Epistemology, Metaphysics and Ethics trumps Politics: vote Obama

Current Events Domestic United States Politics
, , ,
61

And if the Tea Party does come to a full understanding of the reasons why these policies are right, then that philosophy can be realized.

If the Tea Party came to be lead by Ayn Rand (who sprang forth from the grave) then yeah, it would be… not the Tea Party…

There’s nothing wrong with dreaming a dream. It’s not reality though.

Whereas, if the policies and philosophy of the Dems becomes fully realized, then we will have the old Soviet Union right here in the United States. This is OK with you?

Nope, not okay with me. It would also be very bad, for instance, if the Democrats were actually aliens who planned to eat us all for dinner. I wouldn’t be okay with that either.

The “soviet threat” of Democrats is ridiculous scare mongering. They are middle of the road politicians. If they could actually do that, it would only be because the other party wanted to do that too.

Actually, the only people the Tea Party has voted out of office are those who oppose lower spending and less taxes.

And they replaced them with people who do nothing since no politician on either side can oppose Medicare and Social Security and Defense–and those three make up 90% of the spendable Federal budget.

I defy you to show me a single person (beyond Objectivists) who actually understands what Natural Rights are.

I agree that there aren’t any. That’s my whole point. Trying to make a political revolution happen in this state is pointless. You will get exactly nowhere, and its quite possible you will push your goals out a lot further.

The times we live in are only open to philosophical revolution not political revolution. Sure, the former will not be easy and will take a long time, but the latter presupposes the former.

Your primary argument, I thought, for voting for Dems was this idea that the Dems represented the only vestige of reason and logic in politics today – I’m glad to see you’ve abandoned that false argument, that is some progress.

Huh?

You also seem to agree that lower taxes and less spending are a good thing, why would you ever vote for a Democrat then?

Because I think it will accomplish that for my grandchildren, and I think we will live in a slightly safer, more rational world in the mean time.

The Republican “brand” is suspension of disbelief and willful evasion of facts. Romney and Ryan are “flip-floppers” on the deepest levels of their character. We are asked to ignore that fact that Romney wasn’t, then was, then wasn’t and now is pro-choice. We are asked to believe that Obamacare is socialism whereas the same exact programs touted by Republicans is just sensible governing. We are asked to ignore the fact that Ryan was, then wasn’t an Objectivist–we are asked to believe that he never understood that Ayn Rand was an atheist or was pro-choice–asked to believe that somebody only recently pointed this out to him.

I prefer honest socialists (Democrats) to dishonest socialists (Republicans). It’s not a great choice, no, but the choice is clear anyhow.

62

I have the impression that the Republicans are intellectually vague, and don’t know exactly what course to set; while the Democrats are intellectually firm, and know exactly what course to set. So with the R’s, as with Bush, we get a sloppy, inconsistent administration that has a general tendency towards capitalism (but without really knowing why its best), and with the D’s we get as clear a path as they can make to Marxism.

I also have the impression that the OP admires the fidelity to a central ideal that the D’s display, and has disdain for the half-hearted bumbling done by the R’s when they have the ball.

Firm convictions, founded upon an intellectual base, inspire confidence in the man or men holding them. Wishy-washy notions of tradition have the opposite effect upon the men holding them.

If this were enough to judge a man or party fit for leadership, then the D’s win. But the analysis doesn’t end there. We must consider what convictions these men hold.

A liberal professor, say, can articulate very well why private property doesn’t exist. But that doesn’t make the professor right, even though some schlub can’t express his argument for private property any better than “It’s mine 'cause I earned it”. The professor makes his claim based upon (faulty) reason and logic, and the schlub makes his based upon a seemingly self-evident principle but without any real argument to support it.

So do I stand by the professor or the schlub, when the time comes to implement their ideas? Do I stand by a party dedicated to an end, or a party which can’t justify its own ends? One clearly expouses Marxism. The other gives lip service to Freedom and Capitalism, while not knowing how justify them in altruistic terms, or perhaps in any terms outside of being endowed by our Creator…

But God-damn, at least the R’s know the Constitution is GOOD, even if they don’t fully understand it. They respect Individual Rights*, even if they don’t have a thorough comprehension of them. They don’t want to violate the Constitution’s every principle in favor of fairness and equality.

Neither party espouses laissez-faire, which is, politically, the only way to implement Individual Rights. But one is closer to doing it than the other.

(*This is untrue of the R’s in every aspect, of course. The War on Drugs, the Patriot Act, Defense of Marriage, Abortion immediately pop into mind)

2 Likes
63

I prefer honest socialists (Democrats) to dishonest socialists (Republicans). It’s not a great choice, no, but the choice is clear anyhow.

Republicans implement socialist policies precisely because the reigning philosophical current in America has been altruistic. They don’t know how to get capitalism and altruism to jive. Of course you get mixed results, when you hold mixed premises. But you will not effect philosophical revolution by electing the proponents of the philosophy from which you wish to revolt. Which is altruism, is it not?

64

Republicans implement socialist policies precisely because the reigning philosophical current in America has been altruistic. They don’t know how to get capitalism and altruism to jive. Of course you get mixed results, when you hold mixed premises. But you will not effect philosophical revolution by electing the proponents of the philosophy from which you wish to revolt. Which is altruism, is it not?

Then we won’t get philosophical revolution. Both parties have the same basis premises despite one paying occasional lip service to freedom while actively working against it.

Now, I personally think this is overly defeatist. An honest assessment of where we are and where we are going–and at what speed–shows us staying more or less status quo for a long time (recall our current Federal tax rates are the lowest in 40 years right now). We’re not on some sort of brink of communism politically–thankfully, because if we were, there’d be nothing we could do about it.

65

An honest assessment of where we are and where we are going–and at what speed–shows us staying more or less status quo for a long time

Were previous elections just as heated as this presidental election? Anytime I watch or read something related to politics (debates, youtube vids, the news), it seems that people are getting nastier and nastier towards each other. I don’t know how long that’ll last before there’s some sort of.. culmination.

66

When the presidential debates start looking like this, you’ll know we’ve reached the culmination:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiRy1Cn4U2Q

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELzjQ8F_2gE

1 Like
67

Were previous elections just as heated as this presidental election? Anytime I watch or read something related to politics (debates, youtube vids, the news), it seems that people are getting nastier and nastier towards each other. I don’t know how long that’ll last before there’s some sort of.. culmination.

Yes, and that’s in support of my point. The “nastiness” comes from the absence of real issues. Since both parties already agree on all essentials, and neither dare bring up anything deeply differentiating, all you have left is personalities and person attacks. In years past candidates would talk (more) about issues since they could in essence say, “my opponent is a nice, honest guy but he’s wrong about his policy and I want to lead the country in the other direction”.

Besides pure personal attacks you often see a variant which is when a candidate simply lies about their opponent’s being the same exact thing as themselves (viz. Paul Ryan Defends Medicare Plan, Accuses President Obama of ‘Raiding It’ – Paul Ryan accuses Obama of trying to hurt Medicare which they both in fact agree should be defended at all costs and neither of their plans changes anything essential).

There was a time when candidates told the truth about their opponents views and lied about how their own views where better. Now politicians don’t even tell the truth in any case…

68

… it seems that people are getting nastier and nastier towards each other.

Not really. This campaign is not particularly nasty, it is just that we are here now and focus on this one and _ its _ nastiness. History books often carry accounts of the fight between John Adams and Jefferson, and that was as personal as it gets. Here’s a brief NY Times article.

69

History books often carry accounts of the fight between John Adams and Jefferson, and that was as personal as it gets.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y\_zTN4BXvYI

70

An honest assessment of where we are and where we are going–and at what speed–shows us staying more or less status quo for a long time (recall our current Federal tax rates are the lowest in 40 years right now).

I don’t think an honest assessment of where we are would be based on that statistic at all. I think you should instead look at federal spending as a percentage of GDP. That’s the measure of the size of government, and that’s the actual burden being imposed on productive Americans.

If you look at that, there’s no cause for optimism, because that figure has gone up dramatically in recent years, and has recently reached its highest mark since WW2.

Add to that the fact that total government spending has been consistently over the 40% mark since 2008 (that’s right, 40% of GDP - another 60 year record), and I’d say that, in the US, the overall state of government is at its worst in history.

If there is a silver lining, it’s that the Romney/Ryan ticket (which is promising to at least reduce the federal chunk of that spending back to under 20% of GDP, from the 25% it shot up to in recent years) has a slight lead in the pols. That will take government from the worst four year period in US history back down to the second worst such period.

71

I don’t think an honest assessment of where we are would be based on that statistic at all. I think you should instead look at federal spending as a percentage of GDP. That’s the measure of the size of government, and that’s the actual burden being imposed on productive Americans.

If you look at that, there’s no cause for optimism, because that figure has gone up dramatically in recent years, and has recently reached its highest mark since WW2.

Add to that the fact that total government spending has been consistently over the 40% mark since 2008 (that’s right, 40% of GDP - another 60 year record), and I’d say that, in the US, the overall state of government is at its worst in history.

If there is a silver lining, it’s that the Romney/Ryan ticket (which is promising to at least reduce the federal chunk of that spending back to under 20% of GDP, from the 25% it shot up to in recent years) has a slight lead in the pols. That will take government from the worst four year period in US history back down to the second worst such period.

Again, looking at the ideological spectrum, we’re not much different than we were decades ago–better in a lot of ways.

The programs put in place by FDR and LBJ are coming to their mathematical fruition because of demographics and the downturn. Obama didn’t expand anything all he did was hold office while all this was happening. Regardless of who was elected, we’d still be in the same state. There have been absolutely no structural expansion of the welfare state. Obama–and none before him in decades–have done anything particularly novel.

The $700b stimulus, for instance, was quite small in the history of these things–and this was not some sort of new novel expansion of government power, just a tool that had been used before. Obamacare is simply a tweak of the existing system: the decision to provide free medical care to all citizen was made in the 60s or before.

The one thing that could have realistically changed in the last decade was taxes. Those have gone lower or stayed the same. If the country was itching to go communist, this wouldn’t be the case.

The Ryan plan to reduce the deficit depends on growth to produce deficit reduction. There’s no explanation as to where this growth is going to come from, but if you put in robust growth into any projections then of course you’ll get deficit reduction without cutting programs. It’s rubbish–typical politicking, campaign promises, etc. Ryan is not rolling back the welfare state one bit.

Ryan did talk about moving Medicare to a voucher arrangement. Again, this does not change anything. The implication is that these vouchers could be reduced as necessary when the politicians wanted to reduce the deficit–you know, just like they do now (not). Vouchers can (and probably will, if they are implemented) cost just as much as the current arrangement.

72

Ryan did talk about moving Medicare to a voucher arrangement. Again, this does not change anything.

I’m not a fan of vouchers, but if done with a modicum of sense, they are major structural change.

73

I’m not a fan of vouchers, but if done with a modicum of sense, they are major structural change.

How? How do they change anything? They keep saying they will save money somehow, but they can (and probably will) spend just as much if not more through vouchers as they do the old way. Are people going to suddenly stop aging with vouchers? Will medical science suddenly reverse itself and make people die sooner?

I mean, sure, if you convince people they should live with fewer benefits then you can cut their voucher amounts, but I’d submit that cutting benefits is easier when there’s not a nice obvious top-line number to talk about.

74

How? How do they change anything?

At an aggregate level, they eventually allow for more value to be delivered within the same cost. At an individual level, they allow for more choice.

75

At an aggregate level, they eventually allow for more value to be delivered within the same cost. At an individual level, they allow for more choice.

Sorry to sound like a broken record, but… how? Why does changing the way the benefit is paid out save any money?

I get the thing about choice, but what if people choose more expensive things and demand more voucher money? To me that is more likely when people “see the money in their own hands” than simply being handed a relatively static system.

I think one fallacy with voucher schemes is that people compare–invalidly–spending your own hard-earned money, which you may do wisely, with spending somebody else’s money, which you may not. They are not the same thing and I’d love to see some hard data on this because my intuition would be that this would change nothing or even cost more.

76

People can always ask for more. I doubt a voucher system encourages more asking than a system which hides costs. OTOH, if there is enough allowance for choice, a voucher system delivers more value, particularly to people who choose well.

Almost everyone in the country thinks the government ought to provide education, as an abstract philosophical principle. As a parent, if this had been implemented as a voucher system, I would have got more value than what I get today. And, kids from poor families, but with parents who truly aspire to have their do better would have seen a major step up.

Choice is not something incidental. As an economic force it is the key ingredient that makes the free-market more efficient than central planning, in principle.

I reject the idea that government spending will go up or down radically under the different variation that the GOP and Democrats can come up with. So, within that framework, I prefer giving people choice and having more choice myself.

(BTW: This does not mean one should vote GOP in every election. I voted for Obama last time around, and don’t regret it..)

77

People can always ask for more. I doubt a voucher system encourages more asking than a system which hides costs. OTOH, if there is enough allowance for choice, a voucher system delivers more value, particularly to people who choose well.

Almost everyone in the country thinks the government ought to provide education, as an abstract philosophical principle. As a parent, if this had been implemented as a voucher system, I would have got more value than what I get today. And, kids from poor families, but with parents who truly aspire to have their do better would have seen a major step up.

Choice is not something incidental. As an economic force it is the key ingredient that makes the free-market more efficient than central planning, in principle.

I reject the idea that government spending will go up or down radically under the different variation that the GOP and Democrats can come up with. So, within that framework, I prefer giving people choice and having more choice myself.

(BTW: This does not mean one should vote GOP in every election. I voted for Obama last time around, and don’t regret it..)

This is an interesting side discussion…

I would question the idea that choice is good, or even helpful, from the standpoint of reducing costs / increasing benefits when the money you are choosing with is not your own. Obviously, when it’s your own hard-earned money, you tend to be more careful (and as Objectivists we don’t care whether you are or not that’s your problem).

There seems to be an assumption here, however, that one will apply the same diligence to free money from the government as you do your own money. My guess is that it’s radically different, but again, I’d like to see some data.

Or, we can see how this would play out:

  1. Everybody gets vouchers of X dollars to buy health insurance.

  2. Several private providers offer various plans, some matching the voucher amount, others costing somewhat more (a “supplemental” sort of plan which is what they end up with in Europe a lot).

  3. Insurance companies offer less and less in the “base” plan and move more and more of it to the “supplemental” plans and increase the price of those plans. This is particularly exacerbated by medical technology.

  4. Hence every cut (or failure to increase) in the Voucher amount translates directly to increased costs for most voters.

  5. They vote themselves increases in the voucher amount, with the various insurance companies turbo charging their political muscle and providing organization (for, you are creating another industry with a vested interest in higher spending which is always dangerous).

***

Again, I’d love to see some hard data or an example of how this worked elsewhere…

78

Democrats demonstrate their allegiance to Aristotlean logic:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwejQBIyjow

79

Yeah, yeah. There are anecdotes on both sides…

Anyhow, I thought the side discussion above about whether choice with other people’s money leads to less spending was interesting…

80

I would question the idea that choice is good, or even helpful, from the standpoint of reducing costs / increasing benefits when the money you are choosing with is not your own. Obviously, when it’s your own hard-earned money, you tend to be more careful (and as Objectivists we don’t care whether you are or not that’s your problem).

Just a thought, I imagine what counts most is if an individual gets out of spending less than the government gives them. The origin of the money isn’t the essential issue. Is there a refund? Is there a tax deduction? You can be given more choices by the government, sure, but if you get $200 which is nonrefundable, spending won’t change at best. In fact, spending may increase with added choice if there is no refund or reward, since you have more to gain by spending every last dollar and you have more ways to spend.