jump to last post 1-5 of 5 discussions (24 posts)

Liberalism/Socialism vs Republicanism/Freedom

  1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
    Kathryn L Hillposted 2 months ago

    The essence of the current battle seems to be this:
    Liberalism/Socialism vs Republicanism/Freedom

    We have to keep this country free. The Constitution, rightly understood and followed, provides the laws/boundaries which preserve our freedom and our rights.

    Is it so hard for the left to understand the value of a free market (within laws/boundaries)? Over-taxing the rich is counter to Free Market.

    What Trump said is of utmost importance:
    Stop with all the business-preventing and business-crushing REGULATIONS!

    Freedom (within boundaries) is what has made this country great.

    1. 61
      Terresa Clintposted 2 months ago in reply to this

      yes, the struggle has always been equality vs freedom. A truly democratic government would be socialistic. What is equality? Today we are told that incomes must be equal (the word they use is fair) but when the concept of equal was originally written into the constitution is was equal in the eyes of the law. People are not born equal (individuals are born with varying degress of abilities) but should have the same rights to go out and live their lives. Democracy can devolve into the right of the majority over the minority and the majority (mob in Roman times) as we know can be manipulated - bribed by politicians who want power. In Rome it was bread and circuses that controlled the mob.

      1. Credence2 profile image85
        Credence2posted 2 months ago in reply to this

        That is a red herring, why must freedom and equality be contradictions in terms? You are not free to exploit your neighbor, and equality of opportunity is the foundation for freedom for all not just the plutocratic few. Conservatives are dupes in thinking that kissing the rings of the aristocracy, corporate class is going to save them. Without equality of opportunity and a feudalistic approach to government by the right winger, I can gurantee that you will all attempt to sleep but with one eye open.

        1. 61
          Terresa Clintposted 2 months ago in reply to this

          If the concept of equality in a society is taken to it's logical conclusion - all people must be equal - you will end up with a totalitarian society where one person can't be better or worse than any other.  Worse, because equality must be must be enforced (not being a natural state of human existence - people are born with different abilities and tendencies) by a overlord or a government such as we have seen in various communist countries.  What appears as an attractive idea (like the 60's communes) ends up limiting individuals' freedom. Hence, the struggle between freedom and equality.

          1. Credence2 profile image85
            Credence2posted 2 months ago in reply to this

            No, I don't think that is what the progressives are looking for. Equality of opportunity is different from equality of outcomes. We all know that people are different in innate ability, hard work, etc. They should be rewarded for those attributes. But, in areas like access to education and training the bar should be level. Feudalism? The royalty and nobles have every advantage while the peasants never have a chance, regardless of ability?

  2. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
    Kathryn L Hillposted 2 months ago

    Over-regulation is what is driving business out of the country.
    The prize is survival through self-suffinciency / independence.

    The bottom line is survival, pure and simple.
    Why do we loose sight of this most obvious goal?

    How am I going to SURVIVE? Which candidate will help enable me to survive through my own efforts to the best of my ability?

    1. MizBejabbers profile image91
      MizBejabbersposted 2 months ago in reply to this

      Deregulation was supposed to have lowered prices, but it did just the opposite. Monopolies that were illegal under regulation have now formed again, for example AT&T. Remember "we may be the only telephone company in town but we try not to act like it." It is now "we are not the only telephone company in town, but we act like it" (and set our prices accordingly). Deregulation ruined the free enterprise radio broadcasting industry. Licensed employees like my husband (a First Class licensed engineer) and me (a Third class licenseholder) lost our licenses because they were no longer reguired. Stations weren't required to have engineers to keep them finely tuned anymore, so they became difficult to listen to. As a result now satellite radio stations are taking over, and we have to pay a big fee to listen to them. Banks went so far out on a limb that they had to be propped up by our tax dollars to save them. The housing ballooned, and like all balloons, went flat. Shall I name a few more things that have happened under deregulation?

      I'm not sure what you mean by the statement "Over-regulation is what is driving business out of the country." We are nearly under deregulation now. What do you want, complete free-for-all chaos? Under that system, or lack of system, the middle class would totally disappear, and if you aren't one of the rich people, you would find yourself singing a different tune, the blues, if you could afford a guitar.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
        Kathryn L Hillposted 2 months ago in reply to this

        Here is a good article about the matter:

        "The Good and Bad of Government Regulation

        What is the proper role of government in a free enterprise system? Should government step aside entirely and let the winner take all in a no-holds-barred marketplace? Or, is there a place for limited government regulation?

        Government intervention has positives and negatives. Depending on the type of business you are in the rules that regulate commerce will play different roles in your company. Whether unwelcomed or embraced, the number and cost to business of these federal regulations are key to maintaining a basic level of order and profitability in our marketplace. All businesses must make a profit to be viable. Even Not-for-profit corporations must make a profit in order to have an ability to grow. Not-for-profits just report their income differently than for profit businesses.

        Government over regulations often increase costs for businesses, which can hurt their ability to compete. For example, current regulations require car manufacturers to include safety equipment, like seat belts, in all of their models. The mandatory equipment adds to the cost of the car. For small businesses, even a slight increase in costs can make a big difference in profits.

        The overall numbers can be large. In fact, Congress requires the federal Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to report on estimated benefits and costs of complying with major federal regulations. The 2012 report, compiled by the OMB, makes several estimated observations which may or may not be accurate:

        Estimated annual benefits of major Federal regulations that the OMB studied from 2001 to 2011 range from $141 billion to $691 billion.
        Estimated annual costs for the same regulations over that time period range from $42.4 billion to $66.3 billion.
        Government regulation can also prevent businesses from entering new markets. Licensing regulations, for example, dictate who can set up shop as a beauty salon or a massage therapist and who cannot.

        In addition to raising costs and regulating where you can conduct business, regulations can discourage innovation. State and federal regulations control the quality of many products, like food, drugs and insurance. Someone with a good idea may not be able to create a new business because complying with the regulations for the product is too expensive.

        On the other hand, some government regulations are meant to provide a balance for all businesses. Like a referee, the regulations can discourage cheating. For example, the federal government sets standards for “truth in advertising.” These standards are meant to encourage fair competition and discourage consumer fraud.

        Protecting Shared Resources

        Government regulations can help businesses get fair access to shared resources. Fishing is a good example. Many fishing businesses depend on access to wild fish, yet wild fish are a shared resource.

        Shared resources can face what author Garrett Hardin calls the “tragedy of the commons.” Long ago in England, farming villages often shared a pasture called the “village commons.” Anyone from the village could let his sheep or cows graze there for free and because the pasture was free farmers often brought more and more animals to graze there. Eventually there would be too many animals, all the grass would disappear and stop growing. Yet, individual farmers had little incentive to limit their use of the shared pasture until the pasture was ruined.

        Limited government regulation can help businesses by regulating how much of the shared resource any one competitor can take. However, over regulation stifles economies, slows GDP, and lowers tax revenues, among other things. Research has shown that fewer regulations do lead to greater tax revenues being generated, because the cost of doing and starting new business are lower giving people more freedom to take a risk, to become business owners.

        Citizens need to take care of how much and what kind of balance their elected representatives allow by being an involved citizenry in the acts of their government. Your vote really does matter. You choose and design the kind of freedom and life you want for you and your family, one vote at a time."

        - See more at: http://www.lifeopedia.com/does-governme … OSPi7.dpuf

        1. MizBejabbers profile image91
          MizBejabbersposted 2 months ago in reply to this

          That is basically a good article. I agree that some businesses need more regulation than others depending on how they affect the population or the environment. I think that the people wanting complete deregulation need to study our history of 19th century men women and children working 12 hours a day, 7 days a week for peanut wages (and dying) just to keep the family fed. However, the "regulation," if passed, of a $15 an hour minimum wage will drive some small business owners out of business.

    2. 61
      Terresa Clintposted 2 months ago in reply to this

      back to the subject of regulation: here's an personal example that illustrates it's effect. My daughter graduated from college during the recession and supplemented her income working for people doing social media at home. She made $1000 which she reported to IRS. Six months later she received a letter from the state of Calif. she was in arrears of $800.00 for a business license and if she didn't pay, she would be fined as well. Very stressful for someone struggling already to make ends meet and this happens all the time with cities, states and the fed creating regulations that effect people trying to create a business or enter a career. Regulations cost everyday people money and kills incentive to try new businesses or careers.

  3. Billie Kelpin profile image89
    Billie Kelpinposted 2 months ago

    Just to clarify the question: There is no liberalism/socialism being represented in this election at this point. Republicans are generally considered on the far right recently. President Obama and Hillary are right of center, or if you're generous, right ON center. They are not left or progessive or anywhere close to socialism as most Progressives and Socialists themselves view those terms. Their economic policies,contrary to how they are portrayed, in fact are more often than not statistically conservative. Among the camp of Progressives - Amy Goodman "Democracy Now", Ian Masters "Background Briefing, Activist Noam Chomsky, Thom Hartman, Tom Hayden, etc., you'd be hard pressed to find any one of them calling President Obama or Hillary Liberal/ Socialist or leaning to the left - just to make that clear to those who will be answering this question. You might think every Lhasa Apso that you see is a Shih Tzu because you've always been told that that's what Shih Tzu's look like. That doesn't mean they are. You have to ask the owner.  The owners of the terms Socialist or Progressive will tell you that President Obama and Hillary are definitely NOT.

    1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
      Kathryn L Hillposted 2 months ago in reply to this

      The left leans toward socialism, is it not so? Higher taxes and all the policies they stand for tend toward soft despotism. To not admit this is the problem.

      1. MizBejabbers profile image91
        MizBejabbersposted 2 months ago in reply to this

        Kathryn, the left does have some socialistic policies, but it depends on whom you are looking at, Bernie Sanders has a reputation toward Socialism and admits it. However, Bill Clinton is reputed to be a "liberal," but actually tends to be conservative. He balanced the state budget and left a surplus as Governor of Arkansas, which was quickly eaten up by a successor. He, I believe, was able to balance the nation's budget and then conservative Republican successor George W. Bush restored the deficit with his Iraqi war. I'm not sure where Hillary stands on the budget, and I wish she would clarify her stance, but I hope she will use Bill's policies to balance the budget again. That is genuine conservatism although the opposing party doesn't recognize it because it doesn't involve poking their noses into people's bedrooms.

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 2 months ago in reply to this

          "Genuine conservatism" is not saying "We're overspending: let's raise taxes to get the money we want".  Which was Bill's notion of how to balance a budget.

          Near as I can see, Hillary's concept is to raise taxes AND spending, in order to have more money while keeping the deficit the same.

          1. MizBejabbers profile image91
            MizBejabbersposted 2 months ago in reply to this

            So you are saying that George W. Bush was not really a conservative either?

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 2 months ago in reply to this

              Are you saying that conducting a war is not a valid reason to spend money?

              1. Credence2 profile image85
                Credence2posted 2 months ago in reply to this

                If the war is not justified and inappropriate, yes...

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 2 months ago in reply to this

                  What you really mean, of course, is that "If the war is not justified <in my opinion> and inappropriate <in my opinion> then no money should be spent. 

                  Does it make a difference when you opinion is based on partial, or nonexistent, information?  When you are unaware of the reasons for war?

                  1. Credence2 profile image85
                    Credence2posted 2 months ago in reply to this

                    Any war is ok for you, eh? Just another excuse for conservatives to spend money which is ALWaYS justified in their eyes. The Iraq conflict was not supported by dire necessity.

          2. Credence2 profile image85
            Credence2posted 2 months ago in reply to this

            And Trump wants to cut taxes and raise spending on right wing sacred cows, like the military. We saw that with Ronald Reafan, where did that get us?

    2. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 2 months ago in reply to this

      The man that proposed, and eventually pushed through, the single biggest expense and giveaway program in the history of the country is center

      I think not.  If Republicans look far right to today's liberal it is because the liberal cause has shifted so far left.  Their policies are statistically conservative only to the rest of the world; to America they are very socialistic.  It is true that by other standards American liberals aren't very liberal OR socialistic, but by the standards of free Americans they most certainly are.

  4. ahorseback profile image44
    ahorsebackposted 2 months ago

    Reaganomics , Was intended to lower unemployment ,  his creating jobs was intended to raise federal tax revenues for budgetary balancing  , IT DID  .     Government was supposed to balance spending with the incredible surplus from Reaganomics ,     IT DIDN"T !

    What WAS a huge surplus in federal revenue intake , Became a Spending spree of  Bill Clintons presidency , Fact!

    Check your history! -----Its there for all to see .......your  Congress Sucks at saving . It thrives on spending .

  5. colorfulone profile image87
    colorfuloneposted 2 months ago

    I read this article earlier today, its a good article to share on this thread. 

    Yesterday’s Communist Is Today’s Progressive
    (last two paragraphs)
    While it may seem extreme to call the majority of our politicians in Washington as being socialists or communists, it cannot be refuted that their agenda is leading this country down the very same path. You can act as if Republicans and Democrats are different, but over the course of the Obama administration we have seen that this notion of “difference” between the two parties begets reality. They may use different means to justify the end, but the end is all the same.

    The longer we continue to ignore this while we fight among eachother over the latest fabricated issue of audacious act committed by the president with the aide of congressional capitulation, the harder it becomes to counter. If we are unwilling to let go of our personal animosities against eachother in favor of turning our energy against those in power who are destroying us, then we leave for the younger generations a future that will destroy them.

    https://politicallyshort.com/2015/07/27 … ogressive/

 
working