Political Compromise

[Ayn Rand]

Well, yeah, then anyone can compromise. A core belief of socialism is strong welfare programs. A core belief of Libertarianism is little to no welfare programs. Neither side can really compromise extensivly on that.
Can people effectivly compromise when their beliefs are directly challenging each others?
Forgive me for slightly changing the direction of the thread. I thought the OP out badly so I'm trying to salvage it.

Reality will make them compromise, or at the very least, it will compel one side to compromise with the other until there is a significant change in the balance of strength.

Do you think socialists or communists can ever compromise with a capitalist society, or vice versa? Or do you think that differences in principles will compel people to compete and continuously attempt to redraw the balance of power?

 

[classical_hero]

Political compromise is about your coming around to my political view point.

 

[Glassfan]

I think there are very few issues where political compromise is impossible. Slavery in the 19th century and Abortion in the 20th - very little leeway, the nation must choose one way or the other.

But by far, most differences in American politics are a matter of priorities. Environmentalism is a high priority among liberals here. Conservatives don't hate the environment, it's just a lower priority for them.

Likewise, Defense is an important conservative issue. Liberals don't hate Defense, it's just further down the list for them.

The Art of political compromise is to get something you want by giving up something that's less important to you. Some conservatives, therefor, will cross over and help with Global Warming legislation, giving the liberals what they want. Then some liberals will support a defense bill, returning the favor.

In a tolerant democracy, ideological differences are less crucial for political survival than in some other systems.

And consider Mainland China. How can the communist regime allow so much capitalistic activity?What compromises are being made there? How far can capitalism prosper there? Very interesting!

 

[kosiosko 1]

Reality will make them compromise, or at the very least, it will compel one side to compromise with the other until there is a significant change in the balance of strength.

Do you think socialists or communists can ever compromise with a capitalist society, or vice versa? Or do you think that differences in principles will compel people to compete and continuously attempt to redraw the balance of power?

if i remember you from the UK... still confused by your french statue
your right... reality will make them compromise... that's what new labour was about, and could you ever really see the right taking away the NHS, they might not like it, they might tinker with it, but in a modern democracy its really about getting that 10-15% middle of the road vote... everyone compromises for that minority, doesn't mean they gave up their beliefs ... its just practicable to do so

 

[Dachs]

if i remember you from the UK... still confused by your french statue

A French statue in America, to boot. And he's using an account named after a Russian-American emigre. Self-hating Brit indeed.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Is actual political compromise ever really possible?
I mean we each believe what we believe because we believe it is the right thing. Therefore if we were to compromise on that we would be doing the 'wrong' thing.

By actual political compromise is find a true middle ground. I'm not talking about agreements on certain issues. I mean, Communists and Libertarians can't really get a middle ground, and if someone did force one through some miracle, it would leave both groups feeling gyped.

Well, define "Compromise."

For instance, someone far-right like me could vote for someone barely right like John Mccain because he's the lesser of two evils, but they still won't like him or what he does in office.

As for true compromise, it depends on:

1. What the two groups believe (For instance its tough for communists and capitalists to compromise, however, two more moderate groups would have a better chance.)

2. How absolute you feel morals are (If one or both parties believes their moral position is absolute it can be tougher.)

Ultimately, I won't compromise for real because I believe what I believe is absolutely right, not in every respect, but ultimately according to scripture, which I believe is the almighty word of God, I believe cannot be false. I also hold to capitalism absolutely because I feel any other modern system is a dictatorship of the majority, while ancient systems such as Feudalism was "Dictatorship of those who have the power."

If you have a more relative set of beliefs, you can compromise.

 

[Cull]

The problem is that we have people on the far left and the far right whos very ideas are at contrast. I suppose the moderate and the centralist might be able too, but with the far left and right, their very ideas would not be able to mix.

X-post with D3K.

Grumble.

 

[Arakhor]

Ultimately, I won't compromise for real because I believe what I believe is absolutely right, not in every respect, but ultimately according to scripture, which I believe is the almighty word of God, I believe cannot be false. I also hold to capitalism absolutely because I feel any other modern system is a dictatorship of the majority, while ancient systems such as Feudalism was "Dictatorship of those who have the power."

If you have a more relative set of beliefs, you can compromise.

Without any rancour whatsoever, that's why people think you're a fundamentalist.

 

[Ayn Rand]

if i remember you from the UK... still confused by your french statue
your right... reality will make them compromise... that's what new labour was about, and could you ever really see the right taking away the NHS, they might not like it, they might tinker with it, but in a modern democracy its really about getting that 10-15% middle of the road vote... everyone compromises for that minority, doesn't mean they gave up their beliefs ... its just practicable to do so

That's the way it's worked in this country for centuries. People here give their opinion, and sometimes give it loudly and forcefully, but then we all put it to the vote like civilised human beings, and accept the outcome without military coups or intimidation. That's the principle that up until now has kept our country democratic and free, even at times in history when others lost their way and embraced tyranny and totalitarianism. I hate the socialism in this country, but everybody voted for it, so you just have to suck it up and wait for change at the next election.

When people won't compromise, sooner or later it will just come down to force. So it's always a choice between [constitutional] democracy or violence. Third World States show us just how necessary compromise is for prosperity.

Edit: By democracy I mean a capitalist democracy that protects liberty and property rights, of course. Many socialists try to claim that socialism is "real" democracy and "real" freedom, which I don't accept. They should call it a socialist dictatorship which is what it is, instead of borrowing other people's terminology to try and confuse things.

Speaking of which, what is the deal with left-wingers calling themselves "left libertarians" or even "real libertarians"?

 

[kosiosko 1]

Speaking of which, what is the deal with left-wingers calling themselves "left libertarians" or even "real libertarians"?

Ahh ... compromise we both agree on democracy

on your point current libertarianism started around 1970, it was call neoliberalism or economic rationalism in some western countries

prior to the 20th century classical liberalism was the predominate political philosophy of the US, where they called it libertarianism, because the took the french rather than English name

classical liberalism has old roots 1789 and the french revolution saw them come into prominence... some say it is its defining moment

where they sat on the left.. socialism and liberalism have the same roots and share many ideals but have gone their separate ways

check out the web pages and linage of today's libertarians it has nothing in common with those early roots ...its Austrian economics that has hijacked the name libertarianism in the 1970's

Australia and the US were founded on classical libertarian/liberalism... the idea of a civil society... restricting the rights of government ... government of the people by the people for the people

The left has never had a problem with this, nor the right its in the roots of both ideals

be dammed if we will accept mutton dressed as lamb, and let Austrian economics hijack our history

this is too simplified for a history lesson... just go to your favorite website and follow back the linage... around 1970 it starts to be an Austrian economics linage, it has nothing to do anymore with the founding fathers of the US... real libertarians

 

[GhostWriter16]

Political compromise is about your coming around to Domination's political view point.

Quoted for truthfulness