Previous 11 - 20 Next
As a political philosopher, I can tell you that conservatism is a failure in academia because it's not where the problem is. Libertarian philosophy properly harnessed individual ambition (capitalism), political ambition (rep. democracy) and foreign ambition (with a strong defense forcing negotiation). The big confusion now is what to do with collective ambition. The pure libertarian / conservative answer is that collective ambition is dangerous, so it should be outlawed by the constitution and is! But the reality is, collective ambition unavoidably exists and must be structured. The answer is to force collective ambition to counteract itself via a reform called Cap and Prioritize.
What will come next is "cap-and-prioritize" based on Oregon's 20-year history of prioritizing Medicaid spending. The cap will end the era of entitlement because it will force congress to argue priorities instead of making promises. By actually prioritizing the budget, the transparency will force government to pursue both fairness (social justice/equal opportunity) and results. This unites the conservative definitions of ''safety net" and "equal opportunity" with the progressive definitions of "social justice" and "fairness".
The solution is school choice. School choice would not only allow schools to compete over education quality, it would also allow schools to compete over security policy. Then, when an incident like this happens, nobody would be arguing about one-size-fits-all-government-mandates... they would be deciding (in a free market) what level of protection is right for them. And if (god forbid) it happened at their school, it would be understood as part of life (which evil, unfortunately, is).
It's the tax powers in the constitution (as amended) that are out of control, not Robert -- and only we-the-people can fix them.
The court has a history of saying "Hey voters -- you asked for this, you fix it." This opinion is simply the court's way of saying "If you don't like taxes, don't vote for politicians who raise your taxes." Roberts drew a very clear line. He said the federal government has the power to tax any group of people it wants in order to incentivize them one way or another. Ok... so now our quest is clear... if we don't like this power of government, we have to limit (re-limit) government via a constitutional amendment.
In response to:

A Political Glossary: Part III

MadisonLives Wrote: Jun 29, 2012 7:31 AM
I take it you mean the impoverished in America today.. if so, you make an interesting point. The trend line for humanity is UP and yet we are never satisfied, are we? Our founding fathers gave us a safe, stable, wealthy society and what do we want? We want more... we want social-justice -- or some of us do. And they have the right to vote. And politicians have a blank check. The solution, therefore, is to OWN social justice not fight it. We don't like THEIR definition of social justice? ok... but then what is ours? and is ours viable in the real world? Madison was a REALIST. If he were alive today, I bet he would say "It is clear to me now, benevolence in government is unavoidable. It must therefore be made to counteract itself."
In response to:

A Political Glossary: Part III

MadisonLives Wrote: Jun 29, 2012 7:13 AM
Milton Friedman once said there's all the difference in the world between B & C voting for D to help A, and B,C & D voting to help A. The former is tyranny. The latter is compatible with "equality of opportunity" and therefore liberty. So yes, we ARE paying for cosmic injustice and we should. But we are not doing it right. We need a flat tax or fair tax so we are all paying the same rate. And then we vote together to help those worse off. And we help them by prioritizing publicly the budget we have so the budget (a) cannot be corrupted and (b) will help those who need help most and (c) will help in ways that produce results and (d) will creatively-destroy ineffictive programs and (e) therefore contantly improve. Cap and prioritize.
In response to:

A Political Glossary: Part III

MadisonLives Wrote: Jun 29, 2012 7:06 AM
Various political-left regimes HAVE tried to kill all the "greedy" people -- (e.g. every communist dictator) -- their societies still didnt work. No liberty-centric regime has ever tried to kill all the "generous" people. We just want to be left alone. The problem, again, is the right to vote. Voting gives "generosity" the power to take and give. Libertarians like to say "hey that's not ethical" or "we have a republic not a democracy" -- but those are such WIMPY arguments!!! The benevolent dictator of any democracy is the tyranny of the bell curve. What libertarians miss is that the tyranny of the bell curve is can be used to fight the tyranny of social-justice if only social-justice is allowed WITHIN LIMITS. Cap and prioritize.
In response to:

A Political Glossary: Part III

MadisonLives Wrote: Jun 28, 2012 11:58 PM
So you are sayIng "people should" vote libertarian? Or at least conservative? Don't you see that you are making the same mistake progressives make, but from a different context?
In response to:

A Political Glossary: Part III

MadisonLives Wrote: Jun 28, 2012 11:55 PM
Ideal cap is to freeze entitlement spending / social spending until in balance, then allow it to grow by population plus inflation. This maintains purchasing power per capita (after balance) while shrinking gov as a percentage of economy. In time this reduces tax burden greatly. Not worried about near term deficits IF there is an air tight cap
In response to:

A Political Glossary: Part III

MadisonLives Wrote: Jun 28, 2012 11:52 PM
This is precisely why we have to force progressives to fight about priorities instead of promises. The first step to both social justice and limited government is agreeing about how much to spend so we can fight about how well to spend. If agreement forces gov to shrink on avg as a percentage of our economy then everyone wins except the greedy.
Previous 11 - 20 Next