reply to post by endisnighe
I want a combination of both. I too tend towards 'lone-wolf,' but understand the social affiliation needs of our species. I consider myself a strong
UW-badger supporter, but feel awkward standing for the national anthem, as well as the varsity song at halftime. Does that make sense? I have been
interested in politics from a very early age.
I believe the ultimate intent of a socio-economic-political system should be to maximize individual liberty, while providing a basic safety net. The
goal should be to help citizens self-actualize to the highest degree possible. We are not all equal, but the playing field should be. Society needs to
value and promote ideals beyond personal enrichment. I think the USA generates plenty of money to provide a safety net for its citizens that allows
people to take risks and not lose everything.
Anyway, I feel some things are best if run for, by, and of the people. This includes the military, police, fire, prisons, and most things considered
'public works.' Other things should be free-enterprise, and others a hybrid of the two. The education system, as well as health care providers are
good areas for a hybrid/ combination system. Energy too needs to be regulated, while allowing for private enterprise. Corporations should not be
regarded as people (in terms of constitutional rights/ protections). I believe corporate charters should be put to a vote every x # of years....
Politically, the least disruptive overhaul would be publically-funded elections. Agencies such as the FDA should have a strong fire-wall between
itself and lobbyists. Get rid of the electoral college. Lower thresholds to alternate parties to get involved. Perhaps expand the US House of
Representatives to have the same number of Reps./ citizen as when the constitution was ratified (this may result in the need to have regional seeds of
government beyond D.C.).
I believe health insurance companies should be abolished, as they do not add anything of value for our collective health-care dollars. We already pay
way more than we should for health care, so I don't buy the argument that people want single-payer because it's 'free.' That's a lie, we already
pay almost twice per capita, and receive embarrassingly mediocre outcomes.
Thank you for this thread. I always respected your opinion, but reactively pushed the 'foe' button in response to your Glen Beck 'experiment'
[edit on 1/21/2010 by skunknuts]