The Conference on Founding Principles

Already done. Rents; inequalities; lack of mobility

You're not saying anything. Everyone knows that free markets aren't achievable or desirable. The purpose is to legitimise right wing economics, including Hayek and Friedman.

 

Those are words, not examples.

I suspect you're a Keynesian. Do I have that right? Could you please explain how, in your view, the Austrian school is right wing?

 

Keynesianism is merely a more realistic liberal school. The Austrian School ignores hierarchy which naturally builds in capitalism to peddle an entrepreneurial 'free market' myth. It was a crucial part in building Thatcherism, a hard right approach which was used to destroy worker rights and harvest working poverty.

 

Most of that is over my head and sounds like rhetoric to me. Are you sure you're on the right forum?

As a moderate, I believe the following:

-- Regulating markets and corporations, especially banks, is necessary because in a "free market," those at the top of the "money pyramid" are not trustworthy.

-- Regulations need not kill capitalism or entrepreneurship.

-- Education should be free, or tuitions should be means-based.

-- Information should be free, and those providing a means to access that information should be politically neutral.

-- Minimum wage should be enough to make a living without need to rely on government assistance.

-- Our health should not be a matter for a corporation's bottom line.

-- All races and genders should have equal access to education, health care, mortgages, and business loans.

-- No American should be homeless.

-- Our president should be elected by popular vote. On person, one vote. The constitution should be amended to kill the Electoral College.

-- Immigration should be much easier and quicker. It should not take more than two years.

-- Any relationship between consenting adults is their private business and not the state's.

-- No religion of any sort in public dealings, meetings, organizations. No religious iconography on any public property. No prayers before council or legislative meetings. No swearing in on the Christian bible or any other religious book or object. No "so help me god" at the end of oaths of office.

-- Personal freedom of actions ends where the health or life of another begins.

-- True freedom requires responsibility. Everyone should be responsible for their actions.

-- No woman should ever be forced to even disclose a pregnancy, much less carry it to term if that isn't her choice. Roe v Wade is not about abortion, it's about the right to privacy.

I could go on all day. Does any of that sound like it supports right wing policy? Some of it probably sounds far left, and on some issues, I definitely side with the leftists, but not on everything.

 

Again you amused me. You throw out terms like hard left, but show no understanding of the political economy needed to understand the spectrum.

Is this perhaps another element of the so called moderates? A lack of benchmark principles, with only the soundbite offering any elevation from just median voter grunt.

Meaningless as free markets do not exist.

Meaningless as regulations have always existed in capitalism.

Meaningless as education is a merit good embraced by both left and right wing approaches.

Meaningless as it ignores how information asymmetry is a natural part of the capitalist economy.

Meaningless as the minimum wage is not capable of eliminating poverty (e.g. many minimum wage workers aren't poor; many poor arent on minimum wages).

Meaningless as you provide no content (e.g. the profit motive still exists within national health care systems).

Meaningless as there is no reference to discriminatory practices (e.g. equal access in education actually creates higher opportunities for the richer deciles, which is ironically predicted by human capital theory).

Meaningless as there is no reference to the nature of the housing market (e.g. the problems created by home ownership being used as insurance against economic instabity).

Meaningless marginal change in the constitution, using that to pretend relevance.

Meaningless as there is no real content to take responsibility (e.g. understanding of determinants of immigration and how US policies, such as the Washington Consensus, have actually magnified global problems)

Meaningless as that is encompassed by left and right wing approaches (from anarchism to the right wingers that gave us Thatcherism).

Meaningless given the Marxist analysis into religion and their apparent hard left status.

Meaningless as this includes the social democratic outcomes also deemed to be hard left by so called moderates.

Meaningless soundbite, with no actual content.

Meaningless as feminism builds off Marxist power analysis and is therefore again accused of being hard left.

It is what I expect. Moderate politics is like pishing on the desert land. There is soundbite, rather than any permanent spine. Its that wishy-washy nature that ensured that they accepted neoliberalism as the norm. It also ensures that they typically celebrate, or excuse, hawkish foreign policy...

 

I'm a meaningless person, got it, Mr. Pompous. Putting you on "ignore."

 

Same ole moderate wannabes; talk nonsense, blame others for not being able to defend a vapid position.

 

How many?

 

Who then pays for it?

Do you limit this to, say, internet provider, or do you also include media outlets?

"Make a living", with said standard of living defined by whom?

Employers should not offer health care to workers?

You'll need 38 states to ratify this. The 13 most likely to vote n on this matter contain about 7% of the US population. Good luck convincing them.

"Any"? As in all of them? No exceptions?

How does simple ownership and possession of a firearm harm anyone, or place them in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger?

If you aren't responsible for your own education, housing and health care, and have the provided to you by the state, are you still free?

Can it then be correctly said that you support ending innocent human lives for the purposes of convenience?

 

Most of those positions are considered far-left in the American political compass. Or at least they are in the wake of the Republican propaganda machine. But nothing here truly challenges the neo-liberal model of corporate trade preference, concentration of capital, central bank collusion, imperialism and exploitation of the third world.

 

We need to put an end to the neoliberalism of the last several decades.

 

I'm pretty much on board with all you state. Sounds pretty much like the modern democrat platform -- It's modern liberalism in my view, it takes classic liberalism, and adds to it in order to accommodate the more complex society we have today compared to our nation in it's incipient stages ( so classic liberalism is too simplistic for today ).

Moderates would not be for universal health care or free education ( college ) but they would support public education and the ACA.

We might disagree on mandated vaccinations because I don't believe in state ownership of one's body, which is a requirement for mandating vaccines.

Personally, I don't care of there are 'references to god' in oaths of office, but one should be able to opt out if one is an atheist.

 

You are asking a question with a simplistic premise.

The abortion debate cannot be so reduced to the simplistic mindset from which your comment arises.

See, R v W also saves lives, that of women who would either be mangled or die from back alley abortions. I'm old enough to remember life before R v W, my sister, at the age of 15, did not tell my our parents about her pregnancy, and she got an incompetent abortion, and we didn't find out about it until the hospital called my parents ( she tried to abort herself, botched it, and called an ambulance).

She almost died.

The repeal of R v W will NOT stop abortion, it will affect the poor more than the rich, ( who can fly to countries where it is legal ) so to be for R v W does not equal 'ending human lives for convenience' because repealing it will end human lives ( among the living ) as a practical reality. So, those of us who support it, while most of us, myself included, find abortion repugnant, but prohibition creates a state of affairs that is worse ( as prohibition did to alchohol ) so, it's a necessary evil and at least provides them under competent medical practice.

 

Classical liberalism gave us the poor house and fell silent with imperialism. I don't know what's worse. Folk pretending that they're classical liberals or moderates ignoring that they've enabled neoliberalism. Same curse perhaps...

 

There’s video of him getting his rear kicked floating around the web. Must be the “bullying” he was whining about.

You see after punching a girl repeatedly a group of guys separated the two than kicked the crap out of him.

Up standing kid. After murdering somebody protesters chased him down. True. He probably thought if he got beaten up for punching a girl he’d likely receive the same for shooting someone in the head.

 

No. Protesters were chasing him and shot a firearm at him BEFORE he shot anyone.

 

They don't let the truth get in the way of their narrative.

 

1. I don't recall supporting mandatory vaccinations. Please quote me on that.

2. You can't "opt out" on the constant and prolific uses of "God." They added it to the Pledge of Allegence in 1956 during the McCarthy era. It's on our money. It's in all oaths of office. Witnesses in court proceedings get Christian bibles shoved at them to swear to tell the truth "so help me god." How does one opt out on all of that? I had to be sworn in as a witness in a municipal court NYC. When they came at me with a bible, I looked right at the judge and told him that that book was meaningless to me. He asked me my religion, I said "none," and heard gasps from all over the court. I was insulted. The judge was good enough to allow me to swear in without religious paraphenalia, but the treatment any atheist gets in this country remain egregious, in my opinion. We are one minority towards which it is still acceptable to hate and ridicule.

 

I'm so glad you asked.

1. Taxes, for those students who meet poverty criteria. Tuition should be on a sliding scale according to one's income, or one's family's income. That's what is known as means-based.

2. Just the internet. Other media outlets are going non-print all the time, and most of those that still print are online as well. They get plenty of money through advertizing, they don't need yours or mine.

3. Our standard of living is defined by the cost of living. While $15 per hour won't go as far in expensve areas like NYC or Silicon Valley, it should be a national minimum.

4. By "corporations," I meant the insurance companies themselves. They're the bottom feeder of the world, IMO.

5. You're right on that one. The low population states are overrepresented, and won't let that go. Why should Wyoming give up their vast asvantage in EC delegates. They have approximately 233,000 people per EC vote, while California has approximately 660,377. Does that seem fair to you?

6. Yes, any. A private relationship between consulting adults is not my business nor yours. That goes for plural marriges. If two men and five women want to form a committed union, that's not my business.

7. Huh? Where did I say anything about guns?

8. Yes, you are. Free to study what you want, free to live where you want, and free from ridiculous amounts of debt in the form of student loans and medical bills.

9. Badly framed question. I am neither for or against abortion because every woman has the right to keep her reasons for her choice to herself. I don't butt in to another woman's problems or second guess her choices. It. Is. None. Of. My. Business. Or yours or even her husband's if she CHOOSES not to tell him.

 

It's nice to see the thread finally got around to founding principles.

I think it was a horrible mistake to repeal Glass-Steagall. Shame on that liberal Bill Clinton for allowing it.

 

So say the ChiComms who ordered the NBA back on the court...

Biden and Harris are acceptable to the hedge fund lobby... The Socialists have been shut out yet again, but don't seem to realize it yet. Perhaps after Trump wins again.

 

So, ts not really free - the state forces someone to pay for goods and services consumed by others, w/o compensation.
How are those someones responsible for providing these people said goods and services?

But, to the point - you don't plan to require the media to be 'fair and balanced', just the means through which the media disseminates it product.

You misunderstand the question. "Make a living" is not the same as, say, "living the way I do"
You seek a minimum level of income, which then must necessarily relate a minimum standard of said living -- it covers necessities, not luxuries.
Thus, $15 is far higher than needed to "make a living".

Your association with your insurance company completely voluntary - if you don't like their terms, or if you think they make to much money off you, dump them.
If you agree to their terms, then you subject yourself to their bottom line.
You don't get both.

"Low population states" have the same representation in the EC as they do Congress - and no one complains about 'fairness'.
And, regardless of how fair you think it is, your opinion on the matter means nothing until you get >50% of a particular, and very small, population to agree with you.
See, the majority does not always rule - by design.

You said:
Personal freedom of actions ends where the health or life of another begins.
From that, it follows that said freedoms may be exercised as desired until said exercise interferes with the life and health of someone else - at which point, the state may create restrictions upon that exercise.
And so, if the exercise of my freedom does not interfere with the life and health of someone else - that is, it harms no one, and places no one in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger - the state has no basis to restrict said exercise.
I assume you apply this to every personal freedom, including and especially enumerated constitutional rights, which is why asked abut firearms.
Well?

But you aren't responsible for yourself-someone else is. In this case, the state
The state, in granting you those benefits may tell you what you can and cannot do, should you want to receive the benefits.
Thus, you aren't free, you are subject to the restrictions laid upon you by your benefactor.

Ok then:
You support a woman's right to choose to end an innocent human life, for the purposes her convenience.
Better?

 

Scratch #1, if you do not support mandated vaccinations ( I just assumed you did, as many liberals do, I'm a liberal / libertarian )

On #2, I know you can't, but I said 'one should be able to'. But, for me, I don't really care. I said it growing up in school, and never gave it much thought, though I wasn't particularly religious.

If I were in court, I'd bring my own copy of the Tao Te Ching, and swear to that. I'm more into Eastern Philosophy.

I know God is printed everywhere, but I'm not the kind of person that really gives a ****, I just let it be. Smoke a doob, listen to music, kind of guy. There are far more serious problems in the world to get riled up about, like our fake president.

 

I googled, but can't find any mention of the NBA being ordered to restart. Got a link?

The "Bernie Bros" have not been shut out by the Democratic Party, they just didn't get the votes for their guy. In spite of the facts that 1) Bernie is not a member of the Democratic Party, and 2) Bernie did not get the votes, he nevertheless has a seat at their table from which he can have a say in some policy decisions.

Only the right keeps pushing this inane horse pucky about a big division in the Democratic Party, but it's the GOP that is deeply split, which is the subject of this thread. The Dems had one convention, but the GOP is so splintered, they had two.

 

Ya ya, we know, progs want the theocratic dominionists back because they're easier to beat in elections. Its hard to get folks to swallow lefty collectivist authoritarianism when righty is promoting individual liberty.

Bottom line is folks are sick of being told to conform, whether its rightist 'morality' or leftist 'ethics.' These 'church ladies' of the SNL stereotype are an anacronism, just one layer down from progressivism in the dustbin of history.

If you want to start winning again, leftists, stop trying to control people. It really is that simple.