NationStates Jolt Archive

Just thought I'd start this thread as a good way to get to know everybody on here.

Personally my ideals are very Marxist and left-wing but I have become social democrat (ie, Tony Blair and our New Labour Party here in Britain) for pragmatic reasons. Those being that at the rate we are going, communism can only be achieved if most, if not every country in the world achieves a developed capital. Once the division between the world's rich nations and poor nations is brought down, the working classes of what used to be the rich nations will begin to realise once again the need to rise up against the bourgeoisie and the people of what would no longer be the poor nations of places like Africa and Latin America will realise the futility of their religion and repressive traditions on gender and sexuality.

I'm as revolutionary as any other Marxist, but my wishes for our political system remain within the bounds of the practical and the achievable. In that sense, it would make New Labour even more left-wing than the old, in terms of its long-term intentions (remember that old Labour were Eurosocialists who only wanted socialism within the parliamentary system). Tony Blair and Gordon Brown may not be a popular guys over here (on both the left and the right), but they have my support.

My view on libertarians, which seems to often be a hot topic of debte on these forums is that it is an extreme laissez-faire philiosophy which would only be dangerous in the end and is actually really selfish and unilateral. The situation with people whoring themselves to capitalism is bad enough as it is, we don't need more of it.

Libertarian - I don't understand why everybody feels the need to either restrict your personal freedoms (conservatives), restrict your economic freedoms (liberals), or restrict them both (fascists).

You see, IMO libertarianism balances freedom to do what you want with your life, with responsiblitiy (best achieved through a free market, or as free a market as possible). You have the freedom to do what do you want, spend your money as you like it, and aren't dependent on the government for things like welfare/charity, and/or healthcare.

And I'm only a moderate libertarian, Centrosonia, you must have had the misfortune of encountering the uber-libertarians/anarcho-capitalists

Hmm.
Socially, I'm libertarian. This is because I feel that anything that you do that's not harming anybody else should be legal, and that plants me square in as a libertarian.
Economically, I'm leftist, because, well, I mostly agree with the views of the left. That's about all there is to it,

Just thought I'd start this thread as a good way to get to know everybody on here.

Personally my ideals are very Marxist and left-wing but I have become social democrat (ie, Tony Blair and our New Labour Party here in Britain) for pragmatic reasons. Those being that at the rate we are going, communism can only be achieved if most, if not every country in the world achieves a developed capital. Once the division between the world's rich nations and poor nations is brought down, the working classes of what used to be the rich nations will begin to realise once again the need to rise up against the bourgeoisie and the people of what would no longer be the poor nations of places like Africa and Latin America will realise the futility of their religion and repressive traditions on gender and sexuality.

I'm as revolutionary as any other Marxist, but my wishes for our political system remain within the bounds of the practical and the achievable. In that sense, it would make New Labour even more left-wing than the old, in terms of its long-term intentions (remember that old Labour were Eurosocialists who only wanted socialism within the parliamentary system). Tony Blair and Gordon Brown may not be a popular guys over here (on both the left and the right), but they have my support.

My view on libertarians, which seems to often be a hot topic of debte on these forums is that it is an extreme laissez-faire philiosophy which would only be dangerous in the end and is actually really selfish and unilateral. The situation with people whoring themselves to capitalism is bad enough as it is, we don't need more of it.


I think communism is bad. I believe it is the equivalent of slavery. I believe the government's ONLY job is to protect man's rights to life, liberty, and property; nothing more, nothing less. Anything else isn't truely freedom, in my opinion.
The government has no rights, only obligations given to them by the governed. Groups have no rights, only individuals.
The government should not force its citizens to finance other people. If they want to help them, they can take it out of their own pockets. Lord knows they have enough money.
Religion should have no role in government, only reason. Religion only belongs to the individual; it should affect no one else except for religious. Theocracies have never worked; they never will; additionally, religious beliefs fall under the category of liberty, and government has no right to tell its citizens how to believe.
I could go on but... maybe later.

hmm my political views differ from my idealistic views a lot. ideally i'd like to see some form of sustainable (in terms of natural resources) semi-hippie lifestyle. if only people opened their minds (with the help of psycoactive drugs perhaps) they would see that nothing we do really matters except how we affect others and what we, as a people, leave for our children and future generations. people would see that their petty squabbles and disputes - over land or power or riches - simply do not matter in the long run, and in the short run they often harm others. this is both on a nation-state level (wars & disputes) and an interpersonal level (arguements between people of a variety of natures). my ideal world would be one without greed or selfishness, a ego-less and compassionate society. however, i accept that this is absolutely improbable so....

...my political views are more 'real world'. i am Liberal. that is, left & authoritarian on economic issues. i am in favour of high regulations on big business, nationalisation of some key industries, and a more invloved government specifically pushing for greater social & income/wealth equity and a more inclusive welfare state. on social issues i'm also left, but libertarian - as opposed to authoritarian. in my view people can do practically whatever the hell they like in the privacy of their own homes as long as it doesn't harm anyone without consent (including legalisation of drugs). in public, i'm less forgiving ;) (no nudity please).

hope thats of some interest to you... :)

by the way, take the political compass test (http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/). post results here (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=393750) if you can be arsed.

edit: i'm Economic Left/Right: -7.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.15

My political ideals are wholly pragmatic and therefore currently reflect the way the nations of scandinavia and to an extent canada and the UK are run.

As these nations have achieved the greatest good for the greatest number and are ranked as the best in the world in which to live, it is a moral imperitive to use them as a model for building other good societies.

Also, my political ideals are based upon other things I consider to be moral imperatives, like the responsibility of society to help its members and the responsibility of the wealthy to be, as carnegie so well put it, trustees of wealth for the public good.

Additionally, liberty is considered by me to be a moral point, and actions by the government to limit liberty (especially those based on religious arguments) are immoral and should be opposed.

I do not believe that a fetus, early in its development is a human being and therefore oppose with great fervor attempts to criminalize abortion. I reject such attemps also because they are misogynisitic.

I think that my political ideology is summed up well there.

I dont identify with either of the american political parties, which seem more and more to be in collusion.

As these nations have achieved the greatest good for the greatest number and are ranked as the best in the world in which to live, it is a moral imperitive to use them as a model for building other good societies.

[cheering]

Yes, that's it exactly. While I expect fiscal responsibility on the part of my government, I feel that a truly ethical nation must assist those in need and provide opportunities to succeed for following generations.

I'm supposed to have reasons for my political views? Oopsie. :cool:

I think possibly one of the more obscure branches like, Giaicentric Technocracy, having proved that the ultimate system of government, communism, does not work on a large enough scale another system has to be found and to this end.

Technocracy: The purpose of using technology to improve the lot and life of the common man, and indeed the uncommon man. The aim to improve the standard of living of everyone to the highest standard achievable whatever the financial cost. A system in which sceinctists and high artists are lauded and placed in positions of influence on the democratic system that rules the nation. Although never in power, because that would after all distract them from their work.

Giaicentric: Focus on the earth and absolute preservation of it, with the hope of being able to co-exist with the various ecosystems of the planet, and amking use of the planets natural resources in a fuler and more managable way. When intergrated with technocracy it becomes not only an attempt to restore the environment, but also adds the goal of intergrating all technology into nature without harming systems.

I think possibly one of the more obscure branches like, Giaicentric Technocracy, having proved that the ultimate system of government, communism, does not work on a large enough scale another system has to be found and to this end.

Technocracy: The purpose of using technology to improve the lot and life of the common man, and indeed the uncommon man. The aim to improve the standard of living of everyone to the highest standard achievable whatever the financial cost. A system in which sceinctists and high artists are lauded and placed in positions of influence on the democratic system that rules the nation. Although never in power, because that would after all distract them from their work.

Giaicentric: Focus on the earth and absolute preservation of it, with the hope of being able to co-exist with the various ecosystems of the planet, and amking use of the planets natural resources in a fuler and more managable way. When intergrated with technocracy it becomes not only an attempt to restore the environment, but also adds the goal of intergrating all technology into nature without harming systems.
Might you mean "gaia"? I don't believe it's "giai".

I think communism is bad. I believe it is the equivalent of slavery. I believe the government's ONLY job is to protect man's rights to life, liberty, and property; nothing more, nothing less. Anything else isn't truely freedom, in my opinion.
The government has no rights, only obligations given to them by the governed. Groups have no rights, only individuals.
The government should not force its citizens to finance other people. If they want to help them, they can take it out of their own pockets. Lord knows they have enough money.
Religion should have no role in government, only reason. Religion only belongs to the individual; it should affect no one else except for religious. Theocracies have never worked; they never will; additionally, religious beliefs fall under the category of liberty, and government has no right to tell its citizens how to believe.
I could go on but... maybe later.

The ideals of communism are democratic in every sense of the word. It purports to abolish private property, which in reality is only a means by which to deprive other people. The proletariat would rise up and the means of production would fall from the hands of their exploiters and into their own, everybody would be rewarded fairly for their labour. Capitalism and laissez-faire politics can never hope to be fair or just because the idea of people profiting from the labour of others is unfair in principle. Not all Marxists favoru the repressive dictatorships of Mao and Stalin, these were examples of millions being blinded by autocrats with the illusion that they were living the Marxist ideal, truely neither China nor Russia were ripe for revolution, neither had truely emerged from fiefdom.

I still can't imagine libertarianism working because liberty and justice can only be achieved if people are no longer being exploited, from what I've heard about libertarianism, it gives a select group of middle class Americans the freedom to do anything they want, even if that involves making everyone else's lives Hell. What would privatising the police force do? Wouldn't mean that working class people would have no right to decent police protection? Wouldn't this give way to a horrifying gang cullture while a few miles away, intellectual yuppies are sipping their wine and enjoying their freedom?

If my argument is bad enough to merit insults then perhaps you would care to explain your own...

The ideals of communism are democratic in every sense of the word.

I says pardon?


Yes, in the thoeretical sense, but never in the practised one.

Personally I don't concern myself much with the total packages of labels. If I had to call myself something I'd call myself a libertarian. But that isn't quite accurate.

All I expect out of my life is the ability to work and make a decent income, guarantee that my children will be at least as well off as I am, and to retire at an acceptable age. That, and the freedom to dance naked among the daffodils without getting locked away for an unpleasant amount of time.

:)

it gives a select group of middle class Americans the freedom to do anything they want, even if that involves making everyone else's lives Hell.
Ridiculous - libertarianism garuntees everybody (the lower, middle, upper classes) the rights to do what you wish with your own lives, the exception being that you cannot commit force or fraud against another individual

What would privatising the police force do? Wouldn't mean that working class people would have no right to decent police protection?
Ignore the uber-libertarians who advocate this. I don't.

And on how socialism and/or communism is great and all . . . planned economies don't always work out well enough . . . and Soviet Russia and "Communist" China had some major civil wars and deaths in the 10s and 100s of millions of their own populations

Might you mean "gaia"? I don't believe it's "giai".
i probably do, but dont ask me to spell it, after two vowels my brain goes away.

i probably do, but dont ask me to spell it, after two vowels my brain goes away.
My brain goes away after the first letter of every word, all the ones after that are guesses.
:D

Simply put, I am a socialist. I believe in progressive policies and civil as well as political rights. No one should ever be denied a right that someone else has. One thing I believe in is the welfare system. It has good intentions, it's just so badly abused. It, education and health would be my top priorites! Of course, followed by legalising gay marriage (chuches would not be excepted), abortion and euthanasia (hell, if suicide isn't a crime, then asking someone to kill you should be either).

I says pardon?


Yes, in the thoeretical sense, but never in the practised one.

I said "I D E A L S"

I also said that I do no condone dictatorial political systems such as that of Mao's PRC or Stalin's USSR.

I said "I D E A L S"

I also said that I do no condone dictatorial political systems such as that of Mao's PRC or Stalin's USSR.
Neither do I, but theoretical ideals are one thing; putting them into practice already is another.

I'm not an uber-capitalist libertarian, but I honestly like capitalism over socialism and communism

Simply put, I am a socialist. I believe in progressive policies and civil as well as political rights. No one should ever be denied a right that someone else has. One thing I believe in is the welfare system. It has good intentions, it's just so badly abused. It, education and health would be my top priorites! Of course, followed by legalising gay marriage (chuches would not be excepted), abortion and euthanasia (hell, if suicide isn't a crime, then asking someone to kill you should be either).

I fully support the nationalisation of all public services, an all pervasive welfare state and equal rights for gay people even if it means enforcing it on the churches, synagogues, mosques, etc, I do not however agree with abortion. Not all pro-life campaigners are conservative or religious, some, like me, are just humanists and don't believe in murdering unborn babies.

... followed by legalising gay marriage (chuches would not be excepted), ...
So you're going to impose your moral code on those who disagree with you? Wow. How very enlightened.

Bah, I have no need for you and your labels. I believe that everyone deserves an equal chance to succeed based on their merits and work, and that people rarely have a right to harm another person or impose their belief system or moral code on someone else.

I am an anarcho-communist because hierarchy is impossible to justify morally. Government and capitalism have killed hundreds of millions of people. They cause so much anguish via physical injuries and mental illnesses such as podophilia, pædophilia, dissociative identity disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, etc. They numb the mind and make people zombies who never bother to seek anything other than a hyperreal simulation of freedom in the form of reality TV and stupid elections.

So you're going to impose your moral code on those who disagree with you? Wow. How very enlightened.

Bah, I have no need for you and your labels. I believe that everyone deserves an equal chance to succeed based on their merits and work, and that people rarely have a right to harm another person or impose their belief system or moral code on someone else.
If they got out of the marriage business, there would be no need for my socialist regime to make them adhere to legislated laws that guaranteed universal undeniable and unalienable rights.

I'm just saying, if they want to perform marriage, they can extend this option to all members of its congregation.

Neither do I, but theoretical ideals are one thing; putting them into practice already is another.

I'm not an uber-capitalist libertarian, but I honestly like capitalism over socialism and communism

I suppose it depends on where your beliefs lie in the extent of individual responsibility. I personally disagree with the libertarian notion that everybody, regardless of money or power is completely responsible for their own actions.

As for the theory and practice argument, Russia before the October revolution had only been under the rule of a provision government for six months since its last ever monarch was removed. It was socially and economically backwards compared to the rest of the Western world. China did not even have a working class, it was made up almost entirely of landowners and peasants. In the Communist Manifesto, Marx stated that his country was ripe for revolution, implying that it was nations (such as Germany where he resided at the time) with a developed capitalist economy would witness the true extent of a proletarian revolution.

If they got out of the marriage business, there would be no need for my socialist regime to make them adhere to legislated laws that guaranteed universal undeniable and unalienable rights.

I'm just saying, if they want to perform marriage, they can extend this option to all members of its congregation.
The right to marriage and the right to demand marriage are two very different things. Why should anyone have the right to demand marriage?

I fully support the nationalisation of all public services, an all pervasive welfare state and equal rights for gay people even if it means enforcing it on the churches, synagogues, mosques, etc, I do not however agree with abortion. Not all pro-life campaigners are conservative or religious, some, like me, are just humanists and don't believe in murdering unborn babies.
I know it looks quite unfavourable, but my general policy is all-round all-pervasive human rights, with very few exceptions, those exceptions being: people perpatrating or plotting, or having commited any one of numerous crimes/offenses, including and not limited to: sexual assault, homocide, theft, racial crimes, pedophilia, peddling of illicit drugs (marijuana being the main exception as it would be fully legal) etc...

The right to marriage and the right to demand marriage are two very different things. Why should anyone have the right to demand marriage?
Gays have to demand it don't they? Why should they thus far be denied it while their heterosexual counterparts get it without so much as batting an eyelash?

Gays have to demand it don't they? Why should they thus far be denied it while their heterosexual counterparts get it without so much as batting an eyelash?

I'm not talking about the right to demand the right to get married. I'm talking about the right to demand marriage from a person who does not wish to grant it. If, for whatever reason, a person believes that a union between two people of the same sex/gender is immoral, he should not be forced to act in a way that makes him violate that moral principle.

by the way, take the political compass test (http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/). post results here (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=393750) if you can be arsed.

edit: i'm Economic Left/Right: -7.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.15

<snip> I've not take that compass test for a while, but think I'd end up in a similar area, maybe economically more centre and socially the same. I don't think a lot of these things make a big difference in the long run though. You could argue that Bush(& co) are 'hedging their bets'. This doesn't mean they are 'right' Politics is complicated, but if you can keep a few finely balanced dials heading in the direction that Pure Mental has pointed out then you'll, I think, generally get a (again generally) happy society. For the USA to proclaim itself as the world leader in freedom and democracy when it has a 2 party system which roughly splits the nation into two seems a bit mad to me.

I'm more of a conservetive when it comes to my own country because I like to keep my nation the way it is but I do think that other political partys are better for other countrys. It depends on the country really, eg.

U.S. - Democrats
Germany - SDP
Iceland - IDP
Scotland - NIP

It goes on...

<snip> I've not take that compass test for a while, but think I'd end up in a similar area, maybe economically more centre and socially the same. I don't think a lot of these things make a big difference in the long run though. You could argue that Bush(& co) are 'hedging their bets'. This doesn't mean they are 'right' Politics is complicated, but if you can keep a few finely balanced dials heading in the direction that Pure Mental has pointed out then you'll, I think, generally get a (again generally) happy society. For the USA to proclaim itself as the world leader in freedom and democracy when it has a 2 party system which roughly splits the nation into two seems a bit mad to me.
its Pure Metal, but i like what you say :p

"Personally my ideals are very Marxist and left-wing..."

Oh, my. Marxists. And how old are we?

<snip>

"My view on libertarians, which seems to often be a hot topic of debte on these forums is that it is an extreme laissez-faire philiosophy which would only be dangerous in the end and is actually really selfish and unilateral."

Well, you would be wrong (notice, not stupid, just wrong). Then again, it is impossible not to be wrong if you are a Marxist. Laissez-faire is nothing more than a complete and total and utter seperation of enconomy and government. It is not opression at all.
Greed it good, by the way. Alturism holds that I am supposed to live my life for other people--nuh uh.

"The situation with people whoring themselves to capitalism is bad enough as it is, we don't need more of it."

What exactly is this situation of "people whoring themselves to capitalism" that you speak of? Why do people whore themselves to Socialism or Communism?

I'm not talking about the right to demand the right to get married. I'm talking about the right to demand marriage from a person who does not wish to grant it. If, for whatever reason, a person believes that a union between two people of the same sex/gender is immoral, he should not be forced to act in a way that makes him violate that moral principle.

Why should people have the right to deny a same-sex couple marriage though? If homosexuality was something chosen by the individual then maybe, just maybe the churches should be given the right to reject them. The reality is though that homosexuality is no more chosen than race or gender and to deny them the rights of everybody else is in every way as bad as racism and arguably worse than sexism (women are at least not a minority and therefore do not have to hope with the additional feeling of ostracization). People shouldn't have the right to discriminate against others as they choose when all they have to back it up is religion or (as is in many cases of the more macho, socially conservative atheists) a personal aversion to their practices.

Ridiculous - libertarianism garuntees everybody (the lower, middle, upper classes) the rights to do what you wish with your own lives, the exception being that you cannot commit force or fraud against another individual.

And yet, coercion is the very thing that unrestricted capitalism leads to, fraud and force included. In a system composed by rationally self-interested people, what exactly would stop you from committing fraud, supposing that there was no government to stop you and you could make enough money in the process never to need to make future business deals again? I can't really think of any reason, can you? All of which explains why those eras where unrestricted capitalism were en vogue, frauds like Ken Lay and Jay Gould become far more prominent and far more the rule rather than the exception.


And on how socialism and/or communism is great and all . . . planned economies don't always work out well enough . . . and Soviet Russia and "Communist" China had some major civil wars and deaths in the 10s and 100s of millions of their own populations

Hundreds of millions of people would be a stretch even for the horrors of Stalin's 5 year plans and Mao's Great Leap Forward put together. But this misses the main point, in that you assume that communism=centralized economy. Marx never said anything about a centralized economy, neither in favor nor opposed to it. He just said that in a communist society, workers would have control of the means of production. A market mechanism of some kind, organized between individual soviets, is a perfectly feasible way to run a communist economy.

My political philosophy is based off of the ideas of Theodore Roosevelt in the economic realm. That companies should be left free unless they are doing harm unto others.

My political philosophy is very socially libertarian. Not completely, as I do make exceptions in certain instances, but for the most part I am that. My political compass was...
Economic: 3.4
Social: -2.8

I think that's about it.

Beyond that, I'm a big-stick libertarian. I believe in a strong military, and that we shouldn't be afraid to use it if it is needed.

"Personally my ideals are very Marxist and left-wing..."

Oh, my. Marxists. And how old are we?

<snip>

"My view on libertarians, which seems to often be a hot topic of debte on these forums is that it is an extreme laissez-faire philiosophy which would only be dangerous in the end and is actually really selfish and unilateral."

Well, you would be wrong (notice, not stupid, just wrong). Then again, it is impossible not to be wrong if you are a Marxist. Laissez-faire is nothing more than a complete and total and utter seperation of enconomy and government. It is not opression at all.
Greed it good, by the way. Alturism holds that I am supposed to live my life for other people--nuh uh.

And what have we here? The arrogance of an ageist, lacking the benefit of a good, solid argument, you resort to pompous condescension, complete with delusions of geriatric superiority. You are incredibly lucky to live in a society where you are able to live in a society where whichever doctrine you support would not affect your individual liberties.

"The situation with people whoring themselves to capitalism is bad enough as it is, we don't need more of it."

What exactly is this situation of "people whoring themselves to capitalism" that you speak of? Why do people whore themselves to Socialism or Communism?

I think you've answered your own question there. People turn towards socialism because of the horror that capitalism causes. If capitalism is so bleeding good, then why in one hundred years time, will private enterprise herald the destruction of our environment? Why do millions in Third World countries die of starvation and illness because some people thought it would be good to make a profit from their interest payments by loaning them money? Why does America have the highest crime rate in the world? Petty and violent crime is a response to exploitation and antagonism towards a society/culture under the control of ruling classes.

I'd consider myself a real compassionate Conservative, unlike Bush, who's very right wing. Economically, I support capitalism, because it's proven that it works. In 200+, our country's economy has had its ups and downs, but it pulled itself through it. Communism just simply can't work. It allows for no personal economic freedoms. If the government controls the means of production, medicare, health care, etc., everyone is subject to the same type of goods and care. Therefore, competition decreases and the quality decreases. I'm a firm believer in "The freer the market, the freer the people". I do, however, support welfare, if to an extent. Some people that are on welfare really do need the government's support, like handicapped, mentally challenged, the homeless, etc. The system is just abused, that's all. Socially, I'm conservative as well. I'm against gay marriage. THe government needs to stay out religious practices such as marriage. I'm all for giving gays civil unions where they may have every right married couples have. I'm pro-life, because I believe it's murder, and I think abortion is highly irresponsible. I support the war, but just not the way it was carried out, I think we rushed into it too fast, but it was something that needed to be done. Saddam needed to be overthrown. Plain and simple. Yes, I supported Bush. Yes, I love my country.

I'd consider myself a real compassionate Conservative, unlike Bush, who's very right wing. Economically, I support capitalism, because it's proven that it works. In 200+, our country's economy has had its ups and downs, but it pulled itself through it. Communism just simply can't work. It allows for no personal economic freedoms. If the government controls the means of production, medicare, health care, etc., everyone is subject to the same type of goods and care. Therefore, competition decreases and the quality decreases. I'm a firm believer in "The freer the market, the freer the people". I do, however, support welfare, if to an extent. Some people that are on welfare really do need the government's support, like handicapped, mentally challenged, the homeless, etc. The system is just abused, that's all. Socially, I'm conservative as well. I'm against gay marriage. THe government needs to stay out religious practices such as marriage. I'm all for giving gays civil unions where they may have every right married couples have. I'm pro-life, because I believe it's murder, and I think abortion is highly irresponsible. I support the war, but just not the way it was carried out, I think we rushed into it too fast, but it was something that needed to be done. Saddam needed to be overthrown. Plain and simple. Yes, I supported Bush. Yes, I love my country.

Ah, a centre-rightist. In some ways I admire people who stand on the middle ground, they tend to be less egotistical and more practical than most even if I don't agree with them.

Why should people have the right to deny a same-sex couple marriage though? If homosexuality was something chosen by the individual then maybe, just maybe the churches should be given the right to reject them. The reality is though that homosexuality is no more chosen than race or gender and to deny them the rights of everybody else is in every way as bad as racism and arguably worse than sexism (women are at least not a minority and therefore do not have to hope with the additional feeling of ostracization). People shouldn't have the right to discriminate against others as they choose when all they have to back it up is religion or (as is in many cases of the more macho, socially conservative atheists) a personal aversion to their practices.

Homosexuals may not choose their sexual orientation, but they can choose who weds them. I don't see why they have a right to demand a person do something he considers to be immoral. Imagine a law that states that everyone has a right to be given pocket lint. If a person does not wish to give another person his pocket lint, why should he be forced to?

My Ideal; Govt only works for defense. Separate tax to the Police and Judiciary, Laws to be reviewed, rationalised, made more flexable and minimised.
You want any other sevices you go pay for it.
I beleive in Humanity, People with cash will donate to help those without that need, whether Medical or other assistance.
My reality; Reluctantly Conservative. they are the only people who get anywhere close to my ideals (reducing government and red tape, do we really need to have stats for everything) AND have a chance of winning.

I'm left/libertarian.
Because I believe we should all play nice, share with those that have less and not bother each other. And those that don't should have their balls kicked up through their teeth.

I'm a moderate socialist. I believe that although the welfare system is abused, it is inherantly good. I believe that education and health care should be the same high standard for everyone, regardless of how rich you or your parents are. I think that corporations have no morals and only care about the accumluation of profits so need to be watched over with a very close eye to prevent them doing this at the expense of others or the enviroment.
I also strongly believe that corporation crime such as tax fraud should be cracked down upon - if a company has swindeled the government out of £1 million tax, the people responsible should be imprisoned for a lengthy period, just like any other theft of a large amount of money.

However, I don't think communism is by any ways possible, apart from in a small, tightly knit community, and think a lot of Marxist views just aren't realistic. People are naturally greedy selfish twats and although greed is definitly a bad thing, you are never going to get rid of it - although we must all strive to overcome the uncivilised feeling of greed.

I will probably vote Labour in the next election - apart from entering the Iraq war, which apart from anything took money away that could have being spent on improving Britain, they have done alright. I hope Blair isn't prime minister though.

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: 2.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 1.18

Heck. I thought I'll be more economically right.

Anyway, my political views, probably more akin to democrats or between them and the repubs. I guess I'm very centrist, to me, finding the balance between capitalism and socialism is best.

I don't believe communism or socialism work. I guess it's to do with the society I've lived up in and the background I'm from. Especially when the government doesn't have enough to feed it's people and the people themselves are just so damn incompetent and lazy.

So I'm one of those who accepted the fact that I have to screw the rest for me to rise above the rest. :p Let the place be a dog eat dog world. Cynical of me? Yes I am.

Simply put, I am a socialist. I believe in progressive policies and civil as well as political rights. No one should ever be denied a right that someone else has. One thing I believe in is the welfare system. It has good intentions, it's just so badly abused. It, education and health would be my top priorites! Of course, followed by legalising gay marriage (chuches would not be excepted), abortion and euthanasia (hell, if suicide isn't a crime, then asking someone to kill you should be either).

Suicide is a crime but we don't put dead bodies in prison because it gets smelly.
So your self arguement falls flat.

I am a Democrat. Clinton showed how one can do things the right way wioth the economy. Making people feel safe. He had a few moral issues but that means little because that is his own issues not mine.

I believe that tax cuts when in a war are wrong and should not be done. I believe in lower the national Debt. I believe that SS should not be privatized. I believe in the kind of Health Care that John Kerry was talking about (the one that Senators use). I believe that religion shouldn't be the main focal point for voting for someone. (Many people in Virginia have said they voted for Bush because he is a Christian).

I am what I am because I know my path is right for me. I hav never seen Tax cuts ever be proven to help the debt. I believe that SS was built to be a safety net and Privatizing will do away with that net. And that negative capaigning is wrong.(Which was what Bush mostly did)

Libertarian to Anarcho-Capitalist.

Because capitalism rocks, and I like making lots of money.

The situation with people whoring themselves to capitalism is bad enough as it is, we don't need more of it.

If capitalism is prostitution, socialism is rape.

Libertarian capitalism ensures that all trade and exchange is voluntary. You don't HAVE to do anything, except refrain from killing and stealing. Everybody can demand pay for whatever service or product they're providing. If you don't like your employer, then quit your job and work somewhere else. Go self-employed, even.

Socialism involves forcing the populace to surrender their property. When you take something from someone against their will, it doesn't matter if you give it to someone else, it's still stealing. Government has no right to take what is ours.

I'd rather CHOOSE to exchange my money for goods and services than have it taken from me by the state. I'd rather be a whore than a rape victim, to make use of the initial analogy.

If capitalism is prostitution, socialism is rape.

Libertarian capitalism ensures that all trade and exchange is voluntary. You don't HAVE to do anything, except refrain from killing and stealing. Everybody can demand pay for whatever service or product they're providing. If you don't like your employer, then quit your job and work somewhere else. Go self-employed, even.

Socialism involves forcing the populace to surrender their property. When you take something from someone against their will, it doesn't matter if you give it to someone else, it's still stealing. Government has no right to take what is ours.

I'd rather CHOOSE to exchange my money for goods and services than have it taken from me by the state. I'd rather be a whore than a rape victim, to make use of the initial analogy.
comparing capitalism to prostitution gives prostitution a bad name

and socialism doesnt make the PEOPLE do anything, at least it doesnt have to. socialism can stop at controlling business and commercial property, stuff is zoned differently you know. gotta love the uninformed dominizing

comparing capitalism to prostitution gives prostitution a bad name

Comparing socialism to rape gives rape a bad name.

Comparing socialism to rape gives rape a bad name.
more like gives socialism a bad name due to idiotic demonizing

more like gives socialism a bad name due to idiotic demonizing

More like no, socialism is just like rape, for the reasons I described in my main post. To be honest, the comparison doesn't give either rape or socialism a bad name. They both suck. They both involve one person forcing another to do something.

Its nice to know that we have a TRA/MKUltra wanna-be :(

and socialism doesnt make the PEOPLE do anything, at least it doesnt have to. socialism can stop at controlling business and commercial property, stuff is zoned differently you know.
Businesses and commercial properties aren't owned by robots, they're owned by people.

Here's where I stand on the following issues:

Abortion- I'm adamantly pro-life, but I believe abortion laws should be left up to the states; abortion should be neither protected nor prohibited by the federal government

Death penalty- Same as above

Stem cell research- The government has no business to fund any type of scientific research, and nowhere does the constitution grant the government the right to squander taxpayers' money on something such as this (for the same reason, I think NASA, etc. should all be privatized)

Corporate welfare- Should be abolished immediately

Social welfare- Should be turned over completely to state and local governments

Income tax- Should be abolished immediately

Federal Reserve- Should be abolished immediately

Social security- Should be privatized or turned over completely to state and local governments

Foreign relations- Pursue a non-aligned, noninterventionist foreign policy; withdraw from NATO, the UN, the WTO, and every other entangling alliance, completely abolish ALL forms of foreign aid, dismantle all our foreign military bases and return all our troops home; get us out of Iraq and Afghanistan; get the UN out of the U.S.; break off relations with Russia, China, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Laos, Vietnam, Cambodia, Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Angola, Mozambique, and all over communist or pro-communist countries; never intervene in other nations' affairs (be they friends or foes), and expect the same of them

Church and state- Should remain separate; however, if a kid wants to pray, read a Bible or Koran, etc. in school, let 'em. If a judge wants to post the Ten Commandments in his courtroom, let 'em.

Gun control- HAS GOT TO GO

Immigration- All illegals should be booted out, while legals should be permitted to stay; our borders should be drastically strengthened

Business- Businesses should not be regulated by the government, nor supported by the government; other than breaking up monopolies, the government has no business meddling in business' affairs

Trade- Should be free, without protectionist tariffs (however, trade with anti-American nations should be prohibited)

Education- Should be left completely up to state and local governments

Healthcare- Same as education

Affirmative action- Is stupid. People shouldn't be given jobs just because they have a certain skin color; likewise, no one should be prohibited from getting a job because of their skin color. I believe we should strive for a color-blind society that focuses on character and not ethnicity

Military- The Department of Defense should be broken up into the Departments of War, the Navy, and the Air Force; the military should be used ONLY to protect the country, not to meddle in other countries' affairs

Freedom of speech- Should be zealously protected at all costs

Money- Should be backed by gold and silver

Minimum wage- Should be abolished immediately or left to state and local governments

Gay marriage- ALL marriage should be left to the states and local governments, although I would prefer that they kept out of it, too. As long as both individuals consent, why the hell should the government care who marries whom?

Drug laws- Should be left up to the states and local governments to decide

Prostitution, public nudity, etc.- Same as drug laws

Environment- Environmental protection should be left to states, local govenments, and individuals; pantheism and radical environmentalism are not the key: the key is moderate environmentalism, such as voluntary conservation, re-forestation, recycling, etc.

All Departments should be abolished except for State, Justice, Treasury, War, Navy, and Air Force

Government spending should be reduced drastically in all areas except defense

Crime should be left for states and local governments to handle

Euthanasia should be left up to the states and local governments

The 17th Amendment should be abolished

The Electoral College should be retained

The two-party system should be replaced with a multiparty system

Its nice to know that we have a TRA/MKUltra wanna-be :(


Businesses and commercial properties aren't owned by robots, they're owned by people.

Precisely. We fat cats and kulaks are people too, and if the state orders us to surrender our means of production, that's what I would consider "MAKING" us do something.

I would describe myself as socially and economically liberal - but I realise this assertion can have multiple meanings depending upon whether you are in Europe or the United States.

Broadly speaking, I see globalisation as a means of progression and the lowering of tariffs and other barriers to free trade as a step forward. I believe a balance should be struck between the ideals of the welfare state and the free market, which is why I'm a supporter of the New Labour/Blairite experiment. Ultra-libertarianism offers too little for the disadvantaged in society, and excessive government intervention in economic affairs effectively places a chokehold on development. It's an ambitious goal, and one that can be seen within the European Constitution, beneath all the disjointed linguistics that plague it's pages.

I also believe liberal and/or representative democracy to be applicable on a near-universal level, a political system that has the capacity to transcend cultural and religious differences in accordance with the theory of the "democratic peace". Democracies are far less likely to go to war with one another than authoritarian regimes (or authoritarian regimes with democratic ones).

More like no, socialism is just like rape, for the reasons I described in my main post. To be honest, the comparison doesn't give either rape or socialism a bad name. They both suck. They both involve one person forcing another to do something.
except in socialism you get something in return: a comfortable life. and no there are difference you are jsut being an ass

and capitalims like prositution? i dont recall selling OTHER people out to get ahed. capitalism is like a crack whore

Precisely. We fat cats and kulaks are people too, and if the state orders us to surrender our means of production, that's what I would consider "MAKING" us do something.

So some rich people who make profit from not actually doing anything beyond paying people less than their profit to do work might loose out? Cry me a river.

except in socialism you get something in return: a comfortable life. and no there are difference you are jsut being an ass

and capitalims like prositution? i dont recall selling OTHER people out to get ahed. capitalism is like a crack whore

In "capitalims" people only sell themselves. Manual workers sell labour to their employers, employers sell products to consumers. Or manual workers just self-employ and sell their labour straight to the populace.

Capitalism is like a crack whore? Well, sure, if you want to use your hard earned cash to buy drugs, it can be. But you get to choose. You can buy and sell whatever you want.

Socialist governments will pimp you for the day and then give you a fixed crack-ration. (Not literally. I'm still making use of the whole "hooker/rape" analogy going on here)

Socialism is not charity. Socialism is legalized theft.

So some rich people who make profit from not actually doing anything beyond paying people less than their profit to do work might loose out? Cry me a river.

Sadly, in modern society, we're all kulaks. If a carpenter of today owns a toolkit, drills, nails, a supply of wood and so on, that's a means of production. He's gonna have to get that taken by the state too, if the mandate is to stop capitalists. The majority of people in most economically developed countries today are capitalistic. I'm sorry, but it's the truth.

http://s95074994.onlinehome.us/compass.htm

Economic Left/Right: -10.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -9.54

I was a Communist, once. However, having realised that we in Britain have for 50 years had a welfare state which caters for all and aims to help those genuinely in need, yet is constantly and openly abused by the very people - the lower classes - whom it's meant to save from destitution, I've lost faith. The human race is mostly too stupid, too selfish, too egocentric to make the system work. However, it's those very qualities which capitalism encourages and rewards, and I cannot possibly tolerate that. As a cultured, educated middle-class male, I find the igonrance and stupididy or working-class scum who walk around in gangs spraying insults at people only marginally more tolerable than the disgusting, perpetual thuggery and robbery committed by CEOs every day.

I suppose I fall between Locke-style Liberalism and Socialism, then add an authoritarian flavour (IMO people are, mostly, too stupid to govern themselves, and if you leave a group of people from a council estate alone to think something out, you'll see what I mean). I don't believe in universal franchise, and would chiefly base enfranchisement around the most accurate measure of intellectual capacity available. I believe that your own large industries and public services must be nationalised, but that small and medium-scale private business is fine. Companies must be counterbalanced by unions, and vice-versa, for neither can be trusted with power. The people and the corporations are both too greedy, stupid and self-absorbed to be trusted with government, and only those elite who can, through collective effort, rise above such impulses are fit to govern.