Who are American politicians beholden to? The People? The Constitution?

[DaShi]

The private sector is not more efficient in all areas. Both the government and the private sector can be horribly inefficient. An ideology that believes one of those is a "magic" fix for everything would reasonably be considered criminally insane.

[kentonio]

Liar. You don't strike me as a Thatcher voter given the leftist pap you've been posting.

That's pretty ironic considering she was basically my political hero growing up. I've softened on a few issues since, but I still consider her the greatest British PM since Churchill.

[Sava]

One ideology believes this the other does not.

Here's the problem. There are more than two political ideologies. Just because (I assume) you believe government is all bad all the time doesn't mean people who disagree with you believe the exact opposite. Once conservatards realize this, we will all be better off.

And for the record, I believe all large organizations suffer from inefficiencies... public and private. Conservatives would be useful in government if they focused on improving efficiency instead of trying to destroy government altogether.

It also speaks towards credibility. Would you hire a plumber who thought indoor plumbing was evil? Would you buy from a car dealer who believed the internal combustion engine was awful? Would you buy food from a place where the cook had an eating disorder (I only trust fat cooks)?

Of course not. So why the hell would you vote for a politician who thinks government is bad? It boggles my mind. This fundamental principle of conservatism all but guarantees that everyone who believes in it is going to be mentally retarded.

[DinoDoc]

Sure, I believe you ken.

[DinoDoc]

Conservatives would be useful in government if they focused on improving efficiency instead of trying to destroy government altogether.

They'd be statists arguing that they can better manage Big Government then rather than conservative.

[Jon Miller]

The private sector is not more efficient in all areas. Both the government and the private sector can be horribly inefficient. An ideology that believes one of those is a "magic" fix for everything would reasonably be considered criminally insane.

It is interesting comparing public transport.

USA system:
expensive, bad coverage, public

Belgium/Swedish:
mid-priced(single use, low priced for the year), good coverage, public

Chilean:
low-priced(no for the year though), good coverage, semi-private (people get paid due to their ridership, but licensed/follow mandated paths/some state vehicles used)

The USA just does a lot poorly.

This seems primarily because the political process is heavily captured by special interest (unions or wealthy people/corporations).

Note that when the government pulls back, it leaves a monopoly position (particularly for public goods like public transport) which is captured by wealthy people/corporations.

If things are captured by wealthy people/corporations this is pro-poverty. When things are captured by unions, it is probably neutral...

JM

[Jon Miller]

I agree with Sava that some of the reason that the US is so inefficient for everything (for example, in our 'private' healthcare) is due to the anti-government practices of the conservatives.

JM

[DaShi]

Of course not. So why the hell would you vote for a politician who thinks government is bad? It boggles my mind. This fundamental principle of conservatism all but guarantees that everyone who believes in it is going to be mentally retarded.

People want easy answers.

[Sava]

They'd be statists arguing that they can better manage Big Government then rather than conservative.

You illustrate my point perfectly... the ridiculous nature of black and white thinking with regards to the scale of statism, which itself is a very small aspect of the vast majority of comprehensive political ideologies.

Get a ****ing clue moron.

[Sava]

Furthermore, the whole idea of anarchism vs statism is stupid. There's no fundamental difference between government and other organizations in the sense that one kind of group can be inherently more efficient than the other. The only key aspect of government that sets itself apart is the monopoly of legitimate use of force in executing the law... which is not connected in any way to efficiency versus private organizations. If we're talking about representative democracies versus business, it boils down to the processes with regards to policy. Conservatives hate democracy. This is the only reasonable conclusion. They want private organizations (business in particular) to be supreme over government... to be supreme over the citizens in a country. And let's dig deeper. Conservatives believe they have a God given right to amass wealth without interference from any other agent or actor. They believe they have a God given right to pass on this wealth to their offspring.

This ideology is called Monarchy. In effect, conservatives wish to usurp the results of representative democracy. Conservatives are monarchists.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Let's take Paul Ryan as an example. His policies are pretty much a carbon copy of Jack Kemp's, the man he used to work for. Jack Kemp pretty much wrote the book

You realize that Reagan also raised taxes in the middle of his term right? Some folks have called the 1986 tax bill as the largest tax increase in history. He did so when he realized the economic growth wasn't taking care of the deficit as he thought it was - so he reversed some of his 1981 tax cuts. It would be unthinkable in today's Republican Party.

And the pulling out of US marines when they were bombed by Lebanon. He didn't really fight "hot" wars unless he know he had overwhelming firepower. He would have been completely against Iraq.

Also, you know, amnesty.

Sure, I believe you ken.

Why not? He seems like your garden variety Tory. Remember Ian Lindley who used to post here? Kentonio basically sounds like him. My cousins were (they may still be but I haven't spoken to them about politics in a little bit) in the Conservative Party as well and sound like Kentonio.

Heck, listen to David Cameron.


Furthermore, as for people moving from a more conservative viewpoint to a more liberal one, you can take me as an example.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Here's the problem. There are more than two political ideologies. Just because (I assume) you believe government is all bad all the time doesn't mean people who disagree with you believe the exact opposite.

You would be incorrect.

And for the record, I believe all large organizations suffer from inefficiencies... public and private. Conservatives would be useful in government if they focused on improving efficiency instead of trying to destroy government altogether.

You would be incorrect in this assumption as well, there is no conservative cabal looking to destroy government. Any/most conservatives understand that civil society requires a modicum of governement and an adherence to rule of law. To suggest as you do simply implies anarchists of capitalist stripe not conservatives.

[Sava]

You would be incorrect.

Black and white thinking is a symptom of a litany of mental illnesses and disorders. There's little point in debating you on this matter. Your opinion conflicts with humanity. I can't be incorrect because I am simply rephrasing common definitions. It's you versus the world on this matter, sir.

there is no conservative cabal looking to destroy government. Any/most conservatives understand that civil society requires a modicum of governement and an adherence to rule of law. To suggest as you do simply implies anarchists of capitalist stripe not conservatives.

Tell that to DD. He's the one that called such beliefs "statist". Maybe you two can figure out what "conservative" means on your own and then get back to the rest of us.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

The only key aspect of government that sets itself apart is the monopoly of legitimate use of force in executing the law... which is not connected in any way to efficiency versus private organizations.

Except that it is. When the government is the only legitamite use of legal recourse and it can not be held liable for its own failings, it has no accountability. Hence no outside forcing mechanism to reform its excesses. Meanwhile, private organizations are held liable both in terms of performance to the letter of the law as well as performance against competitive entities.

This is not to say that you can't find efficient instances of governmental service or inefficient private companies.

[DinoDoc]

Sava: I'm of the opinion that my definition of an efficient government would qualify as "destroying" it based on your simple minded posts on what conservatives think.