What kind of Democrat am I?

[Zynx]

Here are my fundamental beliefs:

Economics:
-Free Markets are the best way to organize an economy, but their excesses must be curbed and regulated.

-Labor unions serve a vital role and should be encouraged.

-Achieving more equal distribution of income through the progressive income tax is in our economy's long term interest.

-Financial markets are vital to this economy's well-being and government oversight of them is essential.

-Government should, through its policies, also ensure that proper incentives do exist for investment and capital accumulation as they do serve vital roles.

-Government should, in some cases, control or at least protect industries of vital national interest or that provide vital services that cannot be profitably maintained in the market.

-Free trade is generally a good thing, though it should only be carried out in full with countries that share our same value for worker's rights and the environment.

***As our environment is fragile, when there is a delicate balance between economic value and environmental damage, the government should come down on the side of the environment.

-Social welfare programs are vital to ensuring that people do not fall through the cracks, are beaten down by market forces, or are disabled and unable to work within the current framework.

Social Values:

-Every citizen, regardless of age, gender, race, sexual orientation, religious affiliation, physical disability, mental disability should have completely equal rights in all regards.

-Government policies should help to achieve equality of opportunity for all people who are discriminated against and otherwise would not have the same opportunities. Fundamentally, equality of result is not essential if equality of opportunity is truly equal.

-No religion's beliefs should ever be imposed on this country no matter what level of national consensus there may be for them. The rights of religious minorities, including the irreligious, must be protected just as strongly as those of any other minority.

-A woman's right to choose is a fundamental right of privacy and must be protected.

-Marriage should be allowed between any two mutually consenting adults.

-The family is an important social unit and policies that support the formation of families are positive.

Other beliefs:

-The death penalty is absolutely, 100% wrong. The state should never be engaged in the business of determining when life begins or when it ends.

-The criminal justice system in this country perpetrates incredible injustices and is inefficient. Part of this is due to the popular elections of judges and prosecutors. These should be appointed positions with oversight from non-partisan boards.

-The use of marijuana is no more harmful than the consumption of alcohol. Probably less so. The use and sale of marijuana should not be illegal.

-The United States should never support a government that does not reflect the popular will of its people unless there is an absolutely vital cause, the only example of which was supporting Stalin over Hitler.

-Universal health care is a right. No one should be able to buy life expectancy. Health is not a commodity.

-The government should greatly expand access to quality education through massive scholarship programs and helping states expand their state university programs greatly. The greatest social mobility is achieved through our public schools.

-We must never surrender any personal liberty for the sake of "security". How secure can you be from a government that has the right to restrain your liberty?

-The right to vote is absolute for all adults. Those not currently serving a sentence for a felony conviction must be allowed to vote regardless of the crime. Forgiveness is a vital human virtue.

------------------------

I have been called everything from a socialist to a right-winger. What do you think?

[acmavm]

1. What kind: A REAL democrat, that's what kind.

[Zynx]

2. I appreciate it, since I have been called a Bushite in recent days by some.

I was confused.

[existentialist]

3. You sound like something close to

the mainstream of the Democratic Party to me.


except that maybe you think a bit more than average, but that's good.

[Zynx]

4. I figured I was pretty close to mainstream.

We'll see what others think, but thanks for your compliments.

[MikeNearMcChord]

5. You Marxist,Freeper, Communist, Rush Limbaugh Loving,

Bushbot,Clintonoid, Lennin, Churchillian, Right-Wing, Left Wing traitor, you!:sarcasm: :evilgrin:

Your post is sensible, and I would say I agree with you.
I WOULD SAY THAT YOU ARE THE MODEL DEMOCRAT, AND HOPEFULLY THE STANDARD FOR THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY RIGHT NOW! Thanks for a good post
:patriot: :applause: :woohoo: :patriot:

[Zynx]

6. Thank you very much.

I'm not sure about being a model. I was compiling my beliefs on various issues just to see what the whole picture is. :-)

[progressive_realist]

7. A reasonable one?

I don't agree with you on every point, but I think you bring a valuable perspective to this board.

[Zynx]

11. No one agrees with everybody on every point. :-)

If you did, you aren't thinking entirely for yourself unless you are of exactly the same mindset as me. That's probably 1 in 25,000,000.

[wuushew]

8. You're pushing the perpetual growth angle and financial markets too much

Its abundantly clear to me that economic activity is constrained in very real ways by the resource limits of the environment.


The nature of wealth creation will look much different in the rapidly approaching steady state paradigm.

[Zynx]

10. I frankly don't believe in the "steady state" proposed by the Solow Growth Model.

I really don't. They teach it in Intermediate Macroeconomics, but I just don't believe in it. Economic growth throughout human history has actually taken on an accelerating trend due to increases in productivity. I am a great optimist about the long term prospects of economic growth.

[Solon]

14. Economic growth will slow, and may stop, due to energy constraints...

Right now we use a closed system for energy production, and are apparently hitting the peak in energy production. The fact of the matter is that, regardless of what economists say, no model predicts increased economic growth using less net energy than what we are using now. That's impossible, on a physical level.

[Zynx]

16. I believe advances in technology in the next 40 years will shock and amaze us.

As I said, I am an optimist in the long run. That's what makes me a liberal. I believe in progress. In time, we will probably develop fusion power, perfect solar, or whatever the case may be. I have tremendous faith in human ingenuity.

[Solon]

23. No amount of technology can violate the laws of physics...

You cannot create energy from nothing, and you cannot create machines with 100% efficiency. Besides, we don't HAVE 40 years, we have 10, at most. Fusion has been "right around the corner" for many decades now, solar is getting better but has drawbacks, and most other alternatives are the same. In the next 40 years, we might be able to create sustainable energy sources that would create a flatline in energy production, but not UNLIMITED growth. That's simply impossible, if it isn't oil, coal or natural gas that we run out of, it will be land and water to utilize or build energy production on.

If you want unlimited growth, then you would have to go offworld and utilize the resources in space. That's simply a fact, and even then, you would hit limits for people still on Earth. Our energy production, regardless of how its produced, will begin to stagnate on this planet, its inevitable. You can be an optimist, but don't throw reality out the window with that optimism.

[Zynx]

24. People have also been predicting the end of economic growth for centuries.

Governments around the world have dramatically increased their research into new energy solutions. It is true that energy cannot be created from "nothing", but for all intents and purposes it can seem that way. Fusion power, if achieved, and huge strides have been made, will produce the electricity necessary for sustained economic expansion for centuries to come. I've seen no reasonable study to suggest we can't. I never subscribe to gloom and doom because history doesn't reflect that view point.

There are problems to be sure, but whenever humans hit a wall, we find a way around it. I never believe in the apocalyptic view of the world. I'm not a physicist myself, but I have talked about these issues with physics professors. I've never heard anything to suggest we will run out of electrical production anytime in the next few decades.

[Solon]

26. We aren't going to RUN OUT, we are going to not be able to meet demand...

There is a difference. A classic example would be coal, back in the 1970s, it was predicted that we had 500 years left of coal to produce electricity. Today, its estimated we have maybe 50 years, if that. Why the disparity? Because the first study, from the '70s, did not account for increase in electricity demand, in addition to more accurate accounting of how much coal is actually in the ground.

Do you remember the rolling blackouts in California a few years ago? That was caused because a few energy companies decided to scam customers and take advantage of the situation there, they created an artificial, and temporary, energy shortage. However, if you removed the greed from the equation, and replaced it with fuel, that's the future, the near future, for some parts of the nation, and it will expand as well.

The big problem is this, even if Fusion, or even more speculative energy production technologies, like Zero-point energy(most likely a fantasy), were to be discovered or found to be working, you would have to be able to build enough plants to take up the slack when supply is outstripped by demand. Considering we are hitting a wall NOW or in the very near future, that seems unlikely.

As far as people predicting the end of economic growth for centuries, well, economic growth has stopped, many times, and has actually regressed, many times. In the past it was highly localized, when empires collapsed, or people died off, famines etc. The fact is that today we live in a globalized world, with an economy based on only fossil fuels. Those fuels are quickly hitting peak production, and will not keep up with demand, that means a perpetual recession until such time that technologies such as fusion MAY be able to take up some of the slack.

We aren't talking an apocalypse here, but more like a slow decline. First it would be an inconvenience, for example rolling blackouts, some days with electricity, some days without, lines at gas stations, etc. Depending on the society in question, such a crisis could be handled extraordinarily well, or governments can make it worse.

We have two different fossil fuels that concern us, Coal and Oil, Coal actually is the easier one to deal with, first it will not peak for a while now, somewhere around 50 years as I said, and is mostly used for electrical generation in power plants. It can be replaced by damned near anything, from solar panels, to wind generation, to geothermic, fission plants, or fusion plants(in the future), etc. This means we have options and time to implement them.

Oil is trickier, simply but, its the most dense form of energy we know about, and its portable, hence its primary usage as a means to fuel transportation, mostly cars and airplanes. There is no alternative produced today that can replace it, supplement it, yes, such as ethanol, batteries, etc. but not outright replace it, not at current world demands, and certainly not at future increased demands. We don't have enough arable land to create enough ethanol to match the 83 million barrels of oil that we consume per day NOW, much less the projection of 100+ million barrels we would supposedly consume in less than a decade. It doesn't really matter where the ethanol comes from, we simply don't have the land, and unless we want to turn every coastline green with algae, that won't replace the oil either.

Electric vehicles aren't really a means to combat this either, they are a pollution control measure, and use batteries or fuel cells, energy carriers, not producers. They are expensive, and not a very efficient means of transport, just like gasoline or diesel automobiles aren't efficient. If we were to replace every automobile and truck on the road in the United States with an electric or fuel cell vehicle, we would need to produce a huge amount of additional electricity, probably twice as much as we do now, just to keep up. In short, we don't have that ability, not now, and not in the near future.

The fact of the matter is that we cannot sustain our current lifestyles, at current growth rates, on Earth. We need to make sacrifices on some level, both individually and as a society to make sure we create a society that's sustainable. This would mean no more poorly insulated McMansions, nor suburbs or exurbs, people would have to live closer to not only each other, but their places of commerce and business. They would have to sacrifice their cars, which are themselves extremely inefficient. No more air travel, jet engines are gas guzzlers to begin with, and will be priced out of the market soon enough as it is.

Primary means of transportation would either be our feet, the bicycle, or public transportation. High speed rail would probably be the most likely alternative for long distance travel, etc. We would need to live much more efficiently than we do now. Whether this is good or bad depends on your point of view, but as I said, sacrifices would have to be made.

[Zynx]

27. I've heard far less dour estimates in the past.

We will agree to disagree on this one. Did you have anything else? Any other commentary other than on what I believe is a theoretical debate?

[MrScorpio]

9. I stand right by your side on every issue

The names that you have been called are totally unfair and a complete distortion of your positions

You are, in fact, an American, pure and simple

[Zynx]

12. I'm surprised you agree on everything. Haha

Glad to hear it though. :-)

[MrScorpio]

13. Check this out

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2678947&mesg_id=2678947

[Zynx]

17. You are a good man.

Thanks for the link. I see we agree on a lot.

[stravu9]

15. My kind of Democrat!

:patriot:

[fascisthunter]

18. you sound like a moderate republican

:sarcasm:

[Zynx]

19. Explain.

I called for legalization of gay marriage, legalization of marijuana, the end of the death penalty, universal health care, state industries, and intense government regulation. I've never met a Republican with those positions.

[fascisthunter]

20. no, no, no

look up again

[Zynx]

21. Whoops. My browser loads slowly. Haha.

[fascisthunter]

22. my fault... not yours

[Zynx]

25. *kick*

[cgrindley]

28. We're almost exactly aligned with a few exceptions:

I think that government should own all essential infrastructure including all phone service, electricity generation, water systems and so on.

I believe that private education at the elementary, middle, high school, college and university level should be illegal.

I believe that hospitals should be nationalized.

I don't believe in blanket support for freedom of religion--I think that freedom of religion should be subject to hate speech laws.

I don't support an absolute freedom of choice past the first trimester. I believe that the way the law is currently structured with regard to abortion works just fine.

I don't believe that judges should be elected... nor do I believe that they should have a vote in any type of election. Felons in prison... they should be allowed to vote. I would only deny the franchise to judges--people who are supposed to be utterly impartial.

PS I think that smoking pot is sort of stunned, but I think it should be legal and taxed.

[Zynx]

29. I agree with you on those first three points.

I believe people should not be able to buy education. The rest we can quibble on, but those are legitimate, sound ideas.

[cgrindley]

30. Right on. Higher education should be free and equally available to all (nt)

[Zynx]

31. I support a massive multi-billion dollar scholarship program that would

basically give everyone a free higher education. I support a massive expansion of all public universities and the construction of many more. Imagine $200 billion shifted from defense over to that side.

[cgrindley]

34. I used to think that way

and then I became a visiting member of the faculty at Yale. Now, I'm not so sure. I think that a place such as Yale should be free for anyone who can legitimately earn a place or it shouldn't exist. Unfortunately, I don't know if the SAT or high school grades can be reformed to the point where they are either trustworthy or fair. It might be better just to nationalize the lot and distribute everything equally and pay all faculty the same base pay (subject I think to merit based incentives).

[Zynx]

35. I see what you're saying.

I can pretty reasonably agree with it.

[deutsey]

32. A relic? Vestige?

:evilfrown:

[Zynx]

33. ?

[Zorra]

36. You are a Dennis Kucinich type Democrat. n/t

[Zynx]

38. I take that as a compliment. :-)

[Zorra]

41. I would too.

:hi:

[pink-o]

37. well, you sound pretty Jeffersonian to me

Maybe some people in America still remember him: you know, the guy who helped frame our democracy....?

[Zynx]

39. That's a nice thing to say. Thank you! :-)

[Zynx]

40. Kick for sunday