Originally Posted by thegodfather
Lev, glad to see your participation in the debate here.
I agree with your first point, and there is evidence to back it up. One of the things we've learned when dealing with HIPC's (Highly Indebted Poor Countries), is that simply loaning them money does not work if there is rampant corruption, and the inability to manage such funds. It's quite akin to someone from a lower socioeconomic class who has a windfall of money, or wins the lottery, they often are broke within a couple of years because they are unfamiliar with how to manage finances. Additionally, if we wish to 'spread Democracy' as many in our government indicate is our foreign policy (one of the plethora of excuses used to justify our invasion&occupation of Iraq), doing so by force has proved futile. Rather, what we see when we look at the numbers and the studies about countries around the world, is a STRONG CORRELATION between free trade/free markets/capitolistic policies and a move towards personal freedoms & liberty. The idea of spreading democracy by force, by killing thousands of innocent civilians I mean, 'collateral damage', has been proven an abject failure at democratizing countries.
Encouraging free trade and capitolism is the most effective means to bring 'democracy' to those countries who have it not. I put democracy in quotes, because democracy in its pure form is actually a bad system, as its often described as two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner. The vast majority of people in the United States are ignorant to the fact that our country is not a 'democracy.' Many do not understand the principles of representative Republic, whereby there is a written Constitution, and certain things are simply off the table to be voted on. In a pure democracy, there might be a vote to eliminate freedom of speech. Rather, in a representative Republic (I am addressing the forum, not you, as that'd be preaching to the choir), there are unalienable rights which no men can take away with votes. We are forbade from voting to kill all redheads, to hang all Muslims from stop lights in the town center. Additionally, attempting to bring 'freedom and democracy' to countries via deadly force, violence, oppression, and occupation is the antithesis to freedom. Another point to consider is that a country who is not ready for freedom&democracy will not democratize just because we say so, point in case is the elections in Iraq which we were so displeased with when they elected Muslim fundamentalists to office. A countries people must arrive at the conclusion of freedom&democracy on their own, it cannot be an artifical influence. I believe that in the next 10 years we will see Iraq and Afghanistan revert in part or in whole to their pre-American invasion status, less a strong contingent of US armed forces is left behind in those countries, and then that country is really not sovereign now is it.
We are really on the same page with social issues. I cant say that I particularly care one way or the other what people do in their privacy of their own homes, or even in public who they decide to show public displays of affection with. It does not effect anyone but themselves. Unfortunately, many people do not know the difference between Malum In Se, and Malum Prohibitum, and often bifercate the two, believing that because something like the drug war is Malum Prohibitum, that it is an evil in and of itself, no thanks to the massive PR campaign by the US government drug czar which obfuscates statistical data and demonizes plants that have existed for thousands of years. Even the Democrats who claim to be more enlightened on these issues seldom have the fortitude to stand up for what they believe in, if they in fact believe in it, or if it just plays well to the masses.
Mitt Romney is by all measures a flip-flopper, and a moderate Republican (what else would one expect from any elected representative from the state of Mass., not unlike Chris Christie who is a moderate in an overwhelmingly blue state, the realities are that the only way to get elected in such states is to placate the moderates and liberals). I often times say that candidates religious preclivites should not be game in a political race, but it is the reality of American politics, and my own opinion is that I tend to be somewhat skeptical of a person who belongs to a religion which believes God lives on the planet Kolob, that his undergarments make him bulletproof and enchant him with superhuman powers.
Aside from that, I do agree that Mitt Romney does have a strong grasp on economics, although he is likely a student of the Keynesian school of economics, one which we know is a failure. What most Americans fail to also understand with regards to economics, is that the medicine is often worse than the disease, so the medicine becomes a poisin which further exacerbates the symptoms. Thus, if we had allowed the companies who behaved badly and practiced poor business to fail, and liquidate the toxic debt, the initial blowback would have been much much worse, however the correction would happen in a short period of time. Instead, the recession is being drawn out going on 5 years now. Artificial manipulation of the markets, particularly the interest rates, will always lead to distortions in how financial products are allocated, as the interest rates should be set by the market, and not by a privately owned central bank (Federal Reserve).