The Next President of the United States of America

[Kyriakos]

Considering that any group-based entity has a logo, from a chain of stores, to a university, it is just logical that a country would have a flag. It does help make its image/emblem internationally intelligible as well, due to flags being images and rarely letter-inclusive.

 

[kochman]

I don't think O'Bama is eligible for a third term.

I wish his name was Baracko Bama, or Barack O'Bama...
I'll be happy to see him go, but I don't predict us electing someone who I will support regardless of who it is that the false dichotomy of Rep and Dem present to us as options..

 

[Hygro]

American conservatives are closer to classical liberals then progressives. Liberalism stressed the rights of the individual against government. Progressives stress the collective good over the individual.

It would be hard to conceive of anything further from classical liberalism than the Affordable Care Act, particularly the mandate to purchase. It reminds one of when the State Church could tax the property of other churches.

J

I understand why you think this, which is why I invite you to read some Jeremy Bentham to start.

Progressives are one logical conclusion of liberalism: one in which the greatest individual freedom comes from the advancement of the society. There's a reason most of us progressives are on the lower left quadrant of the political compass (and conservatives trend much further north...)

The affordable care act is fairly consistent with the aims of historical liberalism, which while valued personal liberty and "freedom from", did not do so to the orthodox extent that modern libertarianism does. I remember linking Ghostwriter16 to some JS Mills and GW16 was like, this guy doesn't pass my libertarian test. JS Mills practically invented modern individualism as a political goal! Mills was just too collectivist and pro-social for Dommy.

Not really true. The difference being that the modern progressive liberal knows that the effective enforcement of rights doesn't happen without government. You can preach liberty all you want. But no one has it until they do something about it. And liberals are the only people who have ever done anything about it.

Libertarians believe in government though. We just like to confuse them with their ideologically purer Rothbardian cousins.

I don't disagree with your point on a practical level.

 

[Kyriakos]

I wish his name was Baracko Bama, or Barack O'Bama...
I'll be happy to see him go, but I don't predict us electing someone who I will support regardless of who it is that the false dichotomy of Rep and Dem present to us as options..

Even cooler would be Barackoba-Ma.

 

[onejayhawk]

I understand why you think this, which is why I invite you to read some Jeremy Bentham to start.

Progressives are one logical conclusion of liberalism: one in which the greatest individual freedom comes from the advancement of the society. There's a reason most of us progressives are on the lower left quadrant of the political compass (and conservatives trend much further north...)

The affordable care act is fairly consistent with the aims of historical liberalism, which while valued personal liberty and "freedom from", did not do so to the orthodox extent that modern libertarianism does. I remember linking Ghostwriter16 to some JS Mills and GW16 was like, this guy doesn't pass my libertarian test. JS Mills practically invented modern individualism as a political goal! Mills was just too collectivist and pro-social for Dommy.


Libertarians believe in government though. We just like to confuse them with their ideologically purer Rothbardian cousins.

I don't disagree with your point on a practical level.

Jeremy Bentham is one name, and you can continue through Mill and others, as you say. I wonder if he would embrace the results of his work. We know from history that the British free love philosophers of the 19th century were appalled at the practice of their theory.

The question is whether expanding government to promote socialism is liberal, or not. Libertarians think not. Emphatically. Cutlass preaches extending government reach as the only effective means to date. Leaving aside whether he is correct, Libertarians would would deny the value was worth the cost.

Philosophically, moderns liberals have little in commone with Bentham and Mills. Rush Limbaugh preaching individual responsibility comes closer.

J

 

[Cutlass]

Jeremy Bentham is one name, and you can continue through Mill and others, as you say. I wonder if he would embrace the results of his work. We know from history that the British free love philosophers of the 19th century were appalled at the practice of their theory.

The question is whether expanding government to promote socialism is liberal, or not. Libertarians think not. Emphatically.

First, liberals have no interest in socialism. Never have. Not in the classical days. Not in the Progressive Era. Certainly not in the Postwar Liberal era, where the liberal policy was explicitly the defeat of socialism and communism. And not now, where the so called 'liberals' are a hell of a lot more conservative than they have been at any time since the concept has existed.

Cutlass preaches extending government reach as the only effective means to date. Leaving aside whether he is correct, Libertarians would would deny the value was worth the cost.

"Libertarians" would rather not have liberty, if it means that others also get to have liberty.

Philosophically, moderns liberals have little in commone with Bentham and Mills. Rush Limbaugh preaching individual responsibility comes closer.

J

"Individual responsibility" is not the same thing as liberty. In fact, much of the time it's the opposite. It's something that conservatives use as an excuse for stripping away liberty, in the real world.

 

[danjuno]

Ew O'Malley

(I love Warner though)

What's the deal? I understand he's a progressive in a state that's safe Dem, but so are Cuomo, Gillibrand, and Warren. Admittedly, as a native of Maryland, I'd like another Marylander in the Executive branch to cover for the shame of Spiro Agnew.

I admit O'Malley is not a very good candidate for the general election, so I will probably throw my lot in with Warner if Clinton steps aside.

 

[onejayhawk]

First, liberals have no interest in socialism. Never have. Not in the classical days. Not in the Progressive Era. Certainly not in the Postwar Liberal era, where the liberal policy was explicitly the defeat of socialism and communism. And not now, where the so called 'liberals' are a hell of a lot more conservative than they have been at any time since the concept has existed.

If the Affordable Care Act is not socialism, then your definition of socialism needs work.

"Libertarians" would rather not have liberty, if it means that others also get to have liberty.

In your opinion. I have never seen you produce evidence.

"Individual responsibility" is not the same thing as liberty. In fact, much of the time it's the opposite. It's something that conservatives use as an excuse for stripping away liberty, in the real world.

I grant you they are not the same. However, I see no conflict. Please expand on that. Conservatives use individual responsibility as a rationale for limiting benefits, not stripping liberties.

The last sentance seems to have almost no contact with reality.

J

 

[JollyRoger]

If the Affordable Care Act is not socialism, then your definition of socialism needs work.

Can you explain exactly how it is socialism?

 

[onejayhawk]

Can you explain exactly how it is socialism?

so·cial·ism noun \ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm\ : a way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies.

Webster online dictionary.

J

 

[Old Hippy]

so·cial·ism noun \ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm\ : a way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies.

Webster online dictionary.

J

kind of a narrow definition

socialism
/ˈsəʊʃəlɪz(&#601m/
noun
noun: socialism
a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

is it just merican dictionaries that say government...

I looked at the first 10 googles and not one of them said 'GOVERNMENT'

 

[onejayhawk]

kind of a narrow definition

is it just merican dictionaries that say government...

I looked at the first 10 googles and not one of them said 'GOVERNMENT'

Odd. Webster was the first google I got. I posted literally the first definition I found.

Your definition works too. The ACA is socialist under any reasonable definition of socialism.

J

 

[Old Hippy]

Odd. Webster was the first google I got. I posted literally the first definition I found.

Your definition works too. The ACA is socialist under any reasonable definition of socialism.

J

that probaly explains the disconect between the US and Europe, if people are using different definitions to start with.

it's all Googles fault...

 

[Commodore]

Odd. Webster was the first google I got. I posted literally the first definition I found.

Your definition works too. The ACA is socialist under any reasonable definition of socialism.

J

No it's not. Using your definition it says "owned and controlled by the government". The ACA did not nationalize the healthcare industry and place every insurance provider, hospital, and doctor under the government's control or ownership. All the ACA did was change the way the healthcare industry is regulated. So no, the ACA is not socialism even by Webster's definition.

 

[onejayhawk]

No it's not. Using your definition it says "owned and controlled by the government". The ACA did not nationalize the healthcare industry and place every insurance provider, hospital, and doctor under the government's control or ownership. All the ACA did was change the way the healthcare industry is regulated. So no, the ACA is not socialism even by Webster's definition.

Fine, use the other definiton:

a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

It fits that one just as well.

To say that the ACA does not control healthcare is disingenuous at best. Don't try claiming it does not regulate.

Any reasonable definition of socialism will include the ACA as socialist.

J

 

[Commodore]

Fine, use the other definiton:

a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

It fits that one just as well.

To say that the ACA does not control healthcare is disingenuous at best. Don't try claiming it does not regulate.

Any reasonable definition of socialism will include the ACA as socialist.

J

But it's not regulated by the community as a whole, nor is it owned by the community as a whole. It is regulated by the government; and just because something is regulated by the government does not automatically make it socialist.

Also the ACA does not control healthcare at all, it regulates it and regulation does not equal control.

 

[Antilogic]

Any reasonable definition of socialism will include the ACA as socialist.

No, and that's one of the reasons why this thread is so difficult to read.

 

[onejayhawk]

No, and that's one of the reasons why this thread is so difficult to read.

Can you provide such a definition?

J

 

[Antilogic]

Can you provide such a definition?

J

Social ownership of the means of production.

Your cited definitions are so broad that EVERYTHING IS SOCIALISM OMFGWTF!?!

Not to mention the utter hilarity that apparently a Heritage Foundation insurance scheme is now far-left uber-socialism because we gotta be a bunch of grown-up moderate "centrist" willy-nilly equaters with a rapidly right-shifting Overton window.

 

[El_Machinae]

The ACA is not socialism. The gov't buys very, very little healthcare through the ACA. It's crony capitalism, where both taxpayers (via subsidies) and workers (via law) are forced to buy in a competitive(ish) marketplace. Medicare is much closer to socialism, though consumers still end up voting for the services they prefer. The gov't doesn't really own the healthcare provision much more than it did before (via regulatory standards). The old emergency room system was closer to socialism. I blame partisanship, because there's no way the ACA should have passed in a reasonable system. It tried to be a compromise between two extreme wings, and so the middle is ending up confused.