What is your Political Ideology?

[GenSeneca]

the role of government in a society is to establish a framework in which citizens can enjoy the rights afforded to them by that society. Therefore, in the United States, the government should protect the rights enumerated by the Constitution

Just to be clear, the 9th amendment states that not all our rights are enumerated in the constitution and bill of rights, so:

Is it your view that our rights were granted by the constitution, that is, created by law?

Is society free to create new rights not previously enumerated?

 

[BigRob]

Just to be clear, the 9th amendment states that not all our rights are enumerated in the constitution and bill of rights, so:

Is it your view that our rights were granted by the constitution, that is, created by law?

I believe there are certain rights that ought to be universal, however I think that such an opinion is totally irrelevant if such rights are not prescribed within a legal framework.

While our rights might have been inherent or created outside of the law, without the law, they are mostly meaningless and unenforceable.

Is society free to create new rights not previously enumerated?

Yes. Our society is allowed to change the Constitution, and the law, should we desire it.

 

[GenSeneca]

Yes. Our society is allowed to change the Constitution, and the law, should we desire it.

Can we do so outside of Constitutional amendments? For example, hospitals are required by law to treat anyone that shows up, essentially creating a right to health care without the need for a Constitutional amendment.

 

[Pandora]

Pandora and ASPCA,

Thank you both for answering the first group of questions, these next two questions are not multiple choice but should be the last two questions I need (your answers may require me to ask follow ups for clarity). Please answer in your own words and think of it as "in a perfect world" scenario, that is, what do you see as the ultimate goal of each:

1. What is governments role in society?

2. What is the individuals role in society?

Please be specific. For example, if you think governments role should be to promote equality, you need to specify what type of equality and to what extent.

Dogtowner, I still need you to clarify your answers from earlier but feel free to add your answers to those with these two questions in your reply.

I will work on it tonight it should not take long.

 

[BigRob]

Can we do so outside of Constitutional amendments?

Yes, assuming such laws do not expressly violate the Constitution.

For example, hospitals are required by law to treat anyone that shows up, essentially creating a right to health care without the need for a Constitutional amendment.

Well.. is a law automatically a right? Does this mean I have the "right" to pay X dollars in taxes every year?

While I think "rights" have to be codified within a legal framework to have any relevance, I would not be prepared to say that every law is automatically a "right."

So while you might have the legal grounds to get healthcare in the situation you describe until the law is otherwise altered, I do not think such a law creates an inherent "right" to healthcare.

If this does not make any sense, let me know and I will try it again in the morning.

 

[Pandora]

1. What is governments role in society?

Federal


The federal government is broken down into 3 branches, Judicial, Legislative and Executive.

Their job is to make and enforce federal laws as needed. An example would be, When the founders were first framing our Nation we did not need the FDA but we do now.

There should be some laws in place to protect the nation and its citizens. Other than this the federal governments jobs is to protect and maintain our borders, main roads and ports with our military. We also need a space program to keep up with other country’s and the federal government is who we look to for this.

The only money people should be taxed for are the things above (and what ever obvious thing I missed) The people should pay taxes for the salary of the Federal government employees like the President and his cabinet staff, military personal exc.

If this is how the federal government worked, we would all be paying far less taxes to them. I am ok with the federal government promoting equality in the way that we have no slavery and we can not say this bathroom for whites only or not letting people have signs like Mexicans and dogs keep off the grass. But I do think they go to far, fed and state when they make special rights for some over others. Example. If someone throws a brick in the window of the guy next door he is out of luck, he is a white guy and would have to go tomorrow to file a complaint with the police department. I am Native American and all I have to say is I am a minority and they will come to my house for me to file my compliant. Equal protection under the law should apply to the white guy who lives next to me.

I suppose the SS office and IRS but I would like to see both abolished personally. I think we should tax on what we spend, not on what we earn. If we tax on what we spend even the hookers and drug dealers pay taxes and it gives you the incentive to work and save instead of spend.

I suppose the federal government has to control/back banks, it sucks and I don’t like it but I don’t know of any other way to make sure the peoples money is secure.

And the federal government has no rights to sign us up for world wide climate change crap that will make our people give to other countries and reduce our peoples ability to do business.

State

States/cities should be responsible for state police, city police, fire departments courts and things like that.

Hospitals, DMV and schools could be run by the private sector with restrictions and guidelines from the State/Federal level of government.

States have states rights, each state can be as socialist as they want to or not.

I think all congressmen, senators should be paid by the state and only by the state. If you want your senator to have a raise, your state can give it to them but we should not be taxing everyone in the country to pay the salary for a senator from another state.

If states want to pay for schools then let them. Let them tax the people, if they think the schools need more money tax the people some more. If states want a free lunch and free breakfast program then let them tax the citizens of that state.

States should be responsible for their own foster parent programs and department of human services instead of relying on the federal government.

People have the ability to move to another state if their state becomes a socialist nightmare, we don’t have the ability to leave our country.

Also, the people will have an easier time keeping an over taxing state in check than they would an over taxing federal government.

If a state wants a state wide health care then let the states tax for it, if they want food stamps and welfare then let them tax for it. If people are willing to put up with it they will stay in that state, if not they will move.

There will be extra money to tax the people if the Feds only take what they need for the main purpose of our government. If it works out great then every state will want to do it. People can at least move from state to state if their state goes socialist crazy.



2. What is the individuals role in society?

Its up to me and you and everyone to do the rest. If we want trash service start a business, if we want mail we should do it via private industry. Even the city building code planner could be run by a private business under State/Federal guidelines.

Necessity is the mother of invention and we need the government out of our way so that we can stop relying on the tit of the fed/states and actually need for things and then find ways to make business/jobs to give us the things we need.


ok blast away

I am sure I have missed more than a few important things but this is what I came up with

 

[ASPCA4EVER]

Originally Posted by BigRob Yes. Our society is allowed to change the Constitution, and the law, should we desire it.

Can we do so outside of Constitutional amendments? For example, hospitals are required by law to treat anyone that shows up, essentially creating a right to health care without the need for a Constitutional amendment.

OOPS...as a matter of FACT no they are not. That's why the Hilburton Act was inacted; if any hospital applies for and gets federal grant money for research/expansion/development then they are by law required to open their doors to any and all who ask/need medical care {4 years}...but not so privatized hospitals. Check your states listing for hospitals that are on that list...each hospitals are mandated to post a sign at all entrances stating that they are providing care according to the Hilburton Act.

 

[ASPCA4EVER]

I must ask a few follow ups for clarity.
Would you prefer a flat tax on income at the federal level or the current progressive income tax?

I believe that I stated FEDERAL FLAT TAX based on my earnings {so that would make the IRS a defunct organization or make them change into a downsized accounting office/auditors to over see that the gross income tax with-holdings were being submitted correctly by any and all employers/self employed people as well}.

By local do you mean privately owned, publicly owned, or both?

My local city handles the water/sewer and should continue to do that so that the state/federal guidelines are being met and kept up todate. My trash removal is billed on my water bill and any and all increases have to be voted on by the city council after a public meeting and a review of the services that we pay for.

Privately owned telephone companies and hospitals should be paid by the state through taxes, or they should be publicly owned and funded through taxes?

Out here in BFE we suffer from so many of the locally owned MOM & POP privatized phone companies that have kept their specific locations locked into the antiquated rotary dialed phone systems and then they have their specific areas black out from cellular phone service that it has created dead cell phone areas that are not only dangerous but keeps the customer locked into their tyrannical billing and old equipment. My basic phone service cost me $45.00 each and every month and that doesn't include my long distance phone calls or my long distance basic service and anywhere and everywhere I call out side of my city limits is LONG DISTANCE, so an average phone bill around here will run you approx. $80. a mth.

Certainly, take all the time you like.

One last thing, you didn't mention the courts in local, state or federal responsibilities of government. I'm going to presume that was simply an oversight on your part and you think they are a legitimate function of government unless of course you state otherwise.

Our Judicial System needs a thorough overhauling/revamping and that alone well need some serious thought. Allowing each and every state to establish/mandate their specific penal guidelines for their state has caused many a convoluted miss-matched adjudicated system: for everything from child custody/adoptions/marriage licenses/who can marry/where they can get married/who can officiate the ceremony/property settlements/cost for divorce/what blood test should be taken prior to marriage and then there's the huge volume of drug offenses and the time that offenders can be given according to the number of times that they've been brought up on charges Kansas did not vote for the 3 strikes and you are out ruling so we have become the meth/crack-cocaine cesspool for most of the surrounding other states...come to Kansas and just keep working the system cause you won't be going away for life {revolving door}. And all of the judicial laws need to be uniform all across this country...it shouldn't be different from one state to another on how a case would be tried/adjudicated and then the limits to time served are as varied as the laws that have been written to keep people honest. OVER HAUL IT ALL is my DREAM and make it uniformly concurrent from border to border!

 

[GenSeneca]

OOPS...as a matter of FACT no they are not.

Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act

 

[GenSeneca]

I believe that I stated FEDERAL FLAT TAX

I just had to be sure, this is the first time I've heard you support the flat tax.

Out here in BFE we suffer from.... locally owned MOM & POP privatized phone companies

I'll take that as a vote for publicly owned and funded through taxes.

Our Judicial System needs a thorough overhauling/revamping and that alone well need some serious thought.

That was an excellent contribution, very specific and helpful, thank you.

 

[GenSeneca]

ok blast away

Thank you, that was very specific and well thought out, it will be very helpful.

 

[GenSeneca]

Yes, assuming such laws do not expressly violate the Constitution.

That's never stopped them before!

Well.. is a law automatically a right?

I'm going to risk derailing the subject to explain why I think such laws establish a right: Laws that guarantee an individual (or group) to be provided with a product or service at the public expense necessarily establishes a "positive right", regardless of whether or not its explicitly referred to as being a right.

So, its possible to pass laws that create positive "rights" without actually amending the constitution... Which is why I had to ask, I want to be specific for accuracy.

If this does not make any sense, let me know and I will try it again in the morning.

It was very helpful, thank you.

 

[ASPCA4EVER]

Originally Posted by ASPCA4EVER OOPS...as a matter of FACT no they are not.

Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act

Nice Wikipedia article...but that's not what goes out out here in the land of 'John Q. Public' and one of the main reasons that the Hill-Burton Act was generated; hospital do and are currently cherry picking the admits for 'ANY Services' and with the Hill-Burton Act they are mandated because of the grants/funds that they have obtained to supply 'free services for 20 years'. It's the primary reason that this Act was generated...private/non-profits were buying up a lot of the local hospitals and using them as specific surgery centers and then the local areas were without any emergency services and the ambulances were having to transport the injured patient farther away and casualties started piling up at the nearest County Hospital that cannot 'cherry pick' and has to accept any and all transfers...ergo the Hill-Burton Act was established to prevent this from taking place for hospitals that had received grant monies for: R & D/ New Improved Equipment / building expansions.

Ambulance still get told when/where to transport to other facilities when the patient is indigent...My son is a paramedic and this goes on all around this great USA! Just as well as patient dumping...just because Wikipedia says there is a law doesn't mean that the 'LAW' gets followed to the true letter!

And now you know the rest of the story for WHY I SUPPORT A fully/complete government funded/back major medical health care reform bill...it's about time that we made the matter of good health care something besides; if you have the money you'll get good quality treatment/surgeries...if you don't then you are SCREWED and you won't be treated like a HUMAN!

 

[GenSeneca]

just because Wikipedia says there is a law doesn't mean that the 'LAW' gets followed to the true letter!

I said only that there was a law, and there is, not that it was strictly adhere to by all hospitals, because it isn't.

 

[GenSeneca]

Its taken some time because I wanted to report my findings for everyone at once but I needed to consider each one individually and that has taken a couple days.

-----------

ASPCA: Third Way Centrist - Some of the notable names associated with this ideology are Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, FDR and (please don't flip out) Benito Mussolini. My own description, based simply on the philosophical and ideological foundations, would be Progressive Pragmatism.

The Third Way rejects both laissez-faire and socialist approaches to economic governance, but chiefly stresses technological development, education, and competitive mechanisms to pursue economic progress and governmental objectives. One of its central aims is to protect the modern welfare state through reforms that maintain its economic integrity.

Despite the label "Centrist" Third Way is a Progressive ideology. The left believes they are not progressive enough and should embrace social democracy, while the right believes they are too progressive. Third Way centrists do not necessarily promote compromise between left and right so much as they hold the "Radical Center" while promoting a populist agenda.

-----------

BigRob: Pragmatic Republican Conservative - Oddly enough, the only famous person that I can find who has such a blend of views was a Democrat, Grover Cleveland. Also, the Republican part, is in reference to Republicanism the ideology, not the party. Republicanism and Classical Liberalism are said to be the guiding principles of our founders, so you're certainly in good company there.

-----------

Dogtowner: Pragmatic Conservative Libertarian - Ronald Reagan is probably the best known person to hold this particular blend of ideologies and I think you're already well versed on his life and works.

You stated that you were a Conservative Libertarian before you answered any questions, so I was very curious to see if your answers would lead me to the same conclusion and with the exception of pragmatism, they did.

-----------

Pandora: Libertarian Conservative - Going over your philosophical leanings, one person stood out above all others. If you have never read or heard anything from him, I think you should check out Barry Goldwater:

Ron Paul would certainly qualify as a Libertarian Conservative but his level of Classical Liberalism far exceeds your own, so while you would probably agree with many of his views, you would likely find a few to be unacceptable.

-----------

Pragmatism was a lot more common that I was expecting but I really shouldn't have been surprised given its popularity in modern culture. Most people, left and right, see pragmatism as a "common sense" approach to politics so both sides embrace it to a greater or lesser extent.

Personally, I disagree strongly with Pragmatism because I see it as calling for the abandonment of all other ideological principles to focus on achieving whatever goal has been set. To put it another way, strict pragmatism is the ideology of "the ends justifies the means" and I find that objectionable.

Of course, PLC1 (Pragmatic, Libertarian, Conservative) strongly disagrees with my assessment of the ideology. He believes Pragmatism to be simply whatever is practical, he sees it as a "whatever works" ideology.

Because of such disagreements over the philosophical basis (my view) vs. the application (PLC's view) of Pragmatism, it can be somewhat of a wild card in political philosophies. For example, if there were a PLC2, the two Pragmatic Libertarian Conservatives would disagree on a number of issues due to the pragmatists view of what constitutes "practical" as being entirely subjective.