocracy?

Yes, a classic liberal, likely so, give or take.

In the context of what I quoted of my own words from 2002 above, "liberal" referred to the socialist big government mutant of that word.

I know.

I think the point is that we either have an "ideological" basis for our political discourse, or we have a pragmatic one.

I would prefer pragmatic, as I think it is more inclined to produce actual workable solution AND it also ensures that we HOPEFULLY actually address the root cause of the issue.

Ideological debates tend to ignore what ever evidence one party or the other doesn't like. The result is that the root cause is never addressed.

(like the drunk looking for his keys by the streetlamp when he lost then in the back alley behind the bar).

Both parties do this and use this to avoid any ACTUAL resolution of the root causes and that what I (and I bet others) find so distasteful about political polarization these days.

From my own perspective, health care reform is necessary both from a moral social justice stand point and a budgetary stand point.

This means we have damn good reasons for attempting to fix the health care system.

The same is EVEN more true of economic reform.
The social justice issue is even more important in this case than the budget. (and I am not talking about wealth redistibution.) What I am talking about in terms of economic reform is everything that Ron Paul has said (and much better than I could have).

Obama's greatest weakness in my book is his failure to address economic reform in an honest and straight forward manner has crippled his credibility in the health care arena.

It just goes to show that "honesty, really is the best policy". Even when it is not popular or if the nation doesn't want to hear it.

I think he would have much more credibility and acceptance had he not resorted to economic "make believe" about the Potempkin recovery.

This may end up being (honesty on the economy and the Fed) the straw that broke the back of his political popularity. Because ultimately, people can smell bullshit, even though the elites pretend otherwise.

I wish he would take an honest broker approach to financial reform. But so far I have been disappointed.

This failure to "tell it like it is" in economics has crippled his credibility not just in terms of health care, but all the other policies that he has or will propose.

[VIT]

Re: From a (semi) Free Country to a Marxist Autocracy?

Both parties do this and use this to avoid any ACTUAL resolution of the root causes and that what I (and I bet others) find so distasteful about political polarization these days.

Obama's greatest weakness in my book is his failure to address economic reform in an honest and straight forward manner has crippled his credibility in the health care arena.

Agree about not addressing the root causes. But this would mean to start a war against. It does not look he selected this path, at least as by now he is trying to solve problems peacefully. It just does not work sometimes. I see he will lose a popularity anyway, I would prefer this will be due to right actions vs not actions (motion is not an action). He would be probably the best person to do this still when we are not in deeper hole. Otherwise as a lot of people discussed in this thread next time choice might be much uglier.

I am very skeptical about any ability to change current things and the reason is where all these resources would come from ? Economy taxes are already high, income and productivity imbalance is high also and etc. The next what will happen is that taxes will be raised for those people/economy sectors who still has something so this will put a big bar on any recovery. Sure this would not be a financial sector since they get money for free already and there is nothing to tax there. So the only natural way is to reduce economy expenses including government but I can not remember this ever happened by will anytime in the history. Usually you go up and up on the cliff until you slip and make a freefall to the ground.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: From a (semi) Free Country to a Marxist Autocracy?

I think the point is that we either have an "ideological" basis for our political discourse, or we have a pragmatic one.

It's not an either-or.

Rather what you describe is typical in situations where our "ideologies" are inadequate. Any one ideology will have deep flaws, so we make do with fragments of more primitive ideologies which seem grounded in various practical experiences, frequently expressed as stories and sayings handed down and passed around.

I prefer to take a third way when faced with such a predicament. Over time, after some study and practice in an area, I develop intutions on how things work. I cannot entirely explain these intuitions coherently, even to myself. When the intutions become strong enough in a particular discipline, I can begin to form opinions of the various popular ideologies that are well grounded in my intuitions, noticing parts of each that seem right or their essential flaws or contradictions. In some cases, I can then create new structures in a discipline, guided by my intuitions, that extend both the practice and the theory.

I don't just follow practical guidelines. I don't just (when my thinking is mature enough) follow a particular ideology.

Granted, in the particular instance of political discourse to which you refer, I am no Plato, Hobbes or Marx. I will stumble along for the rest of my years in this life with weak, ill-formed intutions into the political sphere. My "third-way" will be more crude than either of your choices, not more elevated ;).

On your other comments, yes, health care and economic reforms are morally, socially and economically necessary.

Sometimes the necessary doesn't happen, or only happens in too late, too ugly.

[jtabeb]

Re: From a (semi) Free Country to a Marxist Autocracy?

I prefer to take a third way when faced with such a predicament. Over time, after some study and practice in an area, I develop intutions on how things work. I cannot entirely explain these intuitions coherently, even to myself. When the intutions become strong enough in a particular discipline, I can begin to form opinions of the various popular ideologies that are well grounded in my intuitions, noticing parts of each that seem right or their essential flaws or contradictions. In some cases, I can then create new structures in a discipline, guided by my intuitions, that extend both the practice and the theory.



On your other comments, yes, health care and economic reforms are morally, socially and economically necessary.

.

1. Ditto and Yes.

I don't know how many ways we can keep agreeing, so I'm gonna stop know. (I think substantively, anyway. Nuance, maybe a little difference).

But you have the big picture and the whole sum of my objective in live is to make sure we are all looking at the big picture.:rolleyes: