Is staying consistent with a political ideology important?

[Free Trade is managed by the invisible hand.]

I think it is not important at all unless someone wants to compromise their values in order to support the bottom line of any ideology. For example sometimes a conservative will never move away from the axiom of small vs big government which is unfortunate because those are not even core human values. Instead I would like to see people focus on Safety, Freedom,Justice,Liberty, Equality, peace and so forth.

When people think in terms of big vs small government, nonintervention, and political constructs in an absolute sense they are merely divorcing themselves from reality. This is because these terms appear to be value free,but everyone knows that because we are human value free conclusions are almost impossible. Instead what political axioms really do is separate us from what values do we think are important, or should be applied in a given situation.

[Franzl]

Translation: It's ok to be a consistent (American) liberal, but nothing else

[Free Trade is managed by the invisible hand.]

Translation: It's ok to be a consistent (American) liberal, but nothing else

I am sure both conservatives and liberals think about justice,liberty,equality, and so forth. I am a bit different though because I think mainly about the pre-conditions, and prerequisite for any value, or value system.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Holding ideas that are consistent with one another are important, though not the most important thing there is. Really, one can make any set of ideas appear consistent if they want to badly enough. It's what you learn to do in law school.

[Free Trade is managed by the invisible hand.]

    Holding ideas that are consistent with one another are important, though not the most important thing there is. Really, one can make any set of ideas appear consistent if they want to badly enough. It's what you learn to do in law school.

I realize that but thinking about our values is important if one wants to see some real ethical progress in society. Obviously we can bend are perceptions of justice, freedom,equality, and other potential values as much as we want but to even consider these things may allow us to seriously consider what an ideal social system should be. Too often High schoolers, and sometimes college students talk in terms of big vs small government, or isolationism vs non-intervention as if those things are deemed to be good by there very nature. Obviously this isn't true if one considers the writings of G.E moore, and many other philosophers. More importantly though I see it as a sign of progress when one starts to consider why we should,or should not consider something to be good based off our own set or values.

[fezzyfestoon]

I generally see it as a negative.

[Lunar]

Being self-critical of your own beliefs, even while holding to them, is a big part of the authenticity of your big-picture beliefs imo.  That inherently results in various inconsistencies.  

If you can't come up with the legitimate, fleshed arguments against your own beliefs, (i.e. why the pro-life argument might be valid if you're pro-choice) how can you be taken seriously?*


*Note, offer is not valid on cable news, news, any reporting, or anything having to do with Rudy Guiliani's status as a foreign policy expert.  

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

To be elected? No.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Not really.......your political philosophy evolves with time and experience....and sometimes it does end up changing slowly.   I'm far more socially libertarian now than I ever was.....even though I've retained the fiscally conservative economic philosophy.....my hawkishness has declined a bit but not drastically.

Doing a 180 overnight?  Yeah that's a problem.

[minionofmidas]

the world is far too complex to be remotely accurately describable in terms of a political ideology.

As such, no. It's deluded and dangerous.

[Free Trade is managed by the invisible hand.]

Not really.......your political philosophy evolves with time and experience....and sometimes it does end up changing slowly.   I'm far more socially libertarian now than I ever was.....even though I've retained the fiscally conservative economic philosophy.....my hawkishness has declined a bit but not drastically.

Doing a 180 overnight?  Yeah that's a problem.

you are a fiscal conservative because of what value? does this have anything to do with justice, equality and so forth?

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Not really.......your political philosophy evolves with time and experience....and sometimes it does end up changing slowly.   I'm far more socially libertarian now than I ever was.....even though I've retained the fiscally conservative economic philosophy.....my hawkishness has declined a bit but not drastically.

Doing a 180 overnight?  Yeah that's a problem.

you are a fiscal conservative because of what value? does this have anything to do with justice, equality and so forth?

I'm just a Reaganomics kinda guy (mostly)

[Free Trade is managed by the invisible hand.]

Not really.......your political philosophy evolves with time and experience....and sometimes it does end up changing slowly.   I'm far more socially libertarian now than I ever was.....even though I've retained the fiscally conservative economic philosophy.....my hawkishness has declined a bit but not drastically.

Doing a 180 overnight?  Yeah that's a problem.

you are a fiscal conservative because of what value? does this have anything to do with justice, equality and so forth?

I'm just a Reaganomics kinda guy (mostly)

ok so you are a supply sider or something? Did you ever consider what might be the potential ethical foundations for such a theory?

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Not really.......your political philosophy evolves with time and experience....and sometimes it does end up changing slowly.   I'm far more socially libertarian now than I ever was.....even though I've retained the fiscally conservative economic philosophy.....my hawkishness has declined a bit but not drastically.

Doing a 180 overnight?  Yeah that's a problem.

you are a fiscal conservative because of what value? does this have anything to do with justice, equality and so forth?

I'm just a Reaganomics kinda guy (mostly)

ok so you are a supply sider or something? Did you ever consider what might be the potential ethical foundations for such a theory?

No, and I don't inted to start to consider it, honestly.

As far as being a supply sider, yes, although I'm much more socially liberal than i was before, but the supply sider in me is still prevalent.

[KuntaKinte]

I personally prefer people whose political positions are based on some kind of philosophy over wishy-washy-pragmatic-"there is no longer a left and right"-guys. But that's just me.

[Derek]

consistent on principle yes, but not for the sake of being consistent. either way it's better than being a flip flopper

[Free Trade is managed by the invisible hand.]

consistent on principle yes, but not for the sake of being consistent. either way it's better than being a flip flopper

When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?-John Maynard Keynes

[Derek]

that's a good quote but I don't like him

[Free Trade is managed by the invisible hand.]

that's a good quote but I don't like him

its a good quote because it provides the context needed for when we should change our minds on particular issues,but an economic policy can still be enacted without compromising are values. For example spending increases, or cuts by themselves dont always infringe upon some of humanities core values.

In any event the Idea that government should spend in order to create jobs has been around since Adam Smith first suggested that government should spend where the market does not. jMK just added the proper context, a multiplier and some other nuances that made theory more specific when it comes to policy.

[Derek]

I don't like that part of his idea though. Some spending yes, but not to the point where too many ppl are dependent on the government for work. That's not what Adam Smith would've meant either. I've never known the government to handle a situation other than the military correctly so I'm in favor of low taxes, free trade, low tariffs, low wage requirements, and limited spending. As far as consistency, you do have a point. During the depression, the most important economic factor would've been ppl being able to eat. Right now it's the deficit. It does depend on the times.

[RI]

I don't like that part of his idea though. Some spending yes, but not to the point where too many ppl are dependent on the government for work. That's not what Adam Smith would've meant either. I've never known the government to handle a situation other than the military correctly so I'm in favor of low taxes, free trade, low tariffs, low wage requirements, and limited spending. As far as consistency, you do have a point. During the depression, the most important economic factor would've been ppl being able to eat. Right now it's the deficit. It does depend on the times.

No, I'm pretty sure it's unemployment and economic growth. Most people don't really care about the deficit; they only care about whether they have a job or not.

Additionally, the deficit could only be a legitimate problem in that it would add to the debt, which in itself is only a legitimate problem when it either becomes impossible to pay service on or when it causes excess inflation. Neither of which have happened or are occuring.