NationStates Jolt Archive

Who am I? I have tried long and hard to classify my viewpoints, but I lack the skills and the dictionary of classifications to do so. I will now name my stances, and I want someone to tell me how to classify myself? Political compass doesn't answer that, they just give you some cartesian results.



I am conservative in most social issues -- pro life, anti-homosexual, etc. The only exception is that I am pro-weed.

I believe that the central government needs to be strong, and has to get involved in many of the situations that are taken care of state governments now.

I don't believe in free trade, but would rather see some tariffs in effect. However they shouldn't be too high. That way, they can protect businesses.

I think that corporations today are over-regulated. After all, as long as there are at least two competing companies, it's not a monopoly.


If there are some other questiosn you would like to ask, go ahead. Just tell me where do I fall?

You look like a moderate christian, or at least a moderate with similar ideas to christians.

Seems to me that you're a social libertarian... but an economic moderate?

I'd say you are an Alexander Hamiliton style nationalist

You look like a moderate christian, or at least a moderate with similar ideas to christians.
Oh, and I am Jewish.

I'd say you are an Alexander Hamiliton style nationalist
Federalist?

Oh, and I am Jewish.

Well, than a conservative jew. Most major religions can be exchanged with christian, in that sense.

Federalist?
Yeah, well you support a strong national government ruling over much weaker state governments like Hamilton, and you are also a big supporter of capitalism like Hamiliton so yeah.

Well, you seem to be against the 19th century definition of "conservative"- you want a government just big enough to piss off everyone but yourself, but you don't want enough money to do anything except make threats and hope people follow.

This doesn't fit well with the modern definition of conservative- massive government, massive spending, and control everywhere you even vaguely think you can, just so long as it doesn't inconvenience you.. You'd fit best with the Libertarian party-as far as possible from actual Libertarians, but you look like 'em from a safe distance.

Well, you seem to be against the 19th century definition of "conservative"- you want a government just big enough to piss off everyone but yourself, but you don't want enough money to do anything except make threats and hope people follow.

This doesn't fit well with the modern definition of conservative- massive government, massive spending, and control everywhere you even vaguely think you can, just so long as it doesn't inconvenience you.. You'd fit best with the Libertarian party-as far as possible from actual Libertarians, but you look like 'em from a safe distance.
The libertaraian party? He is AGAINST abortion, gay rights and FOR big government. He is more like a socially conservative democrat, like Democratic Senate leader Harry Reid.

You said that you'd toss your kids out if they were gay or disobeyed you.

Also that you'd murder a girl if you got her pregnant and she had an abortion.

"Maniac" comes to mind.

Politics arent really important to maniacs, some like to think that they are left wing, some right wing.

Moderate neoconservative.

The libertaraian party? He is AGAINST abortion, gay rights and FOR big government. He is more like a socially conservative democrat, like Democratic Senate leader Harry Reid.Frankly, all the major parties are massive-spending big-government at this point. It's just that the Libertarian one (and, to a lesser extent, the Republican, though they seem to want the most government control) doesn't want to admit that the money has to come from somewhere.

After reading your opening statement, I think you lean more to the Republican Side of the Political Spectrum than the Democratic side of the Political Spectrum.

Also, I think you are just to the right of Conservatism if not slightly over that line.

Since I don't know you personally, it is hard to tell from the internet just where exactly you fall.

If you believed in a proactive militaristic foreign policy, you would almost be hardline neoconservative.

An authoritarian Republican who happens to have a non-authoritarian viewpoint on marijuana. Pat Buchanan on weed.

An authoritarian Republican who happens to have a non-authoritarian viewpoint on marijuana. Pat Buchanan on weed.

yeah that about sums it up.

btw,

have you ever seen pat buchanan? have you ever seen pat buchanan...on weed? that's the way to see him. it's just whacked.

I would say you (Doom777) are a moderate authoritarian conservative (Republican).

Posted by the Satanic Priest, Lord Medivh

Wait, so I am republican? But republicans are against a large government, and for cutting taxes to a minimum. I was against the big tax cut of Bush, and against Reagan's government simplification.

And money should come from taxes, and tariffs.

Also, what's the difference between a conservative and neoconservative?



Just to add: while I think that large corporations are overregulated, I still think that their involvement in politics should be brought down to a minimum.

You said that you'd toss your kids out if they were gay or disobeyed you.

Also that you'd murder a girl if you got her pregnant and she had an abortion.

"Maniac" comes to mind.

Politics arent really important to maniacs, some like to think that they are left wing, some right wing.
I never said i'd toss them if they disobeyed me. And politics are important to me, so the maniac definition doesn't apply.

You are what we like to call a toking cultural conservative. I am probably the only Poli Sci major, and that is the closest you come to. Somewhat of a nationalistic, watered down fascist (not that there is anything wrong with fascism. In fact, it seems to be the best political system for a county's economy that has been seen so far.) That likes weed. But really, who doesn't if they have actually smoked it before? :D

You are what we like to call a toking cultural conservative. I am probably the only Poli Sci major, and that is the closest you come to. Somewhat of a nationalistic, watered down fascist (not that there is anything wrong with fascism. In fact, it seems to be the best political system for a county's economy that has been seen so far.) That likes weed. But really, who doesn't if they have actually smoked it before? :D

I'm a political science major myself!

I'm a political science major myself!


Joy! John Locke dance with me!
http://www.constitution.org/img/john_locke.jpg

Have you studied comparative politics and ideologies? What do you think of each of the major ideologies?

Also: Republicans like to say that they are for small government and states rights, but they're not. The proof can be found in the wording of the patriot act and the opposition to massachusetts' gay marriage law.

You are what we like to call a toking cultural conservative. I am probably the only Poli Sci major, and that is the closest you come to. Somewhat of a nationalistic, watered down fascist (not that there is anything wrong with fascism. In fact, it seems to be the best political system for a county's economy that has been seen so far.) That likes weed. But really, who doesn't if they have actually smoked it before? :D
Wait, so I am a fascist? That's even worse than 'maniac'.

"toking cultural conservative"
Hmm, that's better. Cause I don't understand it.

So its a tossup between this, and Hamilton-style Federalist.

Joy! John Locke dance with me!
http://www.constitution.org/img/john_locke.jpg

Have you studied comparative politics and ideologies? What do you think of each of the major ideologies?

Comparative politics not yet!

I am taking internatonal law and American Judicary and Intro to Political Theory.

Not to mention 2 history courses.

Also: Republicans like to say that they are for small government and states rights, but they're not. The proof can be found in the wording of the patriot act and the opposition to massachusetts' gay marriage law.

This isn't proof of that! There was outrage in Mass because it was the COURTS and not the LEGISTLATURE that made that decision.

This isn't proof of that! There was outrage in Mass because it was the COURTS and not the LEGISTLATURE that made that decision.

The courts of Mass. made that descision based on the Mass. state constitution. They were upholding the highest law in the land (as far as the state is concerned.) If Mass. really wanted to change it, they would amend their constitution.

Wait, so I am a fascist? That's even worse than 'maniac'.

"toking cultural conservative"
Hmm, that's better. Cause I don't understand it.

So its a tossup between this, and Hamilton-style Federalist.


There is a big difference between fascism and nazism. From a poli sci perspective, there is nothing wrong with being a watered-down fascist.

The courts of Mass. made that descision based on the Mass. state constitution. They were upholding the highest law in the land (as far as the state is concerned.) If Mass. really wanted to change it, they would amend their constitution.

Care to show me where in the state constitution of Mass that allows gay marriage?

You look like a moderate christian, or at least a moderate with similar ideas to christians.

Peoples ideas of social systems don't make their religion.

Yeah, I was thinking something along the lines of a moderate fascist.

Remember, of course, that facsist doesn't mean what it connotates. A lot more people are fascists than would think or call themselves thus.

Just going through their constitution (http://www.mass.gov/legis/const.htm) , I would have to guess this part.

All people are born free and equal and have certain natural, essential and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness. Equality under the law shall not be denied or abridged because of sex, race, color, creed or national origin.

There is a big difference between fascism and nazism. From a poli sci perspective, there is nothing wrong with being a watered-down fascist.
Except most people don't know that, and I can't go around telling people that I am a fascist. Is there a nicer term for fascist, that I can use?

Neoconservative on pot?

I have never tried marijuana though...

Fascism is just the marriage of authoritarian government and controlled capitalism, so it seems like a proper description to me. But more importantly is the reason for your confusion. You have a fairly unique set of political and economic ideals; in fact they are borderline irrational, at least they seem that way to me. You want more government control and tariffs, yet you feel corporations are over-regulated? It just doesn't mesh well. Now far be it from me to restrict anyone to two arbitrary choices, free market or not, and so on, but you should rethink your stances. Are you certain that international trade should be restricted while domestic trade (the economy) is given more freedom? What's the key distinction allowing such discrimination? Etc.

As far as a better term for fascism, there isn't one I know of... I would just say "conservative" if I were you.

Also please note I want to comment on this from your original post:

"I think that corporations today are over-regulated. After all, as long as there are at least two competing companies, it's not a monopoly."

Yes two firms is not a monopoly, it is a oligopoly. And depending on the structure of that oligopoly it can be just as bad as a monopoly. But that's neither here nor there, just mentioning it for your information.

Jewish Neoconservative in favor of others being on pot?

Just going through their constitution (http://www.mass.gov/legis/const.htm) , I would have to guess this part.

I'll say not bad. The problem though is that it was the courts that forced it onto the population. They could've done what Conn legislature did and approve of Civil Unions. They banned gay marriage but allow for civil unions in Conn.

With the exception of pro-weed, you're a traditional European conservative bastard. ;)

Fascism is just the marriage of authoritarian government and controlled capitalism, so it seems like a proper description to me. But more importantly is the reason for your confusion. You have a fairly unique set of political and economic ideals; in fact they are borderline irrational, at least they seem that way to me. You want more government control and tariffs, yet you feel corporations are over-regulated? It just doesn't mesh well. Now far be it from me to restrict anyone to two arbitrary choices, free market or not, and so on, but you should rethink your stances. Are you certain that international trade should be restricted while domestic trade (the economy) is given more freedom? What's the key distinction allowing such discrimination? Etc.

As far as a better term for fascism, there isn't one I know of... I would just say "conservative" if I were you.

Also please note I want to comment on this from your original post:

I think that corporations today are over-regulated. After all, as long as there are at least two competing companies, it's not a monopoly."

Yes two firms is not a monopoly, it is a oligopoly. And depending on the structure of that oligopoly it can be just as bad as a monopoly. But that's neither here nor there, just mentioning it for your information.
Yes, government should have more control, however they should have less control on large corporations, than they do now. Right now, the government controls every little thing about corporations, slowing down their growth. At the same time, the government, leaves most other segments of the country control-free. You can take a table, and put in on the sidewalk of 5th avenue in New York, and sell cheap watches, and the government won't even know about it. So if you secretly sell cocaine on that table too, it would be very hard to catch you. Now if the government could pop up with a surprise inspection, they would have an easier time catching you.


As for the tariffs, the reason for them is to protect domestic makers from foreign competition. Farmers today suffer, because rice, tobacco, and many other cultures can be made in asia a lot cheaper, and then simply shipped here. now tarrifs would make the prices on the imports higher, so domestic farmers would have an easier time making money. ANd the more money they make, the more taxes they pay, the happier the government is.


As for oligopoly, the main problem with monopolies, is that they slack off, and degrade the quality of the product, and raise prices. However, in an oligopoly, a company can't do it, because it will immiediately lose customers to a competing firm.

Jewish Neoconservative in favor of others being on pot?
Hmm, let me try it out.


I am a Jewish neoconservative in favor of others being on pot.

It's okay, I guess.


With the exception of pro-weed, you're a traditional European conservative bastard.
But I am not european, I am american.

Let's take this discussion over to the New Thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=8772237&posted=1#post8772237) I made for it.

But I am not european, I am american.
But your ideology is European in origin.

On Regulation, tariffs, etc:
Well, I expected an explanation like that. I would like to discuss the issue of regulation, tariffs, and free trade, but don't want to hijack your post :) .

Help a newbie out, is there a PM system we can use?

On Oligopoly:
Note I offered the caveat "depending on the structure of that oligopoly", meaning some kinds of oligopolies will be as bad as monopolies, other kinds will not be as bad. For example, a cartel will operate exactly like a monopoly while several oligopic firms competing for market share will act as you have described.

Telegrams from the game portion of NS are what pass for PMs around here.

Ah that works, thanks.

On Regulation, tariffs, etc:
Well, I expected an explanation like that. I would like to discuss the issue of regulation, tariffs, and free trade, but don't want to hijack your post :) .

Help a newbie out, is there a PM system we can use?

On Oligopoly:
Note I offered the caveat "depending on the structure of that oligopoly", meaning some kinds of oligopolies will be as bad as monopolies, other kinds will not be as bad. For example, a cartel will operate exactly like a monopoly while several oligopic firms competing for market share will act as you have described.
A cartel is a monopoly. I am for banning cartels, of course.