Potlitical Snapshot
dfsdf
I think it is somewhat usefull to spell out, as plainly as possible, one's political beliefs. So as 2007 gets started lets have at it.
Here is the link that started this by the way. It is a short commentary by a man who was a Regan conservative but has now rethought his possition.
I have a hearty mistrust of authority. This might come from growing up politically under G.W.B. but I like to think that I have always had it. In fact, I think it is the main reason I didn't vote for Bush the first time, I just couldn't trust someone who seemed to ACT authoritative. Regardless I believe now that we need to handicap the federal government as much as possible. Give power back to the states! It might seem kind of obvious but what is good for Alabama is not good for Maine. Over the past 40 years the federal government has slowely raised taxes and used that money to bribe states into following federal mandates. As a result the federal government effectively controles much more then it constitutionally has a right to.
My brother told me a month ago or so that he wanted to see an evolutionary form of government. I think that the driving force of evolution, competition, is desperatly needed. Let states compete for skilled workers and citizens. But they can't do that without the freedom they deserve. Yes, there will be mistakes *cough* Kansas *caugh* but what better way to end a contraversy then to show what happens to a state that embraces the teaching of intellegent design. Likewise let each state figure out how to run welfare, social security, and education. The gambit from a state indistiguishable from an EU country all the way to dang near pure capitalism will be represented. The federal government can then step back and act as a second insurance policy should a state fail and become insolvent.
I also believe that such a large military is dangerous to us as americans. I find it difficult to remember a US military operation (not war, although the last couple of those count too) that hasn't has disasterous unintended consiquences. Most of Africa is still realing from our influences and only now has central and south america begun to recover from our medeling in the 60's, 70's and 80's. No, we are not directly suffering but since when is an unstable world a good thing? Some would argue that by constraining these countries to third world status we have been able to obtain the cheap raw materials that feed our factories. The factories which still far outproduce every other country on the planet by the way, including china. Still, one has to wonder how much richer the world would be as a whole, us included, had their advancement not been hindered.
Which leads me to my economic view point which is staunchly conservative. I have seen enough evidence to convince me that all that stuff we learned in macro and micro economics is true. *Gasp* People are better off overall the less economic constraints they have on them. This includes tarrifs, taxes, price ceilings and floors, subsidies, bans, and the miriad of other ways our government keeps a finger on our economy.
That isn't to say that I am completely lasie fare. The goverments first and formost responsibility is to protect its people and that includes from corporite interest. Regulate environmental interests as well as those things which strictly benifit from government intervention such as utilities. Farming subsidies are an interesting case because it is difficult to ignore the argument that we would need all that farming during war time. With this and other "war time vital resources" I would just have to argue that rarely does war come upon us unanouced. Given sufficient time, like durring WWII, our economy could swiftly change gears.
I am however a social libral. While removing constraints on the economy will lead to a more dangerous situation I believe that the government should be there to provide a safety net. This makes good economic sense overall because the more people are willing to take risks the more the country will benifit from increased buisiness creation and competition. Like I mentioned before, if states are allowed more freedom, then I think this would happen naturally.
Thats about it for right now. There are alot of details that I find interesting like if we cut our military spending by 1/2 what could we do with that 400 billion dollars? But those are besides the point.
I am looking forward to the political debates as we near the 2008 election. My goal is to create a summery, akin to this, of every serious political candidate. A sort of political value system of each person. I don't anticipate it being easy but the juxitposition between what they write, what they say, what they have done, and what people say about them should be very interesting.
I think it is somewhat usefull to spell out, as plainly as possible, one's political beliefs. So as 2007 gets started lets have at it.
Here is the link that started this by the way. It is a short commentary by a man who was a Regan conservative but has now rethought his possition.
I have a hearty mistrust of authority. This might come from growing up politically under G.W.B. but I like to think that I have always had it. In fact, I think it is the main reason I didn't vote for Bush the first time, I just couldn't trust someone who seemed to ACT authoritative. Regardless I believe now that we need to handicap the federal government as much as possible. Give power back to the states! It might seem kind of obvious but what is good for Alabama is not good for Maine. Over the past 40 years the federal government has slowely raised taxes and used that money to bribe states into following federal mandates. As a result the federal government effectively controles much more then it constitutionally has a right to.
My brother told me a month ago or so that he wanted to see an evolutionary form of government. I think that the driving force of evolution, competition, is desperatly needed. Let states compete for skilled workers and citizens. But they can't do that without the freedom they deserve. Yes, there will be mistakes *cough* Kansas *caugh* but what better way to end a contraversy then to show what happens to a state that embraces the teaching of intellegent design. Likewise let each state figure out how to run welfare, social security, and education. The gambit from a state indistiguishable from an EU country all the way to dang near pure capitalism will be represented. The federal government can then step back and act as a second insurance policy should a state fail and become insolvent.
I also believe that such a large military is dangerous to us as americans. I find it difficult to remember a US military operation (not war, although the last couple of those count too) that hasn't has disasterous unintended consiquences. Most of Africa is still realing from our influences and only now has central and south america begun to recover from our medeling in the 60's, 70's and 80's. No, we are not directly suffering but since when is an unstable world a good thing? Some would argue that by constraining these countries to third world status we have been able to obtain the cheap raw materials that feed our factories. The factories which still far outproduce every other country on the planet by the way, including china. Still, one has to wonder how much richer the world would be as a whole, us included, had their advancement not been hindered.
Which leads me to my economic view point which is staunchly conservative. I have seen enough evidence to convince me that all that stuff we learned in macro and micro economics is true. *Gasp* People are better off overall the less economic constraints they have on them. This includes tarrifs, taxes, price ceilings and floors, subsidies, bans, and the miriad of other ways our government keeps a finger on our economy.
That isn't to say that I am completely lasie fare. The goverments first and formost responsibility is to protect its people and that includes from corporite interest. Regulate environmental interests as well as those things which strictly benifit from government intervention such as utilities. Farming subsidies are an interesting case because it is difficult to ignore the argument that we would need all that farming during war time. With this and other "war time vital resources" I would just have to argue that rarely does war come upon us unanouced. Given sufficient time, like durring WWII, our economy could swiftly change gears.
I am however a social libral. While removing constraints on the economy will lead to a more dangerous situation I believe that the government should be there to provide a safety net. This makes good economic sense overall because the more people are willing to take risks the more the country will benifit from increased buisiness creation and competition. Like I mentioned before, if states are allowed more freedom, then I think this would happen naturally.
Thats about it for right now. There are alot of details that I find interesting like if we cut our military spending by 1/2 what could we do with that 400 billion dollars? But those are besides the point.
I am looking forward to the political debates as we near the 2008 election. My goal is to create a summery, akin to this, of every serious political candidate. A sort of political value system of each person. I don't anticipate it being easy but the juxitposition between what they write, what they say, what they have done, and what people say about them should be very interesting.
posted by Craig Snoeyink at 12:41 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home