Explain Your Political Philosophy - Page 11 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

MattLarson · #**151** (**permalink**) 2 Weeks Ago

Right - and before "modern times" it might have had an outhouse. Congratulations! You've astutely demonstrated that before indoor plumbing, there were outhouses. What a stunning accomplishment.

I do note, though, that you don't contest the assertion that a post office does not normally encompass a research hospital.

Matt

bg85 · #**152** (**permalink**) 2 Weeks Ago

Quote:

Originally Posted by jviehe

Which public services and why? When we founded the US they did not consider public education a service to be provided by the federal govt. They left it up to individuals to decide whether they wanted education, and states to decide whether to provide it as a state service. And they were pretty smart people.

right, the founding fathers were very smart, very well educated people.

what do you think the literacy rate in the country was at that time?

by the way, states still decide whether or not they want to provide public education to their citizens. as far as i know, providing public education is not a prerequisite to becoming a state.

danielpalos · #**153** (**permalink**) 2 Weeks Ago

Quote:

Originally Posted by MattLarson

Right - and before "modern times" it might have had an outhouse. Congratulations! You've astutely demonstrated that before indoor plumbing, there were outhouses. What a stunning accomplishment.

I do note, though, that you don't contest the assertion that a post office does not normally encompass a research hospital.

Matt

The point was about infrastructure (of which post roads are one component) and its existence in modern republican forms of government.

MattLarson · #**154** (**permalink**) 2 Weeks Ago

Again, "post" pertains to mail collection, transportation and delivery. No way does a research hospital qualify.

Matt

danielpalos · #**155** (**permalink**) 2 Weeks Ago

A federal research hospital can promote and provide for the general welfare of our republic in a cost effective manner for the individual consumer of statism.

Such a system can lower the cost of more expensive procedures with more perfect knowledge of such conditions.

jviehe · #**156** (**permalink**) 2 Weeks Ago

Quote:

Originally Posted by bg85

right, the founding fathers were very smart, very well educated people.

what do you think the literacy rate in the country was at that time?

by the way, states still decide whether or not they want to provide public education to their citizens. as far as i know, providing public education is not a prerequisite to becoming a state.

Dude. You were the one who said:

"because the idea public services help everybody whether you use them directly or not...(i.e. it is in my interest for my fellow citizens to be educated whether or not i have children and it's in my interest to have well managed roads whether or not i drive on the roads)"

Im trying to get you to explain your politicial philosophy as to why thats the case, especially when people like the founders didnt consider it the case.

bg85 · #**157** (**permalink**) 2 Weeks Ago

Quote:

Originally Posted by jviehe

Im trying to get you to explain your politicial philosophy as to why thats the case, especially when people like the founders didnt consider it the case.

first of all, you have no idea what the founders would have thought about a public education system (especially a system like ours which is set up by the states, not the federal government). second of all, i explained my political philosophy in like the 3rd post of the thread. it has nothing to do with specific issues because my opinion changes on specific issues all the time. i try to bring a logical approach to politics and to keep an open mind. i believe in what's right and allowing others to live how they choose...

but you want me to explain WHY having a well educated population and good infrastructure benefits everybody? you really need that spelled out for you?

jviehe · #**158** (**permalink**) 2 Weeks Ago

Quote:

Originally Posted by bg85

first of all, you have no idea what the founders would have thought about a public education system (especially a system like ours which is set up by the states, not the federal government). second of all, i explained my political philosophy in like the 3rd post of the thread. it has nothing to do with specific issues because my opinion changes on specific issues all the time. i try to bring a logical approach to politics and to keep an open mind. i believe in what's right and allowing others to live how they choose...

but you want me to explain WHY having a well educated population and good infrastructure benefits everybody? you really need that spelled out for you?

No, I want you to explain your political philosophy that explains why you think education, or anything else you mentioned, is a service that should be provided by govt. And we do know what the founders thought. Its written in the federalist papers, the convention notes, etc. But we know their philosophy, which I happen to agree with. And when applied to education it states that the individual should be free to educate their children how they see fit, and has a right to their liberty, not to be forced to educate other peoples children. And lets go back to what we were discussing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jviehe
Ok, now why. Why should a govt provide education or roads?

and you said:

Quote:

because the idea public services help everybody whether you use them directly or not...(i.e. it is in my interest for my fellow citizens to be educated whether or not i have children and it's in my interest to have well managed roads whether or not i drive on the roads)

So now I am asking who decides and how they decide what helps everyone, and why an individual is forced to accept that.

Luap · #**159** (**permalink**) 2 Weeks Ago

Quote:

Originally Posted by jviehe

No, Im still talking about philosophy. Youre the one who brought up roads. My philosophy does not include road building, therefore I cant force you at gunpoint to build roads. On the other hand, all of our philosophies have included physical defense, therefore, no gunpoint is neccesary, since we all agree. The difference between national defense and healthcare is that people can not defend themselves against foreign armies. They can provide for their own healthcare. Now, if you in your country all want to agree that a country should provide healthcare as a service, thats fine, since you agree. We dont here, which is why they are going to force us at gunpoint.

Thats the brunt of my philosophy. If you dont all approve of govt doing something beyond it basic authorized by all powers, then it shouldnt be done. Which is exactly how our constitution was written.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jviehe

Ok, now why. Why should a govt provide education or roads? What if one person disagrees, dont want the govt taking their money and paying for education, becuase they want to spend it on educating their children themselves? What about the person who doesnt have kids? And I dont mean answer specifically, but in the terms of a general philosophy. For example, mine being individual self interest as the focus, govt shouldnt force someone to educate another.

So, essentially, a government must operate only with the consent or agreement of everyone? Unanimity? That would be ideal, I suppose, but how can one attain the agreement of 1 million, 100 million, 300 million, a billion people, practically speaking?

Perhaps I misunderstand you, but if that was how the Constitution was written, then why did it only require the ratification of 9 states at the time? And why don't amendments have to be unanimous?

Luap · #**160** (**permalink**) 2 Weeks Ago

Quote:

Originally Posted by MattLarson

It's not that complex, if you take a reasoned approach rather than trying to stretch every word in the Constitution to absurdity.

Well put.

danielpalos · #**161** (**permalink**) 2 Weeks Ago

Quote:

Originally Posted by jviehe

Dude. You were the one who said:

"because the idea public services help everybody whether you use them directly or not...(i.e. it is in my interest for my fellow citizens to be educated whether or not i have children and it's in my interest to have well managed roads whether or not i drive on the roads)"

Im trying to get you to explain your politicial philosophy as to why thats the case, especially when people like the founders didnt consider it the case.

It is reasonable when considered from the perspective of public goods and services. Those goods and services are usually non-rivalrous and non-excludable. The private sector usually cannot make a profit on goods that are non-rivalrous and non-excludable: the public commons.

jviehe · #**162** (**permalink**) 2 Weeks Ago

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luap

So, essentially, a government must operate only with the consent or agreement of everyone? Unanimity? That would be ideal, I suppose, but how can one attain the agreement of 1 million, 100 million, 300 million, a billion people, practically speaking?

Perhaps I misunderstand you, but if that was how the Constitution was written, then why did it only require the ratification of 9 states at the time? And why don't amendments have to be unanimous?

That would be ideal, but I like to think that we are operating within a unanimous agreement already. Every single state has ratified the constitution. And if we cant all agree to change it, then maybe we shouldnt. But thats a valid discussion. Perhaps the country is simply too large now. All the more reason to put less power in a single authority over 300million people, and instead put it in states of 20million, or cities of 100k, or best yet, the individual, as was intended.

There is simply no need for me to agree with 300million people as to whether we should have universal healthcare, as how I get healthcare is my decision alone. Thats capitalism anyway. Anyone who thinks they need or want a product buys it. They dont have to convince everyone to buy it for them.

danielpalos · #**163** (**permalink**) 2 Weeks Ago

Simply having recourse to public sector "institutions" of last resort could lower that cost to the private sector, promote, and provide for the general welfare of our republic and standard of living.

danielpalos · #**164** (**permalink**) 2 Weeks Ago

I think our US Constitution has too many amendments already and should be restored to its original ten amendments.

A rationale for this line of reasoning is that our US Constitution purports to be the supreme code law of the land.

Why would we need more than those morals and ethics with our more perfect Union of States?

danielpalos · #**165** (**permalink**) 2 Weeks Ago

Quote:

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the
Standard of Weights and Measures;

I think our Bill of Rights is a form of Standard of Weights and Measures concerning concerning our republican form of government. It could be considered a standard of weights and measures on civil rights. The First and Ninth Amendments provide recourse to the general government of the Union for that purpose.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode