My new and improved political ideology. Seeking opinions.

[bradruth]

Hey again everyone. Some of you may remember I posted my ideology last spring, and recieved some very good criticism and advice. I'm currently down at college, and I've honed a few elements of my ideology from both the advice I got from those who replied and from the classes I'm currently taking. I'd appreciate it if I could get some more advice/criticism/comments/questions in order to hone it a little more.

http://uweb.und.nodak.edu/~bradley.rutherford/


Here's a link to the previous thread, for those who are interested. http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.cfm?catid=52&threadid=1118887

Thanks!

 

[Dragnov]

"The power stays within the family and may spread out through marriage. Monarchies were commonplace for thousands of years, but became a casualty of the advancement in political thought, represented by the American Revolution."

Well first, I will disagree that the American Revolution (should be called American Rebellion in all actuality) was due to advancement in political thought, but rather more economic reasons, and personal self interest. And secondly, there was no real advancement in political thought, as what most of what Jefferson said in the Declaration of Independence was plagarism. Locke came up with those ideas back when they were overthrowing the King/monarchy.


"The problem with dictatorships is that usually the person who gains control is a very power-hungry individual, and soon their power serves only their own interests."

Not necessarily true. If you look at places like Cuba, there is a very high education right. In places like East Asia, Singapore, Korea, etc. the dictators helped bring their countries out of the gutter.

I'll add more later... busy.

 

[bradruth]

Thanks for the reply, Grimlock. I'm looking forward to your further comments as well.

I'm aware that the American Revolution didn't have any original political thought of it's own. I was suggesting that it was the result of various theories, of which John Locke is very central to. I also recognize the economic reasons (taxation without representation), and assumed it would fall in line with the advanced political thought.

I've also read about "successful" dictatorships. Perhaps my statement was too much of a generalization, but the theme of my anti-dictatorship stance (and other parts of the paper) was the emphasis of greedy human nature.

Thanks again for the comments!

 

[roboninja]

Well, as the saying goes, "Absolute power corrupts absolutely", so a dictatorship lends itself to despots. But amazingly bad things can be done even in a democracy As I always say, if you want to solve the world's problems, just make me King of the Earth, and things will be peachy; I'm a nice guy

 

[Witling]

Here are some comments on the first part of your essay.n I enjoyed reading it and compliment you on your enthusiasm.



You asked for comments. Here are some

1. You state ??where there is no law and order and power is at the mercy of the criminal factions in society . . .? If there?s no law, there are no criminal factions.

2. You state ?. . .key then must be to combine the best of these theories into an ideal government. . .? That?s one hell of a jump in logic from the preceding statement that [paraphrased] Ideologies generally fail when applied in their pure form. The use of ?must be? implies that there are no other solutions such as ?tempering ideology with pragmatism,? or ?recognizing that theoretical constructs have their limits.?

3. You state ?The main focus of the left, or liberals, is liberty.? You know, as applied in an American context, I?m not sure that statement is correct. If you were to ask my opinion, I?d say the main focus of liberals is to have the government provide a floor for the common welfare. I?d say that what we now call ?conservatives? are more interested in less governmental control, which is generally equated with liberty. Furthermore, I can hardly wait to find out what conservatives support if liberals support ?life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.? Dastardly of those bums to oppose life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Oh, yeah, I see, they?re for plutocracy.

The characteristic that you attribute to fascism, i.e., authoritative control by the military, is actually a characteristic of totalitarian governments on either the right or the left. I mean, the Soviet Union shot people who tried to leave.

?These autocratic governments normally have a very strong military, and use their might to seize colonies for the sole purpose of benefiting the main country.? Boy, this sounds familiar. Iraq?

?The most common form of rule by many in the modern world is democracy.? I?d like to see a footnote on this statement. I am by no means sure it is true.

?By evaluating the successes and failures of governments based on these theories, . . .? No, no, no. Governments should be evaluated on the basis of performance, not theories.

?There are fundamental opportunities that all people have a right to, namely education and health care.? Not if we?re talking about the U.S. No right to health care.

 

[bradruth]

Thanks for the reply, Whitling. I'm glad you enjoyed my essay.

1. Technically you're right, they wouldn't be "criminal" if there were no laws to define them as such. Despite the error in symantics, I think you know what I mean.

2. I do throw back to this in my conclusion paragraph when I say that no theory is perfect, nor is mine. It is assumeds that there are some aspects that can't be solved through theory alone.

3. I know I have to modify my definitions a bit. I've been focusing on the ideology section, and in so doing I've neglected my basic definitions. When I have some time I'll straighten them out a bit.

By evaluating the successes and failures of governments based on these theories, . . .? No, no, no. Governments should be evaluated on the basis of performance, not theories.

If you read closely, I'm evaluated the successes and failures of the governments, and the governments are based on the theories. Perhaps I'll restructure the sentence to make it more clear.

?There are fundamental opportunities that all people have a right to, namely education and health care.? Not if we?re talking about the U.S. No right to health care.

What I meant was that, as people in an industrialized society, everyone should have equal opportunities for education and health care.

?These autocratic governments normally have a very strong military, and use their might to seize colonies for the sole purpose of benefiting the main country.? Boy, this sounds familiar. Iraq?

Technically we didn't seize Iraq, although we are currently "in controL" of it. Once a sufficient government has been instituted, the US (and other countries) will pull out and return sovereignty to the Iraqi people. Also, although we benefit from a democratic Iraq, the effects of a successful democracy in the middle east would effect the world and democracy itself tremendously.

 

[rjain]

Everyone has equal opportunities for education and healthcare (and anything else they want that someone else wants to provide) in any capitalist system. They have the opportunity to sell their labor for money and to spend that money to get education and healthcare. Even educators and healthcare providers should have the opportunity to be subject to an open market. As far as government funded, free-to-the-public education and healthcare, there should be some minimum standard available and anything more must be paid for through your own effort.

A democracy in Iraq would result in another Islamic government coming to power. That's why we're not allowing elections in many cases. There's a difference between democratic government and secular government.

 

[bradruth]

Originally posted by: rjain
Everyone has equal opportunities for education and healthcare (and anything else they want that someone else wants to provide) in any capitalist system. They have the opportunity to sell their labor for money and to spend that money to get education and healthcare. Even educators and healthcare providers should have the opportunity to be subject to an open market. As far as government funded, free-to-the-public education and healthcare, there should be some minimum standard available and anything more must be paid for through your own effort.

A democracy in Iraq would result in another Islamic government coming to power. That's why we're not allowing elections in many cases. There's a difference between democratic government and secular government.

You can't honestly say that the lower class has an equal opportunity to health care and education as the middle and upper classes. Their economic status alone reduces their opportunities tremendously. Are you familiar with Strain theory?

The US will undoubtedly have a huge hand in drawing up Iraq's constitution, and as such will not allow for a theocracy. The US practically drew up Japan's constitution and look where they are now. Sure they had a dominent party for the better part of 40 years and corruption was common...but still. Setting up a democratic system in neighboring Afghanistan won't hurt the chances of success either.

 

[glenn1]

My new and improved political ideology. Seeking opinions.

Your "new and improved" political ideology is basically identical to mainstream Democratic Party ideology.

 

[bradruth]

Originally posted by: glenn1

My new and improved political ideology. Seeking opinions.

Your "new and improved" political ideology is basically identical to mainstream Democratic Party ideology.

If that's the case, why the hell can't they present a candidate that I fully agree with?

 

[bradruth]

Bump for opinions.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: bradruth

Originally posted by: glenn1

My new and improved political ideology. Seeking opinions.

Your "new and improved" political ideology is basically identical to mainstream Democratic Party ideology.

If that's the case, why the hell can't they present a candidate that I fully agree with?

I have traditionally voted Republican in major elections. This time around, I will vote for the Democratic ticket. This is not because I fully agree with the party, but on substantive issues at this time, the more fully support the values I would like to see, or at least stand against those I oppose.

The whole concept and execution of the war in Iraq is my primary concern. The practice of preemption smacks of kinder and gentler Pearl Harbors. I categorically oppose the policy of attack first and justify later, which is precisely what happened in Iraq. To date, none of the evidence that was said to exist has come to light. Now it is about liberation. Not to put too fine a point on it, we were either lied to by this administration, or incompetence unequalled came to pass. All else is "well isn't it good to be rid of Saddam?" Well, of course it is. However, that is the fortunate result of a cluster fsck. I have no desire to reinstall such men. At a future time, I may choose a different side, if they ever come to see reason and the other goes off half cocked. I do not fully support the social agenda of the Democratics, or at least some of them. I fully support the second amendment for example. I think gun control is a red herring that fails to deal with real issues, and neither party wants to deal with those.

All this to say you will never find a person or party who fully satisfies your needs, but you have to do the best you can.

 

[bradruth]

I consider myself independent. I know my ideology leans to the left, but I tend to prefer a moderate Republican candidate (such as John McCain)--probably because of social issues, like you said. I'll probably be voting Democratic in the next election as well, but I don't have any allegience to either party.

 

[bradruth]

I've broken the ideology portion into sections and added a capital gains tax to my tax policy. Still searching for criticism.