How I am (and maybe you are) both conservative and liberal

[prof]

At the same time a conservative and a liberal? How meaningful are political labels?

I am for individual liberty and responsibility and for efficient, waste-free government with no fraud nor abuse of power. I am for rational tax policies as well as for reasonable regulations that do not become a burden; for rule of law but I want the statutes to be based on universal ethical principle.[1]

I believe markets should be free of tariffs at both ends of the exchange: I want free trade. I am aware that virtually every business gets some break or assistance from its government; this is not necessarily a bad thing.

I want the conservation of human and natural resources. I want individuals to have a moral compass. I want to help the less fortunate. I want government to provide all kinds of safety-nets for the poor or the miserable.

I'd rather not be labeled, but if I had to wear a label I would call myself a 'Progressive Realist' and a Philosopher with ideals.

I want for you a quality life. A quality life is what enables us to get along well, to function, to flourish as human beings flourish -- namely, to be happy and to be virtuous (be in a state of balance, a state between over-doing and under-doing [and also between over-valuing and under-valuing]. And we should do what we have good reasons to do, and what is in our long-range enlightened self-interest. Rationality has a close relationship with morality.

1) To learn more about 21st-century ethical theory, check out the new paradigm for Ethics at these -- all safe to open -- links:

For the paper, LIVING THE GOOD LIFE, use this one for the PDF-FILE:
http://wadeharvey.myqol.com/wadeharvey/ ... _Lifef.pdf

For the booklet A UNIFIED THEORY OF ETHICS, use
http://wadeharvey.myqol.com/wadeharvey/ ... ETHICS.pdf

For the booklet ETHICAL ADVENTURES
http://wadeharvey.myqol.com/wadeharvey/ ... NTURES.pdf

For the essay, ETHICAL EXPLORATIONS
http://tinyurl.com/22ohd2x

For the paper ASPECTS OF ETHICS
http://tinyurl.com/36u6gpo

Note the list of Ethical principles at the end of the fourth part of the Unified Theory, namely at the conclusion of Aspects of Ethics.
Happy reading. Enjoy !!

[chaz wyman]

I believe markets should be free of tariffs at both ends of the exchange: I want free trade. I am aware that virtually every business gets some break or assistance from its government; this is not necessarily a bad thing.

I want the conservation of human and natural resources. I want individuals to have a moral compass. I want to help the less fortunate. I want government to provide all kinds of safety-nets for the poor or the miserable.

These two things are a direct contradiction.
Free trade is the quickest and easiest way to destroy human and natural resources. Right now fly-by-night corporations move into different countries and freely slash and burn, and move on. Once we did this on a human scale and suffered from negative feedback - this would act to limit our destruction. Now the corporate entity can just move to a new place leaving a wrecked economy and environment with no negative consequences to itself.
Right now all trade tariffs help rich countries to the detriment of poor ones, whilst international trading fixes the lowest prices possible for raw materials and food produce that the poorest countries rely on.
Whilst Western govs. keep their own populations happy with 'bread and circuses' - there is not help for the poor and miserable abroad , until they are devastated by dropping commodity prices having been encouraged to forego subsistence farming in favour of growing cash crops which no longer are enough to live on.
"Moral Compasses" always seem to swing in the direction of cash and greed, and collect the appropriate ideology to support whatever twisted view of liberality that serves the collection of the dollar.

[prof]

Hi, Chaz

You make some good points.

However I can't tell exactly where you stand. You seem to be against free trade and also against tariffs. I thought the two were opposites of each other: that tariffs block free trade. So what is the alternative that you support?? Don't you want rich countries to take care of their own citizens? There are some very good arguments in Economics in favor of free trade ...but all of your observations are true and relevant with respect to today's world, and how capitalism has evolved since the days Adam Smith first proposed it.

What is the answer? What arrangements should replace what we've got? What structures would do a better job? How can we avoid going to meetings all day long? (on the premiss that we arrange to have - instead - some kind of direct democracy)?

[chaz wyman]

Hi, Chaz

You make some good points.

However I can't tell exactly where you stand. You seem to be against free trade and also against tariffs. I thought the two were opposites of each other: that tariffs block free trade. So what is the alternative that you support?? Don't you want rich countries to take care of their own citizens? There are some very good arguments in Economics in favor of free trade ...but all of your observations are true and relevant with respect to today's world, and how capitalism has evolved since the days Adam Smith first proposed it.

What is the answer? What arrangements should replace what we've got? What structures would do a better job? How can we avoid going to meetings all day long? (on the premiss that we arrange to have - instead - some kind of direct democracy)?

It's not that black and white. I don't have to be for free trade that is harmful, and can be against tariffs that do harm.
Free Trade is not the panacea that certain elements of the libertarian press would have you believe. Big fish eat little fish, until pretty soon there is a small set of big fish trying to eat each other. The end game of free trade is virtual monopoly. Big fish can afford to out-price emergent businesses by economies of scale and by taking losses in specific locations. eg. Supermarkets offering loss-leaders to draw people away from the smaller shops. When those shops stop trading, then the supermarket rules. There are high streets all over the UK that are ghost towns, whilst the big chains sell adulterated food, and clothes, dvds, hardware produced in countries that pay their workers on poverty wages.

I'm against free trade that destroys small economies in favour of corporations, and against tariffs that protect the economic power of large countries to the detriment of poverty stricken economies.
The global economy enables abuses that polarise wealth and create wide spread poverty.

Adam Smith did not 'propose' capitalism. It's not like he invented it and every one took his advice following it like an ideology. Smith was commenting on the current economic activity of his time, and explained how nations made wealth, often at the expense of other countries.

It's worth mentioning that his model was concerned with the wealth of NATIONS, not corporations which are super-national bodies that have gained power at the expense of the nation state, can cross borders to avoid tax and other forms of fiscal responsibility. He would have been horrified that such a thing had come to pass, and would be advising the bigger nations to invade and control tax-haven nations such as Switzerland, Monaco, and so on.

I am ashamed to live in a world where we throw away billions of tonnes of food whilst people starve; where corporations are able to slash and burn and move on the wreck other environments without any negative feedback or corporate responsibility.
It's not about tariffs and free trade or any other ideological devices used by the rich to impose their self interested ideas on to the public.
One only has to ask Cui bono, to follow the route of the cash to the top to see where the corruption is and the source of poverty and desolation.