Politics
From WhyNotWiki
It's not so much politics itself that I have a problem with. It's partisan politics that bothers me, where the party line seems to matter more than doing what benefits the people. Political polarization is turning American citizens from critical-thinking individuals into hateful, suspicious party-liners. No?
http://campaigns.wikia.com/wiki/Campaigns_Wikia
[edit] Parties
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism
- In the Americas, libertarianism usually refers to a political philosophy maintaining that every person is the absolute owner of their own life and should be free to do whatever they wish with their person or property, as long as they respect the liberty of others.
[edit] Democrat/Republican Cheat sheet
| Democrat | Republican |
| [liberal (category)] | [conservative (category)] |
| [left-wing (category)] (deprecated) | [right-wing (category)] (deprecated) |
| left | right |
| blue | red |
| GOP | |
| Donkey | Elephant |
| "larger" government | "smaller" government |
| more taxes | less taxes |
| secular | religious |
| (Moral?) relativism | Universality/absolutism |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-Right_Politics
[edit] Partisan politics / 2-party system (move out?)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speaker_of_the_United_States_House_of_Representatives.
The Constitution does not spell out the political role of the Speaker. As the office has developed historically, however, it has taken on a clearly partisan cast, very different from the speakership of the British House of Commons, which is scrupulously non-partisan. The Speaker in the United States is, by tradition, the head of the majority party in the House of Representatives, outranking the Majority Leader. The Speaker is responsible for ensuring that the House passes legislation supported by the majority party. In pursuing this goal, the Speaker may utilize his or her power to determine when each bill reaches the floor. He or she also chairs the majority party's House steering committee.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_decision-making.
[edit] Consensus as an alternative to voting
Proponents of consensus decision making view the traditional, majoritarian voting process as undesirable for several reasons.
Voting is regarded as being competitive, rather than cooperative, framing decision-making in a win/lose dichotomy that ignores the possibility of compromise or other potential solutions. Additionally, majoritarian rule is also often viewed as disempowering or alienating, subjecting a minority to the rule of a majority position.
Proponents of consensus often submit that this 'tyranny of the majority' exacerbates the problem of partisanship and can reduce group cohesion and effectiveness.
Lastly, advocates of consensus frequently state that a majority decision reduces the commitment of each individual decision-maker to the decision. Members of a minority position may feel less commitment to a majority decision, and even majority voters who may have taken their positions along party or bloc lines may have a sense of reduced responsibility for the ultimate decision. The result of this reduced commitment, according to many consensus proponents, is potentially less willingness to defend or act upon the decision.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-party_system.
Often general elections have rules that allow any number of candidates names to be placed on a final ballot as long as those candidates meet some minimum requirements, often based on signatures of support gathered. This type of general election promotes coalition building outside of the election process. These coalitions or political factions have, over time, become formalized associations called political parties with rules and procedures for selecting the candidate most likely to win in order to put forward the strongest candidate for the General Election. In such a system the two most well organized and unified parties will ultimately have recurring success. Since there can only be two successful parties, then the two parties often become more like coalitions of factions that would have otherwise been their own discrete parties in other electoral systems. These unified parties are held together despite their differences because their common political beliefs outweigh their differences and because of the threat of vote splitting.
...
America's first President George Washington, did not belong to a political party. This made him America's only independent (no party) president. Most of America's founding fathers were opposed to political parties, and wanted none of them in the U.S.
...
America's second political party was the Democratic-Republican Party, founded by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in 1792 in order to oppose the policies of the Federalists. This is when the two party system began in the U.S. Jefferson was reluctant to create a party because he was opposed to political parties in general, and their power struggles over the government, but he felt that he had to protect the rights of citizens. The Democratic-Republican Party's policies were often opposite to Federalist policies. The party opposed the treaty with Britain, defended the Constitution, denounced the national bank, and promoted citizen's and states' rights. It became the dominant political party in the United States from 1800 until the 1820s, when it split into competing factions, one of which became the modern-day Democratic Party.
Therefore, the two party system in the U.S. occurred to prevent one party from gaining too much power, by creating a second party with opposite policies.
...
[edit] Advantages and disadvantages
The two-party system's defenders argue that:
- Uncommon and unconventional ideas remain non-influential, so policies and governments do not change rapidly. While smaller parties find this exceptionally frustrating, proponents of the two-party system suggest that it enhances stability while eventually allowing for ideas that gain favor to become politically influential.
- The dynamics of a two-party system drives both parties' policies towards the position of a mythical median voter while remaining (hopefully) distinctive enough to motivate their core support. This "middle anchor" can theoretically work to prevent both parties from shifting too far to either side of the political spectrum.
- Bickering of narrowly based ideological factions in multi-party systems can lead to a torpid legislative process. These factions, if they gain enough influence via winning seats, can adopt a "by any means necessary" mentality of furthering their agenda which can include purposely blocking or delaying important legislation.
- Narrowly based ideological factions can force the major parties to help them in exchange for their support. This can create a chaotic and fluctuating system of alliances that intensifies confusion among voters. Additionally, this "tie-breaker" influence minor parties achieve can serve to undermine the true positions of the major parties.
Against the argument that the two-party system leads to more stable governance, critics of two-party systems argue that:
- It is impossible to nominate, let alone elect, a moderate candidate. Among non-moderates (for instance, Democrats or Republicans in the US), a candidate's campaign can become extremely complicated if he chooses to break with his party's ideology on any specific issue (or concede that he does not subscribe to the beliefs of some members of his party). For this reason, many argue that the two-party system is conducive to hardliner ideology and extremist politics.Template:DubiousTemplate:Fact
- The ruling party's majority may still be based on a smaller segment of the population than coalition governments due to lower turnout, and votes cast that do not lead to the desired representative [1]. With lower voter turn-out plus only a chance of getting the representative voters want, the ultimate body of representatives were voted in with a rather small number of votes (such as 40%). The majority of this body (20% plus one) rules the nation. [2]
- Stability is not desirable in itself. The two parties in power resemble each other so much on the major issues and in their wealthy power base that the two party system more resembles a one party system.
- Elections based on geographical district representation can become subject to gerrymander. Even without deliberate partisan gerrymander, legislative representation can skew wildly from the actual percentage of the vote a party wins. For example, the party with the second-highest total vote tally actually won a parliamentary majority in the 1847, 1852, 1874, and 1951 UK general elections, and the most seats in the January 1910, December 1910, 1929, and February 1974 elections.
- In a two-party system, the two major political parties may enact election laws that insulate them from the threat of a new or alternative political party or movement from replacing them as one of the two major political parties. This has arguably occurred in the United States of America with ballot access laws.
Observers also criticize two-party systems for the following alleged flaws:
- Simplified (virtual two-way) elections motivate candidates to run negative campaigns, pointing out the flaws in the "other person" (usually the leader of the other party). Parties in such situations tend to stake out only those positions that appear necessary to differentiate themselves from their primary opponent, and not to concentrate on policies constructive or beneficial to citizens.
- If one of the two parties becomes weak, a dominant-party system may develop. In fact, a dominant party system has developed in almost every single country that has used FPTP, at least at a regional level. For instance, in Singapore one party wins almost every seat in parliament every election cycle with less than 60% of the vote (although true support for the party is not really measurable, since the government maintains high ballot access restrictions which often lead to one-way races in most districts)Template:Fact. In the US, the Democrats often landslided in the southern portion up until the late 20th century, winning almost every seat available in most states in a phenomenon known as the Solid South. Mexico had a dominant party system until constitutional reforms added fairer proportional representation to the scheme.
- Debate in the assembly of the country can often become so adversarial as to be completely nonconstructive, sometimes revolving around narrowly-perceived policy ideas, rather than larger political issues. Sometimes adversarial politics can lead to the opposition disagreeing with everything the dominant party proposes (and vice versa) for the sake of disagreeing. This can lead to the blocking of important legislation, especially reforms that may benefit the country.
- Campaign contributions can more easily corrupt a two-party system - since it has fewer players to receive donations.
- In an effort to attract voters, each party will adopt planks of the other party's platform, leading to the appearance in some skeptics' minds of a one-party system. Examples include the American notion of a "Republicrat".
- First-past-the-post election systems tend to produce fewer female and minority representatives than proportional representation systemsTemplate:Fact.
- District elections tend to deliver a larger economic gap between members within its society. The have's tend to have more and the have-not's tend to have less in these nations.Template:Fact
- A central component of democracy, found within Federalist No. 10, is that of compromiseTemplate:Fact. Factionalism is present in every democracy. Ensuring that all factions are represented reduces the likelihood that any one faction will control all of the seats and institute any and all changes they desire. A two-party system often leads to one faction winning a majority of the seats and governing without compromiseTemplate:Fact. A multi-party system or proportional non-partisan system is more consensus-based, allowing for laws to be passed less hastily and with more sincere debate on the issues, rather than a single party simply ramming legislation through by a narrow majority.
The electoral systems which tend to favour two-party systems (notably the "biggest pile of votes wins" system) also receive criticism because:
- Most electors have perforce to engage in tactical voting, voting for candidates that may not be their first choice - either to help a perceived potential "winner" or to block a potential enemy.
- Smaller parties suffer from under-representation: they will not receive a number of seats in the country's assembly that reflects the number of votes they receive (and therefore the amount of support they could or do receive). Some see this as undemocratic, arguing that citizens who vote for small parties should receive fair representation.
- Smaller parties often represent unconventional or 'alternative' (compared to the main parties) ideologies and formulate policy on the basis of such ideologies. Some commentators argue that in a democracy, all supported ideologies should receive fair representation.
- Larger parties benefit from over-representation; some see this as undemocratic.
- 'Average voters' may dislike suggestions that they require a simple choice as implying they are incapable of an informed decision.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law.
Duverger's law is a principle which asserts that a plurality rule election system tends to a stable two-party system.
The discovery of this tendency is attributed to Maurice Duverger, a French sociologist who observed the effect and recorded it in several papers published in the 1950s and 1960s. In the course of further research, other political scientists began calling the effect a “law” or principle. Duverger's law suggests a nexus or synthesis between a party system and an electoral system: a proportional representation (PR) system creates the electoral conditions necessary to foster party development while a plurality system marginalizes many smaller political parties.
...
A two-party system often develops spontaneously from the single-member district plurality voting system (SMDP), in which legislative seats are awarded to the candidate with a plurality of the total votes within his or her constituency, rather than apportioning seats to each party based on the total votes gained in the entire set of constituencies. This trend develops out of the inherent qualities of the SMDP system that discourage the development of third parties and reward the two major parties.
The most obvious inhibiting feature unique to the SMDP voting system is purely statistical. A small third party cannot gain legislative power if it is based in a populous area. Similarly, a statistically significant third party can be too geographically scattered to muster enough votes to win seats, although technically its numbers would be sufficient to overtake a major party in an urban zone. Gerrymandering is sometimes used to counteract such geographic difficulties in local politics, but is impractical and controversial on a large scale. These numerical disadvantages can create an artificial limit on the level at which a third party can engage in the political process.
The second unique problem is both statistical and psychological. Maurice Duverger [1] suggested an election in which 100,000 moderate voters and 80,000 radical voters are voting for a single official. If two moderate candidates and one radical candidate were to run, the radical candidate would win unless one of the moderate candidates gathered less than 20,000 votes. Observing this, moderate voters would be more likely to vote for the candidate most likely to gain more votes, with the goal of defeating the radical candidate. Either the two parties must merge, or one moderate party must fail, as the voters gravitate to the two strong parties, a trend Duverger called polarization.
A third party can only enter the arena if it can exploit the mistakes of a pre-existing major party, ultimately at that party's expense. For example, the political chaos in the United States immediately preceding the Civil War allowed the Republican Party to replace the Whig Party as the progressive half of the American political landscape. Loosely united on a platform of country-wide economic reform and federally funded industrialization, the decentralized Whig leadership failed to take a decisive stance on the slavery issue, effectively splitting the party along the Mason-Dixon Line. Southern rural planters, initially lured by the prospect of federal infrastructure and schools, quickly aligned themselves with the pro-slavery Democrats, while urban laborers and professionals in the northern states, threatened by the sudden shift in political and economic power and losing faith in the failing Whig candidates, flocked to the increasingly vocal anti-slave Republican Party.
In countries that use proportional representation (PR), especially where the whole country forms a single constituency (like Israel), the electoral rules discourage a two-party system; the number of votes received for a party determines the number of seats won, and new parties can thus develop an immediate electoral niche. Duverger identified that the use of PR would make a two party system less likely. However, other systems do not guarantee new parties access to the system: Malta provides an example of a stable two-party system using the single transferable vote.
[edit] Majoritarianism: How much power should the majority have?
I don't know. It doesn't seem quite fair that the party controlling the simple majority (>50%) of Congress, for example, should be able to pass whatever they want! Therefore, it is good that the minority has at least some slight power to keep the majority in check. For instance, a 60% supermajority is required to invoke cloture (bringing an end to a filibuster).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloture.
This originally required a supermajority of two-thirds of all senators (i.e. 64 out of 96). However, it proved very difficult to achieve this; the Senate tried eleven times between 1927 and 1962 to invoke cloture but failed each time. Filibuster was particularly heavily used by senators from Southern states to block civil rights legislation.
In 1975, the Democratic Senate majority, having achieved a net gain of four seats in the 1974 Senate elections to a strength of 61 (with an additional Independent caucusing with them for a total of 62), reduced the necessary supermajority to three-fifths (60 out of 100). This allowed the Senate majority to invoke cloture, provided that party discipline held. This considerably strengthened the power of the majority, and allowed it to pass many bills that would otherwise have been filibustered. (The Democratic Party had held a two-thirds majority in the 89th Congress of 1965, but regional divisions among Democrats meant that many filibusters were invoked by Southern Democrats against civil rights bills supported by the Northern wing of the party.) Some senators wanted to reduce it to a simple majority (51 out of 100) but this was rejected, as it would greatly diminish the ability of the minority to check the majority.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster.
After a series of filibusters led by Southern Democrats in the 1960s over civil rights legislation, the Democrat-controlled Senate[6] in 1975 revised its cloture rule so that three-fifths of the Senators sworn (usually 60 senators) could limit debate. Changes to Senate rules still require two-thirds of Senators voting. Despite this rule, the filibuster or the threat of a filibuster remains an important tactic that allows a minority to affect legislation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermajority.
A supermajority or a qualified majority is a requirement for a proposal to gain a specified level or type of support which exceeds a simple majority in order to have effect. In some jurisdictions, for example, parliamentary procedure requires that any action that may alter the rights of the minority has a supermajority requirement (such as a two-thirds majority). Changes to constitutions, especially those with entrenched clauses, commonly require supermajority support in a legislature.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majoritarianism.
Majoritarianism is a traditional political philosophy or agenda which asserts that a majority (sometimes categorized by religion, language, or some other identifying factor) of the population is entitled to a certain degree of primacy in society, and has the right to make decisions that affect the society. This traditional view has come under growing criticism and democracies have increasingly included constraints in what the parliamentary majority can do, in order to protect citizens' fundamental rights.[1]
...
Under a democratic majoritarian political structure the majority would not exclude any minority from future participation in the democratic process. Majoritarianism is sometimes pejoratively called ochlocracy (commonly stated as mob rule) or tyranny of the majority by its opponents. Majoritarianism is often referred to as majority rule, but which may be referring to a majority class ruling over a minority class, while not referring to the decision process called majority rule.
...
Advocates of majoritarianism argue that majority decision making is intrinsically democratic and that any restriction on majority decision making is intrinsically undemocratic. If democracy is restricted by a constitution which cannot be changed by a simple majority decision then yesterday's majority is being given more weight than today's; if it is restricted by some small group, such as aristocrats, judges, priests, soldiers or philosophers, then society becomes an oligarchy. The only restriction acceptable in a majoritarianism system is that a current majority has no right to prevent a different majority emerging in the future (this could happen, for example, if a minority persuades enough of the majority to change its position). In particular, a majority cannot exclude a minority from future participation in the democratic process. It should be noted, as it's often a subject of misunderstanding, that majoritarianism does not prohibit a decision being made by representatives as long as this decision is made via majority rule, as it can be altered at any time by any different majority emerging in the future.
...
This agenda is most frequently encountered in the realm of religion: In essentially all Western nations, for instance, Christmas Day—and in some countries, other important dates in the Christian calendar as well—are recognized as legal holidays; plus a particular denomination may be designated as the state religion and receive financial backing from the government (examples include the Church of England in the United Kingdom and the Lutheran Church in the Scandinavian countries). Virtually all countries also have one or more official languages, often to the exclusion of some minority group or groups within that country who do not speak the language or languages so designated. In most cases, those decisions have not been made using a majoritarian referendum, and even in the rare case when a referendum has been used, a new majority is not allowed to emerge at any time and repeal it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_Majority.
The phrase tyranny of the majority, used in discussing systems of democracy and majority rule, is a criticism of the scenario in which decisions made by a majority under that system would place that majority's interests so far above a minority's interest as to be comparable in cruelty to "tyrannical" despots.
Limits on the decisions that can be made by such majorities, such as constitutional limits on the powers of parliament and use of a bill of rights in a parliamentary democracy, are commonly meant to avoid the problem.
Quoted in http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ed_buckner/quotations.html. :
All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate which would be oppression. (Thomas Jefferson, "First Inaugural Address," March 4, 1801; from George Seldes, ed., The Great Quotations, Secaucus, New Jersey: Citadel Press, 1983, p. 364.)
[edit] In defense of: Uneducated people don't know what's best for them
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majoritarianism.
Additionally, most of the famous ancient philosophers staunchly opposed majoritarianism, because decisions based on the will of the uneducated and/or uninformed 'masses' are not necessarily wise or just.
[edit] ...
[edit] The silent majority
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon%27s_%22silent_majority%22.
[...] The Silent Majority was mostly populated with the blue collar people who allegedly didn't have the ability or the time to take an active part in politics other than to vote. They did, in some cases, support the conservative policies of many politicians. Others were not particularly conservative politically, but resented what they saw as disrespect for American institutions.
...
Since Nixon, many conservatives have pointed to the silent majority as a force still ignored by the media, who, in the eyes of conservatives, focus generally on sensational activities of both parties to boost the media's own vie
[edit] The tendency that it is easier to preserve the status quo than to stray from it
It seems that there are more ways, for example, to block/shoot down legislation than there are to pass new legislation. It's hard to change the way things are. This may be good for some things (like what?), but I am skeptical that it is a good thing in general.
After all, just because that's "the way things have always been" (tradition, status quo, common law) does not mean it is the best way, or the right way, or the most fair way. Who's to say that whoever established the present status quo was acting in the best interest of those living today rather than of themselves (in that day)?
Wouldn't it be better for things to constantly be re-evaluated to see if they are still valid, useful, desirable, etc.?
Clearly some people think that it is desirable in some cases to make a law/constitution that is permanent, irrevocable, perpetual... That is why there exists such a thing as an entrenchment clause.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entrenchment_clause.
An entrenchment clause of a constitution is a provision which makes certain amendments either more difficult than others or impossible. It may require some form of supermajority, a referendum or the consent of some other party if it is allowed at all.
An entrenchment clause whose intent is to prevent subsequent amendments, will, once it is adopted, and provided that it is correctly drafted, make some portion of a constitution irrevocable except through the assertion of the right of revolution.
They are usually justified as protecting the rights of a minority from the dangers of majoritarianism, but they are often challenged by their opponents as being particularly undemocratic.
On the other hand, sometimes legislators (for altruistic or selfish reasons -- it could be for either) intentionally write an expiration date into a law. This is called a "sunset provision". "Ad tempus concessa post tempus censetur denegata is translated as what is admitted for a period will be refused after the period." [3]
"Obstructionism or policy of obstruction denotes the deliberate interference with the progress of a legislation by various means such as filibustering or slow walking which may depend on the respective parliamentary procedures." [4]
Ways to prevent a bill's passage:
- Controlling a majority of the votes and voting against it
- Vetoing it (if you are the president)
- Obstructionism (filibuster, slow walking, quorum-busting [5])
- ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_quo.
Arguing to preserve the status quo is usually done in the context of opposing a large, often radical change. The term frequently refers to the status of a large issue, such as the current culture or social climate of an entire society or nation. Status quo can also refer to the social status in the workplace or peer group school.
Politicians sometimes refer to a status quo. Often there is a policy of deliberate ambiguity, referring to the status quo rather than formalizing the status. An example of political ambiguity is the political status of Taiwan. Clark Kerr is reported to have said, "The status quo is the only solution that cannot be vetoed," meaning that the status quo cannot simply be decided against; action must be taken if it is to change.
| “ | The status quo is the only solution that cannot be vetoed | ” |
|
—Clark Kerr [6] |
||
| “ | Bureaucracy defends the status quo long past the time when the quo has lost its status. | ” |
|
—Laurence J. Peter [7] |
||
| “ | ...collaboration is vital to sustain what we call profound or really deep change, because without it, organizations are just overwhelmed by the forces of the status quo. | ” |
|
—Peter Senge (1999) [8] |
||
[edit] Political web applications
Political web applications edit
Political web applications edit (Category edit)
[edit] Red vs. Blue Media
http://www.programmableweb.com/mashup/red-vs-blue-media/date Red vs Blue Media : ProgrammableWeb Mashup Detail
Description Choose your news stories based on your political preferences. Newspaper articles will appear spread on the US map in red or blue.APIs Yahoo Maps
Tags government, mapping, news, politics
[edit] Re-districting
http://redistrictinggame.org/index.php?pg=game The ReDistricting Game
- Requires Flash 9
The ReDistricting Game (http://redistrictinggame.org/index.php?pg=learnaboutmission&mission=1).
States are Redistricted After Each U.S. Census (and sometimes more frequently...) The U.S. Census is conducted the first year of each decade - e.g. 1980, 1990, 2000, 2010, etc. Since people often move across state lines, the population of each state will increase or decrease between each census (mostly increase). But federal law says that the number of U.S. House of Representatives stays constant at 435. So after each census, Congress adopts a formula that apportions each state a number of districts that is roughly proportional to their share of the country's population. This is why states with big populations tend to have more representatives than states with smaller populations.Based on these changes, then, the number of congressional districts in a state may change each decade. If the state's population grows relative to other states, then the state may receive a larger share of the 435 districts. On the other hand, the state's population can shrink relative to other states - in which case a state may get a smaller share of the 435 representatives (although every state receives at least one). Of course, a state's population may not change enough to cause any change in its number of congressional districts. But shifts within that state may require line drawers to redraw districts so that the population in each district is balanced.
| “ | [Democrats] get to rip off the public in the states where they control and protect their incumbents, and [Republicans] get to rip off the public in the states [where they] control and protect [their] incumbents, so the public gets ripped off in both circumstances. In the long run, there's a downward spiral of isolation. | ” |
|
—Newt Gingrich (Former House Speaker R-GA) |
||
[edit] Problems with U.S. political system
- Riders!!
- Gerrymandering, Wasted votes (largely due to our two-party system, and single-member district plurality, winner-takes-all voting system?)
- Tyranny of the majority?
- Political polarization
[edit] The "political spectrum" / polarization
Political spectrum - Wikipedia
[edit] One-dimensionality of political spectrum
In politics, centrism usually refers to the political ideal of promoting moderate policies which land in the middle ground between different political extremes. Most commonly, this is visualized as part of the one-dimensional political spectrum of Left-Right politics, with centrism landing in the middle between left-wing politics and right-wing politics. However, there is arguably more than one dimension to politics, so even the centre has its own radicals as exemplified by radical centrist politics.
Political spectrum - Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_spectrum).
While the right-left spectrum is so common as to be taken for granted, numerous alternatives exist, usually having been developed by people who feel their views are not fairly represented on the traditional right-left spectrum. The design of a spectrum itself can be politically motivated. [...]
[Many examples of alternative spectra cited...]
[edit] Decision-making (move out?)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink
[edit] Consensus decision-making
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_decision-making
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_democracy
[edit] Preemptive attacks
I don't care much for them. At the same time, I'm trying to keep an open mind to what the supports say in defense thereof...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism.
The Bush Doctrine of preemptive war was explicitely stated in the National Security Council text entitled the National Security Strategy of the United States published on September 20, 2002. "We must deter and defend against the threat before it is unleashed. ... even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy’s attack. ... The United States will, if necessary, act preemptively."[21] Policy analysts noted that the Bush Doctrine as stated in the 2002 NSS document bore a strong resemblance to recommendations originally presented in a controversial Defense Planning Guidance draft written in 1992 by Paul Wolfowitz under the first Bush administration[22]
The Bush Doctrine was greeted with accolades by many neoconservatives. When asked whether he agreed with the Bush Doctrine, Max Boot said he did, and that "I think [Bush is] exactly right to say we can’t sit back and wait for the next terrorist strike on Manhattan. We have to go out and stop the terrorists overseas. We have to play the role of the global policeman. ... But I also argue that we ought to go further."[23] Discussing the significance of the Bush Doctrine, neoconservative writer William Kristol claimed: "The world is a mess. And, I think, it's very much to Bush's credit that he's gotten serious about dealing with it. ... The danger is not that we're going to do too much. The danger is that we're going to do too little."[24]
[edit] Capitalism
One's opinions on this scale can range from capitalist all the way to socialist, with some more moderate views in between.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy.
Modern social democracy is unlike socialism in the traditional sense which aims to end the predominance of the capitalist system, or in the Marxist sense which aims to to replace it entirely; instead, social democrats aim to reform capitalism democratically through state regulation and the creation of state sponsored programs and organizations which work to ameliorate or remove perceived injustices inflicted by the capitalist market system.
...
[...] defines social democracy as an ideal form of democracy that can solve the problems found in unregulated capitalism.
[edit] Federalism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalism.
[...] First, federalism can limit government power and infringe rights, since it allows the possibility that a legislature wishing to restrict liberties will lack the constitutional power. The level of government that possesses the power lacks the desire. Second, the legalistic decision-making processes of federal systems limit the speed with which governments can act.
[edit] Civil liberties
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_liberties.
Civil liberties is the name given to freedoms that completely protect the individual from government. Civil liberties set limits for government so that it can not abuse its power and interfere with the lives of its citizens.
Common civil liberties include freedom of association, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, and freedom of speech, and additionally, the right to due process, to fair trial, to bear arms, and to privacy.
...
The existence of some claimed civil liberties is a matter of dispute, as are the extent of most civil liberties. Controversial examples include reproductive rights, same-sex marriage, possession of guns/arms, and the use of certain drugs. Another matter of debate is the suspension or alteration of certain civil liberties in times of war or state of emergency, including whether and to what extent this should occur.
[edit] Freedom of association
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_association.
However, the implicit First Amendment right of association has been limited by court rulings. For example, it is illegal in the United States to consider race in the making and enforcement of private contracts other than marriage or taking affirmative action. This limitation of freedom of association results from Section 1981 of Title 42 of the Civil Rights Act, as weighed against the First Amendment according to the court decision Runyon v. McCrary, 427 U.S. 160 (1976).
The holding of Runyon is that the defendant private schools were free to express and teach their views, such as white separatism, but could not discriminate on the basis of race in the provision of services to the general public. So if the plaintiff African-American children wished to attend such private schools, and were clearly qualified in all respects (but race) and were able to pay the fees, and were willing to attend despite the fact that the school's professed principles were inconsistent with admitting them, then the schools were required by Section 1981 to admit them. The general rule to be drawn from this is that the First Amendment protects the right to express, including expression of racial discrimination, but people may not practice such ideas even within private associations.
...
Freedom of association is a term popular in libertarian literature. It is used to describe the concept of absolute freedom to live in a community or be part of an organization whose values or culture are closely related to what one wants; or on a more basic level, to associate with any individual one chooses.
The libertarian [...] concept of freedom of association is often rebuked from a moral/ethical context. Under laws in such a system, businessowners could refuse custom to anyone for whatever reason. Opponents argue that such practices are regressive and would lead to greater prejudice within society. Those right-libertarians sympathetic to freedom of association, such as Richard Epstein, in a case of refusing service, a case of the freedom of contract, respond that unjustified discrimination incurs a cost and therefore a competitive disadvantage.
[edit] Gay rights
[edit] Arguments/precedents for not preventing discrimination based on "sexual orientation"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights.
Article 1-3 of the United Nations Charter states "To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion."
[Needs rewriting] If one were to argue that discrimination based on a lifestyle choice such as homosexuality should be prohibited, then shouldn't one also argue that discrimination based on factors such as past criminal/immoral behavior, child molestation, lying, killing, etc. should be prohibited? So if I were a business-owner, should I not have the right to refuse to hire someone on the basis of their admission to being a dishonest person and a thief? Can't one take an applicant's character/morality into consideration when choosing whether or not to hire them, etc.? Also, how do we justify publically posting notices about sex offenders? Isn't that discrimination?
[edit] Collective bargaining, labor unions
Do labor unions do more good or more harm? For example, do they make people lazy because employers are powerless to fire them when they underperform, etc.?
[edit] Libertarianism, minarchism
(Move to civics?)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minarchist.
In civics, minarchism, sometimes called minimal statism or small government, is the view that the size, role and influence of government in a free society should be minimal — only large enough to protect the liberty and property of each individual. Many minarchists consider themselves part of the libertarian tradition, and claim that what they call minarchy continues the traditions of classical liberal philosophy. The term is perhaps most often used to differentiate libertarians who believe it is possible to have a state that protects individual liberty without violating it itself, from the anarchists who believe that any state is inherently a violation of individual liberty. Minarchists believe some minimal government is necessary to preserve liberty (from invading non-minarchy based armies, if nothing else).
...
Minarchists agree that the guiding principle in determining what should or should not fall into the domain of the government is the maximization of individual liberty. Minarchists often disagree on exactly how to accomplish this. Many minarchists usually agree that government should be restricted to its "minimal" or "night watchman" state functions of government (e.g., courts, police, prisons, defense forces). Some minarchists include in the ideal role of government the management of essential common infrastructure (e.g., roads and money). In general, minarchists favor the administration and funding of government services in a small jurisdiction (like a city or county) over a larger jurisdiction (like a state or nation). This is favored because decisions are presumed to be more efficient when the decision-makers are closer to the subjects of the decisions (the citizens), and this leaves individuals who wish to avoid living or working under an expansion of government more options (it's easier to move to another city or county than to move to another state or country) - thus inducing more downsizing political pressure on the government.[citation needed] Minarchists are generally opposed to government programs that either transfer wealth or subsidize certain sectors of the economy. However, most minarchists support some level of government funding, including perhaps taxation in some limited cases, as long as individual liberty and the non-aggression principle are not compromised.
