11/4    With all the garbage about "liberal" vs. "conservative" (both horrible
        misnomers) floating around, I seriously am trying to find out if/where
        I fit into the political spectrum.  I've put together a list in
        ~john/politics.txt am curious about what the MOTD peanut gallery
        thinks.  -John
        \_ I look at that list and see a strong modern left position.  And
           I suspect it pretty much mirrors a lot of what us commie pinko
           socialist bleeding heart liberal scum on soda beleive in. Modern
           "liberals" (whatever the fuck that means) are not the same thing
           they were 40 years ago, but are still stuck being painted that way.
           For Europe you are probably pretty middle of the road, but in
           America you'd be a flaming liberal.  So sad.
        \_ huh.  I agree with you on all points you list, and I consider myself
           to be a liberal.  I think that's out of step with what most people
           call a liberal, but fuck them.  I believe that these principles
           coincide with what liberalism is supposed to be.
        \_ You have contradictory requirements.  First, you wish for low taxes,
           but then you also want to fund a moderate liberal agenda (keep the
           poor off the streets, good public education, etc).  You have to
           choose what is more important to you, low (and in particular
           progressive or no) taxes, or the nifty stuff you want to buy with
           taxes.  As described, you would be called a centrist, somewhat
           left of center, or a moderate liberal, in this country.  You are
           probably somewhat right of center in EU. -- ilyas
        \_ here's an idea: if you can't explain the views of one side without
           making them look like evil morons (ex: the conservative view
           below), then you don't hold that political philosophy.
        \_ I applaud your rigorousness, but I strongly suggest you frame
           this in specific, in-your-face examples.
           E.g.,
           Iraq - liberal view:  America should have waited for Blix to finish
           Iraq - conservative view:  America was right to use its military
           superiority to remove Saddam, even if he had no WMDs and even if
           we don't have a track record of building a democracy in a country
           like Iraq, and it's worth the cost of innocent Iraqi and American
           lives that we are directly responsible for.
           Consensus view:  If you have WMDs, we produce a smoking gun, and
           we think you may take us out or blackmail us, we'll take you out.
           Social security - liberal view:  As-is progressive system where
           rich contribute more relatively to help out poor
           Social security - conservative view:  Give everyone IRAs, if you're
           poor when you're young and working, you're still poor when you
           retire.  Sorry!  America is the land of OPPORTUNITY, not handouts!
           Consensus view:  It shouldn't be as bad as Western Europe.
           \-i think your list is sort of "bottom up" ... here is what i
             think about 10 issues ... what do i fit into best ... rather than
             a "top down" view which would take as it's starting point some
             kind of "big question" like "what is the purpose of govt" or
             "what do we owe each other" and have more of an essay form of
             answer [or if we take the essay to the extreme, you get say
             nozick: anarchy, state and utopia, or rawls: a theory of justice].
             also a lot of the "hard questions" involves aspects of process ...
             like the role of money in politics, what should be civil penalty
             vs criminal [say a company pollutes] ... so in your list is it
             not clear what should happen to the "victims" of free trade,
             not much on health care ... and without some kind of "philosophy"
             it's hard to guess where you would come down on issues not
             explicitly delineated. it's not clear to me why you believe in
             public education, for example. oh your list is also subject to
             the a sort of wilt chamberlain problem [where you have initial
             condition you like, but nothing prevents things from evolving in
             a direction you dont like ... without an encroachment on liberty
             you also dont like ... you can look up "wilt chamberlain nozick"
             on the WEEB probably]. --psb
             \_ Good points, thanks for the critique.  That list was just a
                sort of brain dump in reaction to "issues" discussed during
                the election.  I have a sort of naive assumption that someone
                who stands for election would possess the kind of intelligence
                and flexibility that would let them adapt to changing
                conditions;  I am wary of platforms or grand sweeping
                documents that go too much into detail (see the US vs.
                European constitutions).  As for W. Europe vs. US social
                security, they're both bad and in the shits, but at least the
                W. Europeans are getting something from it right now :) -John
             \_ Well, I've always thought that if you can't explain it to
                a four-year-old, you don't really understand it.  I'm taking
                this approach.  Why theory-build when you don't need to?
                \-because a complicated society involves hard questions.
                  the simple theories like "strict constructionalism" either
                  have limited power, or arent as simple as they pretend to be.
                  know any 4yrs old who can follow say the federalist papers?
                  how do you balance between minority and majority interests?
                  you cant just say "vote on everything". not only is there the
                  interest of minorities but problems like the arrow problem.
                  what about trade offs between equality and efficiency [see eg
                  arthur okun's essay by that name]? not all social choice is
                  pareto improving ... if it is kaldor-hicks efficient, how are
                  losers compensated? i think "can you explain X" is a decent
                  test of your understanding, but the 4 yr old test is setting
                  the bar a little low. books i've read which i find have some
                  bearing on this include: the republic, dworkin: taking rights
                  seriously, cardozo: nature of the judicial process, bickel:
                  the least dangerous branch [no, the bible isnt on this list].
                  \_ You're right, but at some point, as a citizen, you have
                     no choice but to abstract and simplify political
                     principles;  one of the major tasks of a government is
                     to outline a set of guiding philosophies, and to work
                     within these as much as possible, taking into account
                     "operational realities".  Simple, 4-year-old statements,
                     such as "wealth is good" and "crime is bad" are perfectly
                     valid; however, at some point it should become possible
                     for someone with an average level of education and
                     intelligence to identify and formulate some coherent
                     beliefs without the benefit of an in-depth knowledge
                     of political theory.  You pay your elected officials to
                     deal with the minutiae of making these work.  -John
                     \- sure, there are some guiding principles like: freedom
                        to contract, social safety net, coase theorem/learned
                        hand rule, checks and balances, stare decisis,
                        federalism, due process, equality before the law ...
                        but entire books have been written on the single word
                        "equality" [http://csua.org/u/9sw] so again while
                        these are useful tools to have in your mental cabinet
                        with which to analyze problems like prop 187, they
                        are not simple tools. people who use one or two of
                        these has hammers and reduce problems nails [like
                        most libertarians] are falling short of the reflective
                        ideal, imho. curiously, some of the issues most people
                        would see as the most inherently moral questions, i
                        see as pretty empirical, like abortion and the death
                        penalty. i think another interesting and hard question
                        is "what is the role of govt outside of solving
                        'problems'" ... like why should there be a NASA ...
                        clearly NASA is not as "practical" as DARPA. if there
                        is one question for conservatives: what should be the
                        limits of the freedom to contract, and for liberals:
                        how would i justify progressive taxation. aff. action
                        is also a rich topic for debate ... also not something
                        clearly address in your list [metatopics being: how
                        do you trade individual rights for social agendas,
                        are there 'group rights' etc]. --psb
                        \_ I think the limits of the freedom of contract should
                           be the death of the individual (to prevent
                           feudalism).  [ I had some other stuff here, but I
                           removed it, because I realized the problem is harder
                           than it looks.  I want to say that the individual
                           should be free to sell his life however he wishes,
                           but I am not sure I can bite the bullet on the
                           ensuing ick.] One nifty argument for
                           progressive taxation I heard is that the rich make
                           a more effective use of the money they have,
                           because they have more of it, and so in some sense
                           a proportional tax isn't really fair. -- ilyas
                \_ i don't know a lot about this stuff and i really hate
                   encouraging you, but is there a first world nation with
                   a flat tax besides Iraq?