Of course the title is a riff on that movie (which, of course, I’ve seen), which in turn means that this is yet another political post. Since I’m flying out to
As a completely non-political science theory person, I’m going to outright disclaim how simplistic my analysis is here, and how doubtless, most of you are already aware of what I’m posting about…but basically I was reading Haubenreich’s blog and got into thinking about the left/right political spectrum…and thought I would post about an idea that hit me like a bolt of lightning a few years ago. (The fact that this hit me like a lightning bolt shows how early in the stages of developing I really am…hence…the blog name.)
So, I had never really known what to say when people ask me where I stand politically. On one hand, it’s abundantly clear that I am socially liberal. But it’s not safe to say that I’m liberal. I generally believe in personal choices/self-determination for sexuality, race, abortion, drug use, victimless crimes, and personal morality, which all belong with the left. On the other hand, I think Communism is retarded. Maybe it’s the fact that I studied so much economics in college, or maybe it’s the fact that I do believe market mechanisms, capitalism, and the idea of economic incentives will increase productivity and growth at a much higher rate than a centrally planned state with all of the weakness of political infighting, massive bureaucracies (and their petty bureaucrats), and the complete lack of personal incentive for improvement in productivity. (Of course all this is obvious and incredibly simplified, I just wanted to explain why I think Communism is retarded. Not just ill-conceived, but retarded. Not necessarily a slam on Marxism per se, but at least a slam on communism. I also find it unfortunate that market economics is so clearly considered a "right" position, since "left" policies also harness market forces and market theories to reach the same goal. (ie. in a recession, "liberals" would advocate the "injection" of government stimulus and government spending close the recessionary gap, while "conservatives" would advocate cutting taxes to increase investment/consumption to close the recessionary gap.)
My fundamental, underlying value, however, remains individual human experience…thus my beliefs are all guided towards enabling personal freedom and the ability of each person to not be hampered in pursuing happiness. So, if you really had to boil it down…I am a "regulated free-market", social liberal who believes government has a role to mitigate poverty, inequality, and systemic repression, whether economic, social, or political, but should not replace the role of civil society and self-determination. Thus, I was always somewhat conflicted because I believe that government should keep its heavy paws off of personal (social) choice, but I wasn’t sure how to draw a principled distinction between non-interference in personal (social) choice and personal (economic) choice (ie. taxes).
Under the current framework, I’m either 1) kinda sorta liberal, 2) kinda sorta conservative, 3) not really, but kinda libertarian, or the dreaded 4) Centrist, which doesn’t really seem to have any meaning.
It's not really much of a change, but social and economic philosophies are nicely broken apart. Here's another version...apparently with where modern politicians and famous people fall. I don't know if I actually agree with the placement of certain people (Tony Blair?), and I never even considered that people like Robert Mugabe had actually governing philosophies...I just sorta assumed they were mindless demons. But clearly, figures like Mao and Stalin would fall on the top left, Andrew Sullivan would fall on the bottom right, and I think that I would fall very slightly right or left of center in the bottom right quadrant, although not too far down.
Clearly, these are inelegant and lacking in precision. But then again, I don’t think it’s necessary or useful to be precise here. I would say that the terms “Authoritarian/Fascism” and “Libertarian/Anarchism” are a little unhelpful as they embody more specific end goals instead of values...and so I would prefer “Order” on top and “Freedom” on the bottom or maybe even “Social Order” and “Social Freedom”…which more fairly puts both ends of the spectrum on equal footing as plausible and positive alternatives, instead of two doom and gloom labels like "Fascism" and "Anarchism."
There’s two more axes that I think should be accounted for, but I’m not sure how they would fit into the picture. One axis (making it 3-D!) would be a way to account for the relative weights of the other two axes (ie. Hippies would put increased weight on the social/vertical axis, while Milton Friedman's super-free market fiscal policy would put increased weight on the economic/horizontal axis). I think given those three axes, it would be quite simple to place people relative to each other, although the final product would be a 3-D cube with 8 quadrants. (would they still be called quadrants if there are 8 of them?)
...as for the second axis...I was thinking about it during my international trade class this morning, but at this point I have completely blanked and I have no idea what I thought it was going to be. Maybe it's takin the axis and wacking me over the head with it for wasting your time.
Anyway, boobies, farts, poop, asslick. And Angus Bethune. (This is your reward for making it to the end.)
Wish me luck over the next week.
P.S. - On a lighter note, concerning Madonna's adoption of the Malawian child:
--She went to the Malawian orphanage and handed out signed copies of her book.
--She adopted a child whose father was still alive.
As brilliantly put by TheSuperficial:
So instead of food or medicine, this egotistical bitch handed out signed copies of her book. To starving Africans. Who probably can't read. She might as well have given them autographed pictures of herself. Not only that, but the child she chose to adopt still has a father. Instead of saving a true orphan, she chose the one kid that actually has family. She's doing pretty much every wrong thing you can do when adopting a child. If she was making a pizza, right about now she'd be smashing some glass into the dough and looking for some watermelons for the pizza sauce.
2 comments:
sup dude, a little heady for me the last couple of posts, but nonetheless keep up the good work, enjoying it. youve inspired me to jump on the blogwagon as well so check it empty v
go luck on the interviews, if you're worried about the lies you told on your resume, just remember that your potential employeer is lying 10x more than you are.
awesome. I'm totally there.
Usually headies means something else. Which usually leads to similar rambling discussions, which apparently have been caught on tape as we sat in my driveway. I think it was a long "whoaaaa....relativity" speech. Anyone know who has that?
Of course chances of actually remembering, however, are incredibly thin given the circumstances.
Post a Comment