[TeMPOraL]

That's why I believe we should stop talking about whole ideologies, because all of them - libertarianism, communism, reaction, etc. - are nonsense if you take them wholesale. But each has some good ideas, each appeared as a response to particular problems. So instead of buying into politics wholesale, we should ask ourselves whether or not e.g. free market, or top-down management, or voting, is the best way to approach a particular problem - building a power plant, ensuring access to health services for everyone, figuring out which foods should be imported, etc.

[devsquid]

Well yea, but I think the high minded discussion is good as well. Its not that any one country will ever be X or Y ideology, but having good guiding principles helps to make sound judgements.

I have studied each of the modern ideologies a bit, and Modern Liberalism is a good blend of both Libertarianism and Socialism. Rawls is a good source if you're interested in perusing, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Rawls

I have to say tho, I see a pretty heavy trend towards libertarianism. Particularly among my peers in the Bay Area and their idols. I find it pretty annoying because they are the pinnacle of privilege and have embraced a ideology that alleviates their "guilt".

[pdkl95]

Absolutely - strict adherence to any ideology assumes that that ideology is correct in all cases. I've always considered politics to be like an inverted pendulum with "we the people" as the balance controller. Forces are always present that create instability, so we need to continually make corrections by pushing back in the right direction. Tipping to far towards any ideology can cause catastrophic failure.

Also, there is another reason to keep a diversity of ideologies: they serve as a check on each other. For example, allowing either capital or labor to gain too much power tends to cause problems. It is the competition between them that keeps power from consolidating on one ideology.

(for a better description of that idea, see http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/08/david-simon-cap... )

[sukulaku]

> Forces are always present that create instability, so we need to continually make corrections by pushing back in the right direction. Tipping to far towards any ideology can cause catastrophic failure.

By "instability" do you mean draconian legislation like SOPA / PIPA / CISPA / NDAA / TPP / TTIP and all the other nasty shit we're supposed to keep "pushing back" on, because otherwise they'll just inflict it all on us, and then it's too bad because we kind-of-sort-of asked for it by voting in the bums and not resisting.. ? :P

Let's hope we never experience whatever catastrophic failure would follow from pushing back too successfully!

[TeMPOraL]

> Let's hope we never experience whatever catastrophic failure would follow from pushing back too successfully!

We don't need to; we already know how it looks like. It went to the opposite extreme when the Industrial Revolution started; our great grandfathers and their great grandfathers paid in blood to restore the balance, so that we may enjoy relatively humane employment conditions the current generation of entrepreneurs wants to fight against so hard.

[sukulaku]

> We don't need to; we already know how it looks like.

So you think we're now experiencing too little draconian legislation then?

[TeMPOraL]

On aggregate, I think we're past the point of "just about right", but not so much that we need to fight it too aggressively; IMO we need to trim regulations here and there (and extend them a bit somewhere else) and stop the forces creating superfluous ones.

[sukulaku]

> On aggregate, I think we're past the point of "just about right"

That's a ridiculous idea in the reality we live in.

> IMO we need to trim regulations here and there

Who's "we"?

[pdkl95]

"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty."