Hey Void

[theVOID]

All very good questions.

I also want to point out that I enjoy our political debates

Same here, it's been a great way to learn, get rid of miscommunication caused by differing definitions and expose assumptions

You mistake me for someone who plays partisan party politics. I am an INDEPENDENT PROGRESSIVE.

Sure, but when you're criticising someone for voting Republican because their track record on social issues is poor when the alternative is really no better by-and-large it's something that needs to be addressed.

The only time I will be partisan is if a Bull Moose Progressive party were established in my area. That ISNT going to happen anytime soon. This means I vote for the most Progressive position I can, be it Dem, Rep, or Indie.

That's why America needs some MMP type system as we have here. We might have two big parties and these two parties are ultimately the ones who govern (which is analogous to the USA) but we also have smaller parties who get influence, the ability to propose legislation to be voted on and who are almost always needed by the larger parties to form coalitions - Under those circumstances you could have a real "Progressive" party worth voting for, just as I have a real Free-market libertarian leaning party to support who would never manage to win under an FPTP system that would have a much more substantial negotiating platform than the isolated progressives in the Democratic party or libertarians in the Republican party - The other advantage is while I may not be a big fan of the leader of the party I vote for, and their position on Climate Change is a bit backwards, I don't have to worry about them getting their way on those issues while still getting a solid voice for free-market reform and individual liberty.

I consider MANY things about the Republican in California ("Get to the Chopper!" Arnold) to be very Progressive and very appealing for my vote. I live in North Carolina. I would vote Arnold (Rep) if he were running here. The American Progressive Party stemmed off of the Republican Party in 1912. The Republican Party itself was created by anti-slave social liberals. In a sense I can say that I am a "Teddy Roosevelt Republican".

That's interesting, I've heard the Democrats were the offshoot of a very corporatist elite party (I'd argue that has not changed much) but I didn't know the Progressives came from the GOP... I had always assumed them to have their origins in a forking of the Democrat vote.

I am very upset at Obama right now, as he convinced me he was a Progressive, then turned around and voted center right on many things. He didnt do SHIT to BP for the oil spill. He laughed at the idea of changing the legal views on marijuana. He is cringing back on his stance for gay rights. etc..etc...

He's a complete fucking lying douchebag, he scares me more than Bush because he's so much smarter and has betrayed his voters so much more - A well meaning idiot is far less harmful than a highly intelligent liar.

Yes I can punish someone for being greedy. I can punish anyone for anything.

I was talking about morally, not by use of sheer force, in that sense you can punish someone for having Red Hair and freckles - The difference is that it would be hard to convince the masses to punish gingers but it's damn easy to convince them to vote themselves rich, that they should use force to take what they do not have regardless of whether or not the people they are taking from obtained it ethically or not.

Government is a free-for-all and anyone who thinks otherwise is in the dark. At any moment I could be tossed into Guantanamo bay for trumped up charges and there will be nothing I could do about it.

Which is why your government was founded as a constitutional republic, not an all-pervasive democracy. Democracy left unchecked is an extremely dangerous and immoral system where 51% can vote to kill the 49% should enough people agree to do it.

Suppose that a group of liberals and conservatives get together and vote to fuck that company that "makes a fuckton of money making goods" out of some of its profits? Greed is the fucking problem, and it reaches STRONG across the entire politcal/philosophical realm. Yes, even Progressives can fall weak to greed. Now, as far as you saying "seizing their assets", surely you realize that it goes much deeper than that? This isnt a handful of people we are dealing with. This is the entire WORLD now. Everyone making promises and deals and conspiracies with and against everyone else. There is a chaos factor involved. That is why I am a mixed economist. I must be willing to bend and not break.

There is a massive difference, especially morally, between the manifestation of Greed via competitiveness and self-interest as is the case with the "greedy entrepreneur" and the manifestation of Greed through force, threats and mob-rule, as is the case with those who would seek to vote themselves rich at the expense of others - That is precisely why our individual sovereignty needs to be taken seriously, if someone's greed manifests in a way that imposes no force on others we have no moral authority to stop it as they have done nothing wrong, if someone's greed manifests in them forming a Gang or mob to take it by force or threats then they have done something wrong and we do have the moral authority to stop it.

That is precisely why we need a government at all, was it the case that there was no greed or it was only manifest as self-interest we wouldn't need one, but it is because that Greed manifests in force that a government becomes necessary, the government have a real and absolute moral authority to prevent the use of force by some individual(s) over others.

I will bet my paycheck that any political or economic theory that claims it has the answers is more than likely wrong since humans and thoughts and opinions and politics are in a state of constant flux...and thus my guilty secret crush for Anarchy comes to the surface from time to time. Its not that I think government is bad. I just think it is a sometimes random free-for-all.

Your guilty crush for Anarchy is my ideal world, one that is plainly incompatible with individual sovereignty given human nature but one that would be ideal given an ideal humanity - The solution to minimise greed manifest as force is a government who can use it's force to protect individual sovereignty, to abide by the principle than anyone can do anything they want with their mind, body and property provided they do not force others to do something they do not want to do with their mind, body or property. A government who abuses it's power to force attitudes, agendas and resources is exactly the type of system where those who are greedy have an opportunity and incentive to corrupt, it is when greed is manifest as both selfish drive AND force (the corporatocracy) that the most harm is done, and when that force is the government, the very organisation who is supposed to protect us from force, that we are truly fucked.

Cut throat capitalism is capitalism for the sake of capitalism, and nothing more. Cut throat capitalists steal children and sell them for sex slaves, or to be mine workers, or to die being eaten by exotic animals for the sake of the entertainment of the cut throat capitalist crowds.That should be punished in my opinion.

There is no such thing as x for the sake of x, regardless of what x is.

What you would call "cut throat capitalists" I would describe as greed manifest as force, the fact that this person is using the markets to trade their ill-gotten gains is completely irrelevant, they could just as easily be the ruler of some oppressive totalitarian state - Calling it capitalism does little more than taint the term and using it really is no more respectable than Glenn Beck associating socialism with that same Totalitarian nightmare, it taints minds. What you described is an organisation or individual that acts unchecked by or through by the rule of law and without consideration for individual sovereignty - I agree with you so far as it's exactly the worst thing that can happen, but it's not capitalism.