What makes a state successful?

[TokenLiberal]

If we want to understand each other's political views, and perhaps get to the bottom of where we disagree, I think we would do well to start at the beginning: Our core values. I think they would naturally come up when we try to answer the following question.

How do we measure a country's, or, if you prefer, a society's success?

Some examples of metrics: GDP per capita, legal or practical freedom, stability, equality, social progress, etc. Can we land, through discourse, on a combination of metrics we are all happy with?

[19Bones79]

Hi and Welcome, 


What are your core values?

[TokenLiberal]

Hi, thanks.

I believe most passionately in freedom, security, representative government, and setting people up for success, where the latter three sort of follow from the first. Ultimately, my most core value is the belief in freedom.

My passion for freedom is rooted in the belief that everyone should be able to choose how they live their life, as long as it doesn't impede the freedom of others. Liberalism is pretty much that, though it can be understood multiple ways. I think almost everybody in the world believes in its core principles, yet any two people who believe in it can and often do disagree with each other. An example is that I believe libertarianism is a perversion of liberal ideals, but it's still clearly rooted in liberalism. Therefore it makes some sense to clarify what I think liberalism is or should be.

What makes us able to live a life of our choosing? It's not just the basic rights like freedom of speech, the right to private property, equality under the law (yes, including US presidents), control over your own body (yes, including abortion), the right to privacy, etc. It's also equal opportunity and the freedom not to be exploited by corporations. Here I believe the state plays a critical role, and where me and libertarians diverge.

Part of being able to live a life or our choosing comes back to the fourth point I mentioned initially: Setting people up for success. I strongly believe that a child born in a lower class family should have the same opportunities as a child born in a rich family. It should not be the case that the rich kid can buy his or her way into good private schools while the poor kid, stuck in an underfunded public school system, gets left behind. The state plays a critical role there in making sure that, for one, the public school system is well-funded, and also that lower class families have the resources to set their children up for success. I tend to bring up The Wire, particularly its 4th season, as an illustration of how America has a lot to improve on when it comes to equal opportunity. We follow children growing up on the streets of Baltimore and, if we're being intellectually honest, we have a hard time arguing that they are "free" in any practical sense.

Then, the freedom not to be exploited. In a market-based economic system (which I believe in, by the way), corporations are incentivized to exploit the population for profit. A company wants to pollute the river because it's the cheapest way to get rid of their waste, but the people downstream want clean water. The lack of clean water makes them less free. Another example is health care, which is often an inelastic market ripe for exploitation. People should be free to choose the path that is medically best for them, and not be forced into bad choices because they can't afford the best treatment. That makes them less free. Here, the state plays a critical role in regulating conflicts of interest between corporations and the population.

Moving on to security. I am talking here about the sort of security we get from having a roof over our head, savings for a rainy day, and the prospect of being helped back up if we fall. It's again related to freedom: People who feel secure are more free to make choices. They are less worried about the "what if" scenario's. "What if this choice backfires?" A secure person will think "it's okay, we'll bounce back" whereas an insecure person will be worried about the consequences, and feel crippled to make choices that carry any risk.

Representative government is of course also vital for our freedom. Authoritarian rule makes us directly less free. It's important that our democracies remain strong, because it's the only way to ensure that our governments work for us. This point is of particular importance in the US, where structural reform is needed. Some things that I believe contribute to making its government inadequately representative are SCOTUS' Citizens United v. FEC decision (combined with the existence of primaries), the electoral college, the filibuster, a politicized supreme court, etc.

How about you?

[19Bones79]

I can see a world where equal opportunities are given to people of all means to better themselves in life with regards to access to quality education. It however remains the ability and responsibility of the individual to achieve a suitable level of competency based upon criteria used as qualifiers for everyone. 

I can see a world where no one goes hungry and the food isn't manipulated.

I can see a world where Healthcare is provided free of charge. 

I can see a world where knowledge is not riddled with untruth and therefore pure propaganda. 

I can see a world where war is outlawed. 

I can see a world where everyone knows they have opportunity to dream. 

I can see a world where our children, all children, are the most protected category of human under all laws.


Some beliefs that you might find controversial :

I'm anti-abortion except in rare cases such as rape, risk to the mother, and incurable, extreme abnormalities being detected.

Otherwise people connect their group identity to the casual destruction of a human being in its most vulnerable phase, the fetus,for reasons of convenience.

Which brings me to the next one.

People who don't have children shouldn't be allowed to vote on issues that will affect future generations. 

They have no skin in the game. 

Also, human traffickers are not human. They have no human rights. 

Cultures who do not mix naturally should not be made to mix forcefully. 

That's how you destroy a cultural identity. 

And also the reason why Israel will never open its borders to an unmitigated stream of illegals and illicit drugs. 

I don't think this is a complete list, but the big takeaway should be that people develop a newfound, genuine respect for each other and their boundaries. 

Whether that be cultural or geographical. 

So that every culture is essentially allowed to flourish. 

Of course there are people who feel more at home in a culture other than their own, and it is my dream that they be welcomed into the fold as well.

[TokenLiberal]

I can see a world where equal opportunities are given to people of all means to better themselves in life with regards to access to quality education. It however remains the ability and responsibility of the individual to achieve a suitable level of competency based upon criteria used as qualifiers for everyone.

Agreed.

I'm anti-abortion except in rare cases such as rape, risk to the mother, and incurable, extreme abnormalities being detected.

Otherwise people connect their group identity to the casual destruction of a human being in its most vulnerable phase, the fetus,for reasons of convenience.

Yeah, we disagree, but it's not a particularly interesting discussion in my experience. Or maybe I'm just tired of it. I do think the relevant SCOTUS decisions are an interesting segue into a potential discussion about how to interpret the US constitution, for which I am game if you are.

Which brings me to the next one.

People who don't have children shouldn't be allowed to vote on issues that will affect future generations. 

They have no skin in the game. 

Interesting. In principle, I'm fine with it, but I'm afraid it wouldn't be workable. A lot would ride on which issues we consider to be "affecting future generations" as opposed to affecting everyone, and that would be a hard thing to legally define. Also, people live really long sometimes, and you can't know that in advance. Also, government budgets are zero-sum, by which I mean money can only be spent once. This means that every issue that gets voted on kind of affects every other issue, because if you invest in something there are now less resources to invest in other things.

Also, human traffickers are not human. They have no human rights.

I'm disgusted by such people too, but I still think everyone has a right to a fair trial. And if a human trafficker is convicted, then yes, strip them of (most of) their rights. This is what we already do with criminals by putting them in prison.

Cultures who do not mix naturally should not be made to mix forcefully.

Agreed, though I believe this is a problem unique to Europe. Something the US does very well when it comes to immigration is that the mix of cultures is sort of baked into its national identity, and immigrants naturally integrate relatively well. Multiculturalism in Europe however is clearly not working, and the European left would do well to admit that to itself.

the big takeaway should be that people develop a newfound, genuine respect for each other and their boundaries. 

Whether that be cultural or geographical. 

So that every culture is essentially allowed to flourish. 

Of course there are people who feel more at home in a culture other than their own, and it is my dream that they be welcomed into the fold as well.

Would be nice. I think the key is shaping a world in which people are not inclined to flee their own country. If they move somewhere because they actually want to be there, rather than because they are forced to, they would obviously be much better set up to integrate effectively.

[19Bones79]

It's Friday night. 


I would like nothing better than discussing the US consti

It's Friday night.


If you don't mind me asking, do you have children?

[TokenLiberal]

Lol fair enough. Yes I have a child, why?

[19Bones79]

Lol fair enough. Yes I have a child, why?

I find it strange that people are pro-abortion as a matter of convenience. 

Stranger still when a child has had the opportunity to come into this world and change your life in a way that nothing else does.

The natural inclination to protect that child at all costs "suddenly" kicks in but only after seeing the baby? 


I can understand and agree with a lot of your views, but I am baffled by some others.

[TokenLiberal]

I find it strange that people are pro-abortion as a matter of convenience. 

Stranger still when a child has had the opportunity to come into this world and change your life in a way that nothing else does.

The natural inclination to protect that child at all costs "suddenly" kicks in but only after seeing the baby? 


I can understand and agree with a lot of your views, but I am baffled by some others.

Alright, I'll explain my position at least. I'm for the right to abortion because I believe that a pregnant woman is perfectly capable of weighing the pros and cons and making the decision herself, and that no one, not me, you, or the government, has the right to tell her what to do with her own body. A pre-viability fetus to me is just part of her body, it's not yet a separate entity with its own rights. It's as simple as that. The reason for a pre-viability abortion doesn't matter because it is fully the mother's decision and no one has the right to make it for her.

At some point during the pregnancy it becomes sensible to consider the fetus a human with rights of its own. At that point the mother will have had plenty of time to abort it if she wished, and I think it makes sense for there to be laws around it. But even then, it's not really needed because it's a non-issue. No mother who decided to carry the child to term is going to change her mind about that in the third trimester without a very good medical reason (in which case abortion should still be allowed). We're talking about mothers who have likely picked a name, have started making changes in the house to prepare, etc.

The natural inclination to protect that child at all costs "suddenly" kicks in but only after seeing the baby?

In my experience it kicks in before, and is greatly amplified upon seeing the baby. Obviously, abortion is never an easy decision, but to me that doesn't matter. Easy or not, it's not my, your, or the state's decision. It's the mother's decision, and hers alone.

[19Bones79]

Alright, I'll explain my position at least. I'm for the right to abortion because I believe that a pregnant woman is perfectly capable of weighing the pros and cons and making the decision herself, and that no one, not me, you, or the government, has the right to tell her what to do with her own body. A pre-viability fetus to me is just part of her body, it's not yet a separate entity with its own rights. It's as simple as that. The reason for a pre-viability abortion doesn't matter because it is fully the mother's decision and no one has the right to make it for her.

At some point during the pregnancy it becomes sensible to consider the fetus a human with rights of its own. At that point the mother will have had plenty of time to abort it if she wished, and I think it makes sense for there to be laws around it. But even then, it's not really needed because it's a non-issue. No mother who decided to carry the child to term is going to change her mind about that in the third trimester without a very good medical reason (in which case abortion should still be allowed). We're talking about mothers who have likely picked a name, have started making changes in the house to prepare, etc.


In my experience it kicks in before, and is greatly amplified upon seeing the baby. Obviously, abortion is never an easy decision, but to me that doesn't matter. Easy or not, it's not my, your, or the state's decision. It's the mother's decision, and hers alone.

Does that include having an abortion as a matter of convenience?