>>31
"Well, the gist of your post is the gist I have amassed over the admittedly slim period of my life devoted to politics. So why call yourself a conservative, when you are essentially a liberal (opposed to the general socialist position of the left)?"
There isn't an alternative. I certainly wouldn't vote for a moderate... I think one idea is more or less right, and one idea is more or less wrong.
Communism/socialism have been tried, and failed miserably. Capitalism has been tried, and aside from a few nasty side effects (such as environmental damage) it's been a shining success. Most of the standard of living we enjoy in the United States today is largely due to the Capitalism we've had in the past.
I've taken several political tests that test my position on various issues. With everything factored in, I'm a pretty radical libertarian that 'leans' slightly conservative, largely due to my stand on immigration & national sovereignty, crime and punishment, and gun rights. (I favor stronger border security, national sovereignty, and don't want the U.N. or similar international organizations to have any control whatsoever over the United States, our states within the U.S., or myself as an individual.) The reason for this is simple, and it has nothing to do with the reasons many other conservatives give for their support of these measures.
Part of it is also because I simply don't want a larger, more centralized government, and I don't like bureaucrats or politicians who push me around via legislation, telling me I can use this drug but not that one, own this gun but not that one, have sex with this person but not that one, get married to this person but not that one, etc.
"The single reason I can not turn libertarian here and now is my worry regarding the interaction between a country's system, it's culture and the people."
I'm not sure exactly what you are saying. Are you suggesting the laws and things that are 'allowed' in a country are conducive to certain behaviors? The way I view things is that the government enforces it's laws on the people via use of force (government guns). Not only do I have philosophical qualms with trying to use violence and force unnecessarilly to 'convert' other people to conform to what I think is right, I simply don't like being pushed around myself. I oppose seat belt laws for many of the same reasons I oppose laws concerning sex between consenting adults. It's just more pointless, unecessary laws, and moreover, what you do in areas like this should be entirely up to you.
What do I care if some guy is smoking pot in the basement? What do I care if a homosexual decides to get married? What do I care if a guy decides to own a firearm? On the contrary, it WILL end up costing me more tax money if all these things are illegal. Social policy is something I simply am not willing to compromise on at the moment. The libertarian party is the only party that supports all personal freedoms, and that's reason enough to support them right there. The dems and repubs are both for some personal freedoms, but not others. This isn't acceptable to me, and I won't compromise on these issues. I want gays to be able to get married just like anyone else. I want to be able to own firearms. I want the right to use drugs. Will I choose to exercise all these rights? Maybe not, but I want them. Just because I support drug legalization for ex., doesn't mean I'm going to go out and get high once it happens.
"Would a laissez-faire system automatically produce the virtues -neccesary for it's own sustainability- in the people reigned by said system?"
Definitely up for debate. I'm not sure, but it doesn't matter for the reasons I'll state later in this response. Keep in mind though, with freedom comes responsibility, and freedom encourages responsibility.
"Would immoral businesses, having hypothetically lost their political power in the transition to laissez-faire capitalism, really allow themselves to come under consumer scrutiny at the expense of profit? Doubtful."
What could they do to stop it?
"Then again, there are some books that dispel many myths about capitalism (automatic turn towards monopoly et al.), and I promise you I'll read that to get more detail."
I haven't read many of them. Still, I support the libertarian social policy, and many of their economic policies. The country needs change, and the government is inefficient, annoying (tries to control my life), bureaucratic, and needs to be downsized.
"This is the crux; thanks to globalization, both countries will probably experience more freedom, more equality and a better respect for human rights, but at what cost, and for whom?"
Globalization is one of the things about capitalism I find questionable. I really don't know what to tell you. It's good that they are finally getting political freedom and such, but I don't really like everything I see from the globalization scene either. Speaking in terms of economics, I'm pretty frightened by the trade deficit, and the idea that I might not be able to find work someday due to the loss of jobs in the american manufacturing dept. due to cheap labor overseas and globalization. I'm still thinking about this, but as far as internal capitalism, or internal socialism, my mind has long been made up in favor of the former.
"There is smog over the cities, the rivers run black and then there are the dam projects that force thousand away from their homes due to politicians ever so eager to please foreign investors."
Probly true, but our government pollutes a hell of a lot more than our industries do, as does the Chinese government. Downsizing seems like a good idea, keeping this in mind.
"300 million Chinese have been raised over the poverty level, yet they still rely on the same illegitimate fundaments as before."
What do you mean by this?
"Putting limits on these budding capitalist changes (unions, environmental regualtions, worker rights) would possibly slow the increase in life improvement, but now it seems as if so many people are getting a bum deal anyway, the only difference now is that there are less resources for them and the air smells worse."
I'm pro-union, and I'm a libertarian. Libertarians are for the rights of workers to unionize and strike so long as they don't cause direct physical harm to others in the process. (Hands off social policy, remember?)
As for the environmental stuff, you should have a look at the various libertarian solutions to the environmental problems. They are there. Maybe not to everything, but to some things. Carbon taxes, gas taxes, etc. Just read around, it's there.
Here's a sample:
http://www.holisticpolitics.org/GlobalWarming/
"Lastly, contemporary conservatism is nothing to settle for if you want better economies."
Sure, but the way I see it, I DO want the right to own a gun, and I intend to exercise it. If guns are banned, confiscated, restricted, or made illegal, it will directly effect me.
If the right makes abortion illegal, bans stem cell research, or passes laws preventing gay people from getting married, however bad it is, or how much I disagree with it, it will not directly effect my life.
The gun issue is still the one that most directly effects ME. For these reasons, as well as the ones stated above, I'd rather align myself with a "conservative" candidate than a liberal, though I'm still certainly more a libertarian than anything else.
"The American right and the evangelicals in particular couldn't give two shits about the "self-made man". The majority of American politics cater only to the top two-fifths of the population"
If you are talking about corruption and sweetheart deals, see post below - it's not just the right, and it's not just the left.
"the right pretends as if the money moving upwards is a natural effect of the unrestrained market (they are the ones doing that)."
It's not just them. The left is in on it too. Did you read the article I posted here recently about foreign aid? Cheney himself profits from the whole operation. Government programs in general, both the Wars waged by the right, and the foreign aid supported by the democrats not only don't help the foreign poor, they help the rich here, and continue to harm and oppress the foreign poor in the very systems that, I believe, encourage poverty.
http://www.netnomad.com/might.html
Meanwhile, the funds that are procured to support these ideas, from both the right, and the left, are taxed out of the middle and lower class' already tight pockets, and funneled right down into the corporations with whom Cheney and the various government officials are tied. No doubt they are getting paid off to do all this..
The only party that proposes a solution to all this is the libertarian party.
"I would probably side with the libertarians if they were aware of their limitations, but until then I am not ashamed of settling for the left."
LOL! Dude, many people who support gun rights, and various other things are saying the exact same things.
Republican Gun Rights View:
"Well, I don't much like the republicans, but they are for gun rights, and the dems are taking them away, so I'll just vote republican."
Democrat Gay Rights View:
"Well, I don't much like the democrats and their socialism, gun control, corruption, etc, but they are for 'gay rights' so I'll just settle for the democrats."
What you end up doing is pitting one freedom against another, and people are just getting more and more pissed off, and hopping on either side, making the two stronger, and the libertarians end up weaker.
The sad thing is that many people from both of the major two end up voting for one of the big two, even though they more or less support the libertarians moreso than the main two, but vote for the main two because they think the libertarians will never win. The more people who continue to do this, the more this viewpoint is perpetuated.
This is fucking up the USA. Take a look at the constitution. No matter who wins, we are going to lose some freedom, and I have a healthy amount of doubt that the next administration and government isn't going to roll back the infringements and ridiculous laws and violations of personal freedom and constitutional rights.
"I am very much ready to change my mind though. You've come across as smart, maybe you can offer me a few links or resources apart from those you've already offered (Rand fails as a philosopher, I've gathered, but I respect her for her strength and devotion)."
Have you read her stuff? Well, whatever, I'll just list you a handful of books I read & liked.
1984
Atlas Shrugged
The Fountainhead
Animal Farm
Anthem
There's more I guess. I finished Animal Farm today. Good critique of Stalinism, but I didn't like that Orwell implied that Socialism could work and work better had they just had a different set of rulers.
Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Even if the leaders of the socialist government were not corrupt to begin with, such a system would corrupt them.
Likewise, in the mixed economy we have now in which the govt is so easilly bought out by big money and big corporations, the risk of corruption is just as high - if not higher.
Another thing to consider, just take a look at history. We've already tried big-government, and look how well that worked out. Comparatively, capitalism has a much better track record.
Another link I just came across recently that you might* be interested in:
http://www.holisticpolitics.org/Corporations/Work.php
There's several pages of it.
Finally, regarding laissez-faire sustainability, and the 'radical' economic views of the libertarians..
This is something I've been hearing a LOT from people on this board. You are all frightened of the libertarians because they are all supposedly so radical. For one thing, moderate libertarians exist.
If you support most or a lot of what they are saying, there is absolutely no reason not to vote for them.
Keep in mind, the republicans, democrats, and other parties and the people who vote for them will still exist to balance out the more or less 'extreme' views of the libertarian party, and so you don't have to worry.
Even if, for example, we had a libertarian president...
He would still depend on having a libertarian dominated congress, and a libertarian dominated senate to get his legislation through.
Look how rare it is even for just a simple republican or democratic majority to take place in all areas of government. It's really quite rare.
The point being: don't worry about libertarian extremism. Even supposing the libertarians managed to get a majority, you probly wouldn't see much more than:
Taxes lowered slightly more than under a republican admin.
A more sensible foreign policy
Less foreign aid
marijuana legalization (but not the harder drugs..)
some gun restrictions and regulations rolled back (but still having background checks and other similar type legislation)
etc...
Point being, even though the libertarian candidate may WANT to legalize all drugs, he is still dependent upon all the other branches of government, and the candidates in them to get his wishes.
As a result from this, the most he'd be able to do is take a far more moderate approach, and inch toward greater liberty at a snail's pace.