[Redalgo]

Earlier this month Locke II started a thread on this board trying to discern his ideology. It made for an interesting, albeit short read and got me thinking a bit about ambiguous labels. It seems every time I settle on an ideological 'ism to stick with there comes along someone intelligent who easily demonstrates that I don’t really fall into that particular school of thought and should be described as something else. Pinning down the closest fit that can faithfully reflect my views has proven difficult for me, so I was wondering if any you have some thoughts or ideas to on the matter?

I fancy a constitutional republic, separation of powers, checks and balances, limited government, federalism, representative democracy, universal suffrage for denizens of ages sixteen and over, a multiparty system, ideologically diverse political culture, and I’m very tolerant of people offering criticism for, peaceably protesting, or speaking ill of the state. Preferably, the federal government enshrines a set of social rights while delegating most regulatory duties - provided they are carried out in compliance with its overarching constitution - to provincial governments.

Manipulation of capital and market forces beget unjust disparities in both actionable freedom and access to opportunities amongst people in varied strata of the socioeconomic hierarchy, meriting action by state to progressively tax incomes and redistribute resources, namely - but not only - via a social democratic welfare regime and for a guaranteed minimum income. Workplace democracy is a great idea. The market economy should be populated chiefly with worker-owned co-ops. Profits are to be awarded to employees with markedly less income inequity than today. But not all means of production would be socially owned.

Class collaboration is preferred, along with a moderate degree of regulation in affairs of business aimed at reducing the amount of coercion used and harm inflicted during the private resolution of interpersonal or inter-organizational conflicts of interest. Globalization does more good than harm but some degree of protectionism is acceptable for developing countries. I would describe myself as only a moderate advocate of “fair trade,” having a mostly positive opinion of increasing economic interconnectivity and interdependence among diverse peoples both nearby and far away.

Though in practice often a supporter of multicultural policies, I identify as a cosmopolitanist interested in establishing a system of global federalism. A state is made legitimate by its socially advantageous role in using certain widely-accepted moral values embraced by most people to guide its creation of rules to mediate human conflict. Subjective interpretations of “human rights” must be upheld, and to some extent can justify humanitarian interventions in other countries. The armed forces should otherwise be used defensively, and be kept near the homeland rather than projected to all corners of the globe. Dismantle all WMDs and make defense spending a modest, middling priority.

Also, the state may have a role to play in human development beyond social programs - e.g., wilderness preservation, maintaining historical sites, supporting varied pursuits in both the arts and sciences for the cultural and technological enrichment of society, providing basic utilities, owning and operating any nuclear power stations, or the like. But at other times interventions are undesirable, and market forces should be left alone so they may create and destroy - which in the long run seems more pragmatic than having a vast public sector. Entanglement betwixt state, churches, labor unions, and firms is mostly undesirable; secularize government institutions and stick to public financing in elections.

Then again, pluralistic competition of ideas in ones political culture seems healthy and helpful.

Surely there are many other items I am forgetting here, but this ought to be enough for eliciting some kind of response, eh? Do these positions reflect some form of liberalism, socialism, social democracy, a Green ‘ism of sorts - given my sentiocentrism and left-of-centre stances on most environmental issues, or... ? Any positive, constructive feedback would be sincerely appreciated, and even just a handful of your opinions may be precisely what I need to sort his out!

[Soixante-Retard]

Do you care who rules or, what the constraints are on those who rule?

[Redalgo]

I do care who rules, and about which constraints ought to be placed on their exercise of power, but am also willing to accept the electoral process giving rise to leaders with whom I strongly disagree. Their power should be no more limited than those of my political allies. If elected officials work within the bounds of the law to change the limitations placed upon them, those changes would be legitimate within the context of the existing social order. That is set aside from any personal feelings I may have of whether their leadership is righteous or worthy of the people's acceptance.

Ideally, intellectual elites acting as confident trustees rather than delegates would get elected. The convictions, ideological vision, policy prescriptions, and degree of incorruptibility candidates possess should be of greatest concern. Yet in practice I suspect folks will elect leaders who fall short of being the best and brightest society has to offer. That is tolerable so long as officials do not coerce the people in any way that strips them of their ability to bring about peaceful regime changes via free and fair elections. Additionally, any government that operates above the law or in clear contradiction to its constitution would no longer be legitimate, in my humble opinion.

Or did you mean to ask something else? At times I do not infer very well what a person is trying to say.

[Social_Critic]

Seems to be you may be a socialist 16 year old. You'll probably change over time. I used to vote republican but I started voting democrat in 2000.

[Soixante-Retard]

Well, Redalgo, if, for instance, you are deeply concerned that a Democrat or that a Republican is the President then I would say your priorities are poor.

I do care who rules, and about which constraints ought to be placed on their exercise of power, but am also willing to accept the electoral process giving rise to leaders with whom I strongly disagree. Their power should be no more limited than those of my political allies.

This suggests that, like me, you are concerned with what power rulers have and not who rules, per se. As an example of those who care about who rules take communists. They care about who rules; the proletariat. However, they have little concern for what power the proletariat have even if it is a greater tyranny under the "proletariat" than the "bourgeoisie". Similarly for fascists; the powerful leader.

Ideally, intellectual elites acting as confident trustees rather than delegates would get elected.

No thank you. I'd rather be ruled, as William Buckley Jr once said, by the first 100 people in the Boston phone directory than "philosopher kings".

Additionally, any government that operates above the law or in clear contradiction to its constitution would no longer be legitimate

Excellent. So, I ought to deduce from this that you hold the rule of law as an important idea?

[Social_Critic]

Seems to me the real communists I run into in real life want the party to rule. Then a portion of them becomes party leaders and they live the life of Riley. The others either yearn to be in their shoes, or become bitter and depressed, or flee, or end up in a gulag, or end up dead. It would be funny if it wasn't so tragic.

[Redalgo]

@Social_Critic: Maybe, maybe not.

I was a Trotskyist at sixteen, de-radicalized early on in college - shifting into support of social democracy and developing a more positive opinion of progressive Democrats, and shortly after leaving university began to experiment with ideas for non-Marxisant forms of socialism. Today I do not feel at home in mainstream American politics, am less corporatist and paternalistic than European social democrats, and yet am liberal by way of comparison (especially on economic matters) to others who identify as socialist.

For now being independent seems like a good idea. The planks of major and minor parties alike in the U.S. leave a lot to be desired and, though I voted the Stein/Honkala ticket in the last Presidential election, thought little of their campaign message and some of their views. It was more of a matter of me agreeing with them on a greater number of matters than candidates Obama, Anderson, or Alexander.


@Soixante-Retard: Ah, now it make sense to me! I must wholeheartedly agree with you that what power rulers have is far more important than who rules. And to answer your question I do, indeed, believe the rule of law is an important idea.

Democratic presidents seem somewhat more desirable to me than those of the Republican Party. However, people with views similar to mine appear to lack the strength in numbers necessary to capture the Democratic Party or even nudge it toward a more left-of-centre platform.

It may well be that my priorities are poor, by the way. I’ve usually got my head up in the clouds and like to focus on the big picture rather than how to get things done in practice.

[Soixante-Retard]

I must wholeheartedly agree... that what power rulers have is far more important than who rules.

Excellent.

I consider Democratic presidents somewhat more desirable than those of the Republican Party.

But, you can't help but include that. There is still some bias, methinks.


For what it is worth, with the posts that you have posted thus far, I think you are a liberal who has "lost his way" and is waiting to "rediscover" "classical" liberalism. The fact that you see as desirable a "constitutional republic, separation of powers, checks and balances, limited government, federalism, representative democracy, universal suffrage" and are "tolerant of people offering criticism for, peaceably protesting, or speaking ill of the state" in addition to the rule of law and do not see market interventions as necessarily desirable, then, I think you are a classical liberal, albeit a dormant one.

[mikema63]

Libertarianism has nothing against coops or worker owned companies, as a matter of fact I rather prefer that structure.

As for welfare what is your opinion on replacing all welfare, including SS Medicaid and Medicare, with a negative income tax or basic income scheme?

[Redalgo]

Mikema63, it is rather important to me no absolute poverty exists in society, income inequality is reduced (a target GINI coefficient for income equality of approximately 0.2, perhaps?), control of wealth be more broadly decentralized than it is today, and nobody in society suffers from want of any basic necessities for survival or lacking access to opportunities for potential-fulfilling personal development.

Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are part of a liberal welfare regime - a form of welfare delivery that tends to award benefits to targeted groups of citizens in a piecemeal, oft means-tested fashion that seems somewhat inefficient and still lets many folk fall through the cracks (which in my mind is tantamount to deprivation of human rights). I disapprove of such an approach, feeling a social insurance scheme everyone pays into and receives from would be fairer and more solidaristic. Mind you, my current perspective on how to cope with markets is guided in part by social democratic thought.

But if a system of negative income taxation or a basic income scheme could deliver on the goals I aim for - and thus satisfy my underlying hunger for a compassionate political-economic paradigm, then those two methods you propose are options for reform I would seriously consider. If they are unlikely to deliver to society the results I desire, however, some form of social insurance would still be needed.

I have a great deal of respect for libertarians, though I am neither an anarchist nor minarchist!

[mikema63]

Really? That's a fairly rare opinion of libertarians on PoFo.

Basic income is basically my compromise with the people who think the world would blow up without welfare.

How do you solve the public choice problem of regulation?

[Redalgo]

It’s a relatively common opinion of libertarians in a different community I visit from time to time. I’ve also heard the term used interchangeably with classical liberalism. What’s your take on it?

In regards to the public choice issue, you mean the tendency of people to either demand more government intervention in their lives, tolerate the efforts of bureaucrats to capture more resources to manage - thereby inflating their costs to taxpayers over time, or for organized interest groups with superb access to capital to exert arguably undue influence on elected officials to advance their interests rather than those of society as a whole? Or do you mean something else?

If I am not mistaken, then I in all honesty have no solution. I feel it is in the People’s power to choose to create a society more restrictive of individual freedom and less concerned with certain social rights than I would feel most satisfied with. Otherwise, there some things I’d like to reform to inhibit the creep toward greater regulation and weaker adherence to constitutional restrictions.

Scheduling constitutional conventions to take place, and for the previous document to be discarded, every ten or twenty years may help preserve a political culture in which overstepping the bounds of that document is neither as tempting to officials nor as likely to receive support from the public - whereas in the States today passing amendments is very hard and there is a big incentive for folk to simply reinterpret the document to mean whatever will make their preferred policies legitimate.

An overwhelming majority of state documents should be available to the public, preferably via an agency or independent group enlisting experts to condense those papers into smaller, plainspoken publications fit for consumption by curious laymen. Heavy regulation of elections may be prudent; it bothers me a great deal how in the U.S. they tend to devolve into contests of image while news agencies and parties feed their constituents different versions of reality. The quality of elections matters a great deal, and a number of the reform options I fancy would admittedly infringe on the property rights of individuals quite a bit more than policies do today for the sake of weakening the ability of varied factions with interest in electoral outcomes to corrupt the contests.

It seems to me that, the better informed the general public becomes, the more faithfully institutions of representative democracy can function to bring policies into alignment with the people’s common interests and most fundamental of shared values. If the constitution is too rigid, electoral process corrupted, or government not sufficiently transparent, I fear the public choice dilemma will almost certainly be daunting, even if the citizenry is predominately liberalist and highly-motivated to perform its civic duties.

(edited for spelling)

[mikema63]

More like the second, it's a problem of interest as well as money however, Monsanto has a particularly strong interest in the FDA and can gain enough benefit to justify a massive amount of not only money, but manpower, time, knowledge of the myriad by laws, and can directly contact and bribe anyone in the beurocratic hierarchy. The general public however has very little knowledge of the FDA as their interest lies in all government programs equally and the complexity of it all prevents you from understanding it.

In the end corporations have the capability to actually know and manipulate thing in the one specific area of government that influences them, but the public can't be expected to pay attention to it all.

Part of that is also diffuse cost and concentrated interest, a billion dollars in potential subsidies is a strong motivator to a company, a few cents from each citizen, hidden in the national debt and tax code, aren't a strong enough incentive for the general population to fight over (if they even realize it is happening).

All in all if you must have regulatory agencies, they should be as small, simple, local, and transparent as possible as well as the tax code.

[RhetoricThug]

I believe Mikema & I went at it over Monsanto, concerning the use of GMOs... I see that we have some shared views these days.

There really is no problem with changing your views as long as your views are not running for public office.
I have a strange theory, but I consider it realistic.

Personal politics In my perfect fantastic world- I am an anarchist that supports small community.

Professional Politics In real world politics (how I vote)- I am a social libertarian/ minor constitutionalist. I have to work with what I have in America. In recent elections I voted for Gary Johnson because Ron Paul did not make the ballot.

The theory to me is that we can all have an unrealistic ideology, but realistically we take stances that can be reflected in today's world.
Don't be too concerned with labels- they only make for good talking points
I mean we can only get as close to our personal politics in professional politics as we can.

BTW, great discussion above. Just thought I'd throw my bit in

[Redalgo]

@Mikema63: So one might say that localizing regulatory oversight in a federalist system makes it more difficult (or at the very least more of a drain on their resources) for such interests to manipulate regulatory bureaucracies to their respective advantages? After dwelling on this for awhile, I began to wonder if the danger in question might scale down toward relatively local tiers of government, as well.

For instance, in my state of Montana roughly a century ago captains of industry bought out media outlets, used them as political weapons, bribed many legislators, judges, and even large numbers of voters, and - arguably in the case of one mining company - wrested sovereignty away from the citizenry. Are local officials, administrators, and functionaries weaker or stronger in the face of corrupting influences than their counterparts at the national level, in your opinion? Though my anecdote is in effect comparing apples to oranges here, it makes me wonder if perhaps the public choice dilemma you brought up is among a number of unavoidable vulnerabilities that come along with representative democracy.

And although decentralizing regulatory power on a broad range of issues sounds quite exciting to me in its potential for improving responsiveness of government to local values and ways of life, I wonder if the proliferation of many dozens - if not hundreds or thousands - of varied sets of rules folk are expected to comply with (created by an equally vast number of bureaucracies) from one part of the country to the next could detrimentally impact the overall ease of doing business and lead to a markedly larger, more byzantine public sector than would otherwise exist.

I am interested in weighing options for minimizing corruption in governing institutions, but then again have little experience when it comes to studying public administration and management. :\


@RhetoricThug: There is a bit of inner turmoil for me when it comes to reconciling personal and professional politics as you present them. Being quite pragmatic on one hand, and very principled on the other, it is common for me to feel I’ve done something dirty and morally base after making a political decision that was prudent in practice but in theory a betrayal of what I actually stand for and ultimately yearn to achieve. Do you experience similar trouble?

Incidentally, I agree with you that labels should not be a major source of concern. In the real world they tend not to represent anything tangible. The labels for personal politics seem relatively symbolic and expressive in value - saying something about one of many facets of character that when pieced together describe who one is. What irks me right now is not having a succinct way to answer folks who want to know where, generally, my political sympathies lie.

Labels generalize and offer little in the way of detail, but are often very useful for conveying short little bursts of information to those who would rather not be subjected to a ten or twenty minute ramble!

[RhetoricThug]

Do you experience similar trouble?

I do indeed, sir. The reason being- as I previously stated, and please don't take that as a redundancy of disposition, as if I couldn't rely on an original statement based upon conviction. I simply believe we have to play according to the rules. Sadly, you, or I, we don't want to... So I experience similar trouble day in and day out, as you do.

Incidentally, I agree with you that labels should not be a major source of concern. In the real world they tend not to represent anything tangible. The labels for personal politics seem relatively symbolic and expressive in value - saying something about one of many facets of character that when pieced together describe who one is. What irks me right now is not having a succinct way to answer folks who want to know where, generally, my political sympathies lie.

Absolutely. It is hard. I am sure that one day I will not rely on telling people that I'm simply an anarchist. Primarily because of the negative connotation that goes along with the word, but secondarily because I will age- and with age I will have an indifferent indoctrination (based upon the relevance and temperament that my agency decrees) of values presented to me and if I find these values necessary to adopt, well, I shall.

Labels generalize and offer little in the way of detail, but are often very useful for conveying short little bursts of information to those who would rather not be subjected to a ten or twenty minute ramble!

Hot damn, you seem rather smart. Once again, I agree.

I enjoy your thoroughly engaging posts.

[mikema63]

@adaigo, I'm not pro regulation in any sense, but as I see it a good measure is to minimize the existence of regulation entirely, in my mind each county would only have a very small handful of regulations deemed absolutely necessary and new rules would require (hopefully constitutionally) the removal of old rules. Nowadays buying out media would be impossible what with the Internet though.

@rhetoricthug, I never liked Monsanto, but I love me some GMO's. They are safe, useful, and not at all dangerous.

[The Immortal Goon]

You're a liberal, or at most revolutionary, a social-democrat.

[Redalgo]

Thank you everyone - it appears liberalism is the verdict taking shape here! And yet I still wonder...

Are there any sub-categories of liberal that advocate for a mixed economy, cooperative movement, and - perhaps over the course of generations - shift to market socialism? Many concepts from liberalism appeal to me but I reject natural law, spurn utilitarianism in favor of virtue ethics, and the rights and liberties I value most seem incompatible with many classical and social liberals' proposals for economic policy.

Am I stuck in the uncomfortable bind of sharing the core ideals of my most powerful political adversaries?

Did years of trying to piece together facets of divergent theories lead me to form an incoherent ideology?

What of any hybrids of liberalism and reformism? I've casually read of liberal and ethical socialisms, for a time feeling tempted to throw up my arms and claim to stand on some shaky, poorly-defined plot of middle ground betwixt liberal and socialist thought... until continuing on to discover that in practice many modern leaders seem to shroud themselves with such labels as if to portray their general wishy-washiness, pragmatism, or opportunism as some kind of bold, idealistic vision for the future.

Though the liberal influences on my thinking are apparently much stronger than I realized prior to starting this thread, before moving on and accepting that I probably haven't been a socialist for at least a few years now I am tremendously curious as to whether any of you might have an explanation for why I've been unable to find any political factions with which to comfortably identify and align.

[Soixante-Retard]

Just consider yourself a liberal and be done with it. I'm not sure how finding the "correct" label will benefit you other than satisfying the longing to belong to a specific group.