Nathyn
31st August 2006, 21:36
I came here months ago as Blue Dog Liberal, but decided on getting a new account (which I notified the forum about, before I made it). When I first got into politics, I was a card-carrying Liberal. Everything the Democrats supported, I supported to. It came natural, because I live in a Liberal state and my parents are fairly Liberal.
Then, I began to find out that there are various ways in which the free market works better than the regulated market, and many groups seem to advocate regulation based upon mere axiom alone. From this, I started to become more Capitalist, considering myself a "Right-wing" Democrat. Some of the stances I took you wouldn't even apparently call Capitalist, such as opposing gun control. The term "Blue Dog" Democrat is the name of the group of Conservative Democrats. So, being that I was no longer really a Democrat, I used the username "Blue Dog Liberal."
After explaining my support for Capitalism, despite my advocation for many other Socialist reforms, I was told that supporting Capitalism, period, is anti-Socialist and right-wing, and was restricted.
So, I got bored of this place and left. During that time, I looked into various other issues, developing free market positions on some and socialist positions on others. Then I came across Georgism. Henry George argued that land and natural resources can't be individually owned because they were never labored for to begin with. This was heavily founded in Classical Liberal doctrine and I agreed with this. However, I opposed the existence of a sole land-value tax on pragmatic grounds. There are various economic reasons why taxes could not be replaced with a single 100% tax on land value and natural resources.
I developed a unique stance on property rights: Property rights are founded upon historical theft. I.E., human beings have always stolen. War itself was frequently collective theft. Now, we know that this theft existed, but we don't know how. If just one person 10,000 years ago had a loaf of bread stolen, the consequences would affect billions of us today. Because of this, traditional "property rights," cannot be upheld. All that we can uphold is what's fair for everyone. In other words, in ignorance of who legitimately owns what, all we can do is uphold stewardship while ensuring that everyone has equal opportunity (see Rawls' "A Theory of Justice" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Theory_of_Justice)).
Then, yesterday, it occurred to me that if property rights, in accordance with Georgism, were established in a state of nature, which is the ideal, then Capitalism could cease to justifiably exist. Thus, today, I am best described as a Libertarian Socialist. However, despite being a Libertarian Socialist, I do not advocate Anarchism. Because stability must lay the foundation for the establishment of any philosophical principles.
Soon after this, I recognized that Libertarianism and Socialism, liberty and equality, are perfectly compatible in Meritocracy (see Rousseau's "The Social Contract" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rousseau#The_Social_Contract)). Pure Meritocracy is itself essentially a classless society. Furthermore, states which apply Socialist principles of equality to the market, such as western Europe, have the greatest social mobility. Nations which rely primarily upon Capitalism, such as America, have less Social mobility. And nations which apply primarily Socialism inevitably become degenerated workers' states, because of their lack of economic stability. This, in turn, leads such states, such as the former Soviet Union, China, and North Korea, to have even less social mobility than Capitalist countries. Though, one day, probably upon reaching technological singularity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity) or the hypothetical development of free energy, there may yet be a Socialist revolution, where we all live in Utopian Communism, as in Star Trek. However, in the mean time, there is no empirical basis for establishing either Anarcho-Communism, Council-Communism, or anything other than a meritocratic mixed market, where poverty is reduced to a minimum.
Being a Libertarian Socialist, I also see the state and the market as being equally contrary to individual well-being.
As a result of my changing beliefs, I asked the mods to unrestrict me. I posted this here for their benefit.
A list of quick specific issues: Iraq war: Oppose
Israel: Supported, but then they invaded Lebanon, so now, I oppose support to Israel.
Universal healthcare: Support
Welfare, Minimum Wage: Oppose (see "Taxation" below)
Taxation: A negative income tax could replace welfare and the minimum wage. The income tax would be progressive according differences in average level of consumption, to support meritocracy. This isn't to be confused with the FairTax, which taxes according to actual consumption (which is regressive). This tax would tax according to expected actual consumption, which would be less progressive than current U.S. taxation, but still highly progressive. Preferably, this should be the only tax, but other diverse taxation may be allowed for.
Education: Privatized with subsidies for the poor and a minimum amount of oversight over curriculum.
Euthanasia: Support
Abortion: Don't care, but leaning towards pro-choice.
Gun control: Oppose
Democracy: Moderately support. Democracy encourages demagogy, which has historically encouraged Capitalism.
Drug regulation: No recreational drug should be "illegal," there should be no prescription drug approval process, but the FDA should continue regulating fraud by drug manufacturers and dealers, and requiring proper labeling.
Censorship: Oppose.
Regulation of property: Don't care, as long as it's used appropriately.
Racial gap: Don't believe discrimination plays much of a role in the "racial gap." Jews face more hate crime than blacks, yet are wealthier. Current poverty is therefore from historical theft and cultural problems, not present discrimination.
Then, I began to find out that there are various ways in which the free market works better than the regulated market, and many groups seem to advocate regulation based upon mere axiom alone. From this, I started to become more Capitalist, considering myself a "Right-wing" Democrat. Some of the stances I took you wouldn't even apparently call Capitalist, such as opposing gun control. The term "Blue Dog" Democrat is the name of the group of Conservative Democrats. So, being that I was no longer really a Democrat, I used the username "Blue Dog Liberal."
After explaining my support for Capitalism, despite my advocation for many other Socialist reforms, I was told that supporting Capitalism, period, is anti-Socialist and right-wing, and was restricted.
So, I got bored of this place and left. During that time, I looked into various other issues, developing free market positions on some and socialist positions on others. Then I came across Georgism. Henry George argued that land and natural resources can't be individually owned because they were never labored for to begin with. This was heavily founded in Classical Liberal doctrine and I agreed with this. However, I opposed the existence of a sole land-value tax on pragmatic grounds. There are various economic reasons why taxes could not be replaced with a single 100% tax on land value and natural resources.
I developed a unique stance on property rights: Property rights are founded upon historical theft. I.E., human beings have always stolen. War itself was frequently collective theft. Now, we know that this theft existed, but we don't know how. If just one person 10,000 years ago had a loaf of bread stolen, the consequences would affect billions of us today. Because of this, traditional "property rights," cannot be upheld. All that we can uphold is what's fair for everyone. In other words, in ignorance of who legitimately owns what, all we can do is uphold stewardship while ensuring that everyone has equal opportunity (see Rawls' "A Theory of Justice" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Theory_of_Justice)).
Then, yesterday, it occurred to me that if property rights, in accordance with Georgism, were established in a state of nature, which is the ideal, then Capitalism could cease to justifiably exist. Thus, today, I am best described as a Libertarian Socialist. However, despite being a Libertarian Socialist, I do not advocate Anarchism. Because stability must lay the foundation for the establishment of any philosophical principles.
Soon after this, I recognized that Libertarianism and Socialism, liberty and equality, are perfectly compatible in Meritocracy (see Rousseau's "The Social Contract" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rousseau#The_Social_Contract)). Pure Meritocracy is itself essentially a classless society. Furthermore, states which apply Socialist principles of equality to the market, such as western Europe, have the greatest social mobility. Nations which rely primarily upon Capitalism, such as America, have less Social mobility. And nations which apply primarily Socialism inevitably become degenerated workers' states, because of their lack of economic stability. This, in turn, leads such states, such as the former Soviet Union, China, and North Korea, to have even less social mobility than Capitalist countries. Though, one day, probably upon reaching technological singularity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity) or the hypothetical development of free energy, there may yet be a Socialist revolution, where we all live in Utopian Communism, as in Star Trek. However, in the mean time, there is no empirical basis for establishing either Anarcho-Communism, Council-Communism, or anything other than a meritocratic mixed market, where poverty is reduced to a minimum.
Being a Libertarian Socialist, I also see the state and the market as being equally contrary to individual well-being.
As a result of my changing beliefs, I asked the mods to unrestrict me. I posted this here for their benefit.
A list of quick specific issues: Iraq war: Oppose
Israel: Supported, but then they invaded Lebanon, so now, I oppose support to Israel.
Universal healthcare: Support
Welfare, Minimum Wage: Oppose (see "Taxation" below)
Taxation: A negative income tax could replace welfare and the minimum wage. The income tax would be progressive according differences in average level of consumption, to support meritocracy. This isn't to be confused with the FairTax, which taxes according to actual consumption (which is regressive). This tax would tax according to expected actual consumption, which would be less progressive than current U.S. taxation, but still highly progressive. Preferably, this should be the only tax, but other diverse taxation may be allowed for.
Education: Privatized with subsidies for the poor and a minimum amount of oversight over curriculum.
Euthanasia: Support
Abortion: Don't care, but leaning towards pro-choice.
Gun control: Oppose
Democracy: Moderately support. Democracy encourages demagogy, which has historically encouraged Capitalism.
Drug regulation: No recreational drug should be "illegal," there should be no prescription drug approval process, but the FDA should continue regulating fraud by drug manufacturers and dealers, and requiring proper labeling.
Censorship: Oppose.
Regulation of property: Don't care, as long as it's used appropriately.
Racial gap: Don't believe discrimination plays much of a role in the "racial gap." Jews face more hate crime than blacks, yet are wealthier. Current poverty is therefore from historical theft and cultural problems, not present discrimination.