What is your opinion on "Reagonomics"?
605826
Reaganomics can be good in very short doses. As much as it helped out big businesses, it also hurt the economy immensely during the inevitable downswing. Personally I feel there needs to be a more moderate, balanced approach. Reagan's style was way too extreme for the good of the country. Yeah, having a larege economic boom is good, but if it comes with a equally large recession, was it worth it? I'm not against conservative politics, but Reaganomics will ALWAYS lead to large recessions. That's why I don't like it.\nThe Clinton/GW Bush recession was very small because Bush had a surplus to cushion the blow.
1063640
Nope, not to my knowledge. That also just doesn't sound like something that Reagon would do or would have the power to do.
1016494
Hi Anna M\nThis book looks interesting. I think I'll buy and read it.\nThanks.
342798
Modern liberal theory can be best understood by reading Elizabeth Anderson's posts referred to below.  It is solidly grounded in capitalism, it is highly critical of central planning of every aspect of economic life, but it is far more intellectually sound than modern libertarian and conservative economic theory, which has an almost fundamentalist mindset when it comes to free-markets and taxation.  One may be right in accusing the extreme left-wing in American politics of flirting with profoundly anti-capitalistic sentiments, but one would be a fool to pretend that modern liberal theory is anti-capitalist.  If you wish to attack modern liberal theory, start by reading up on it.  There is a reason why the academic world is not dominated by libertarians and conservatives, and it has to do more with the relative value of their ideas--which have not done quite so well in the free marketplace of intellectual inquiry--and less to do with inherent bias in the academic system.  One way to learn about both liberalism and conservatism is to read Rawls, Nozick, Hayek (whom I actually admire quite a bit), Sen, Dworkin, etc.  And once you have read the careful and intellectually stimulating discussions between these people, it becomes incredibly silly to suggest that modern liberal theory believes in socialism.
242375
The neo-con philosophy ? Hmm. Depends on who you ask.\n\nThe "Neo-Conservative" movement was founded by former Democrats who in the 60's and 70's were Hawkish" on foreign policy. Some of the fathers of Neo-conservatism were  Sen. "Scoop" Jackson, Irving Kristol, and  Jeane Kirkpatrick.\n\nthe positive view: "liberal mugged by reality" \nthe negative view: a bunch of mostly Zionist Jews who take a simple good vs. evil view of the world.
690007
It is correct, mostly. Another great back firing idea. The issue would be with the word "all" in "all the trouble"; most of them are self inflicted, sure. Radicalism in the world has been severely excited by US policies for the last 50 years or so.
754242
After thinking many years about my ideas about liberal and conservative politics. I have come to define liberal politics as those that liberate the many from a power structure that concentrates the wealth of the global culture into the hands of a mercenary, plutocratic, predatory few. I have come to define conservative politics as those that conserve a power structure that concentrates the wealth of the many of our global culture into the hands of a mercenary, plutocratic, predatory few.\n\nWhy should I expect to win a "war on terror" by creating terror in war? Why should I expect to win a war on terror by giving all my gold to a mercenary plutocratic predatory few when it is a mercenary plutocratic predatory few that profit from the demand for protection created by terrorist activity? Terrorist activity creates demand in the market place for the protection services offered by a mercenary plutocratic predatory few. I think, believe and expect a more rational approach to winning the war on terror would be to redistribute of the wealth of the global culture by taking wealth from a mercenary plutocratic predatory few and giving wealth to the many. This would have the dual effect of diminishing the profits derived by a mercenary plutocratic predatory few from operating a global shakedown of epic proportions that some call a war on terror; and enabling the many to protect themselves from terrorist attack as individuals by using wealth acquired through redistribution .
541954
It's ok. It's a fairly quick read, so you don't need to invest too much time in it, and it's fairly interesting. The ideas and characters come up every now and then in conversation, so it's good to have read if for background.\n\nBasically, it's kind of an indictment on the lives and characters of the rich.
177911
I don't know but you may want to look at Foucault since he proposed a lot of changes about how we think about and treat criminals.  It may be a start.
25144
I read the book myself about 5 years ago at school. Its all metaphors and political commentary. The link below will provide all the information you could need.\n\nAs to the above answer "do a google", you will find the 95% of the questions on here coud be solved quicker are more effectivly with a google search by the user.
956237
"What are your views on the Republican party?"\n\nThey are on my "least favorite" list right now, considering they've spent the past 6 years flushing America down the toilet.  The Republican Party is the whore and it's pimps are greedy corporate conglomerates, self-serving special interest groups, and the wealthy elite.  The sad thing is that the Democrats are almost (but not quite) as bad.  The 2 main parties have become a sad joke, full of corrupt politicians bought and owned by the corporate lobbyists, and serving the almighty dollar instead of the American people.\n\n"List your party as well (if any)."\n\nAs I mentioned above, I'm fed up with the 2 main parties.  And there is no party that best represents my beliefs, so I guess I'd consider myself an independent.  I love the Green Party's stance on social justice issues, environmental issues, consumer rights, and regulating corporations but some other parts of their platform are too liberal for me.  The Libertarian Party's views regarding the preservation of our civil liberties, privacy, freedoms, etc are awesome.  Their economic views are pretty warped though.  Once in a great while the Democrats do something I see as productive and worthwhile.  However, it will be a long, long, long time before a Republican gets another one of my votes; no confidence left in them.
14440
Tim O'Reilly, one of the biggest proponents, has a nice article defining what its supporters say it is. (Link below)\n\nThe Register polled its users and got a slightly more cynical take. (Other link below)\n\nThe truth can be gleaned between the two - chances are, depending on who you talk to, they mean one of these two stances.
626119
A NON-RACIST THEORY OF RACIST AMERICA\n\n\n\nIntroduction\n\nAll the theories that have been used to explain the nature of the United States are inadequate to the task because they have refused to see racism as the primary factor influencing the country. It is just too upsetting for Americans to admit this role of racism.\n\nEven the liberal/radical theories that refer to the United States as a racist nation mean little more than that the people and the institutions of the nation are prejudiced and discriminate against black Americans. This is only half the story, however, since the values, ideals, and indeed the very thought processes of Americans are expressions of racism. In this article we argue that racism is not an American "dilemma," or simply one of the social problems facing the country. Racism is America itself.\n\nThe article examines the South as an example of the kind of analysis that sociologists should be doing for the entire United States. American social scientists understood the racist nature of the South. They emphasized the importance of the caste system and the racism of not only the southern upper class, but the middle class as well. These theorists also emphasized the impact of racism on every aspect of southern life, from its government to its values, ideals, and ideas.\n\nSociologists have failed to apply the southern model to the United States as a whole. The reason for this is primarily that most sociologists believe in the liberal version of the equality- of-opportunity thesis and because they became so focused on the civil rights battles in the South that they failed to notice the pervasive racism throughout the nation. The South's racism was simply more virulent.\n\nThe next part applies the southern analysis to an understanding of the United States as a whole. This application is especially needed today because the migration of blacks to all the urban centers of the nation makes the entire country now behave in a manner similar to the South after the breakdown of legal supports for its apartheid system. The next part concentrates on the acceptance by the upper and middle classes of the equality-of- opportunity thesis, rather than equality of results, as the preferred social model for the nation. We argue that the basis for this acceptance is racism itself.\n\nThe next part develops a political model showing how the white middle class controls political swings in American governmental history. The white middle class (including in that class the working class) determines the major political agenda of the nation, including its society, culture, and government. It also shows that this middle class is racist.\n\nThe model also identifies the social change factors that account for the political cycles in American history. Even though the United States is a basically conservative nation, it has increased equality of opportunity five times (counting the Jacksonian revolution as part of the establish of American government): the abolition of slavery, the Progressive era's curbing of industrial concentration, the granting of woman suffrage, the establishment of the welfare state, and the abolition of the southern apartheid system. Although the United States has certainly granted more equality over time to its citizens, it must never be forgotten that these changes occurred within the framework of a racist nation, and that the changes never touched the underlying equality-of-opportunity thesis or fundamentally altered the unequal society.\n\nThe next part traces the development of a common racist culture in the United States. It shows how the three very different regions (New England, the mid-Atlantic, and the South) were able to unite culturally because all faced similar problems involved with slavery. Common experiences with racism led the colonials to combine laissez- faire economics and puritanical moralism into a racist thesis of equality of opportunity.\n\nThe next part explains how
65398
A New World Order in principle is great.  In a world of robots it is perfection.  For humans it is horribly flawed if your interest is in the "common good" for all.  Human nature is never taken into account.
43569
There is a contributor named Rob Wallace that you might want to do a search on (a few recent postings).\n\nI would be interested on your take of my study below Nik.
977665
Big Brother,\n\nYou ask a question that is both important and provocative (as all truly great questions are). And unfortunately, the answers you've received thus far are not very well thought out. They're just so much "Yahoo Vapor" being released into cyberspace. Please, let me attempt a full, measured response to your excellent question.\n\nBefore answering, I checked out your answers page, and from the "About Me" section I gleaned that your political leanings run to the "Libertarian" side of the spectrum. From that point of view, the idea of conscription represents the worst sort of abuse. With great respect to the sincerity of your position, I disagree.\n\nLibertarianism is a philosophical offshoot of Classical Liberalism, which itself is based on a "Contract Theory" notion of the origins of societies. Nations are formed by the consent of the governed; and this agreement is formalized in a Constitution. Well and good.\n\nThe problem with Libertariansim (in my opinion) is that it begins and ends with the "contract," while for Classical Liberalism, this is merely the starting point. The heart of this difference is revealed in the answer to a single important question: "What is the ultimate nature of society?"\n\nClassical Liberals will answer that society is organic, while Libertarians argue that it is mechanistic (i.e. the "machine" of the contract). For Libertarians, the only thing that is non-negotiably real is the inherent, intrinsic, everlasting value of individual liberty. If you like, the "Summum Bonum" and "Totum Bonum" are one -- the individual.\n\nI reject this notion on both philosophical and practical grounds. Philosophically, the ideals of Libertarianism are unbalanced -- disproportionately skewed on the side of the individual. Because my view of society is organic, I must regard society in the same way I view a living organism -- as a synergism -- the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.\n\nWhen the body is threatened, it sends out anti-bodies to destroy the invading organisms. Imagine if the anti-bodies said, "No. I have other plans, and this gets in the way of my inalienable right to pursue them." The body dies, and with the death of the body comes the death of the anti-bodies as well. Why, because each and every one of us in bound-up together. It's unrealistic to view society as a series of individually negotiated contractual obligations. No, the poet John Donne was far more accurate...\n\nNo man is an island, entire of itself.\nEvery man is piece of the continent,\na part of the main...\n\nAn organic understanding of society requires us to acknowledge that we aren't a series of free floating atoms. We are all interconnected, just as the cells of the body are interconnected.\nAn enlightened approach to society requires us to understand that we owe each other a positive response (which is far superior to the response of the Libertarian whose basic response is merely neutral -- "Stay out of my way, and I'll stay out of yours"). I maintain that an organic view of mutual interconnectedness is morally superior.\n\nOn a practical, empirical level, the triumph of this interconnected view has led to the growth of the West, and the betterment of each and all in society. Consider the impact of free education. The beneficiaries of that are children who themselves cannot pay. Libertarians (particularly those without children) often lament about the unfairness of being forcibly taxed to maintain institutions they don't use. But that's a narrow and short-sighted view of things. \n\nThe child who is being educated in that school may one day find the cure to a disease that is killing you, or someone you love. Moreover, the failure of that system may ultimately lead to a youngster who loses hope, take to crime, and kills you on the street for your wallet. Empirically, you cannot esca
571325
Yes, it seems that neo-cons are concrete operational thinkers and that liberals are abstract.  People who are the former tend to have thier whole lives planned out, are settled, and even when facts are presented they chose to stick with the traditional viewpoint (no matter how wrong) and they also do what they are told without question.  Neo-cons do not question authoristy, rather, they act as apoligists to any half-baked idea the government throws at them.  Neo-cons are the rich elite's dream come true - namely, middle class, often working poor "americans" who cannot understand the methods of thier own exploitation by the elite class and who are more than willing to blame, cannabalize and work against thier fellow people.  Some think they are rich, they live on the credit of the elite, and pay debts monthly to maintain dignity in some distorted way.  The fact of the matter is, they are truely fools, and thier societal place goes far back in history.  Neo-cons have always been around... they worship Machiavelli and pander to power (that works against them ultimately) just as he did.  \n\nThere should be a diagnosis for such people - Neo-Conservative Personality Disorder.\n\nthe treatment could be some cognitive enhancement therapy such as reading just one Noam Chomsky book... but they won't and if they do they can't understand it for the above mentioned reasons.