What general economic philosophy do you favor?

[ThePieSwindler]

If you vote, expand upon your answers in the thread.

I'd classify myself as a minimalist/economic liberal, as in, the government only serves to protect property and provide an impartial court system for disputes. I also am a minimalist as far as taxes go, because tax rates directly affect the health of the economy, but they also determine the bounds within which government may grow.

[ThePieSwindler]

Whoever voted, please specify. I'd like some actual dialogue to form. Especially the fellow who chose "other".

[1000-points-of-fright]

Ok. What Ron Paul says. Discuss.

[BuddyRey]

I chose "other" because honestly, I don't think there's ever been any one economic system invented that is considerably preferable to the others. With too much government regulation, or direct government control of the economy, choices are restricted and de facto monopolies form. But the exact same thing happens when Law of the Jungle capitalism lets corporations rob, cheat, and poison their ways to the top, devouring one another until they've also become monopolized. I believe in capitalism, but only inasmuch as business interests do not become more highly regarded or influential than the rights and interests of the individual. "Capitalism with a conscience" is what I'd most like to see happen in this country. It's been suggested that I'm probably a "Georgist", which, from what I've read so far, sounds A-OK with me!

[Manible]

I voted socialist, though, I don't really like labels. Also, I don't hate Ron Paul's Domestic policy, that was a little underhanded, I agree with him that the individual states definitely need more control back from the Federal Government, and his Drug War policy. I'm against a few of his privitization policies.

Your problem is with corporations, you should read about the big problem with the 14th amendment, it made corporations have all legal protections that natural citizens have.

[ThePieSwindler]

Ok. What Ron Paul says. Discuss.

I'd put ron paul under economic liberalism. He is pretty much a by-the-book economic liberal. Limited taxation is much different from minimal taxation, as in, we are taxed, but it is only limted to things that are actually a legitimate function of govrnment, like defense and infrastructure ,and he belives government does serve a role in providing a sound currency, in allowing disputes to be settled in courts via tort, and enforcing contracts/private property.

[ThePieSwindler]

I voted socialist, though, I don't really like labels. Also, I don't hate Ron Paul's Domestic policy, that was a little underhanded, I agree with him that the individual states definitely need more control back from the Federal Government, and his Drug War policy. I'm against a few of his

Ok sorry. I actually was tryuing to make the wording of the poll as unbiased as possibly, but i thought that would be funny for that one specific option because i didnt think thered actually be any on the site. But fair enough. As far as not liking labels, well, these labels generally mean something historically, and are not meant to be perjorative in any way, so i think they are sufficient in this case. And by domestic policy i meant economic domestic policy.


I chose "other" because honestly, I don't think there's ever been any one economic system invented that is considerably preferable to the others. With too much government regulation, or direct government control of the economy, choices are restricted and de facto monopolies form. But the exact same thing happens when Law of the Jungle capitalism lets corporations rob, cheat, and poison their ways to the top, devouring one another until they've also become monopolized. I believe in capitalism, but only inasmuch as business interests do not become more highly regarded or influential than the rights and interests of the individual. "Capitalism with a conscience" is what I'd most like to see happen in this country. It's been suggested that I'm probably a "Georgist", which, from what I've read so far, sounds A-OK with me!

Thats pretty much the third way/mixed economy in a nut shell. I should have said mixed economy instead of third way... oh well. As far as "the same thing happening" when Law of the Jungle capitalism "lets" corporations rob, cheat, and steal, well... i think this view is distorted by the fact that corporations DO often do this, but they do it with aid from the government (direct or indirect). I've yet to see anyone demostrate a case where corporations have "robbed, cheated, and poisoned" their way and fucked over all their consumers, and stayed in business, without any sort of government aid. This arguement is usually set up to try to counter "free market capitalism" but it is entirely fallacious because it mistakes (unintentionally, but sometimes intentionally as a strawman) free market capitalism for fascist capitalism. Generally, however, i do think Keynesian ideas of a mixed economy in the form of an economic safety net in times of hardship, while i disagree with it ideologically, has reasonable grounds and a solid argumentative backing, with less obvious fallacies.

[1000-points-of-fright]

I'd put ron paul under economic liberalism. He is pretty much a by-the-book economic liberal. Limited taxation is much different from minimal taxation, as in, we are taxed, but it is only limted to things that are actually a legitimate function of govrnment, like defense and infrastructure ,and he belives government does serve a role in providing a sound currency, in allowing disputes to be settled in courts via tort, and enforcing contracts/private property.

Yes. Which is why I voted Economic Liberalism.

[BuddyRey]

I voted socialist, though, I don't really like labels. Also, I don't hate Ron Paul's Domestic policy, that was a little underhanded, I agree with him that the individual states definitely need more control back from the Federal Government, and his Drug War policy. I'm against a few of his privitization policies.

Your problem is with corporations, you should read about the big problem with the 14th amendment, it made corporations have all legal protections that natural citizens have.

If I was being completely honest with myself, I probably would have chosen "socialist" too. I really like the idea of a free market, but certain things (like healthcare) just shouldn't be "market" issues IMHO. I also have the tendency to trust elected politicians a lot more than unelected businessmen.

[ThePieSwindler]

If I was being completely honest with myself, I probably would have chosen "socialist" too. I really like the idea of a free market, but certain things (like healthcare) just shouldn't be "market" issues IMHO. I also have the tendency to trust elected politicians a lot more than unelected businessmen.

Fair enough. Again, this thread is meant more to discuss in a Rogerian style our differences, but with the agreement that we support ron paul as a candidate in general.

[Bradley in DC]

I don't think your names and definitions match mine...count me as an economic liberal in the Hayekian/Austrian tradition.

[ThePieSwindler]

I don't think your names and definitions match mine...count me as an economic liberal in the Hayekian/Austrian tradition.

Eh that would be a tossup between anarcho-capitalism and economic liberalism. Thats essentially what the Austrian school is a mix of, with your Rothbardian an-caps and your Hayekian classical liberals. Thats essentially what i was aiming for with economic liberalism- maybe the defination wasnt wholesome to you, but i only had 100 characters to work with per line. :rolleyes:

[Kregener]

#1.

To the socialist.

You cede 50% of every dime to the Federal Behemoth now. Ron Paul will drastically change that if it is his power to do so.

Might I suggest Canada or Sweden to you? There 'system' might be more to your liking.

[libertarianguy]

test

[fsk]

I say we criminalize the government.

[mdh]

Agorist.

Who cares *what* the government does... I don't need to be a part of it... ;)

[austin356]

Austrian w/ some Jeffersonianism thrown in.

[Bradley in DC]

I voted socialist, though, I don't really like labels. Also, I don't hate Ron Paul's Domestic policy, that was a little underhanded, I agree with him that the individual states definitely need more control back from the Federal Government, and his Drug War policy. I'm against a few of his privitization policies.

Your problem is with corporations, you should read about the big problem with the 14th amendment, it made corporations have all legal protections that natural citizens have.

You may like Dr. Paul's domestic policies more than you think. We're no fans of the 14th Amd. here. Rights belong to individuals, not groups, even if the groups are corporations.

[mdh]

You may like Dr. Paul's domestic policies more than you think. We're no fans of the 14th Amd. here. Rights belong to individuals, not groups, even if the groups are corporations.

Personally, I don't really see a problem with corporations existing where the individuals involved have limited personal liability. It may not be perfect, but there isn't really another option that wouldn't stifle innovation. That said, there may be certain instances where personal liability for those individuals should come into play, but within the structure of a very large corporations, it is often impossible to know who is genuinely responsible for something, if anyone even is...


But that said, let's stop and dissect the 14th amendment and decide on just why some of us don't like it.


Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Section 5 is not worth discussing.

Section 4 is actually quite interesting, and strikes me as wrong and bad. This seems not atypical of Lincoln's policies, or the policies in general at the time which put the south at a disadvantage economically and led to the rebellion and the formation of the CSA to begin with. Likewise is true of section 3.

Section 2 is interesting, though I'd have to go over the existing status quo prior to this amendment in order to dissect the differences. I don't feel like doing that. If someone else wishes to, by all means, be my guest.

Section 1 is what's really worth discussing. The first statement makes mention of birthright citizenship, and so the majority of us, I would suspect, would strongly disagree with it. That's all well and good. So let's discuss the rest.
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Clearly, this has been interpretted to hell and back by judges who would legislate from the bench... but in terms of genuine word and sentiment, I can hardly take issue.

[richard1984]

I don't like being told what to do. I don't like the government--with the single exception of Ron Paul. If politicians just followed the Constitution like they swear to, I wouldn't have such a problem--but they're on my back and I want them OFF!!!

I would also like to keep more of the money I work for and have (with only a few exceptions) a clear, unimpeded view of what the politicians are doing with my (our) money. I don't trust them to spend my money wisely. I am confident that I could do a better job distributing my income than they can.
As previously stated, I don't like being controlled or told what to do, so I don't want the government having a central department of control for everything (I have a personal vendetta against and a begrudging disdain for the Department of Education).

I basically agree with Dr. Paul across-the-board, 100%.
I love the man.

[jmarinara]

I voted Economic Liberialism, essentially because there has to be some (SOME) government involvement in economics. For instance, we need currency.

However, I would more adhere to Adam Smith and what was laid out in his treatise Wealth of Nations. He basically had five principles of economics, and I agree with four of them (don't ask me to recite them, it's like trying to recite the five principles of Calvinism, or Euclid's five postulates. . . you get like three or four and the one(s) you can't remember bug(s) you for days)

[ThePieSwindler]

I voted Economic Liberialism, essentially because there has to be some (SOME) government involvement in economics. For instance, we need currency.

However, I would more adhere to Adam Smith and what was laid out in his treatise Wealth of Nations. He basically had five principles of economics, and I agree with four of them (don't ask me to recite them, it's like trying to recite the five principles of Calvinism, or Euclid's five postulates. . . you get like three or four and the one(s) you can't remember bug(s) you for days)

Wikipedia and google. Learn it, love it.

[BuddyRey]

Just out of curiosity, how does Jeffersonian Agrarian differ from some of the other choices listed? I was under the impression Agrarianism advocated more or less the same system as the Austrian School?

[surf]

Free market guy. i chose anarcho-capitalism. i believe in binding contracts, insurance, and the invisible hand. i believe that if we lived in a truly free market, my diabetes would be a thing of the past, pot would be of a higher quality, and i wouldn't have to sit in rush-hour traffic feeling like an ecoterrorist.

i think a free market can also limit population growth (if you assume this is a good thing as i do) - U of Chicago guy, i believe, won a nobel prize in economics for research that showed, in part, that the higher an individuals (or couples) education - the fewer number of kids they have.

Education will flourish in a free market.

i've managed a large cash position and a bond portfolio, believe me when i say that government market intervention can only create deficiencies.

my .02

[saku39]

I would say I'm stuck between Anarcho-capitalilst and Economic Liberalism, but I voted for Anarcho-capitalist due to my belief that the free market can provide almost anything and my preference for no personal income tax at all.

[nexalacer]

I voted Economic Liberialism, essentially because there has to be some (SOME) government involvement in economics. For instance, we need currency.

Do you honestly believe that money was a product of states and not the market? Ugh, I can't even get into explaining this right now, it'll just make me crazy. Go to mises.org. Read. A LOT. This is so wrong, I can't even find the words.

[Abobo]

I believe that the best possible economy / government structure is Anarcho-capitalism as outlined by Murray Rothbard. I am yet to find any other system that is as consistent, workable, and ethical.

In my opinion the second best system would be limited government, but as we've all seen this can never work. No matter how many checks and limits you place on a government it will ALWAYS grow, and grow like mad. The only way to have a truly limited government is through constant revolution and revolt against the authoritarian state. This structure places sociaty in constant battle with the government wasting energy and resources. So, we either have all our time, money and energy sucked from us by the state or we spend it fighting the state. In my opinion it's a lose / lose situation.

The only answer is no state at all, but frankly that will never happen because people are too scared. Fear is what drives us to create government, fear of our fellow man -- fear is what gives the state power. It feeds on fear, it needs fear, everything the state does is motivated by fear. Fear the terrorist, fear the robber, fear the working man, fear your neighbor, fear lack of charity, fear competition, fear the market. I say FEAR THE STATE.

Throughout history free trade and markets have empowered countless people. Governments have killed billions in wars. The market allows people to freely trade and exchange ideas, products and services. The government takes them away. The market produces wealth. The government takes it away. The market forces competition. The government grants monopolies through coercive force. Markets are the great achievements of man. Governments are the remnants of a monarchist past.

Government can never make us free or grant us liberty, they can only take it away.

</rant>

[nexalacer]

I voted Anarcho-capitalism because I have come to the logical conclusion that it is the ONLY moral system that human beings can live in.

Here are the steps so that you too may realize that ancap is the only true moral system ever developed:
1) Realize the following: A moral system must be universally applicable to all people. What is bad for one must also be bad for all. What is good for one must be good for all. There are are no groups only people.
2) Theft, murder, and slavery can be called "bad" by this moral system because it can be generally agreed on that these things are bad for all to do.
3) If there are no groups, only people, then we cannot, morally, give governments the power to do bad things such as steal (taxes), murder (war), or enslave (conscription), because this would mean we were saying it is OK for people in the government to steal, murder, and enslave.
4) Because the state cannot exist without the first, stealing, it should not exist at all.

Furthermore, as the greatest murder in world history, dissolution of the state would go a long way to removing violence from our world nearly altogether. Not to say that there won't be sociopaths, but in reality sociopaths are extremely rare. Most people will not commit violence if they have to do it by their own hand. That is, you would not take a gun to a doctor's face to order him to provide health services for your poor neighbor, so why would you find it acceptable for the government to do, in essence, the same thing through socialized health care?

Libertarians and "economic liberals" crack me up, because they often agree with most aspects of this morality, but then arbitrarily say that it can't apply to all humans, because we need a group called a "state" to ensure contracts, provide defense, and support the infrastructure. So in objection to what could be a perfect human moral system (perfect in that there are no logical contradictions not in that people will ever be perfect), you are willing to give a wee bit of power to history's greatest murderer, thief, and slave driver, all on an assumption that the leviathan can be controlled. If you can provide a historical example where the leviathan was controlled, maybe I'll change my mind, but you won't so I don't have to worry about it.

Quite simply, the state is the biggest criminal and the biggest destroyer of society in the history of man, because it's NATURE is parasitic.

I'm grateful to Ron Paul for showing me the path to this understanding, and I will continue to support him until his campaign is over, regardless of the outcome. But upon coming to this understanding, I'm finding it harder and harder to believe he will do anything other than put the brakes on the expansion of governmental power. If he actually has the power to reverse the trend, he will be the greatest man in the history of the world.... and I don't see that to be very likely.

Oh, and people who trust politicians more than businessmen.... take the politician who's killed, stolen from, or enslaved the LEAST amount of people and compare that to the businessman who's killed, stolen from, or enslaved the MOST amount of people and you'll see the politician has the higher number. I'd even be willing to bet that's accounting for said businessman's abuses of state power in accomplishing those goals. If you only take businessmen who don't abuse state power, the politician wins by a landslide. So why do you trust the politician more? Is it because the politician-controlled education system taught you to think that way?

[saku39]

Do you honestly believe that money was a product of states and not the market? Ugh, I can't even get into explaining this right now, it'll just make me crazy. Go to mises.org. Read. A LOT. This is so wrong, I can't even find the words.

Man, don't hate on a guy for believing in state currency. Everybody's different and everybody's got their opinions. Be cool. :)

. . . I agree with your view, however. Money comes from the people, not the state. Money is just a means of exchange and technically, ANYTHING can be money.

[nexalacer]

Man, don't hate on a guy for believing in state currency. Everybody's different and everybody's got their opinions. Be cool. :)

. . . I agree with your view, however. Money comes from the people, not the state. Money is just a means of exchange and technically, ANYTHING can be money.

I wasn't hating on the guy, but this is a serious problem in this country. If you look at the big picture, just about every problem can be sourced down to our money and the fact that it comes from the government instead of the people. The nerve system of economics is its currency, and when you think it must come from the government, then you tie economics and society to the state. And we need to stop doing that.

[ThePieSwindler]

Just out of curiosity, how does Jeffersonian Agrarian differ from some of the other choices listed? I was under the impression Agrarianism advocated more or less the same system as the Austrian School?

Eh jefferson's economic philosophy was odd. It certainly did not include much government involvement or taxation, but it wasn't really Austrian either in nature. I just put it in other because it doesn't really fit the other philosophies that well. Maybe i'm wrong.

[ThePieSwindler]

bump