U.S. policy and political philosophy thread I: what are you and what is that?

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Then, perhaps. Now there are mountains of evidence that this is the case in practice if not explicitly stated. We allow anyone who qualifies to get loans for college.

Plenty of people still can't afford it, and/or are claiming that the loans and repayment terms are unaffordable. In fact, a lot of them are bitching like hell about it. So it is not clearly a "right", and even if it was, this again would be a relatively new phenomenon. Plus, the point being made was that opportunity should be equal. Saddling some people with very high loans, or having a great many schools be simply unaffordable, while others can go at no cost to them becaue their parents' can pay, isn't "equal".

We have tons of different programs for medical care and there are very clear signs on every single hospital saying 'you cannot be refused service for lack of payment'.

But again, this is very limited care. No continuing treatment, etc. If we all agreed to that supposed social contract, we'd have had national health care decades ago. There is still substantial resistance to that concept, which is why I think it is part of what is in dispute. And really, this gets to the core of the matter -- there are some pretty strong differences of opinion on exactly what the social contract in the U.S. is. The differences are not always bright lines, but they clearly exist.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

And really, this gets to the core of the matter -- there are some pretty strong differences of opinion on exactly what the social contract in the U.S. is. The differences are not always bright lines, but they clearly exist.

I think this is exactly right. If we asked people in this thread to answer the question I assumed away above - "what are the proper functions of government and what should government spend money on" we'd get 30 different answers.

[Kalbear]

Plenty of people still can't afford it, and/or are claiming that the loans and repayment terms are unaffordable.

So we're just quibbling on the price then?

But again, this is very limited care. No continuing treatment, etc.

So we're just quibbling on the price then?

FLOW, if you were right then we wouldn't actually have these things as laws. We'd have them as some odd program here and there, privately funded and dealt with. That's not the case. These are government run programs. They have been enacted into law and have been largely unopposed for the last 60-80 years. Now, we can talk about how well they're doing or if what they're doing meets the standard of a certain type of verbiage, but it's pretty clear that they are an application of 'everyone should have the same opportunity and should not be impeded by class' as a philosophy. And honestly this is what you're going to see throughout the world - that the philosophy of government does not perfectly meet the reality of lawmaking.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

adam--

be advised that the law in the united states has marked you out:

the communist control act outlaws the party and any membership therein;

one of the horrible amendments to the wagner act allows discrimination against commies by labor organizations;

title VII, sect. 703:

also still relevant: hatch act, espionage act.

Not to diminish the very real governmental persecution that existed at one time against the Communist Party, but in the interest of fairness and not scaring away a sensitive "foreign" Boarder, it's worth pointing out that (1) the Communist Control Act is almost certainly unconstitutional, has (to my knowledge) never been enforced, and clearly, can't be too effective since the Communist Part of the United States not only exists, but is frequently on the ballot in many states and (2) the Amendment to the Wagner Act is almost certainly unconstitutional as well (a notification requirement for Communist Party labor leaders in Taft-Hartley was struck down by the USSC as an unconstitutional bill of attainder), and again, to my knowledge, hasn't been utilized or enforced for 50+ years. The Subversive Activities Control Act was also abolished in 1972.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

So we're just quibbling on the price then?

It's not quibbling because price is the issue. If some can afford it and some can't due to price, or the price works an incredible hardship for some and not others, then "opportunity" -- if you choose to define that word that way -- isn't equal.

So we're just quibbling on the price then?

Same point.

FLOW, if you were right then we wouldn't actually have these things as laws. We'd have them as some odd program here and there, privately funded and dealt with. That's not the case. These are government run programs. They have been enacted into law and have been largely unopposed for the last 60-80 years. Now, we can talk about how well they're doing or if what they're doing meets the standard of a certain type of verbiage, but it's pretty clear that they are an application of 'everyone should have the same opportunity and should not be impeded by class' as a philosophy.

No, I still disagree. You're overly generalizing the point and so obscuring the actual issue which is equality of opportunity, not some minimal standard for some and much more for those of us that have insurance. But if you think we really did have equality, then the ACA (which still isn't in effect, and is still hotly disputed) wouldn't have been necessary. The argument from your side was that the ACA was necessary precisely because health care was very unequal.

[Kalbear]

The argument from your side was that the ACA was necessary precisely because health care was very unequal.

No, the argument from my side was that the health care we currently have was inefficient and provided poor resulting care. I believe a national health service to be a good choice because it has been shown to be efficient and produce better overall care to the country as a rule in place after place after place. But I would still characterize what the US had been doing as something of a promise that no one would be denied medical care.

[sologdin]

nestor--

right, the statutes have limited effectiveness now, but the marker of stigma is there, aye?

taft-hartley is one thing, but landrum-griffin is another? there are reported cases on the CCA, though it's probably fair to say that the DoJ has never made it a priority.

[emberling]

Just for starters, it is an impossible goal. There are far too many factors completely out of control of the government -- the most important being parenting, values, etc. -- that "opportunity" simply can't be made equal.

Traditional freedom/liberty is also an impossible goal. To use a somewhat ridiculous example - my right to swing my fist ends at your face. My freedom to swing my fist is impeded by the inconvenient presence of other persons who also expect freedoms, necessitating a compromise state.

For my own views, though, the 'equality' part of 'equality of opportunity' isn't to be taken literally. It's more like... a person's path might be harder or easier, but it should never be closed. Nobody should* have to give up their dream of becoming a doctor because they have to 'choose' between paying for med school or paying for their parents' medicine.

By similar logic, tax on the wealthy is much less an affront to their rights than tax on the poor, because a tax on the very wealthy doesn't actually significantly change their lifestyle, their options, their ability to choose their own path. A literal interpretation of 'equal opportunity', by contrast, might suggest an equal percentage paid by all income levels, or a tax specifically designed to shift money from rich to poor with no greater purpose or nuance.

I'm actually very interested in how important family is in dictating what opportunities are available to us, in dictating what views we have and what we become - because it seems incredibly, inherently unjust to me, and it's something that doesn't seem to be talked about or thought about (presumably because there's no viable alternative). Do we have a fundamental right to dictate the future of our loinfruit, to mold them in our own images? I can't see it as fundamental - only as the most practical and least terrible of any option. They are people, not extensions of ourselves. Non-adults may be considered unfit to make certain decisions, but isn't the traditional designation of genetic donor both as primary caretaker and as legal decision proxy basically arbitrary?

But if we recognize it as an askable question, it can lead to some other questions that actually have potential practical application. Like - do the wealthy have the right to send their children to separate schools, with different expectations and culture than the rest of the country gets? There's some evidence that eliminating the divide between 'good' and 'bad' schools doesn't produce mediocre schools everywhere, but good schools everywhere.

*subject to compromise - 'should' here only states that this is one of many potentially contradictory goals within government's mandate.

[Adamastor]

My question was USA oriented due to their heavy propaganda against the former Soviet Union. Whenever I think about extreme left-wing ideologies in the american spectrum, McCarthy and Reagan always come to mind. Nowadays, when the news mentions your elections campaigns, I always feel like the Republicans talk about the Democrats as if they were full-on communists trying to hand over control of the US to so secret NWO with a leftist agenda. But that's my view as a mildly informed outsider. :laugh:

Back here in Portugal, the PCP (Portuguese Communist Party) is the 4th biggest party. We still have a lot of reds back here.

[davos]

I am coming to this thread a bit late. my apologies but I'm going to take a moment to reply to the original post.

I would generally be considered a liberal and on some issues would probably slide into the radical left. Though on some issues I have some sympathy for more conservative opinions.

My top 3 threats to America are as follows:

1. Inequality of opportunity

2. Corporate Power

3. The Military Industrial Complex

I elaborate a little more, I was a libertarian as a young man. I shifted positions on a lot of issues after starting to deal with many of the harsh realities that come with adult responsibility. I generally believe in protecting personal liberty unless there are compelling reasons not to. Basically I don't want the government involved in peoples' personal lives unless they are engaged in activity that is truly harmful to the public good. I also believe that the government has a significant role to play in ensuring equality of opportunity and providing a effective safety net to protect its citizens from the ups and downs of the economy. It is anathema to my view of the role of government to treat Corporations as people. They are an artificially created entity for a specific economic purpose. They are made up of people and those individuals can represent the corporations interests in how they vote, if they so chose. In the era of massive multinational corporations a robust, independent government is necessary to provide a counter-weight to protect the people's interests.

I am also in all practicality a pacifist, though not dogmatically so. There are some theoretical situations where military actions maybe justified, such as a truly defensive war, but they are few and far between. War seldom brings the results it was intended to and almost always creates new problems that will either perpetuate the conflict, or lay the foundation for new ones.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

Nobody should* have to give up their dream of becoming a doctor because they have to 'choose' between paying for med school or paying for their parents' medicine.

Why not?

[sologdin]

Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, welfare, food stamps, unemployment, etc. etc. etc. all amount to individual transfer payments (whatever the theory, that's how they operate in practice).

assuming arguendo that this is an accurate characterization (CMS makes no payments to beneficiaries, but only on their behalf?), how is that distinguishable from the transfer effected by wage labor?

[Crazydog7]

My question was USA oriented due to their heavy propaganda against the former Soviet Union. Whenever I think about extreme left-wing ideologies in the american spectrum, McCarthy and Reagan always come to mind. Nowadays, when the news mentions your elections campaigns, I always feel like the Republicans talk about the Democrats as if they were full-on communists trying to hand over control of the US to so secret NWO with a leftist agenda. But that's my view as a mildly informed outsider. :laugh:

Back here in Portugal, the PCP (Portuguese Communist Party) is the 4th biggest party. We still have a lot of reds back here.

I dream of living in a country with an actual political spectrum. Having a chocie beyond the guys I hate and the guys I only dislike WOW.

[jarl the climber]

I would call myself a realistic libertarian. The whole point of having a written constitution is that it limits the goverments power. I don't think that the intent of the people who wrote the Constituion 200 years is really of paramount concern other than the fact that the government should have some clearly defined limits to its powers. You can amend the Constitution or look at it with a mordern perspective but you can't make whatever you want out of it.

I would agree that inequality is the greatest threat to our system. In this day and age there is still a certian parity between the rich and poor. Even a poor person is likely to have acsess to an automobile, live in a house with running water, electicity, heat and A/C. And most likey to have or have acsess to a PC, internet, cell phone, etc. Where there is a disparity is in health care. A wealthy individual does have many options that a person who can not afford to pay does not. The government does have an interst in adressing this but have probaly gone to far down this road and that was before the new health care bill. Probaly Amreican society can survive this disparity. Its really acsess to necessities like food, oil and education to a lesser extent that are the greatest threats.

@ Kurokaze

If I want to work my ass off and live a frugal lifestyle in order to provide a better life for my children I should not feel guilty because others do not. Nor does the government have any business in adressing something like this.

[jarl the climber]

My question was USA oriented due to their heavy propaganda against the former Soviet Union. Whenever I think about extreme left-wing ideologies in the american spectrum, McCarthy and Reagan always come to mind. Nowadays, when the news mentions your elections campaigns, I always feel like the Republicans talk about the Democrats as if they were full-on communists trying to hand over control of the US to so secret NWO with a leftist agenda. But that's my view as a mildly informed outsider. :laugh:

Back here in Portugal, the PCP (Portuguese Communist Party) is the 4th biggest party. We still have a lot of reds back here.

America is rabid against communists because it is seen as being hostile to religion and christianity in particular. Republicans imply that Democrats are Commies and aethiests. Democrats imply that Republicans are racists, homophobes, plutocrats, zealots and neandrathals in general. They do this so they can avoid talking about real issues.

[Shryke]

I disagree. I think the original social contract in this country was for legal equality of opportunity, not the entitlement to have someone else pay the financial costs of whatever legal opportunities are available. And I don't think you can find anything in the Constitution or Declaration -- classic liberal documents -- stating or even implying otherwise. Nobody expected to have as good a shot at the good life as the landed gentry, aristocracy, educated/mercantile classes, but they didn't want legal impediments to doing so.

Constitution:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare

Decleration of Independance:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

There's an obvious statement here that the government exists to ensure the safety and happiness of the people and that this involves promoting the general welfare.

In no way is this philosophy restricted to "freedom from" things.

[Shryke]

Why not?

Because it's economically inefficient?

Because it's bad for society to have people's potentially limited by easily

Because it's not fair?

And so on.

There's tons of reasons, depending on what kind of argument you want to make.

[emberling]

Why not?

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you mean 'Why do I believe this is under government's mandate?'.

People have the right to pursue the goal that fulfills them - the pursuit of happiness, as that phrase is usually interpreted. Nobody has the right to dictate what you will do with your life - that's a statement I expect you to agree with. The same principle from another angle is: you have the right to choose what you will do with your life. That angle is the more valid, in my opinion. Government doesn't exist to enumerate what 'nobody has the right' to do - it exists to protect what we do have the right to do. It's not material whether the infringement of those rights is caused by another individual, by a corporation, or by situational misfortune.

You could argue that the person's rights aren't being infringed because they can just do it over their parents' dead bodies, but then you're ignoring that the parents are also individuals who shouldn't be at the mercy of this other person's decision, family or no.

If I want to work my ass off and live a frugal lifestyle in order to provide a better life for my children I should not feel guilty because others do not. Nor does the government have any business in adressing something like this.

Why should the quality of your childrens' and other childrens' lives be dependent on how virtuous their genetic donor is? It's not about you - it's about them. You can be as frugal as you like, you can pass down the savings to whomever you choose - but if that savings is the difference between living a good life and a bad one, then something went wrong elsewhere.

Thought-experiment: What right, specifically, would the government infringe if it, for instance, took away your child at birth, without your permission, to be raised by another randomly-selected family, and provided you instead with the option to raise a randomly selected child from another family? Ignore that government has no reason to do this - I'm interested specifically in the feeling of (or perception of right to) proprietorship of one's own blood.

[sologdin]

There's tons of reasons, depending on what kind of argument you want to make.

the best one is deny enough aspirations, and those guns you love so greedily--you'll find out why you need them.

[UnJoff]

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you mean 'Why do I believe this is under government's mandate?'.

People have the right to pursue the goal that fulfills them - the pursuit of happiness, as that phrase is usually interpreted. Nobody has the right to dictate what you will do with your life - that's a statement I expect you to agree with. The same principle from another angle is: you have the right to choose what you will do with your life. That angle is the more valid, in my opinion. Government doesn't exist to enumerate what 'nobody has the right' to do - it exists to protect what we do have the right to do. It's not material whether the infringement of those rights is caused by another individual, by a corporation, or by situational misfortune.

You could argue that the person's rights aren't being infringed because they can just do it over their parents' dead bodies, but then you're ignoring that the parents are also individuals who shouldn't be at the mercy of this other person's decision, family or no.

Why should the quality of your childrens' and other childrens' lives be dependent on how virtuous their genetic donor is? It's not about you - it's about them. You can be as frugal as you like, you can pass down the savings to whomever you choose - but if that savings is the difference between living a good life and a bad one, then something went wrong elsewhere.

Thought-experiment: What right, specifically, would the government infringe if it, for instance, took away your child at birth, without your permission, to be raised by another randomly-selected family, and provided you instead with the option to raise a randomly selected child from another family? Ignore that government has no reason to do this - I'm interested specifically in the feeling of (or perception of right to) proprietorship of one's own blood.

I like this. In order to assure equal opportunity for all, babies should be taken at birth from their parents and raised in government facilities and have no ties to their genetic parents. That way all people come from the same social, economic, and educational background. Anything short of this would fail to meet these equality goals that people so love.