What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[dps]

I am not sure how one could characterize Berkut as being left wing on any issue.

Simple--by reading some of his post on domestic policies.

[crazy canuck]

I am not sure how one could characterize Berkut as being left wing on any issue.

Simple--by reading some of his post on domestic policies.

Name one.

[dps]

I am not sure how one could characterize Berkut as being left wing on any issue.

Simple--by reading some of his post on domestic policies.

Name one.

I will call it George.

[Sophie Scholl]

I can't think of a single issue where berkut stands as left wing or right wing.  He seems pretty middle of the road with swings to the solid right or left depending on the issue but certainly never to the fringes.  Of course, I consider the right/left wing concept to be more of the modern American usage of the terms and meaning on the far fringe of said ideology's views as opposed to the original usage that would mean simply Conservative or Liberal but necessarily tied to one of the extremes.

[crazy canuck]

I can't think of a single issue where berkut stands as left wing or right wing.  He seems pretty middle of the road with swings to the solid right or left depending on the issue but certainly never to the fringes.  Of course, I consider the right/left wing concept to be more of the modern American usage of the terms and meaning on the far fringe of said ideology's views as opposed to the original usage that would mean simply Conservative or Liberal but necessarily tied to one of the extremes.

Berkut's belief in a state with minimal regulation is pretty standard right wing fare.

[Eddie Teach]

He doesn't believe in that though.

[crazy canuck]

He doesn't believe in that though.

I used a poor choice of words.  I do not know what Berkut believes.  But the views Berkut espouses are in favour of minimal regulation - ie regulation only as demonstrably necessary.

[dps]

He doesn't believe in that though.

I used a poor choice of words.  I do not know what Berkut believes.  But the views Berkut espouses are in favour of minimal regulation - ie regulation only as demonstrably necessary.

Depending on one's POV what is demonstrably necessary isn't necessarily minimal, and exactly who advocates more regulation than they believe necessary anyway?  Are you suggesting that the left advocates unnecessary regulations?

[crazy canuck]

He doesn't believe in that though.

I used a poor choice of words.  I do not know what Berkut believes.  But the views Berkut espouses are in favour of minimal regulation - ie regulation only as demonstrably necessary.

Depending on one's POV what is demonstrably necessary isn't necessarily minimal, and exactly who advocates more regulation than they believe necessary anyway?  Are you suggesting that the left advocates unnecessary regulations?

The left starts from a different point of view.  Rather from starting from imagining a mythical land where everyone is free of government regulation and then reasoning what might be appropriate, the left generally starts from the position that government regulation is certainly necessary to protect society from the excesses of capitalism. For example, the right might grudgingly acknowledge that safety regulations might be necessary for some things but generally the default is that market forces will suffice.  You often hear people on the right, including Berkut, voice concern about the "nanny state". The Left expressly rejects the proposition that the market will magically create an appropriate balance of safety vs profits and that the balance will always be heavily weighted toward profit at the expense of the public good.   

Say what you will about Berkut, but he has never been inconsistent in his concern that regulation is actually the nanny state in action.

[Solmyr]

Trump is going full Sauron.

[Monoriu]

Trump is going full Sauron.

Where is the eye?

[Berkut]

Come on Berkut, we all know that what you really care about isn't freedom, it's winning arguments on Languish. 

Seriously, though, while you have always claimed to be a moderate, I don't really find many of your positions moderate.  I stated this at least once before, but I view you as very conservative on foreign affairs and international relations, but moderately to quite liberal on most domestic issues.  I don't think that make you a moderate, exactly.  But I would never say that you don't care about freedom, though you and I might often disagree about how much government regulation is appropriate.

I don't think I am really a moderate - indeed, I would say that I am not really moderate at all, in that I have strong positions on many subjects that are not at all equivocal.

I consider myself a centrist though, and I definitely consider myself to no be ideologically aligned with the traditional parties.

I don't, however, understand the idea that ones position on government regulation has much to do with ones position on freedom. Certainly government regulation *could* stifle freedom, but it doesn't necessarily, and in fact could and often does serve to protect freedom. It seems pretty obvious to me that the very basic purpose of government is in fact to regulate human activity in order to ensure personal liberty.

[Berkut]

Oh come on. Yes, Americans trend to the right of the spectrum when compared to the rest of the world. But there is a huge difference between Berkut and the Republican party position these days, on nearly everything. 

Well actually I think my views and the Republican Party align almost perfectly.

It's just that there are very, very, very few members of the Republican Party anymore!

[Berkut]

He doesn't believe in that though.

I used a poor choice of words.  I do not know what Berkut believes.  But the views Berkut espouses are in favour of minimal regulation - ie regulation only as demonstrably necessary.

Depending on one's POV what is demonstrably necessary isn't necessarily minimal, and exactly who advocates more regulation than they believe necessary anyway?  Are you suggesting that the left advocates unnecessary regulations?

The left starts from a different point of view.  Rather from starting from imagining a mythical land where everyone is free of government regulation and then reasoning what might be appropriate, the left generally starts from the position that government regulation is certainly necessary to protect society from the excesses of capitalism. For example, the right might grudgingly acknowledge that safety regulations might be necessary for some things but generally the default is that market forces will suffice.  You often hear people on the right, including Berkut, voice concern about the "nanny state". The Left expressly rejects the proposition that the market will magically create an appropriate balance of safety vs profits and that the balance will always be heavily weighted toward profit at the expense of the public good.   

Say what you will about Berkut, but he has never been inconsistent in his concern that regulation is actually the nanny state in action.

I think there is a critical distinction that needs to be made when it comes to my views on "regulation".

When it comes to the state telling individuals what they should or should not do, then I am pretty damn libertarian. IE, arguments with Beebs over his belief that the State ought to have the power to force people to be married to one another.

But when it comes to the state regulating activities between more abstract entities like "corporations", and especially when it comes to the states regulating of its own activities, my views have certainly shifted much further towards the center than they used to be.

Example:

I used to be pretty content with the basic idea that transparency and consent is a almost completely adequate bulwark against state power. If you are made aware of your rights, then that is enough when it comes to policy. If you are made aware of the terms of the deal between you and a business, then that is enough, and further regulation of that relationship is not desirable.

A perfect example of how my views have changed:

I used to think that if you got pulled over, and the cop asked if he could search your car, and you agreed, then that should be perfectly fine policy to allow that search to proceed. You have permission, after all - right?

I don't believe that anymore. I've learned a lot about human behavior, and how humans react to "requests" from authority. Even when it is clearly not in their interest to do so, humans succumb to pressure to authority in a completely predictable manner that, IMO, if we actually care about individual *practical* liberty, we should consider in how we craft policy. So I would support changing the policy in the light of this, and simply saying that police are not allowed to search your car without probable cause regardless of whether or not they can talk you into it.

I don't see this as any kind of restriction on personal liberty in an meaningful sense, because I don't think anyone actually has any desire to have the liberty to ask the police to search their car when the police do not have cause to do so.

Same thing with Miranda warnings - studies show the warning means almost nothing to a significant percentage of the population. They simply do not understand the actual consequences and what it means. It is consistently badly abused. I would support some kind of revision and regulation of that police power to better align what we as a society want with what actually happens.

I do think the most fundamental change I've made in how I view politics, economics, and social ethics is the realization that the libertarian whine about individuals being individuals and that they ought to be able to "opt out" of the social contract is a bunch of bullshit. You can no more opt out of the social contract than you can opt out of being a human being. We are who we are *because* we are social creatures. The social contract only becomes unjust when it is imposed against the collective will of the body politic via authoritarianism, whether that be right wing or left wing. In theory at least, there can be no fundamentally unjust law where said law is the result of the fairly represented views of the governed, while respecting the basic human rights we define as inviolate. Laws can be bad laws, or have undesired consequences, but as long as they are created via some kind of fairly representative society, and are open to debate and revision, they are just. What is more concerning than whether a particular law or regulation is good and useful, is that our political system seems to be drifting away from being aligned to the actual will of those who have consented to it...

[dps]

I do think the most fundamental change I've made in how I view politics, economics, and social ethics is the realization that the libertarian whine about individuals being individuals and that they ought to be able to "opt out" of the social contract is a bunch of bullshit.

I think that's more of a "big L" Libertarian thing than a "little l" libertarian thing, and why, while I might vote for a Libertarian candidate as a protest vote when both major parties have crappy nominees in a given race, I'd never join the Libertarian Party or want to see them in control of a legislature or governorship (and God forbid a Libertarian Party candidate win an election to an elected judgeship).  If you want to opt out of the social contract, go live as a hermit in a cave somewhere.  I don't see any self-professed Libertarians (big L) lining up to do that.  No, they want the benefits of modern living, they just don't want the responsibilities that go along with them.  Well, heck, who doesn't want all the positives of any situation without any of the negatives?  Most of us, though, recognize that it's not only fair that we accept the responsibilities, but that it's really not practical for society to function if we don't, and that some people simply won't accept those responsibilities without being coerced in some way, and that the only way to coerce at least minimally acceptable behavior that isn't tyranny is through some form of representative government that reflects the will of the majority without, as you said, violating basic human rights.
]