What Is Your Political Philosophy?

What kind of work do welfare recipients do? Well the privatized companies that now get the welfare funds and run themselves, make them do 40 hours of useless activities a week, like take aptitude tests. They spend $200 in taxpayers money per person that is on welfare to buy employment readiness folders. Busy work that makes it look as though they are helping these "lazy" people become more ready to work. They show up each day of the week to do it for far far less than minimum wage. I am not saying they should not work, but is there not something more constructive that they could do.Volunteer, maybe? I know you will say get a real job, but realistically, where? If every person were taken off the welfare role tomorrow where would they all get jobs. The unemployment rate is already high, and that's just those on unemployment. I am just trying to show that it is not black and white, it is not a simple matter of the "lazy" going out and getting jobs and most people do not spend the time to learn the truth about a subject and do not try to come up with viable solutions. It is a lot easier to blame than it is to do something about a situation that has been created by American's as a whole.

 

I think they should have to work for their money. I just think that a lot of people have preconceived notions of what it is to be on welfare. I don't think they take the time to research a subject. I think there should be better things for them to do than go to 40 hours a week of classes that are led by corporations that have a monetary stake in the fact that people are no longer on welfare. It is not set up to help people get strong enough and ready for jobs. It is set up for them to fail. The government and corporations realize that not all of them can get jobs. Less people are on welfare now as before but there lives and situations are not secure enough to remain. Most people are a paycheck or two away from being these people. Something has to be done about the problem and the current situation is not working. There really are some people who take advantage of the system. This is true of any system. I just feel like people should know that is not the problem, a lot of the people are really trying to swim to the top of a pool with weights around their necks.

 

I would suggest you ponder the following. You use the term "freedom" but need to understand that "Freedom to Exercise" an Inalienable Right is different than the "Inalienable Right" itself. There is a valid argument for limiting the "Freedom to Exercise" an "Inalienable Right" which does not infringe upon the "Inalienable Right" itself.

For example our speed limit laws limit our "Freedom to Exercise" our Inalienable Right of Liberty. We can't just drive as fast as we damn well please on the public roads because doing so endangers other individuals. It does not violate our Inalienable Right of Liberty though because we can drive as fast as we want on private land. Speeds at Daytona exceed 200 mph, speeds at drag strips can exceed 300 mph, and speeds at Bonneville can exceed 600 mph. We can exercise our Inalienable Right of Liberty to drive as fast as we damn well please but only with certian venues.

Pragmatic limitations upon our Freedom to Exercise our Inalienable Rights can be imposed based upon compelling arguments where a benefit exists for society but such limitations should always be to the least extent possible to provide the benefit established by the compelling argument.

Now here is something that many minarchists tend to oppose, welfare assistance. In addressing this we allow employers to pay less than what it costs for their employee to survive. The employers have the Freedom to underpay where the employee as actually "operating at a loss" because they cannot afford the basic necessities of life based upon compensation for their labor. A compelling argument can be made that because we allow this underpayment for labor that society has a responsibility to make-up for the shortfall so the person is not subjected to starvation, not forced to live on the streets, not denied basic medical services where they could die. Because we allow employers to pay less than what it costs for their employee to survive we must provide for the shortfall when they do. It doesn't really matter if this finanical obligation is placed is "public" or "private" someone is being forced to provide for the shortfall in compensation from the employer or else these hard working people will ultimately die because they can't afford to live based upon the compensationt they receive for their labor.

Personally I'm not a statist and I believe the employer has a moral obligation to provide enough in compensation in wages/benefits to meet at least the basic necessities of their employees but unfortunately many employers have no moral principles and don't. So how do we address the "immorality" of employers that don't provide adequate compensation in wages/benefits for the fundmental necessities of their employees? The enterprise (employer) is operating at a profit while the employee providing the labor is operating at a loss. Obviously something is wrong so what do we do about it is the key question.

 

I totally agree!

I believe in states rights, and some should be restored.

We should not be the world's policeman, but we should have a strong defense and defend our country's liberties. We could close half of the overseas posts, increase the number of troops here, and have a stronger defense. We could and should use some troops to seal our borders from illegals.

The UN should be kicked out of the US, and we should have a limited relationship with limited financial support.

 

what's a sticky?

I am a Republican

but not one of those who criticizes people like... those on Disability. I am sure there are people on disability who actually can work. Even a person in a wheelchair can do some things, so, i am not saying they can't or shouldn't work. But i wouldn't say they had to work full time or work certain jobs.

sometimes on FOX News, some of the commentators act like everyone on Disability or some other entitlement (food stamps) is a leech.

and yet some of those commentators are Catholic.

the Church teaches that all humans are made in the image of God, their lives are SACRED

even if they are needy (or think they are... "As a man thinketh, so is he" (Proverbs?).
I think i u/stand what the pope is trying to say about "income inequality." He is not against capitalism, but GREED... and the notion that those who have $$ are better than the poor... and let's face it, most of us think that way unless and until we stop and put a check on such thinking

etc... etc..

2 finish answering the Q

Life begins @ the beginning (conception); there should be NO legalized abortion (except to remove ectopic pregnancies, where both mother & child would die if the baby were not removed... but why should the baby removed be killed? Can't it be implanted in the womb?)

In a perfect world, i would be a perfect Republican/Lilbertarian

but it is not a perfect world. The Rs seem to forget that, it seems.

I know one person who is really messed up, got every problem in the book: poor, rejected by "family" and etc... and also has this other problem: someone is trying to destroy this person's life (stalker). This person has put Finding a permanent job on hold right now because other concerns have (UNDERSTANDABLY) taken precedence..

In the extreme R world, that person is called "a bum".

easy for rich people who have "everything" to say...

 

Fortunately for the Nordic Model, Capitalism works well for them. Their Capitalism has deep social programs but it is funded totally by Capitalism and redistributed by choice of the people.

Thomas Paine wrote, in Agrarian Justice, about a small new society and economy and in that small new society the concept of land rent by itself was enough to sustain minimum government. In a modern, mature, large and developed society economy it takes many more units of money to sustain government at all level, and since land rent is insufficiently progressive (in spite of what some say) to be fair taxation. Probably the most fair tax of all is a one tax system of very progressive income tax which claims taxes even from the rich who chose not to occupy land of consequence.

 

We are in complete agreement. The borders should be sealed. We will be the first most powerful nation the Earth has ever seen to be completely invaded and overtaken without a single shot being fired or anyone seeming to care. Rome fell from within. Pretty sad when our fellow citizens don't even care enough that people walk across our borders bringing long eradicated diseases back to infect our children. Remember when parent used to care if their children diseases?

 

Why would you do that, when your industry invites illegals in to do the jobs you won't. I suppose if you want to pay lettuce pickers minimum wage, and don't mind paying $15 for a head of lettuce, sealing the border makes great sense.

But if your motivation for closing the border it to save tax dollars, every tax dollar you saved on care for illegals, would be lost three times over in farm subsidize.

Perhaps you think illegals are stealing American jobs. Nope I think Outsourcing is doing that.

Maybe you shouldn't close the borders to illegals, but to cheap chinese shiot making its way to Wall Mart.

 

Strong liberal, having a strong centralized government to handle countries affairs. Domestic policy-making should not be handled by individual states, but instead by a larger government entity. We also need to protect entitlement programs and integrity of voting.

 

That's a debunked argument. It was disproven here in New Bedford MA, they busted a factory employing illegals and when it opened up again American Citizens were lined up around 4 city blocks for days applying for the jobs leftists say no one wanted to do. Illegals are a parasite on our society. They violate our laws, commit violent crimes and bring one eradicated diseases back into our country.

 

I believe in a benevolent dictatorship. The people are too dumb to vote for what is best for them.

Certainly Plato's vision of a Republic, as adopted by the United States, has been a huge failure.

So you may as well go with Plato's other plan.

p.s. Forgive my bold type I have poor eyesight even with the screen expanded.

 

Either the goverment must controll everything, meaning full out police state or else we must be set entierly free from goverment.

 

I can sympathise with this. Put mathematicians in charge of everything.

 

Just so happens that politicians and intellectuals are kinda (*)(*)(*)(*)ing dumb as well, so giving them absolute power would just make it worse. There is no one person, or group, which can possibly know all that needs be known to run a country in detail, which is why the power should be split between all.

 

Yep, couldn't have said it any better.

Seems like stupid people who suggest being ruled over by some mythical notion of a "benevolent dictatorship", are their own worse advocates.

 

Supply side economics should be supplying us with better governance at lower cost.

 

No no no, not you again..

 

I'm a Christian Republican.

 

Still, only non sequiturs for your Cause.

 

Non sequitur is a fancy word to throw around, but it makes you look stupid if you do it wrong.

 

Good thing I tend to resort to the fewest fallacies for my Cause.

 

my philosophy is that there's 10x too many people on this Earth, and that overpopulation causes 99% of life's problems.

 

If I were to place myself on a spectrum I would say I am more center-right. I believe in limited government run by the people. I believe in capitalism that is not obstructed by ridiculous government oversight. I have a hint of American Nationalism, but not enough to blindly follow everything my government does. I believe in peace through force, the only way to get rid of a bad guy is to blow them up. I am an ardent supporter of the right to bear arms. I would also say I am a prohibitionist. I think recreational drugs and alcohol should be illegal (except tobacco). I also believe God has a place in government, and I use history to back that up. Atheist leaders include Mao Tsedong, Josef Stalin, Pol Pot, and Ho Chi Minh. All evil murderers.

 

According to the Bible, the worst mass murderer of humanity was Jehovah, Itself. Religious wars of all sorts, between all sorts of religions have caused more deaths than any other conflicts. Theology in Government was legitimately considered undesirable by the founding fathers of the US, not that they were necessarily glowing examples of men holding strong ethical attitudes, considering how many were slave-owners.

As an outsider looking in it astounds me that the people of the US can get so vehement towards each other over the political differences of the Democrat and Republican parties. Personally, again as an outsider, I really do not see much significant difference between the two!

Yours seems a country of divides. You appear to demand strong individual liberties, but they only seem to be given to the worst in your society, allowing them to carry around appalling weaponry until AFTER they have used it on innocents. As long as your security services don't classify them as terrorists, which seems to be anyone that protests how suppressive they have become. And yet doesn't seem to include themselves despite the multiple acts of terrorism they perform daily in large parts of the world.

The only people outside of the USA that consider you to be the World's police are politicians wanting to suck up to you. Everybody else considers you to be bullys using your economic and military power to push everyone else around and plunder everyone else's resources.

I was in a pub in London in the 1980s and had a congenial chat with an American in his mid 20s (about my age at the time) where after a while he asked me why everyone seemed to hate Americans. He had been travelling around Europe for several months and, quite legitimately in my opinion, developed that opinion. Seemingly, I was one of the first people he had come across since leaving the US to actually treat him as a person so hoped I would answer him honestly. I did. I and everyone else my age had grown up in a world where we expected the US and USSR to destroy us, without our having any say in the matter or any power to stop it. US citizens bore the brunt because they were supposedly our allies, but we disliked the Russians just as much! I am now 53, my generation tends to dominate political influence in every country and I consider it highly unlikely that that personal experience and powerless expectation has no influence in political interactions with the US, or the Russian Federation for that matter.

 

Wouldn't want to be to hard on you, but you're 99% wrong.