Moe_Syzlak Posted October 17, 2008 Share Posted October 17, 2008 Last night my fiance and I were talking about an amendment on the ballot here in CO (amendment 47). Now the argument against this amendment is that individual workers should have the right to choose whether or not they support their union and whether or not they wish to pay dues. Ideologically, I agree that an individual should have this right. But, having lived and worked in a "right to work" prior to being a college graduate, I realized that workers have far less leverage and opportunity. It is difficult for me to reconcile my ideology with my practical knowledge. Likewise, I see debate about free market economics. Ideologically, this resonates with me. I consider myself a fiscal conservative. But practically, it has -- to me -- been proven to be unworkable in reality. I struggle with the "ideals" I'd like to see and the practical realities I do see. At what point must we abandon our hopes for an ideal and embrace more practical solutions? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
mountain bed Posted October 17, 2008 Share Posted October 17, 2008 That's a great question, Moe. Can I call you Moe? Anyway, I'm idealistic to a fault so I have no business answering the question. We can only see the world as we see it. To see it as it actually is might be an extremely difficult task, individually speaking. Only by interacting and communicating with those of a diametrically opposite philosphical/political leaning can anything tangible or legitimate actually come to fruition. Just think about the neighborhoods the majority of us live in. Whether through circumstance, luck, hard work etc. we more and more surround ourselves with people of like minds. This only seems to polarize us more - certainly dissenting opinions within a community are becoming harder and harder to find. I guess what I'm getting at is if this truly is a representative democracy then the most practical solution is the one that takes into account the concerns of EVERYONE involved. Now more than ever we've come to a point where working together for the common good is not only good sense, it's mandatory if we want to have a better future. Never lose track of your ideals though man. That's what makes you the person you are and the person we dig in this here online community. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bleedorange Posted October 17, 2008 Share Posted October 17, 2008 How has fiscal conservatism been proven to be unworkable in reality? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
John Smith Posted October 17, 2008 Share Posted October 17, 2008 How has fiscal conservatism been proven to be unworkable in reality? It depends on what you consider fiscal conservatism. If by fiscal conservatism you are referring to concepts such as trickle down, and tax cuts paying for themselves, then yes it is not a workable philosophy. However if by fiscal conservatism you are referring to being responsible stewards of the peoples money, spending wisely and prudently living within the budgets set. Then that is still a viable option. If this second option were how republicans actually ran the government, they might not have lost me. But then again they still their nauseating (to me) social agenda. The thing is that today the so called conservatives of the country today seem to only believe in low taxes, they may pay lip service to spending, but the record of unrestrained spending is undeniable. And even in the face of seeing that trickle down does not work, they continue to push this failed philosophy as if it might magically start to work tomorrow. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
mfwahl Posted October 17, 2008 Share Posted October 17, 2008 I thought this thread was going to be a poll Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Moe_Syzlak Posted October 17, 2008 Author Share Posted October 17, 2008 How has fiscal conservatism been proven to be unworkable in reality?I didn't say that. I said the ideals of free market economics resonate with me as I consider myself fiscally conservative. But I find that pure free markets truly don't exist and are unworkable (see current crisis). That is not to say that there aren't still many tenets of fiscal conservatism I feel are workable, it's just that the pure idealized version is fallacy, IMO. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bjorn_skurj Posted October 17, 2008 Share Posted October 17, 2008 Everybody has to work out the deontology vs. utilitarianism thing for themselves. Twenty-one years after it was first outlined to me in philosophy class, I am still working on it. I will say that as far as unions are concerned, if joining the union is an option for workers, then there is no point to having a union. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ZenLunatic Posted October 17, 2008 Share Posted October 17, 2008 It depends on what you consider fiscal conservatism. If by fiscal conservatism you are referring to concepts such as trickle down, and tax cuts paying for themselves, then yes it is not a workable philosophy. However if by fiscal conservatism you are referring to being responsible stewards of the peoples money, spending wisely and prudently living within the budgets set. Then that is still a viable option. If this second option were how republicans actually ran the government, they might not have lost me. But then again they still their nauseating (to me) social agenda. The thing is that today the so called conservatives of the country today seem to only believe in low taxes, they may pay lip service to spending, but the record of unrestrained spending is undeniable. And even in the face of seeing that trickle down does not work, they continue to push this failed philosophy as if it might magically start to work tomorrow. I agree with you. It is not the free market that failed. It is the government messing with the free market that failed. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bjorn_skurj Posted October 17, 2008 Share Posted October 17, 2008 No, the government did not restrain the free market enough and in the correct manner is why it failed. As FDR may or may have not said, "Capitalism is too important to be left to the capitalists." Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ZenLunatic Posted October 17, 2008 Share Posted October 17, 2008 No, the government did not restrain the free market enough and in the correct manner is why it failed. As FDR may or may have not said, "Capitalism is too important to be left to the capitalists." I think this arguement is the biggest our country faces. Our government is thinking along the same lines as you. I totally disagree and dont trust in the moves that our govt is making. The FED created this mess. We need to elimate it. Less govt is the answer. The route we are taking is giving too much power to select entities and small number of people. It will destroy what we know of the free world. We are breaking our own Constitution and leaving our founding fathers ideas in the garbage. We have lost who we are and what we stand for because of greed and power. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bjorn_skurj Posted October 17, 2008 Share Posted October 17, 2008 I think this arguement is the biggest our country faces. Our government is thinking along the same lines as you. I totally disagree and dont trust in the moves that our govt is making. The FED created this mess. We need to elimate it. Less govt is the answer. The route we are taking is giving too much power to select entities and small number of people. It will destroy what we know of the free world. We are breaking our own Constitution and leaving our founding fathers ideas in the garbage. We have lost who we are and what we stand for because of greed and power.Grow up. America was about greed and power ever since Oct. 12, 1492. This ideal America which we all yearn for was never, ever reality. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
John Smith Posted October 17, 2008 Share Posted October 17, 2008 I agree with you. It is not the free market that failed. It is the government messing with the free market that failed. Did I say that? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Moe_Syzlak Posted October 17, 2008 Author Share Posted October 17, 2008 I think this arguement is the biggest our country faces. Our government is thinking along the same lines as you. I totally disagree and dont trust in the moves that our govt is making. The FED created this mess. We need to elimate it. Less govt is the answer. The route we are taking is giving too much power to select entities and small number of people. It will destroy what we know of the free world. We are breaking our own Constitution and leaving our founding fathers ideas in the garbage. We have lost who we are and what we stand for because of greed and power.Well this is really the root of it, no? I agree with everything you posted here if the world existed in a vacuum. But we can't just NOT regulate. If we leave the market completely to its own devices, bad people will do bad things. Again, see the current economic crisis for all the proof you need. I'd love to adopt the Ron Paul approach and say, screw the financial industry, they got themselves into this and now they're paying the price. Except it isn't just them that would pay the price. It isn't just them that are paying the price. So, we can either suffer the consequences which would surely be dire, or we can set rules beyond just the a totally free market to at least try to insure that those that would take advantage are held accountable. The very notion that the free market exists is a fallacy to me as well. We have tax breaks, subsidies, credit scores and a slew of other factors that distort true free market principles. And, as Gordon Gecko said, greed is good in a capitalist economy. It is what drives it, so I think, in a way, greed and power ARE what we have always been about. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ZenLunatic Posted October 17, 2008 Share Posted October 17, 2008 Well this is really the root of it, no? I agree with everything you posted here if the world existed in a vacuum. But we can't just NOT regulate. If we leave the market completely to its own devices, bad people will do bad things. Again, see the current economic crisis for all the proof you need. I'd love to adopt the Ron Paul approach and say, screw the financial industry, they got themselves into this and now they're paying the price. Except it isn't just them that would pay the price. It isn't just them that are paying the price. So, we can either suffer the consequences which would surely be dire, or we can set rules beyond just the a totally free market to at least try to insure that those that would take advantage are held accountable. The very notion that the free market exists is a fallacy to me as well. We have tax breaks, subsidies, credit scores and a slew of other factors that distort true free market principles. And, as Gordon Gecko said, greed is good in a capitalist economy. It is what drives it, so I think, in a way, greed and power ARE what we have always been about. The important part of the arguement is that you think that the free market failed because of not enough regulation. I think it failed because of too many bad regulations that control the market. The government doesnt let the market be free and thats the problem. I think things need regulations to make sure there isnt too much control over the free market, not regulate the market. Dont regulate the prices of services and products or even interest rates. Dont decide which companies are in need of saving and which arent. Let the market decide. Dont you see what you are doing and creating by doing this? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ZenLunatic Posted October 17, 2008 Share Posted October 17, 2008 Grow up. America was about greed and power ever since Oct. 12, 1492. This ideal America which we all yearn for was never, ever reality. I disagree. America was not created upon greed or power. It slowly happened throughout the years in differing ways but it has become a monster. This is the awakening call. You miss it now, you are in for a harder fall later. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ZenLunatic Posted October 17, 2008 Share Posted October 17, 2008 Did I say that? I did agree with what you said even if my thing went somewhere else. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Moe_Syzlak Posted October 17, 2008 Author Share Posted October 17, 2008 The important part of the arguement is that you think that the free market failed because of not enough regulation. I think it failed because of too many bad regulations that control the market. The government doesnt let the market be free and thats the problem. I think things need regulations to make sure there isnt too much control over the free market, not regulate the market. Dont regulate the prices of services and products or even interest rates. Dont decide which companies are in need of saving and which arent. Let the market decide. Dont you see what you are doing and creating by doing this?Well we disagree I guess. I think your ideal is just that: an ideal. I don't believe it is possible and that is the point of this thread. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ZenLunatic Posted October 17, 2008 Share Posted October 17, 2008 Well we disagree I guess. I think your ideal is just that: an ideal. I don't believe it is possible and that is the point of this thread. Yup, Disagreed. When the revolution comes, I hope you change your mind because you will crave it in your heart. If history taught us anything, its that freedom always wins. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ZenLunatic Posted October 21, 2008 Share Posted October 21, 2008 Not Your Grandfather Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.