Derec

Neither Republican nor Democrats right now are advocates for more freedom.

Republicans are always claiming how they are for "small government" but the Republican Party is overrun by xian fundies who want to implement a large government in personal areas. And as far as public spending goes, Bush has not been quite a fiscal conservative so far.

On the other hand the Democrats, who call themselves "liberal" are anything but. They support oppressive unions, higher taxes, more business regulation. I.e. they do not seek more liberty on the economic front.
They also support affirmative action, which is blatantly unliberal (in its true sense).
Now Dems like to wear the liberal label when it comes to gays or abortion but many on the Dem side support high ages of consent (18 in liberal California and 16 in conservative Georgia - what's wrong with that picture?), opose legalized prostitution or pornography in the name of feminism. They support bans on smoking. Hillary Clinton, probably to position herself for 2008 primary run, found religion (evangelican xianity) and suggested that abstinence would be a good way to reduce abortions.


So, neither party looks promissing. What do you think: which would be easier to move? :huh:

xorbie

It depends on what sorts of freedom you want.

Master Of Puppets

Choose the second option if you are looking for an expansion of the freedom to commit mass murder on weaker nations.

Derec

Both actually...

xorbie

Probably Democrats. The thing is, I just don't see them taking huge stands on what you would call economic freedoms (but understand many might disagree with you), in terms of taking any away that you have now.

The GOP, on the other hand, certainly looks to be going down that road.

Barbarossa

It depends on whether you want freedom for yourself or for your large corporation.

Loren Pechtel

Neither is good but the Democrats are clearly the lesser evil in this regard.


I'd like to see the Senate and White House Democratic and the House with a 1 vote Republican majority.

Some would call this a formula for gridlock, but I think that both sides will tend to temper each other's excesses.

Nanook

I think it would take a true independent in the whitehouse, and nearly equal house and senate to pull off anything. I think a day is coming when we may see this come to pass. Personally, I will vote for either if they have the countries best interest in mind when making decisions for us.

Nanook of the North

Sakpo

The Democrats promote a life of nonfreedom that I (as someone in my class and racial-caste position in American society) find less painful, but it still isn't freedom.

Derec

Right now they are the lesser evil but I was asking about the movement, not current position. And Dems definitely seem to be moving in the wrong direction by pandering to so-called "values" voters etc.

Yes split control of branches of government is a good thing, as are narrow majorities in the two chambers of Congress. That way one party can't just steamroll their policy through.
Another thing I like is the current fillibuster rule for judges. Judges are appointed for lifetime and we should thus be careful whom to appoint. Fillibuster ensures that judges on both fringes of the spectrum have a hard time getting confirmed.