Koya
Footballguy
As most know, I took a long absence from the board for reasons I don't need to rehash. Decided to dip my toe back in the water yesterday, and for a while wondered if I'd made a mistake and should just self banish for good... but the conversation and dialogue, and the outcome, has reinforced to me how amazing this community can be, even when we differ in opinion or perspective.
With that:
At root, I believe in Freedom above all else. Personal freedom, whereby my rights stop at your nose and vice versa. Obviously, this gets complicated in modern times... i.e. I have the right to not wear a helmet while riding a motorcycle, but that right stops when I expect you (the tax payer) to cover costs of my medical needs should I crash. Plenty of other grey areas we can discuss, but at root, its how do we grant individuals the greatest freedom, without imposing upon other's freedom int he process.
As such, I align strongly with libertarian beliefs, but the word has been co-opted to a degree, and the Libertarian party is sometimes so, well, loony, that I'd describe myself as a "left leaning libertarian" - namely, liberal on social issues but prefer more constrained government and certainly the least possible intrusion by gov't into our private lives. I've also always had a "soft spot" for many liberal causes, because I believe they are well intended, and I want to help people... however, when put into action, far too many of the public assistance type and nanny state laws end up doing more harm than good, promote negative outcomes, and get in the way of a proper balance between capitalism/free market and the need to govern private industry to not take advantage of folks or to not have folks just rely on gov't in stead of being motivate to do better, themselves.
Recently, I've begun to evolve to what I'd call an "outcome-oriented" libertarian. This is hard for me, but it is rooted in my first comment: I believe in freedom, above all else. A good example is healthcare. The libertarian in me is aghast at the idea of single payer, gov't run healthcare. But then I think... what about the outcomes? IF through single payer, for example, our nation and its individuals have far better access to healthcare, are they not more free? Basically, if the gov't makes a law or plays a role in our lives in a manner that promotes more freedom for us in our lives, should I matter that its "government" and not "private sector"?
In a way, this is analogous to the concept that the perfect form of government is a benevolent dictator: the problem is even if you have a benevolent dictator, once that system falls into less than benevolent hands, it becomes the opposite of ideal.
SO TL;DR: How much of your political leanings and orientation are based on ideology, vs. outcome. If you are a Democrat, but it's made clear to you that abolishing unions would lead to a better quality of life, would you HYPOTHETICALLY support that (I don't believe that's the case, but do believe that unions have overstepped in many ways to the detriment of their members and our nation's well being as a whole). If you are a Republican and it's shown that raising taxes on the very wealthy actually results in 95% of our nation's citizens doing significantly better economically (and otherwise), or if additional regulation on a range of businesses has that same effect, do you go with that legislation and approach?
Look forward to the replies and insight.
With that:
At root, I believe in Freedom above all else. Personal freedom, whereby my rights stop at your nose and vice versa. Obviously, this gets complicated in modern times... i.e. I have the right to not wear a helmet while riding a motorcycle, but that right stops when I expect you (the tax payer) to cover costs of my medical needs should I crash. Plenty of other grey areas we can discuss, but at root, its how do we grant individuals the greatest freedom, without imposing upon other's freedom int he process.
As such, I align strongly with libertarian beliefs, but the word has been co-opted to a degree, and the Libertarian party is sometimes so, well, loony, that I'd describe myself as a "left leaning libertarian" - namely, liberal on social issues but prefer more constrained government and certainly the least possible intrusion by gov't into our private lives. I've also always had a "soft spot" for many liberal causes, because I believe they are well intended, and I want to help people... however, when put into action, far too many of the public assistance type and nanny state laws end up doing more harm than good, promote negative outcomes, and get in the way of a proper balance between capitalism/free market and the need to govern private industry to not take advantage of folks or to not have folks just rely on gov't in stead of being motivate to do better, themselves.
Recently, I've begun to evolve to what I'd call an "outcome-oriented" libertarian. This is hard for me, but it is rooted in my first comment: I believe in freedom, above all else. A good example is healthcare. The libertarian in me is aghast at the idea of single payer, gov't run healthcare. But then I think... what about the outcomes? IF through single payer, for example, our nation and its individuals have far better access to healthcare, are they not more free? Basically, if the gov't makes a law or plays a role in our lives in a manner that promotes more freedom for us in our lives, should I matter that its "government" and not "private sector"?
In a way, this is analogous to the concept that the perfect form of government is a benevolent dictator: the problem is even if you have a benevolent dictator, once that system falls into less than benevolent hands, it becomes the opposite of ideal.
SO TL;DR: How much of your political leanings and orientation are based on ideology, vs. outcome. If you are a Democrat, but it's made clear to you that abolishing unions would lead to a better quality of life, would you HYPOTHETICALLY support that (I don't believe that's the case, but do believe that unions have overstepped in many ways to the detriment of their members and our nation's well being as a whole). If you are a Republican and it's shown that raising taxes on the very wealthy actually results in 95% of our nation's citizens doing significantly better economically (and otherwise), or if additional regulation on a range of businesses has that same effect, do you go with that legislation and approach?
Look forward to the replies and insight.