I've put two main assumptions into the poll: that everyone is in favor of 'freedom', and that no one wants the sort of massive Soviet-style government.
I've narrowed it down to one question: do you believe that government plays a useful role in protecting the public's rights against concentrated power, or that it's the enemy of freedom?
This applies only to domestic policy; I think pretty much everyone agrees that the military is needed against external threats, putting aside the issue of its uses beyond defense.
Why a whole thread about this? Because I think this one difference can explain many specific issues that are argued about, and is important to discuss.
Since I'm on one side on this one, I'll say why I think it's right: power has always existed in societies, usually held by one small group who has special privileges, usually under one man, while the large majority are oppressed into serving that small group. That's not going to change, it's a matter of degree (serfs/slaves versus low-paid worker). But the idea of taking the nation's power out of the hands of a king or warlord and creating democracy (a republic for the nit pickers) where the masses each get an equal vote to the wealthiest or most powerful person is a radical idea for distributing power that the masses would otherwise not have. For example they could, though they don't, pass a law taking all wealth above, say, a billion dollars for one person; nothing to stop them, since the billionare has only one vote.
This in theory increases freedom by protecting the masses from the oppression of a few who get concentrated power. Democracy means nothing if the instrument of the votes, the elected government, lack power against the other powers in society. It's my view that attacks on the government are often attacks on the public's power; that reductions in the government's ability to do things creates a vacuum filled by unaccountable private small groups, just as throughout history.
So, while I certainly don't want an 'excess' of government power where the government is simply used for oppressing the masses a la fascism or communist states, I do want a 'powerful' government, a la JFK era, where it can take on things from the war on poverty to putting a man on the moon to leading a war on racism in society to stimulating the economy to spreading democracy around the world to things like the Peace Corps and Social Security and medical care for the public and such.
In short, being against democratically elected government is being against democracy.
It seems to me that the basic flaw for the right is in their imagining a libertarian utopia where reducing government power is not replaced by an oppressive private power.
A secondary flaw is in their not recognizing where government can be efficient. For example, their ideology would lean towards some sort of private system for creating the nation's highways which, IMO, would lead to disaster from the profit-taking and private corruption without the guiding hand of democratically elected government, the way the nation's highways were built under Eisenhower.
They are welcome, of course, to argue why they differ.
I suspect the poll will show most on the left seeing government as a force for protecting public freedom, while many on the right will see government as the enemy of freedom.
Vote, discuss.
Edit: the poll's not showing up for some reason. I tried updating, I tried adding an answer.
The poll was supposed to be:
I'm on the left and think the government protects the public's freedom against other powerful groups, e.g., the wealthy/corporations
I'm on the left and think the less government, the more freedom for the public
I'm on the right and think the government protects the public's freedom against other powerful groups, e.g., the wealthy/corporations
I'm on the right and think the less government, the more freedom for the public
I've narrowed it down to one question: do you believe that government plays a useful role in protecting the public's rights against concentrated power, or that it's the enemy of freedom?
This applies only to domestic policy; I think pretty much everyone agrees that the military is needed against external threats, putting aside the issue of its uses beyond defense.
Why a whole thread about this? Because I think this one difference can explain many specific issues that are argued about, and is important to discuss.
Since I'm on one side on this one, I'll say why I think it's right: power has always existed in societies, usually held by one small group who has special privileges, usually under one man, while the large majority are oppressed into serving that small group. That's not going to change, it's a matter of degree (serfs/slaves versus low-paid worker). But the idea of taking the nation's power out of the hands of a king or warlord and creating democracy (a republic for the nit pickers) where the masses each get an equal vote to the wealthiest or most powerful person is a radical idea for distributing power that the masses would otherwise not have. For example they could, though they don't, pass a law taking all wealth above, say, a billion dollars for one person; nothing to stop them, since the billionare has only one vote.
This in theory increases freedom by protecting the masses from the oppression of a few who get concentrated power. Democracy means nothing if the instrument of the votes, the elected government, lack power against the other powers in society. It's my view that attacks on the government are often attacks on the public's power; that reductions in the government's ability to do things creates a vacuum filled by unaccountable private small groups, just as throughout history.
So, while I certainly don't want an 'excess' of government power where the government is simply used for oppressing the masses a la fascism or communist states, I do want a 'powerful' government, a la JFK era, where it can take on things from the war on poverty to putting a man on the moon to leading a war on racism in society to stimulating the economy to spreading democracy around the world to things like the Peace Corps and Social Security and medical care for the public and such.
In short, being against democratically elected government is being against democracy.
It seems to me that the basic flaw for the right is in their imagining a libertarian utopia where reducing government power is not replaced by an oppressive private power.
A secondary flaw is in their not recognizing where government can be efficient. For example, their ideology would lean towards some sort of private system for creating the nation's highways which, IMO, would lead to disaster from the profit-taking and private corruption without the guiding hand of democratically elected government, the way the nation's highways were built under Eisenhower.
They are welcome, of course, to argue why they differ.
I suspect the poll will show most on the left seeing government as a force for protecting public freedom, while many on the right will see government as the enemy of freedom.
Vote, discuss.
Edit: the poll's not showing up for some reason. I tried updating, I tried adding an answer.
The poll was supposed to be:
I'm on the left and think the government protects the public's freedom against other powerful groups, e.g., the wealthy/corporations
I'm on the left and think the less government, the more freedom for the public
I'm on the right and think the government protects the public's freedom against other powerful groups, e.g., the wealthy/corporations
I'm on the right and think the less government, the more freedom for the public