wiccan101

[wiccan101]

My Progressive Beliefs 2

22. Workers should be paid a livable wage, a wage that Labor Unions would probably demand, and that workers have a right to organize.(There should be no laws restricting unions from organizing and the minimum wage should be raised to match livable standards)

23. Healthcare is not a privilege but a Human Right that all citizens should have in a civilized technological.(There should be medicare health insurance available to all citizens)

24. Public Education should be available to all citizens, not just in primary and secondary schools, but including day-care if necessary and up through college for all who qualify in a race/gender blind merit system where the best are included to excel.(Our spending should be dedicated more towards educational standards that increase the quality of our societies progress and stability)

25. Coporate Welfare must stop - and that money needs to get back to the workers who make everything, and not drain out to the big corporations.(Corporate welfare should be struck down as unconstitutional and against the rule of law)

26. Stricter Separation of Church and State.(States and City Ordinances should not be legally allowed to pass any religious laws or bills for the establishment of any religion as this violates the separation of church and state, people should be free to be religious and free from religion as well)

27. Animals and the Environment need better protection from endangerment and pollution.(Animals need not be slaughtered for vanity purposes. This entails working for clean energy (or cleaner) and making this affordable to all citizens. Note that this does not mean Iam anti-technology or a Luddite; I am simply in favor of new technology being developed and used to create a less wasteful and clean environment.)

28. Multi-national corporations and Trans-national corporations need to hire only our own citizens and not wander outside for cheap labor.(Trade must be restricted to prevent exploitation of cheap labor)

29. We need to cut the cutting the military budget and putting more of our own tax dollars to the service of the people.(This means our military service should only be only enforced for the purposes of defense spending and we should end military offense spending entirely)

30. People should come before profit.(Meaning our society should place welfare at the forefront of our society over protecting corporate profiteering and incentives)

31. There needs be stricter laws against pedophilia, rape, child abuse and domestic violence against children whatever form it may take.(Child protection laws)

32. There should be screening for voters to determine if they are well qualified and educated to vote for any representatives, and our representatives should be well educated and equipped to represent the people. Forming a social order based on meritocracy and social justice.(A IQ And Competancy Reform Bill)

[wiccan101]

My Progressive Beliefs

1. Apologetic messages of hate and/or extreme views should be banned.(Examples such as hate speech against discriminated minorities and the like)

2. The Church shall finance itself, and be in equal grounds with any other association.(Maintaining a strict separation of church and state, and thereby levying taxes against churches for commercial use)

3. That is the best way to have a professional army prepared to defend our interests and commitments abroad.(Military service shall be voluntary.)

4. Laws should not interfere with sex between consenting adults, in no case.(Perhaps only prohibiting coercive sex trafficking and rape)

5. Drugs should be legal, decriminalizing its use and liberalizing its distribution.(Perhaps with regulations and taxing them for their use.)

6. The laws and the judiciary should establish in which cases preventive measures go before certain individual rights.(Such as gun control laws and gun restrictions and regulations.)

7. Quota obligations are the best instrument to remedy historical situations of discrimination.(Businesses should be banned from discrimination based on racial and ethnic backgrounds)

8. There should be no differences of rights based on the place of birth or one's nationality.(All humans have equal rights before the law)

9. The Government shall not intervene in matters as personal as identity or culture.(No sexual discrimination or cultural disclosure laws)

10. Every citizen should have the freedom to use any language.(No one should be barred from using the language of their native tongue)

11. Laws should force a cleaner environment by imposing strict limitations of pollutants.(We need to seriously increase environmental pollution laws and restrict the use of fossil fuels)

12. The Government should limit imports from some third world countries, as they use cheap labor.(We shouldn't be using cheap labor from other third world nations to grow our economy)

13. The rich should pay more taxes to increase the benefits and services provided by the State.(There should be a general tax increase on the upper 1% of the most wealthy individuals in our society)

14. Retirement plans must be managed by the Government with a public system of mandatory contributions.(I am for social security and expansions to social security to make it more accessible to everyone)

15. The Government shall manage aid and an adequate assistance to the needy, regardless of whether private charitable institutions may voluntarily supplement that.(Private charities and social security should both exist)

16. Professional sectors should be regulated by independent bodies, such as professional associations.

Qualified professionals should join them, as their supervision ensures the quality of their services.(The government should regulate business licensing and the professional requirements for those services)

17. The labor unions, as representatives of workers, should have special status on laws regulating labor, but should not be funded by the Government.(Unionization and Government should remain entirely separated in terms of finance and campaigns)

18. The Government should manage public medical centers paid by contributions to a mandatory public health insurance.(I support the single payer universal healthcare plan)

19. The Central Bank has a key role regulating the economy, so it must be independent and supervise commercial banks.(There is a role for central banking to maintain the role of legal tender in the United States to prevent commercial banks from becoming unaccountable)

20. Some advantages of big stores should be corrected by regulating certain matters, such as restricting their opening times and days, or limiting the maximum discount they can apply.(Antitrust laws should exist to break up large monopolies and limiting their economic leverage upon our economy)

21. Labor laws should always maintain a special protection to workers, protecting them against abussive firing and precarious employment.(Such as to premote the general welfare and provide equal opportunity protections under the law)

[wiccan101]

The Eternal Rebirth Universe Hypothesis

The past directly effects the future which directly effects the present which directly effects the past in a endless feed back loop or endless fashion, which means everything that has ever happened, happens now or will ever happen will happen, has happened and will eternally happen forever in the now, in a endless feed back loop of sorts.

Meaning all time effects all time all the time. In short our experience of birth, life, experience, growth and death are merely illusions and free will itself is an illusion of our inability to percieve the circular or eternal recurrence of time. Everything we do is determined both by internal and external necessity of cosmological influences beyond our control.

I would argue that we already lived our current life before, it just so happens we cannot percieve the circular or non-linear nature of time. The past directly effects the present which directly effects the future directly effects the past which directly effects the present which directly effects the future, ad infinitum.

Meaning I believe in a eternal reocuring loop of causality in which all time effects all time all the time. Think of the Universe as a Ourborous eating its own tail. Nothing actually is created or destroyed, because energy can't be created or destroyed only change in form, it just eternally repeats itself ad infinitum.

We as humans just can't percieve this because of our brains incapacity to directly experience the past or the future, so we are all stuck lock step in the present in the eternity of now.

In truth the past still exists and the future already occured, we just only experience the present in the eternity of the now.

[wiccan101]

The Argument For Pantheism

• Definitions:

By existence I mean the intrinsic property of all things as being real.

By God I mean the being which is both infinite in being and action, and that definition sums the various definitions of God in philosophy and religion.

• Premises:

Existence (reality) is all there is.

Being all there is, existence is infinite in being and action.

Being infinite in being and action, existence is defined as God.

• Conclusion:

Existence is God and God is all there is.

A Defense of Pantheism Why I Call All Of Existence(Universe) God?

Because when I think of God, I think of God being omnipresent, so since existence is everything that exists, naturally of course this makes sense to say Existence(Universe) is Omnipresent. When I think of God as being omniscient, I am not saying God knows everything as a particular personality of being, but rather that God contains all the knowledge of every being that's ever lived, lives or will ever live, and it contains all the information and knowledge that exists whether known or not known to us. Therefore Existence(Universe) is Omniscient. When I think of God in the context of omnibeneficience, I am speaking to which existence sustains itself and creates itself as it evolves from the simple singularity of the big bang onward into the process of a ever evolving complexity of multiple states of existing, then it would be right and proper to say Existence(Universe) is Omnibeneficience. To the extent existence contains all the laws of physics and forces of nature, you could say it is omnipotent, for it's very power is of all cosmic existence acting in consequence to natural laws and the forces of physics. Therefore Existence(Universe) is Omnipotence. Existence(Universe) is also Eternal(Always Existed As A Absolute), Infinite(Has No Limitation To Its Nature) and is Self-Created(Does Not Require A Creator To Exist), and therefore it could be argued that Existence(Universe) is God on the grounds that it is Self-Existent, and because it exists without creator, it fits the proper definition of what a God would typically possess if it is to be regarded as a God in any context. Some would say the word God itself is useless, but for me the word God spells out for me what the Universe is in the context of it's many infinite attributes. I believe there is only one substance to Existence(Universe) that being God that's many infinite attributes include the mind, consciousness, time, space, extension, thought, ideas pertaining to concepts and abstractions, mathematics and also all physical forms and material objects, yet also includes many other qualities or attributes unknown to us about it that drawf the human comprehension.

God As Absolute

Existence exists because the perceiving mind of experience cannot exist without the absolute and ultimate reality of the Universe.

This is why as a Pantheist. I hold that the Universe is God limited to a set of Natural Laws, and that the Universe is all that is mind/consciousness, and all that is matter/physical. Existence = Consciousness, Conciousness = Existence. God is Ontologically Equivalent to the Universe, and the Universe is Ontologically Equivalent to God.

God therefore is the Absolute and Ultimate Reality, that cannot be denied without denying physical or material existence and the perceiving consciousness or mind as a given.

In short there is no matter without mind and no mind without matter. There can be no Existence without Consciousness and no Consciousness without Existence.

This truth is Axiomatic.

[wiccan101]

Pantheism Defined

Pantheism is the belief that the Universe is God limited to a set of Natural Laws. That God is Ontologically Equivalent to Existence and Existence is Ontologically Equivalent to God. Pantheists do not believe a distinct anthropromorphic transcendent personal God exists, but rather posit that God is the Universe itself. Dialectical Pantheism is the belief that God is the Universe and the sum totality of all that can possibly exist. The Universe therefore includes but is not limited to all that is mind/consciousness and all that is matter/energy. Or rather that all matter/energy is possesed or permeated by a universal consciousness of non-locality or universal mind, and that the Universe is not simply reducible to mind or consciousness or simply reducible to matter or energy, but rather the Universe is God which is the ultimate reality or absolute reality that contains both the physical world and the mental world as one supreme being in of itself.

[wiccan101]

What Is Centrism?

Democrats vs Republicans

I would like to explain the fundamental difference between the two most prevailing political parties, the Democrats and the Republicans, also referred to as the liberals and the conservatives. Because, believe it or not, most people actually don’t know the difference. If you were to approach most people on the street and ask them why they’re a Republican or why they’re a Democrat, their best answers would likely be quite vague and broad. If you asked them why they were voting for a particular Republican or Democratic candidate, they would likely mention things like I think he or she is a good speaker or trust worthy. They may even be able to regurgitate a few party catch phrases, sound bites, or slogans, but they will usually not provide any specific reasons in terms of the issues or party ideology, simply because they don’t know them. Studies have shown that most people vote the way they do primarily because its how a family member or friend of theirs is voting. Studies have also shown that people often cast their vote towards a candidate who they think is going to win, regardless of their political philosophy.

Here is the core difference between Democrats and Republicans, which is actually quite easy to remember. Republicans crave more economic freedom but fight for social and moral regulation, whereas Democrats desire more social freedom, yet fight for economic regulation. You can see that these two parties, or rather political forces, have a Yin-Yang type relationship. This two-party system, regardless of what each may actually be called, is always inevitable to form within any democratic political system and can never be truly lost. These two parties help to provide many of the checks and balances our government needs.

One of the biggest debates between the two parties is how big should the central government be. How strong of a role should government have in our lives? This question has been struggled with as far back as the Founding Fathers and well beyond. The problem is, both parties are in part correct and both are in part incorrect. We need more government in certain areas and less government in other areas. It’s a delicate balancing act.

I should also point out that being a Democrat or a Republican is not as black and white as many may think. There is a whole spectrum of variations between the two—a gradation that extends from one extreme to the other, from the far left pole to the far right. For example, far right-winged Republicans believe in an extremely free market society, but moderate Republicans do not. Far left-winged Democrats believe in a very free socially expressive society, but moderate Democrats do not. Most rational thinking people fall somewhere in between, believing some economic and social restrictions are necessary, and that some social and economic freedoms should be allowed.

Some of you may be familiar with the Nolan Chart, which diagrams and illustrates the two main scales of freedom; one being the economic scale and the second being the social scale. When combined, you get a chart with four main quadrants, usually viewed in a diamond configuration. The left quadrant indicates liberal or Democratic views, the right indicates conservative or Republican views. If you believe in a lot of economic and social freedom, then you are a libertarian, indicated in the upper quadrant. Thankfully, pure libertarians are becoming extinct, because we’ve all basically learned that we humans need some rules and restrictions to actually better our lives. If you believe in a lot of government control, in all areas, whether economic or social, then you are a statist or an authoritarian like Hitler or Stalin, indicated down below. Everyone, based on their beliefs, falls somewhere on this chart. This may be upsetting to those of you who hate to be labeled, but try not to let it get to you, because it’s simply meant to show where you may stand on the issues. I am personally somewhere in between, making me a moderate or centrist, but I do lean much more strongly towards the Democratic philosophy and I do believe in some government regulation as long as it’s in the right areas and as long as it’s not overdone.

Since Republicans prefer more economic freedom, then it goes without saying they also support capitalism and the free market system. Democrats on the other hand tend to support socialism or at least socialized services and programs like public schools, public fire departments, public libraries, public broadcasting, and Social Security and Medicare.

Unfortunately, most Republicans seem to think that capitalism, competition, and free markets solve all problems and have an “every man for himself” type philosophy, whereas Democrats tend to think government spending solves all problems, but thankfully, hold an “all for one and one for all,” type philosophy. Republicans celebrate financial independence, self-reliance, and individuality whereas Democrats more often celebrate interdependence, cooperation, and community.

Republicans also frown on the idea of the government raising taxes on big businesses and on high income citizens, while providing a tax relief for smaller businesses and lower income citizens, especially when a percentage of that revenue goes towards helping the sick, the needy, and the poor. Republicans call this “redistributing the wealth,” and view it as a great injustice. Apparently most Republicans feel that every dollar is truly and justly earned, as well as every empty pocket. They also claim that taxing the rich to give to the poor slows down the economy by causing large business owners, who they believe are the main job creators, to stop hiring and eventually to start downsizing and laying off workers. But history has repeatedly demonstrated, time and time again, that government spending towards the middle class and the poor helps everyone, including the rich, by strengthening our economy. Most respected, well educated economists will correctly tell you that this type of government taxing and spending is the best way to boost the economy during a recession and historical statistics confirms it. I think its good that the Republican party helps to prevent the government from over taxing and over spending, but there are times when the distribution of wealth becomes suspiciously offset, indicating economic injustice or corruption, and it becomes necessary and justified to redistribute the wealth. Let’s face it, the upper class does stand on the backs of the middle class, who ironically work the hardest, yet get paid the least. And believe me, the wealthy class have found many sneaky, covert, and in many cases, unethical ways to unjustly redistribute the wealth of America. Too often the dice are loaded and the tables are rigged. So, since the relatively free market system is nowhere near perfect and never will be, “we the people” must use government to help justly redistribute the wealth. Keep in mind, if the foundation of the middle class falls, so will the upper class, and they will have the longest fall to endure.

Republicans usually advocate Trickle Down economics, believing the better off the wealthy class is the better off everyone else will be, since they believe the wealthy are the main spenders and job creators. The idea is that wealth will “trickle down” to the lower classes. But that philosophy has already proven many times in the past not to work. Wealth almost never trickles down, and instead, almost always trickles up. Large corporations and wealthy CEOs have been shown historically to sit on their money out of fear and/or greed, especially during a recession, and kink the circulation of money, which harms our economy. Statistics have shown that small business owners collectively invest more than large business owners because they do not have the luxury not to. They also usually keep a more responsible watchful eye on their business in order for it to survive and thrive, and they are known for taking better personal care of their customers. The large business owners don’t have the same incentives or desperation to do so. Also, large businesses eventually reach a maximum thresh-hold and can’t grow and so they end up seeking cheaper labor and sending American jobs overseas in order to remain competitive. It turns out that the better off the middle class is the better off everyone else is, at least up until the point of reducing the excessive power, control, and wealth of the super rich. So if the government raises taxes on the wealthy class and on larger business owners, while at the same time, providing a tax relief for the middle class and smaller business owners, then the middle class, which is the main backbone of our economy, will be in a position to spend more, expand their own businesses, and hire the workers that the big corporations can no longer afford to hire. Overall, the economy will prosper and be better off.

There also seems to be a cultural dichotomy when evaluating these two main political parties. Republicans tend to share a common personality profile with each other and so do Democrats. For instance, Republicans are usually Christian whereas Democrats, if not Christian, often study Buddhism or some form of new-age spirituality. The irony here is that the Democratic way should actually appeal to all Christians, because that party believes in sharing the burden to help all citizens as though we are all one family. Jesus could be described as a Democrat. He believed in helping the poor, healing the sick and giving aid to the elderly at his expense and respected those who did the same. Many Republicans have explained that they are not against giving to those in need, but have argued that it’s more noble to give voluntarily instead of everyone being forced to give by the government. However, I can’t help but to believe they conveniently hide behind this logic because statistics have shown that the more money one has the less percentage they tend to give and that people simply do not donate enough. During the great depression of the 1930s, President Herbert Hoover tried a program called “volunteerism,” but it failed miserably. There simply weren’t enough Dudley Do-Rights or Mother Teresas in the world to make it work. It’s also extremely embarrassing to seek charity and could leave a needy citizen to be branded for life. Now as far as the Republicans are concerned, this humiliation helps to serve as a great disincentive to ever rely too strongly on charity as well as a lesson not to ever fall financially behind, but this pressure can too often be too much and frequently leads to domestic abuse, theft, murder, or suicide. Public aid is genuinely needed at times and the recipients are often not to blame. What would be most charitable and noble is for us to all agree now to permanently volunteer to aid those who are truly in need.

There are other important differences like how Democrats usually seem to show more concern for the health of our environment than Republicans do. For example, Democrats tend to believe global warming is a real threat primarily caused by man’s over production of carbon emissions, while Republicans tend to believe man-made global warming is just a myth or at least turn a blind eye to protect special interest groups. Republicans usually make a lot more money and are said to cater to the wealthy, upper class while ignoring the minorities. Democrats are usually not as financially well off and are said to cater to the middle class, the poor, the impaired, and the elderly. The Republican party is often viewed as racist and sexist, which of course does not include all Republicans, and the Democratic party is known to support all kinds regardless of race, age, or sexual preference. Republicans are usually more ego-driven, whereas Democrats are usually more humbled and passive. In fact, the further to the right one is, politically, the more self-centered, selfish and stingy one tends to be, like an immature child who hates to share. The further to the left of the political spectrum, the more laid-back, tolerant, and giving one usually is, even to a fault. Therefore, far right-winged Republicans are often viewed as heartless, intolerant, and uncaring and far left-winged Democrats are often viewed as gullible, naïve and overprotective. To continue the comparison, Democrats usually root for gun control, while Republicans usually fight for the right to bear arms. Republicans are usually pro-life and Democrats are usually pro-choice. The list of course goes on.

Aside from the more important distinctions, there are some more trivial but still interesting personality traits that seem to be shared by members of each party. For instance, Republicans are more likely to watch Fox News, American Idol, The Apprentice, and Survivor, whereas Democrats are more likely to watch MSNBC-News, The Simpsons, Saturday Night Live, and Star Trek. Republicans tend to prefer Jay Leno and Democrats tend to prefer Conan O’Brien. It’s not always the case, but if you live in the South or the Midwest, or love country western music, or really love to hunt, or believe the Apollo moon landings were faked, then you are very likely a Republican. Again, it’s not written in stone, but if you live up North, or live in a big city, or love New Age music, or believe in extra terrestrials, then there is a really good chance that you are a Democrat. Remember though, there are no guarantees. It’s possible to run across a Republican who can’t stand the site of blood and you can find a Democrat who loves to wear cowboy boots and lives on a farm.

But to get back to the main difference between the two parties, Republicans seek economic freedom and Democrats seek social freedom. In my opinion, both forms of freedom are good as long as they are not in the extreme. There is such a thing as too much freedom. When there is too much freedom, then people are free to unjustly take from others, free to take advantage and manipulate others for their own selfish needs, and free to behave any way they want even if it annoys others. True freedom is to be free to walk down our neighborhoods without fear of being attacked or mugged. True freedom is the freedom to have a decent job, and the freedom to learn, and the freedom to save money. Ironically, we have to have fences in order to have true freedom.

Currently, we are in an economic and environmental crisis, a problem caused by both Republicans with their desire for less economic regulations and Democrats with their endless wasteful spending on things we do not need to spend upon. So I strongly recommend to all Republicans and to all Democrats, become a moderate or a centrist. Move towards the center of the overall political spectrum. If we can all find a middle ground and a healthy balance between rules and freedoms, I believe our nation will prosper in every way. I believe mankind will finally live the way man was intended to live—in balanced comfort, with true freedom.

Added note: No political party is ever without flaw, but if you wish to know which party to support, look to the one that truly struggles for those who truly suffer. Whenever there is great corruption within any system, there are always those who benefit from that corruption, usually an elite few who gain at the expense of all others. Use multiple, reliable sources and accurate, statistical facts and figures to find the party that is being paid and/or deceived to support those who wish to preserve this unfair imbalance. They are the ones who will lie, cheat, and distort the truth in order to maintain the status quo.

Centrism, then, can defined as a number of assumptions and tendencies; it is not defined by policy dogmas. Below is an undoubtedly incomplete but useful list of these assumptions and attitudes:

Centrism is a political outlook or specific position that involves acceptance or support of a balance of a degree of social equality and a degree of social hierarchy, while opposing political changes which would result in a significant shift of society strongly to either the left or the right.

(1): Mistrust and disdain for extreme proposals and actions. Innovative ideas and political proposals shouldn’t be discouraged, but those that require radical changes to the current status quo should be moderated to appeal to a broad constituency. Extreme proposals are often wrong, but even when they are correct, they require careful consideration and slow implementation. Violent action is almost always wrong and counterproductive, as is curbing basic freedoms that allow liberal societies to flourish.

(2): Mistrust of grand political theories or systems. Societies and polities are incredibly complicated and our understanding of the way social systems and human nature interact is excruciatingly limited. Grand theories are almost always incorrect, and they encourage dogmatism and extremism. Utopianism is perhaps the most dangerous and seductive kind of grand theory. Ideas that require significant harm today to bring about a better tomorrow are particularly pernicious. Uncertainty about the future requires humility and a commitment to order and well-being in the here and now.

(3): Skepticism about the goodness of human nature. Although our understanding of human nature is limited, the best evidence, scientific and historical, suggests that humans are often parochial, tribal, and prone to violence. This does not mean that humans are unremittingly “sinful” or wicked. They are not. At times, they are peaceful and cooperative. But peace and harmony among disparate cultural, ethnic, and religious groups is an exception, not a rule. Political and cultural systems must deal with humans as they exist and to understand their basic propensities. Excessive optimism about human nature has often led to tragedy. And the current political system, whatever its failures, is often wise because it has been conditioned by years of slow experimentation with real humans. A decent society in the world is worth 1,000 utopias in the head.

(4): Desire to seek compromise and form large coalitions. Good governance and social harmony require at least an implicit consensus among the governed. Policy proposals that veer from this consensus, even if ultimately correct, threaten to alienate people and foment discontent. It is therefore crucially important to win a battle of ideas before implementing a policy that significantly changes the current status quo. This is best done by appealing to common values and bipartisanship.

(5): Pragmatic emphasis on science, evidence, and truth. Because societies are exquisitely complicated, the best social policies are arrived at through slow and careful experimentation, not dogma. Although science cannot solve all social problems, it is the best instrument we have for measuring the success or failure of particular policies. It is important, therefore, to protect vigilantly free speech and free inquiry so that the best ideas are rigorously debated in the public forum. Political ideologies tend to blind people to the best policies. One should not seek a “conservative” answer to poverty or a “liberal” answer to immigration. One should seek the best answer. It is highly unlikely that any political party has a monopoly on truth.

(6): A healthy admiration for patriotism and a distrust of identity politics. Nation states, although not without flaws, are one of the few social vehicles capable of forging broad identities not based on parochial tribal markers such as race or religion. They allow individuals to share in a large collective group enterprise that is admirably committed to a creed rather than ancestry. Although patriotism can be dangerous, it can also be salubrious. Identity politics tend to divide people and create bitter factions that compete for their perceived interests. Because humans are naturally tribal, this factionalism is easy to create and dangerous for a broader cooperative union among dissimilar peoples.

(7): A steadfast dedication to rule of law and fidelity to constitutional principles. The rule of law is one of the greatest and most fragile accomplishments of Western Civilization. It creates a sense of fairness and protects citizens from the whims of their leaders. It should be lauded and guarded against possible corrosion. And although highly educated men and women might not need base appeals to authority (“Madison wrote X, Y, and Z”), society is not comprised of only highly educated men and women. The prejudices of the people require attention and cannot be disregarded. Having a written document (or legacy of laws and principles that are venerated) that inspires reverence helps insure the preservation of the rule of law.

[wiccan101]

A Defense Of A Mixed Economy

Whether its Anarchism or Totalitarianism. Capitalism or Socialism. There's really only one thing I can say on such matters. A mixed economy is sufficiently better, than unfettered capitalism or total socialism on the other. Anarchism doesn't work, because people with too much freedom are susceptible to do dangerous things with too much freedom, which is why governments are an evil necessary to form to prevent freedom being overly abused to such a great extent that it would put everyone's public safety at risk. Totalitarianism however doesn't work either because placing too much power into the state, prevents economic marketable growth and stunts personal development.

Capitalism however promotes a free market system whereby citizens are practically free to create almost any product or provide almost any service and ideally start their own business to make their own profits. One of the main selling points of capitalism is that it’s a system that primarily self-regulates. It’s meant to keep prices and the quality of products and services at least half way decent. Of course it doesn’t always work out that way, but that’s the general idea. Another wonderful thing about capitalism is that it aims to preserve economic freedom from excessive government control. That’s a good thing. However, there is always at least some government regulation involved, as there should be in my opinion. Though most hard core capitalists believe in the French expression Laissez-Faire, which means “leave it alone.” They hold to the idea that if government would just stay out of the way and not legally interfere or try to regulate what business owners can and can’t do, all would go well. But in my view, as well as in the view of most leading economists, this is not realistic.

The list of corruption that rises under a completely free market, is too long to go into. But one quick example, is how oil companies would surely release far too many carbon emissions into the atmosphere during their production process if unregulated by the government. You know the old saying, “If you give them an inch, they’ll take a mile.” When unregulated, people will always eventually fall out of line. It’s kind of like when the teacher leaves the classroom, there will always be those children who will stand up on their desks, throw paper airplanes and spit spit-balls. Whatever margin for error is given, it will always be used to its fullest degree. So there must be at least some rules.

Capitalism, on its own, is not flawless, and is too often unfair. For example, it’s not fair that a young teenager can come out with a number one hit single of a song the singer didn’t even write and make millions, while a hard working adult works all day in the Sun, digging ditches, yet can barely feed his family or pay his rent. Wealth is often unjustly distributed. In fact, it is and has been the American way. In America, people can gain wealth by finding it, by winning it, by stealing it, or by inheriting it. Money is too often not truly earned.

Unfortunately, most capitalists think that competition, and free markets solve all problems. Competition is good, but too much competition can be a bad thing, leading to inferior products and/or services. For example, things are usually made just well enough to outdo the competition in order to maximize profits, which is unfortunately the real goal of most capitalizing Americans. Parts are often cheep, services are rushed, and many wear a fake smile while they trick you into paying for things you don’t really need. It’s a dog-eat-dog world, a “sink or swim” ideology. But thankfully capitalism, when properly regulated, does help to keep prices, product quality, and the government in check.

Socialism on the other hand is a system that promotes equal opportunity, financial safety nets, shared profits and shared sacrifice. Under pure socialism, every able-working person would always have a job and always have an income. Though we currently live within a dominantly capitalistic system, we do have many socialized programs and services like our public school system, our public libraries, the police and fire departments, Social Security, Medicare, and welfare programs like unemployment checks, food stamps, and Medicaid. Many socialized programs serve as a safety net for those who lose their jobs or become too ill to work. Imagine what would happen if your house caught on fire, yet for whatever reason, good or bad, you couldn’t afford to have the fire department come and put it out. Though your neighbors, who could afford to hire the fire department, chose to do nothing about it. In all likelihood, your house would burn down, along with damaging the homes of your neighbors who stood by. Therefore, at least some safety nets should be in place.

However, the word socialism has become demonized by capitalists and is now somewhat synonymous with Democrat. Some of the main complaints and concerns many have with socialism is that it increases the size of government, can lead to wasteful spending, and can encourage “social loafing” or laziness, whereby people who could work harder choose not to, because they believe other citizens will pick up the slack. Therefore, you get a lot of free-loaders riding the coat tails of others. I agree these are all very valid concern, but the solution is not to get rid of socialism altogether. Let’s not go from one bad extreme to the other and over compensate. When people abuse their car by speeding, making illegal turns, or getting into accidents it’s not logical to get rid of all cars or ban all driving. The answer is to find more ways to prevent people from taking advantage of the system. For example, social psychologists have discovered that having a good work plan, involving specifically assigned duties, and having fair evaluations of individual performances dramatically reduces social loafing.

But some still worry that individuality would become lost within a purely socialized society and argue that it would cradle and overprotect citizens. I agree this would likely be the case which is why I believe some capitalism is needed to help remedy those problems. We have to maintain a healthy level of individuality and personal reward. If you are familiar with many of my philosophical views, you will know by now that I always advocate balance in everything. Total socialized assistance is wrong and so is having absolutely no socialized assistance. The solution is in a careful balance between the two.

Many also argue that a socialized system can not be as financially successful as a capitalistic one. There was an economic experiment conducted by a Mayo high school student, in Rochester Minnesota, named Paul A. Leonard. The experiment was intended to compare the financial success between a capitalistic group and a socialistic group. The results showed that students performed more pushups and acquired more candy under a more stressful capitalistic system in comparison to a less stressful socialistic system. Even though Paul’s classroom experiment was only meant to be analogous to the real world, as all experiments are meant to be, I still thought the experiment was oversimplified. Paul’s experiment maintained ideal conditions and gave the false impression that pure capitalism would be a total success. For instance, he did not factor in important variables like unemployment, price fluctuations, inflation and deflation, and theft often found within a capitalistic system. A more accurate picture would have shown some students, within the capitalistic group, merely standing by to reflect the idea that no one could afford to hire them to do the pushups or students stealing candy from other classmates in order to survive.

In the real world, we are not just dealing with mere pieces of candy in exchange for pushups. In the real world, people suffer greatly. They become homeless, sick, and die when, for whatever reason, they fall behind. Anyone, regardless of how rich or good looking or decent, can eventually become down on his luck and find himself in desperate financial need. Don’t be naive thinking that as long as you do the right thing and work hard that you are completely safe from any financial collapse. The insensitivity of unbridled capitalism–a financial machine that cares only about itself, as a whole, and not the individual–will leave you far behind to be crushed within its gears and turbines. Yes, capitalism can make a nation more financially powerful, in the short run, but look at the costs. Most are overworked, over stressed, and can’t spend enough time with their loved ones. Children, on average, are not being properly raised. It’s not good to have an economic system which primarily focuses on acquiring money at almost any costs. The amount of money a nation makes should not be the only measure of its worth.

So it’s true that a purely socialistic system may not be as financially successful in the short run as a purely capitalistic system. However, a purely socialistic system profits in other ways. Such a system is often more humane, more compassionate, less stressful, and less corrupt than a purely capitalistic system. In simplest terms, whenever there is a gain, there will be a loss and for every loss there is a gain. This Yin-Yang effect is why I always advocate a combination of both systems. It comes back to the balancing act I strongly believe in.

Capitalists celebrate financial independence, self-reliance, and individuality, whereas socialists celebrate interdependence, cooperation, and community. These are all good qualities when properly balanced. Socialists hate unbridled capitalism and capitalists often criticize any form of socialism. But it’s unfortunate that many have not yet come to realize that some socialism is a good thing, just as some degree of capitalism is a good thing. Independence and self reliance are fine attributes, however, there are times when we not only need to depend on others, but should depend on others, because it allows us to be better people and it helps us to be more communal.

To sum up, pure unbridled capitalism is too insensitive, too selfish, and too cruel. It’s a cut-throat philosophy—an every man for himself ideology. With pure capitalism, there is an inescapable loss, and that is the nation’s moral sole. On the other hand, pure socialism can be overprotective and may inhibit individual recognition and rewards for personal efforts, talents, and strengths. Both capitalism and socialism, alone and independent of the other, are doomed to fail. However, both socialism and capitalism are needed. We need a system that provides incentives to work hard and rewards those who do, yet at the same time, a system that is compassionate enough to lend a helping hand when necessary—one that does not cruelly punish those who truly, for legitimate reasons and unjust circumstances, can’t work as hard or produce as much. Keep in mind that what affects one citizen ultimately affects all other citizens and one bad apple spoils the bunch. We are all apart of the same team whether we like it or not. So we need to start exercising a more cooperative effort in order for the human race to survive. It’s easy to do the wrong thing and it costs to do the right thing. We need a system that supports and maintains a healthy balance between capitalism and socialism, between competition and cooperation, between independence and dependence, between the private sector and the public sector, and between regulation and freedom.

Right now we are very out of balance, and as a result, nations are falling. When there are children who are not getting properly educated, it means something is wrong with the system. When people are starving, it means there’s something wrong with the system. When people can’t get proper healthcare, it means there is something wrong with the system. We must all pull our resources together to aid one another during these desperate times or the entire system will fall and all our cherished money will become completely worthless. Personally, I would prefer to trade in some of my cash to help my fellow man and to keep my sole in tact. Remember, what goes around comes around. The more you support your fellow citizens, the more they will be able to support you in your time of need. “All for one and one for all” should be the slogan for America . . . and the world.

Again, there is no perfect political system. No matter how well a system of government is designed and built, corruption will always manage to seep through the cracks. But, it’s our civil duty to do all we can to push back any and all forms of corruption and injustice as much as possible.

Down through the ages, we come closer and closer to creating the perfect society, even though we have had many setbacks. Like a pea rolling back and forth along the walls of a huge bowl, we are slowly but surely finding our way towards the center of equilibrium. Like a set of adjustable lenses the answers are coming into focus. Soon the arrow of correctness will hit the bull’s-eye straight enough.

Definitions of Capitalism & Socialism

Capitalism is an economic and political system (based on self-interest and competition) in which all the means of production and distribution are privately owned and operated within a free market society.

Socialism is an economic and political system (based on group-interest and cooperation) in which all the means of production and distribution are collectively owned and operated by all members of a society.

[wiccan101]

My Moderate Democrat Views

Moderates share characteristics of several political philosophies, preferring a mix of Government and Liberty.

Progressives (liberals, in the US) believe the Government shall correct the defect of a market economy and progress towards a society with less moral restrictions.

Apologetic messages of hate and/or extreme views should be banned.

The Church shall finance itself, and be in equal grounds with any other association.

Military service shall be voluntary.

That is the best way to have a professional army prepared to defend our interests and commitments abroad.

Laws should not interfere with sex between consenting adults, in no case.

Drugs should be legal, decriminalizing its use and liberalizing its distribution.

The laws and the judiciary should establish in which cases preventive measures go before certain individual rights.

Quota obligations are the best instrument to remedy historical situations of discrimination.

There should be no differences of rights based on the place of birth or one's nationality.

The Government shall not intervene in matters as personal as identity or culture.

Every citizen should have the freedom to use any language.

Laws should force a cleaner environment by imposing strict limitations of pollutants.

The Government should limit imports from some third world countries, as they use cheap labor.

The rich should pay more taxes to increase the benefits and services provided by the State.

Retirement plans must be managed by the Government with a public system of mandatory contributions.

The Government shall manage aid and an adequate assistance to the needy, regardless of whether private charitable institutions may voluntarily supplement that.

Professional sectors should be regulated by independent bodies, such as professional associations.

Qualified professionals should join them, as their supervision ensures the quality of their services.

The labor unions, as representatives of workers, should have special status on laws regulating labor, but should not be funded by the Government.

The Government should manage public medical centers paid by contributions to a mandatory public health insurance.

The Central Bank has a key role regulating the economy, so it must be independent and supervise commercial banks.

Some advantages of big stores should be corrected by regulating certain matters, such as restricting their opening times and days, or limiting the maximum discount they can apply.

Labor laws should always maintain a special protection to workers, protecting them against abussive firing and precarious employment.