What liberal ideas do we REALLY need for the 21st century? (1 Viewer)

[Kandahar]

OK, the conservatives had their fun posting a poll with conservative ideas and a poll with strawmen caricatures of liberal ideas. So here are some ideas that people actually believe. Some of them are intentionally vague ("overhaul our education system"), because different people may have different ideas for how best to do those things.

These are ideas I generally associate with "liberalism," although I'm well aware that that can (and probably will) be disputed. Nevertheless choose any of them you agree with.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Total Overhaul of our Education System. I'm not sure this is a liberal ideal-- since they just want to throw money at it-- but it sure ain't a conservative ideal either.

I start feeling a little more self-important, I might post what I think needs done to our education system in a different thread.

Balance the budget. I understand that a great deal of debt spending is necessary to maintain our productive economy-- what's left of it-- but excessive debt is hastening our economic collapse. We need to get the deficit under control and work on other ways of artificially supporting production.

"Manhattan Project" for alternative energy. Gas is approaching three dollars a gallon-- despite enormous subsidies-- and increasingly our economic well-being and ability to project military authority are dependent upon countries that are neutral at best.

Keep abortion legal. Finding a more acceptable compromise would probably help, but I don't think we can afford to prohibit abortion entirely, especially considering socio-economic trends. Last thing we need is another million underprivileged infants being born every year to parents that neither want to nor can afford to raise them.

 

[Iriemon]

You probably should add an option re: Addressing health care for the 47 million Americans who don't have medical insurance.

 

[Goobieman]

I dont see any of these things as "necessary" in the context that there will be terrible reprcussions if we don't do them.

The only ones that come close are:

Total overhaul of our education system
This may be a 'liberal idea;, but the liberals dont have a clue how to do it.

Balance the budget
This -isn't- a liberal idea; for the 40+ years the liberals were in power, the didnt give a damn about it. The only reason they mention it now is because they can make political hay.

 

[Befuddled_Stoner]

Balance the budget
This -isn't- a liberal idea; for the 40+ years the liberals were in power, the didnt give a damn about it.

running on a balanced budget may, in time long since faded from most politicians' memories, have been a conservative idea (conservative meaning maintaining things the way they are) but nowadays, the idea would be an abrupt departure in the way things are being done (by a house, senate, and administration that claims to be conservative)

The only reason they mention it now is because they can make political hay.

:roll: You say that like it isn't the entire premise behind our system of democracy. Tell me, do you really believe most republican officeholders give a **** about issues like gay marriage or whatever else they were blathering about back in '04? Bah, this country is based on politicians bull******** about issues in order to curry votes. If you're going to start calling liberals on it, wouldn't it be a little hypocritical to avoid giving conservatives similar scrutiny?

 

[Goobieman]

Bah, this country is based on politicians bull******** about issues in order to curry votes. If you're going to start calling liberals on it, wouldn't it be a little hypocritical to avoid giving conservatives similar scrutiny?

Well, I might, if:
- The topic was about Conservative ideas necessary for our future
- Conservatives were known for lip-service to their ideals.

 

[Befuddled_Stoner]

Well, I might, if:
...
- Conservatives were known for lip-service to their ideals.

*cough* Oh, right...my bad. *cough*

Back on topic, you believe there won't be terrible reprecussions if we don't attempt a "manhattan project" for altertnative energy sources? Can we at least agree that there will be reprecussions if we don't, and that we disagree about how terrible they may be?

What about the environment? I know most conservatives would rather have a boon economy than trees and nature crap, but don't you think global warming and a toxic environment would cause our grandchildren difficulties?

*sigh* I'm not even going to go into the staggering inefficacy of the war on drugs, but don't you think that having the highest incarceration rate in the developed world or the ramifications this has on poor/ethnic communities qualify as a "terrible" reprecussion?

 

[Goobieman]

Back on topic, you believe there won't be terrible reprecussions if we don't attempt a "manhattan project" for altertnative energy sources?
Can we at least agree that there will be reprecussions if we don't, and that we disagree about how terrible they may be?

I think what we disagree on is government's role here.
The market will provide this; there need be no effort from the gvmnt to expend my money to bring this about.

That is, when the market demans we shift from oil to its successor, we will.
There's no necessary 'repercussion' involved here.

What about the environment? I know most conservatives would rather have a boon economy than trees and nature crap,

Ah. A strawman attached to a false claim to the moral high ground.
Here's something you obviously havent considered:
Neother conservatives nor liberals want clean air. They both want dirty air to varying degrees. Why is the degree to which the liberals want dirty air more sound that the degree to which the cnservatives want it?

That is, how do you know that "less diirty" is meaningfully better?

but don't you think global warming and a toxic environment would cause our grandchildren difficulties?

See above.

*sigh* I'm not even going to go into the staggering inefficacy of the war on drugs, but don't you think that having the highest incarceration rate in the developed world or the ramifications this has on poor/ethnic communities qualify as a "terrible" reprecussion?

Nope.
You commit the crime, you do the time.
Don't want to do time? Dont want to negatively affect your family/community by being in jail? Don't commit the crime.

That many people commit crimes in no way indicates that the laws defining crime needs to change.

 

[Kandahar]

I dont see any of these things as "necessary" in the context that there will be terrible reprcussions if we don't do them

Not legalizing drugs has and will continue to have terrible repercussions. The war on drugs has devastated inner cities.

 

[Goobieman]

Not legalizing drugs has and will continue to have terrible repercussions. The war on drugs has devastated inner cities.

To quote someone I know: :lol:
You commit the crime, you do the time.
Don't want to do time? Dont want to negatively affect your family/community by being in jail? Don't commit the crime.

That many people commit crimes in no way indicates that the laws defining crime needs to change.

 

[Kandahar]

To quote someone I know: :lol:
You commit the crime, you do the time.
Don't want to do time? Dont want to negatively affect your family/community by being in jail? Don't commit the crime.

That many people commit crimes in no way indicates that the laws defining crime needs to change.

Except:
1. The people committing drug crimes aren't the only ones who suffer.
2. The war on drugs leads to the rise of street gangs and turf wars.
3. The punishment is worse than the crime.
4. Getting drugs from a criminal, instead of the local gas station, means that you don't know what's in the drugs and therefore increases the number of people who die of drug overdoses.
5. Law enforcement resources can be better spent investigating and prosecuting REAL crimes.

 

[Befuddled_Stoner]

yes, the market will automatically provide for alternative fuel sources, but the market doesn't care about the difficulties or hardships the transition will be on the common american. the government should spend your tax dollars to make sure the transition as painless as possible

I'll grant that there's lots of **** in the environment, and that liberals and conservatives are merely bickering over the percentage, but there is a meaningful difference that can be measured in illness and disease of people living near environmental shitholes. (who are almost invariably poor and unlikely to be able to afford expensive medical treatment)

but if there is no victim aside from the person using the drugs, why is it classified as a crime to begin with? we allow people to imbibe alcohol, as long as they don't do something stupid that hurts others; Prohibition showed us that doing otherwise only exacerbates the societal problems resulting from alcohol use. in what ways is the war on drugs different from Prohibition, and why would this exact policy not work with other drugs that are currently illegal?

Please, don't give me that insipid platitude about doing time for committing crimes. Not when someone who commits a white-collar crime that competely ***-rapes hundreds of people gets sentenced to a few years in jail, and someone who deals a relatively benign drug such as pot gets sentenced to decades. The sentence should be proportional to the damage the crime, and the 'crime' of doing drugs (without breaking any other laws) is no worse than imbibing alcohol.

 

[The Mark]

But if there is no victim aside from the person using the drugs, why is it classified as a crime to begin with? We allow people to imbibe alcohol, as long as they don't do something stupid that hurts others; Prohibition showed us that doing otherwise only exacerbates the societal problems resulting from alcohol use. In what ways is the war on drugs different from Prohibition, and why would this exact policy not work with other drugs that are currently illegal?

Please, don't give me that insipid platitude about doing time for committing crimes. Not when someone who commits a white-collar crime that completely ***-rapes hundreds of people gets sentenced to a few years in jail, and someone who deals a relatively benign drug such as pot gets sentenced to decades. The sentence should be proportional to the damage the crime, and the 'crime' of doing drugs (without breaking any other laws) is no worse than imbibing alcohol.

You have a point. People who take drugs should not be given any penalties. The side-effects from drug use should be their punishment.

Now, while this idea about legalizing all drugs does have merit.....it just goes against many peoples idea of "what should be", for lack of a better term.

It seems however, that if drugs were legal, we would have a drastic change in the number of people smuggling drugs. There would no longer be much profit. No longer would drug dealers actively seek to addict potential customers, which would mean that less people would become addicted. No longer would armed persons use various means to smuggle drugs over the borders. No longer would firefights between rival drug dealers and/or law enforcement endanger bystanders. With no profit, persons would no longer become dealers while still in high school or sooner, which would mean that there would no longer be as many drugs in schools, fewer children would become addicted, and more children would actually learn something (maybe).
More money would stay in our country instead of going to those places where they actually grow the plants where drugs come from. Drugs would cost less to the addict, lessening thefts/fights/etc. to provide for an addiction. There would no longer be as much peer pressure from peers who are drug pushers, trying to get their peers to take drugs, so the words of parents and groups who fight drug use would have more effect.

On the opposite side, if drugs became legal, people who are already addicted would be more likely to overdose because they would be cheaper (less shipping charges). People could get addicted more easily because drugs would be cheaper (maybe?). There are more reasons (I think), but I am unable to think of them at the moment.

This, however, does not mean that drugs should be accepted. There still must be organizations, groups, etc, who fight against drug use. But if there is no longer the force of drug dealers, drug pushers, etc, pushing for drug use from the other side........we may just get rid of much of this problem.

Perhaps drugs should be legal, but drug dealers, drug pushers, people who traffic in drugs, should be illegal unless certified by the government as supplying pure drugs with no imperfections and such.

I'm not sure about this, but the current process with which we are combating drug use does not seem to be working so well.

 

[Kandahar]

On the opposite side, if drugs became legal, people who are already addicted would be more likely to overdose because they would be cheaper (less shipping charges).

Drug addicts generally know how much they need to get high and how much will kill them, and don't usually overdose just because they're able to afford more of the stuff. The main cause of drug overdoses is people not knowing exactly what they're buying, because they're buying it from shady dealers. That wouldn't be a problem if drugs were legal.

People could get addicted more easily because drugs would be cheaper (maybe?).

Maybe, maybe not. The cost of the drugs isn't the main reason most people don't use them though. If the price of cocaine dropped to $1 per ounce, I still wouldn't use it. Maybe there are people who would, but even this negative consequence certainly would not wreak as much havoc as the war on drugs has. Furthermore, it'd be easier for people to seek treatment for drug addiction because they wouldn't feel like criminals.

This, however, does not mean that drugs should be accepted. There still must be organizations, groups, etc, who fight against drug use. But if there is no longer the force of drug dealers, drug pushers, etc, pushing for drug use from the other side........we may just get rid of much of this problem.

I agree completely. There should be groups that help treat drug addicts, there should be programs educating students about the dangers of drug use (without resorting to false propaganda), and the drugs should not be available to anyone under age 18.

Perhaps drugs should be legal, but drug dealers, drug pushers, people who traffic in drugs, should be illegal unless certified by the government as supplying pure drugs with no imperfections and such.

I wouldn't have a problem with that, but I don't think it would really be much of a problem anyway if drugs were legal. No one stands on the street corner selling unpure tobacco products.

I'm not sure about this, but the current process with which we are combating drug use does not seem to be working so well.

Not at all. It is the single biggest domestic policy disaster of the last half-century, in my opinion.

 

[Goobieman]

Except:
1. The people committing drug crimes aren't the only ones who suffer.

Thats no different than any other crime.

2. The war on drugs leads to the rise of street gangs and turf wars.

Strrrt gangs and turn wars existed before drugs were made illegal. That there might be less of it if drugs were made legal doesnt create an agument for legalization. You assume they will not find something else to fight over.

3. The punishment is worse than the crime.

Because...?

4. Getting drugs from a criminal, instead of the local gas station, means that you don't know what's in the drugs and therefore increases the number of people who die of drug overdoses.

So... legalize something so criminals will be less likely to kill themselves?

5. Law enforcement resources can be better spent investigating and prosecuting REAL crimes.

Crime is crime. Enforce all the laws and prosecute all the criminals. Need more police? OK with me.

 

[Goobieman]

yes, the market will automatically provide for alternative fuel sources, but the market doesn't care about the difficulties or hardships the transition will be on the common american. the government should spend your tax dollars to make sure the transition as painless as possible

This isnt thegovernment's job.
You also assume therw wont be a reasonably smooth transition. This is a common argument when discussin old to new tech.
How did the LP > CD transition go?
How did the VHS > DVD transition go?

Remember:
The conpanies that control our energy resources before the transition will also control our energy resources after the transition -- Exxon doesnt care if it sells oil or jelly beans, so long as it makes money.

I'll grant that there's lots of **** in the environment, and that liberals and conservatives are merely bickering over the percentage, but there is a meaningful difference that can be measured in illness and disease of people living near environmental shitholes. (who are almost invariably poor and unlikely to be able to afford expensive medical treatment)

And, does the liberal standard create a meaningful increase in 'health' over the conservative standard, a benifit in line with the cost?

 

[Iriemon]

Thats no different than any other crime.

You're not contending all crime is equivalent?

Strrrt gangs and turn wars existed before drugs were made illegal. That there might be less of it if drugs were made legal doesnt create an agument for legalization. You assume they will not find something else to fight over.

Agree there is some speculation on this point. However, there was a correlation between alcohol prohibition and growth in organized crime and violence, and it is beyond doubt that drug trafficking is a huge source of revenue for organized crime.

Because...?

Because unlike, say, robbery, rape, or murder, someone smoking a joint in his house generally is not harming someone else.

So... legalize something so criminals will be less likely to kill themselves?

They are only criminals if that is how the law defines them. That is the issue, whether the law should.

Crime is crime. Enforce all the laws and prosecute all the criminals. Need more police? OK with me.

No disagreement here. Just take marajuana out of the "crime is crime" loop.

 

[Kandahar]

Thats no different than any other crime.

Actually it is. Prosecuting, say, robbery doesn't hurt anyone except the robber (and perhaps his immediate family). Fighting a war on drugs devastates entire communities and countries.

Strrrt gangs and turn wars existed before drugs were made illegal.

No. They didn't. Next?

That there might be less of it if drugs were made legal doesnt create an agument for legalization. You assume they will not find something else to fight over.

"Find something else to fight over"? Most people don't seek out fights, including criminals. If the incentive to kill other people for their drug turf didn't exist, there would be less killing. Simple as that.

Because...?

Because spending years in prison with Bubba is simply excessive punishment for doing something that harms no one.

So... legalize something so criminals will be less likely to kill themselves?

By "criminals" I was referring to the shady people who sell drugs and are typically involved in REAL crime, not the drug addicts. Drug addicts are only "criminals" because the law says they are, which is the very point being debated here.

Yes, drugs should be legalized so that addicts will be less likely to kill themselves. How is that a bad thing?

Crime is crime. Enforce all the laws and prosecute all the criminals. Need more police? OK with me.

This makes absolutely no sense. You're basically saying that drug use should be a crime because it's currently a crime.

 

[Kandahar]

This isnt thegovernment's job.
You also assume therw wont be a reasonably smooth transition. This is a common argument when discussin old to new tech.
How did the LP > CD transition go?
How did the VHS > DVD transition go?

Remember:
The conpanies that control our energy resources before the transition will also control our energy resources after the transition -- Exxon doesnt care if it sells oil or jelly beans, so long as it makes money.

The main reason for government interference in the energy sector, in my opinion, is that our dependence on oil has become a matter of national security. I agree that the economic/environmental problems will work themselves out, but the free market doesn't care about our national security. And it's simply cheaper for the government to turbo-charge the movement toward alternative energy, than to devote so many military assets to the Middle East. Once we stop using oil, we no longer have to care about the region militarily.

 

[Goobieman]

By "criminals" I was referring to the shady people who sell drugs and are typically involved in REAL crime, not the drug addicts. Drug addicts are only "criminals" because the law says they are, which is the very point being debated here.

Ah.

Malum prohibitum v malum in se.

You argue that drug use is malum prohibitum.
Why isnt it malum in se?

 

[Goobieman]

Once we stop using oil, we no longer have to care about the region militarily.

That's true - but, given that we dont know what will replace oil, might we not find the 'hot-spot' simply moved elsewhere and those assets shifted rather than recalled?

 

[Duke]

Equal marriage rights for homosexuals--

It's only common sense.

Balance the budget.

Or at least try. Harder. That is to say, once we get out of other countries and start protecting the homeland, we can cut some military spending. Or more than some.

Protect the environment through reasonable laws.

Once again, very obvious, common sense. This shouldn't be just a liberal thing to do. Everyone should save Earth.

Keep abortion legal.

What more should I say?

Withdraw from Iraq, more or less immediately.

Somewhat less immediatly, for there are a few things to be done first. For instance, I suggest we break the different religious sects in Iraq into seperate countries, so they won't be so inclined to start civil wars.


Duke

 

[Kandahar]

Ah.

Malum prohibitum v malum in se.

You argue that drug use is malum prohibitum.
Why isnt it malum in se?

Because it's a victimless crime.

 

[Kandahar]

That's true - but, given that we dont know what will replace oil, might we not find the 'hot-spot' simply moved elsewhere and those assets shifted rather than recalled?

Possibly, but I doubt it. We do have a pretty good idea of the forms of energy likely to replace oil (nuclear, solar, hydrogen, etc). Any high-tech form of energy like these will most likely be produced in "modern" countries, which tend to be much more stable than third-world countries that simply harvest natural resources like oil.

 

[Goobieman]

Because it's a victimless crime.

Really.
No one else suffers when someone does drugs.
Show this to be true,
Then show how that means drug use is not malum in se.