Skip to main content

A negotiated platform between conservatives and progressives, based on libertarian principles?

Can conservatives and progressives agree on a negotiated platform based on a common commitment to some libertarian ideas? An attempt follows, in which I first identify the common core and then discuss the contentious issues and how we may negotiate toward a compromise.

I. Common Ground -- The Core

On all these issues, left-leaning and right-leaning libertarians have policy proposals that are the same or similar enough and may be palatable to both wings.

  • Criminal Justice Reform
    • decriminalize all drugs (including recreational)
    • decriminalize prostitution
    • decriminalize gambling
    • reprieve all prisoners currently in for the above crimes
  • Economic Policy
    • NO to Corporatism, Cronyism, Corporate Subsidies, special interest kickbacks, pork, etc. -- the federal budget will not be used to subsidize any particular corporation or industry (aerospace, defense, ethanol, sugar, solar, wind, etc.)
    • no bailouts for banks or corporations -- no more too big to fail
    • audit the Fed
    • reduce bureaucratic bloat -- waste, fraud, abuse in government departments and programs
  • Civil Liberties
    • privacy from warrantless surveillance
    • no indefinite detention without jury trial
    • no extraordinary rendition (e.g. Snowden)
    • no extrajudicial killings (end the CIA drone wars)
    • demilitarize the police
    • stop civil asset forfeiture
  • Foreign Policy 
    • diplomacy NOT nation building
    • reduce the size of the military
    • no aid to dictators -- no aid, period.
  • Environment
    • Jerry Taylor's grand bargain : in exchange for the elimination of EPA carbon regulations and state renewable energy mandates, Congress would adopt a substantial and rising economy-wide carbon emissions tax, made "revenue-neutral" by reducing other taxes

II. Contentious Issues -- The Compromise

It is assumed that on all of the following issues, there are deep and signifiant philosophical divides, necessitating a give-and-take, with conservatives getting their way on some issues and progressives, on others:
  • taxes
  • regulations
  • health care
  • education
  • welfare
  • immigration
  • trade
  • guns
  • entitlements
  • social
    • abortion
    • marriage
There is yet another way to look at forming the compromise. There are four powerful issues on which the levers of power can be turned to influence the country to either greater collectivism or greater individual liberty. They are : 
  1. Executive fiat
  2. Balance of the Supreme Court (5-4 b/w Constitutional originalists vs. "living document")
  3. income : taxes + debt
  4. spending : regulations, health + education + other programs, welfare, entitlements, military, domestic statutes (civil rights, social issues, etc.)
Typically, the President controls the first two levers and Congress controls the last two. In a negotiated platform, one side would be allowed to choose between (1) & (2) and again between (3) & (4). So, for e.g. progressives might get executive fiat and Congressional spending powers, while conservatives get to balance the Supreme court their way and control total revenue (taxes + debt).

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

the brave new economy

A free(er) market is emerging and has been emerging ever since the advent of the Internet and the Web. Newer technologies have accelerated this. Old inefficiencies in knowledge and access to the market are quickly disappearing. Participation is increasingly peer-to-peer (P2P). Participants can produce, create, curate, give, lend, sell, share, auction, consume, take, borrow, buy, reuse, rent and/or barter goods, services, cash, credit, currency, equity, debt and/or knowledge. The resultant economy is highly collaborative and is sometimes referred to as the ‘ sharing economy ’. Efficiencies are being introduced and value is being created in the smallest of markets. Non-profit activities are thriving as well, in addition to for-profit ones. The marketplace is becoming, at once, global and local. An important subset of the new economy is collaborative and crowdsourced , and may be described as commons-based peer production . Asymmetries in information are diminished by algorithms (Google

Migrating from MS SQL Server to MongoDB

The following contains notes from various attempts at migrating 2.5GB of MS SQL Server data to MongoDB, on an 8 GB, quad-core, 64-bit Windows 7 Enterprise machine. [TERMINATED]  http://mssql2mongo.codeplex.com/ : Simple to use. Exponential slowdown observed in migration. For a total of the 50 million records spanning two tables, the following migration times were observed: 1 second for the first 100,000 records,  30 minutes for 1,000,000, 20 hours for 16 million (after which I terminated the process). [DID NOT WORK] http://rubydoc.info/gems/mongify/ : A ruby-based approach. Use Ruby 1.9.3 (tiny_tds dependency causes problems with Ruby 2.0). Install DevKit before installing the mongify gem. Also, use ' sqlserver ' as the adapter in the .config file. Then, before running ' mongify check <config-file> ', install the gems  activerecord-sqlserver-adapter  and tiny_tds . At this stage, it fails. ' mongify translation <config-file> ' fails as well.

the World Cup draw -- an alternative proposal

The FIFA World Cup seeding and draw system has consistently produced groups of death and groups comprised mainly of teams that fail to invoke passion or imagination from fans around the world, except perhaps for such teams' own fans. The latest edition is no exception -- and may even be the worst ever on this measure. An outline of the draw system can be seen here . We have one group which contains Switzerland, Ecuador and Honduras and another consisting of Russia, Algeria and South Korea!! And, on top of this, we have at least three, if not four or more, groups of death. Depending on one's perspective, esp. given the recent rise of African powerhouses, all of the rest of the groups may even be considered Groups of Death!! This is a disservice to football fans around the world, not to mention the skilled and enterprising teams that worked hard to get here. To address this, I propose a simplified draw system : Randomize Pot 1 and assign to Groups Assign remaining Pots t