What's your political orientation?

[jfrost]

@RadarScope1

I'm not trying to start a discussion about this, since this topic was merely to get to know better where people of the forum stand on some issues. But I think that you were assuming too much about the reasons one might have for being a libertarian.

I, for one, do believe that government doesn't do anything efficiently and most of its functions could be performed better by the private sector. And I don't think this has much to do with government employees being imbeciles or slackers.

Actually, government doesn't perform its useful functions well because of mainly three factors (which are the same arguments against collective ownership means of production - that is, not anarcho-syndicalism, though some points may apply):

1) Government is usually the sole provider of a given service. Hence, as classic economic theory would have, it doesn't have any incentive to use resources efficiently, and its services will be ever worse at ever increasing prices (this requires no recourse to thinking that any given worker is an idiot -- in fact, he might have a pretty good working ethic, but doesn't have the economic incentives to behave accordingly);
2) Government also doesn't have to rely on the voluntary support of customers. Thus, its services are also divorced from actual usefulness for the people. We can't ever guarantee government is using the resources it taxes from the people efficiently;
3) Derived from the point above, since government isn't a ordinary business in the market, it can't calculate economically, since there are no prices for its services. A business can only calculate its inputs and outputs given market prices for them. Since government is a territorial monopolist of its essential services (police, courts, a few other services), we must always assume the resources it uses are wasted.

I don't even believe government is needed to regulate businesses and corporations. In fact, government has been the main instrument by which corporations release themselves from the natural restrictions the market puts on them. I do not even have to go further than Octopod's comment about Blackwater. What's the consumer demand for Blackwater's killing services, again?

Now, I repeat, I do not intend to start this kind of discussion, I was merely stating my reasons for being a libertarian, since it was being attacked unfairly, IMO.

[RadarScope1]

So Merckel is jealous of BO's popularity and Sarkozy is miffed over a non-invite to dinner? Not exactly positive developments, but not earth-shattering. I'm not really hearing much in general about diplomatic ties truly being strained they way they were in 2003-5ish. I listen to BBC radio daily and don't hear any concerns in Brit media about strained ties with Europe they way I did back then. A dinner invite isn't going to do much more damage than broad insults about "old Europe" and the like.

From the first article: Still, Karsten D. Voigt, who coordinates German-American relations in the German Foreign Ministry, disputed the contention that relations between the allies were under any strain, as did Merkel advisers, who rightly point out that this is Mr. Obama’s third visit to Germany in less than a year. “This takes time in the U.S.,” Mr. Voigt said. “Transition is a long process. It’s always a frustrating experience.”

A couple of things here. First off, I remember with Obama's election the claim being thrown about that "America was no longer a superpower," along with the expected claims that this would end our "American imperialism."

I don't know who said these things, but they're wrong. I certainly don't believe them. America will be a super power for a long time, even allowing for some massive fuck-ups by any number of leaders.

For instance, North Korea immediately testfires more missiles, and threatens to hit us with one on July 4. Russia appears to build up for another attack on Georgia. Meanwhile, Taliban forces in Pakistan, having negotiated a ceasefire with the government, immediately launches an offensive and takes control of Swat valley.

Again, not positive developments, but I'm not sure what actions of Obama's were the direct cause of these events. NK is batshit insane and is going through a change of power, a time when regimes typically pucker up. The Taliban are testing new-found limits after that deal. That deal should never have been made. You don't negotiate with terrorists. The attacks recently in both India and Pakistan are bad news, but I'm hoping that it helps the governments and people there realize what shits they are up against and help bring people over to what we have been saying for the last eight years: let's wipe out terrorists any way we can.

Israeli encroachment on Palestinian territory as their population grows naturally is going to have to stop, but there's a second party here that has something else it has to stop for the two-state system to work: Palestine must stop its incitement to violence against the Israelis. Hamas runs children's shows on television where characters in costumes tell kids about the evil of the Jews. Hatred of Israel and the Jews is taught in school. For these two groups to successfully coexist, this behavior has to stop.

Totally, emphatically agree on all fronts.

Yet this has never been mentioned by President Obama, in his Cairo speech or otherwise. In fact, he has continuously called out only the Israelis.

From the speech:

"Palestinians must abandon violence. Resistance through violence and killing is wrong and does not succeed. For centuries, black people in America suffered the lash of the whip as slaves and the humiliation of segregation. But it was not violence that won full and equal rights. It was a peaceful and determined insistence upon the ideals at the center of America's founding. This same story can be told by people from South Africa to South Asia; from Eastern Europe to Indonesia. It's a story with a simple truth: that violence is a dead end. It is a sign of neither courage nor power to shoot rockets at sleeping children, or to blow up old women on a bus. That is not how moral authority is claimed; that is how it is surrendered.

Now is the time for Palestinians to focus on what they can build. The Palestinian Authority must develop its capacity to govern, with institutions that serve the needs of its people. Hamas does have support among some Palestinians, but they also have responsibilities. To play a role in fulfilling Palestinian aspirations, and to unify the Palestinian people, Hamas must put an end to violence, recognize past agreements, and recognize Israel's right to exist."

We're supposed to be a hallmark of freedom, shouldn't we say something when another country's protests end in bloodshed? Shouldn't we at least attempt to stand up for the little guy, the one who is getting beaten down in the streets? Or is it so important to have nice relations with the current regime that we won't condemn the violence it's causing to its own people?

From a recent statement on Iran:

"The Iranian government must understand that the world is watching. We mourn each and every innocent life that is lost. We call on the Iranian government to stop all violent and unjust actions against its own people. The universal rights to assembly and free speech must be respected, and the United States stands with all who seek to exercise those rights.

As I said in Cairo, suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. The Iranian people will ultimately judge the actions of their own government. If the Iranian government seeks the respect of the international community, it must respect the dignity of its own people and govern through consent, not coercion.

Martin Luther King once said - "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice." I believe that. The international community believes that. And right now, we are bearing witness to the Iranian peoples’ belief in that truth, and we will continue to bear witness."

I understand and do share concern about working with allies. It's one of the reasons I voted for a chance in foreign policy. I don't see any way that unilateral action and cowboy justice could be viewed as more friendly to allies than talking and working with. I don't want to alienate anyone because we're all going to have to work together like at no other time in human history. The world is shrinking rapidly and were are heading toward a place where nations are more equal and alike than ever before. We have to make sure we're still leading the way as that happens. We want the rest of the world to continue to adopt our (OK, not just our) ideals of free speech, free markets and free people.

I could do more Bush-blaming in some of these instances, but I went back and edited most of it out. I want to look ahead and not back. That's an endless cycle.

I think more of the foreign policy will come around in the second half of this year. It seems like the admin has been focus on domestic issues.

[RadarScope1]

@jfrost

I don't really see what was unfair or attacking about what I said. I am trying to be civil and point out areas of agreement, too. In general we would probably have more to agree upon than disagree about. I simply disagree with the notion some have that we would be better off with a military and nothing else as far as govt goes.

I don't even believe government is needed to regulate businesses and corporations.

But then again ... I will probably shut up now. I don't want to argue with anyone and I probably have said too much with regard to Ack's last post. I'll let him have the last word and get back to the regularly-scheduled thread.

[jfrost]

I only thought it was unfair because you assumed there was only one possible reason for thinking that government is inefficient, which is not true. But you were civil, no doubt.

(Oh, and I would expand on the part you quoted, too, but I don't want to derail the thread so much.)

[Ack]

So Merckel is jealous of BO's popularity and Sarkozy is miffed over a non-invite to dinner? Not exactly positive developments, but not earth-shattering. I'm not really hearing much in general about diplomatic ties truly being strained they way they were in 2003-5ish. I listen to BBC radio daily and don't hear any concerns in Brit media about strained ties with Europe they way I did back then. A dinner invite isn't going to do much more damage than broad insults about "old Europe" and the like.

http://www.upi.com/news/issueoftheday/2 ... 238681349/

Actually, it goes back to before the G20 meeting in April. Here's a small part:

But their comments amount to a lot more than simple posturing to anti-American sentiment back home. Obama is personally enormously popular in Europe, especially in Germany. But Sarkozy and Merkel over the past year have both publicly and privately repeatedly expressed their lack of respect for him and their belief that he lacks sufficient experience and seriousness to provide a lead to Europe on key issues.

Ironically, Obama's most loyal ally in London remains British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, whom he humiliated on the prime minister's recent visit to Washington. Obama refused to throw a White House dinner for Brown and only gave him a shabby gift of 25 American movies that can't even play on British or European DVD players.

I don't know who said these things, but they're wrong. I certainly don't believe them. America will be a super power for a long time, even allowing for some massive fuck-ups by any number of leaders.

Additionally, there has been some recent speculation that the United States is declining in relative power as the rest of the world rises to match its levels of economic and technological development. Citing economic hardships, Cold War allies becoming less dependent on the United States, a declining dollar, and the rise of other great powers around the world, some experts have suggested the possibility of America losing its superpower status in the distant future or even at the present.

There were a few claims back in 2007 and early 2008, but that was mostly media mogul speculation. Around September or October, people began claiming we were no longer an economic superpower. Militarily, yes we're still a superpower, and it'll take a little bit for other nations to catch up. Hopefully they never will.

Again, not positive developments, but I'm not sure what actions of Obama's were the direct cause of these events. NK is batshit insane and is going through a change of power, a time when regimes typically pucker up. The Taliban are testing new-found limits after that deal. That deal should never have been made. You don't negotiate with terrorists. The attacks recently in both India and Pakistan are bad news, but I'm hoping that it helps the governments and people there realize what shits they are up against and help bring people over to what we have been saying for the last eight years: let's wipe out terrorists any way we can.

In truth, I think it's time we went in and put down the NK regime. While they've just recently built up a nuclear arsenal, and their working on further improving their cruise missiles, it's likely they'll next work towards equipping said missiles with nuclear warheads, and then building up their silo system. As it is, they have to maneuver their missiles onto launchpads to use them, and that takes time. Since it would take them time to prep, it might be a good idea to destroy it all now, since I think that regime's crazy enough to use them.

I bring up the Georgia conflict because Obama was slow to criticize Russia for the first time they did it, only doing so after McCain criticized him for it.

I do agree that the Taliban have once again proven why we should not negotiate with terrorists.

From the speech:

"Palestinians must abandon violence. Resistance through violence and killing is wrong and does not succeed. For centuries, black people in America suffered the lash of the whip as slaves and the humiliation of segregation. But it was not violence that won full and equal rights. It was a peaceful and determined insistence upon the ideals at the center of America's founding. This same story can be told by people from South Africa to South Asia; from Eastern Europe to Indonesia. It's a story with a simple truth: that violence is a dead end. It is a sign of neither courage nor power to shoot rockets at sleeping children, or to blow up old women on a bus. That is not how moral authority is claimed; that is how it is surrendered.

Now is the time for Palestinians to focus on what they can build. The Palestinian Authority must develop its capacity to govern, with institutions that serve the needs of its people. Hamas does have support among some Palestinians, but they also have responsibilities. To play a role in fulfilling Palestinian aspirations, and to unify the Palestinian people, Hamas must put an end to violence, recognize past agreements, and recognize Israel's right to exist."

I take it back then, I'm glad to hear he has said something about the Palestinians. I certainly hope he keeps it up as much as he's been keeping up the "no settlement" move with Israel. I also hope there are no more pictures of the bottom of his shoe.

From a recent statement on Iran:

"The Iranian government must understand that the world is watching. We mourn each and every innocent life that is lost. We call on the Iranian government to stop all violent and unjust actions against its own people. The universal rights to assembly and free speech must be respected, and the United States stands with all who seek to exercise those rights.

As I said in Cairo, suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. The Iranian people will ultimately judge the actions of their own government. If the Iranian government seeks the respect of the international community, it must respect the dignity of its own people and govern through consent, not coercion.

Martin Luther King once said - "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice." I believe that. The international community believes that. And right now, we are bearing witness to the Iranian peoples’ belief in that truth, and we will continue to bear witness."

Again, statements he said after coming under criticism for not saying anything. He also canceled the invitation of Iranian diplomats to US July 4 barbecues, though his reasoning was that they hadn't RSVP'ed or something along those lines. Either way, I'm glad he's finally responding.

I understand and do share concern about working with allies. It's one of the reasons I voted for a chance in foreign policy. I don't see any way that unilateral action and cowboy justice could be viewed as more friendly to allies than talking and working with. I don't want to alienate anyone because we're all going to have to work together like at no other time in human history. The world is shrinking rapidly and were are heading toward a place where nations are more equal and alike than ever before. We have to make sure we're still leading the way as that happens. We want the rest of the world to continue to adopt our (OK, not just our) ideals of free speech, free markets and free people.

I could do more Bush-blaming in some of these instances, but I went back and edited most of it out. I want to look ahead and not back. That's an endless cycle.

I think more of the foreign policy will come around in the second half of this year. It seems like the admin has been focus on domestic issues.

I know you could have done more Bush-blaming, and I'm glad our conversation didn't devolve into us yelling at one another about who makes a worse president. I intentionally avoided discussing domestic issues because, frankly, some of the policies and precedents so far frighten me, especially what's happened with GM. I do believe that either man would have been a change to foreign policy. I'm certain McCain would have a much different understanding of the use of military force than Bush, if only because he had served in the military in wartime and had been in combat. Just don't forget that unilateral action does have its uses.

I realize that you don't share my opinions, but even if we can't agree I'm glad we've remained respectful of one another. I think that serves as a testament to the quality of people on this forum...give or take a few.

[marurun]

Yay, group hug everyone! ; )

I work with a very conservative republican and a left-wing authoritarian socialist and we have meaningful discussions all the time. We disagree, we make counter-points, but we never get angry.

[RadarScope1]

Reasoned discussion online? WHAT IS THE INTERNET COMING TO?!