Bloomberg ditches Republicans!

[nbiggershaft]

Originally Posted by Publius

History has shown that the more free a nation's economy is (i.e., the less government regulation of the economy), the more people thirst for political freedom as well.

As an example: Our Founders fought to get out from under the English Crown not because of religious persecution or any other political/social reason, but because the economic freedom of the colonies was being reduced by new British taxes and barriers to free trade enforced on the colonies.

Looking more recently: the Soviet Union had a centralized economic system rather than a market system, and the people had very few rights. With the liberalization (speaking economically, liberal = more free) of the Soviet economic system in the late 1980s (Law of State Enterprise in 1987, Law on Cooperatives of 1988, etc.), there came a swell in the desire for political freedom (resulting in the Glasnost policies). Eventually the Soviet Union collapsed as a result.

Economic freedom where previously none existed gives a taste for freedom that almost inevitibly spills over into the political arena. Likewise, a reduction in economic freedom has often been met with much more resistance than a reduction in political freedoms.

I would suggest reading Capitalism and Freedom by Milton Friedman, it explains the thesis much better than I can.

I'll look into it, I'd be hardpressed to be convinced it's based off of the mere coorelation of events. It'd be easier explained that economic freedom and political freedom both increasing from other catalysts rather than one being a cause for the other. You'd most commonly see them moving together, but I doubt you can say scientifically one causes the other.

[Publius]

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

I'll look into it, I'd be hardpressed to be convinced it's based off of the mere coorelation of events. It'd be easier explained that economic freedom and political freedom both increasing from other catalysts rather than one being a cause for the other. You'd most commonly see them moving together, but I doubt you can say scientifically one causes the other.

Friedman argues it much better than I can, and I'd quote from the book if I had it handy.

[DosEquis]

Originally Posted by Publius

I agree with Milton Friedman: economic freedom is a precondition for political freedom, and our rights at all levels are most protected in an environment of political freedom (built upon a basis of wide ranging economic freedom). As such, one's stance on economic issues is quite possibility the single most important belief.

I only agree with that to a certain extent. The system we have in place now has proven successful economically speaking. I do not believe that everyone is able to govern themselves in certain areas when greed takes over. I think things like environmental regulations and the right to organize labor are necessary. Crap like that.

I think the main issue with our political system is that it takes to much money to run for office. Large donations come with expectations from those who donated. It has created the liberal spending republican party, and further exploited the democratic party. They all go to see who can bring the most federal money home for their district. It can be a highway bill or a new fancy weapons system from a defense contractor.

That is what is really f-ing our country up, imho.

[Joe_Cool]

Originally Posted by hsmith

He isn't a conservative and that is what matters. There is no such thing as a northeastern conservative politican.

There are a lot of them. They just don't tend to win elections.

And I say good riddance to that douche. He was never republican anyway, except in name.

[Joe_Cool]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

I think the main issue with our political system is that it takes to much money to run for office. Large donations come with expectations from those who donated. It has created the liberal spending republican party, and further exploited the democratic party. They all go to see who can bring the most federal money home for their district. It can be a highway bill or a new fancy weapons system from a defense contractor.

That is what is really f-ing our country up, imho.

I can't argue with that.

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

I disagree, I think throwing a label on someone based on one or two issues is probably not going to be accurate. He's not a liberal, he may be a "liberal republican" but he's hardly a liberal democrat.

He was previously a Democrat. I don't know enough history to tell me how liberal. It sounds to me like his party loyality is a matter of being expedient. Rudy brought Republicans in New York to higher levels. Now overall they are at low polling points so he bails. I don't understand why people think this is so important or so great?