C3Said -- actually it should be a limted government, not necessarily smaller -- the government should be limited to specific responsibilities and the size should be equal to the task, whatever size that may be -- so you can have a limited government and a strong national defense.Comment Posted By Mike Farmer On 19.05.2009 @ 17:57
No problem -- as far as labels go, I'd say I'm classic liberal libertarian, or a nutcase with opinions.Comment Posted By mike farmer On 19.05.2009 @ 11:42
I don't think the hardcore Democrats would compromise if a bill was presented which reduced the number of abortions significantly and restricted women from being able to get an abortion -- historically, the left has resisted these efforts because they think it's a slippery slope to overturning Roe v. Wade. I imagine the right would be more willing than the left to compromise if it came down to reducing abortion -- the right would see it as a victory toward no abortions, and the hardcore left who support abortion on demand would see it as a defeat. I'm not taking sides here, just looking at what might happen.Comment Posted By Mike Farmer On 19.05.2009 @ 05:40
is = ifComment Posted By Mike Farmer On 19.05.2009 @ 05:16
I was trying to create a hypothetical (i.e. necessarily based in reality) scenario where to principles were in conflict.
Yes, but it's a false choice -- so just say that if people hold two opposing principles which both truly believe can't be compromised. So? If it's in politics, that's what makes a horse race. If you don't have opposing principles, then you may as well have one party -- I mean that is what voting is about. If enough representatives hold the same principle regarding an issue, then they will win against the opposition -- if a minority sticking with a principle against the majority can block a policy, then that's their job is they are representing the minority. You don't always have to compromise. What was the compromise with slavery? Just have some slaves?Comment Posted By Mike Farmer On 19.05.2009 @ 05:14
On the other side of all this, if we ever did limit government to the point everyone is prospering and enjoying freedom, I, if I had influence, would not compromise my principles in order for statists to gain control again.
So, I have to wonder, why would the Democrats compromise when they control the congress and the administration. They need Republicans to vote their way mainly for political cover -- otherwise, they can push through pretty much anything they want. If you are saying the Republicans should compromise in order to look as if they are being helpful to the new administration so that they don't look like obstructionists, then I'm sure what the goal of that strategy would be, except to make voters think they are like Democrats -- but why would voters go to Republicans if they want Democrats and they are the real thing? What's worng with presenting the public with two different views of governance and allowing the people to decide? Are moderate Republicans saying that Republican ideas are basically the same as Democrats on many issues, or are they saying the public doesn't accept the Republican ideas, so in order to regain power, they must change their policies? I truly don't know what's the end game.
Perhaps you are saying that many of the policies of the Democrats, or some of them, are acceptable and viable and Republicans shouldn't voice opposition simply to oppose Democrats. But what if many of the Republicans do oppose the policies of the Democrats and they believe they are simply representing the constituency which elected them?Comment Posted By Mike Farmer On 18.05.2009 @ 18:18
C3said -- how would open trade with China strengthen the central government and weaken democratic movements?Comment Posted By Mike Farmer On 18.05.2009 @ 17:47
Well, I'm not a Republican, so I can't speak from that perspective. I'm not real sure what principles the Republicans hold dearly as a party, because they seem to govern by compromise -- their rhetoric notwithstanding -- but as a libertarian I think gays should have the same rights as any other citizen with no compromise on this position -- I think the size of government is less important than limiting the power of government, which should be restrictied to police, military and courts, although any compromise which would limit the power of government right now would be fine. There's plenty of room in the area of environmental protection for an agreement to look at all the regulations now in place and determine if they are helping the environment or simply strangling business, with a long term goal of free market innovation solutions to reduce pollution -- A compromise to abortion would be to allow states to decide with a long term goal of government removing itself from the issue and allowing society to work out the morality issues involved -- regarding taxes, I would push for a compromise to find some sort of consumption tax plan which would allow the reduction or elimination of income taxes, or at least a flat tax solution, with spending cuts -- I don't I could compromise on healthcare, since I think government involvement is unnecessary and wasteful -- but you get the point. I don't think it does any good to insist on changing government overnight from statist to limited government, but in order for a libertarian to compromise, statists would have to show some sign of good faith that they're willing to try free market solutions -- most of what I see is statists claiming the death of capitalism and free markets and asking those who believe in a more limited government to give in as government becomes more powerful.Comment Posted By Mike Farmer On 18.05.2009 @ 17:37
Probably not -- educate me -- I'm always open to learning.Comment Posted By mike farmer On 18.05.2009 @ 14:56
There's also nothing wrong with holding opposing views and allowing the public to decide in the free market of ideas. Agreement is not always possible when two people hold opposing views.
Compromise can be good in situations where a bartering type situation is occuring not based on important principles -- when it's a win-win deal and agreement is reached which brings a situation forward.
But compromise also has another definition, as in compromising integrity. Compromising strongly held principles is the same as lacking integrity, and I'm not sure the principle holder ever gains from doing this except in extreme cases where the context would render the decision reasonable or moral -- unusual circumsatnces like a life depending on it. In the case of abortion, for or against, I can't see any compromise -- you either allow abortion or you don't. If you agree that abortion is necessary at times, then there can be compromise between that view and abortion on demand, unless the abortion on demand crowd holds to their principles. So compromise can go both ways, and it's not always necessary or moral to compromise.Comment Posted By mike farmer On 18.05.2009 @ 13:52