NationStates Jolt Archive

And I don't just mean in America, so you can mention immigration if you wish.

What gets them riled up???

Abortion, immigration, taxes, war, what do you think?

Fight Fascism

i don't like your motto. sorry to be off topic

level of financial freedom and proprietary rights

Hey Swimmingpool, you left out the people who are authoritarian both socially and economically. You forgot the fascists!
:D

Big Government.

Seems like all politicans(of whatever party, in whatever nation) are for always for it.

Politicians want to get elected/re elected, so they propose some legistlation that helps one group a lot and only hurts another group a little(per capita) and over time govt gets bigger and bigger and we find ourselves more dependant on the politicians for either their permission or the funding.

guess you can figure out where I stand, even without my political compass score.

It depends. If you're talking about which issue divides us the most politically, I would say it would have to be the practice of economics and the sanctity or lack thereof of property rights. If you want to talk about which issue seperates us mostly on a personal or emotional level, i'd have to go with abortion and religion. Tough call there.

Social security, privatize it. Not Bush's plan, which one could hardly consider privatizaion, I mean actually letting the people decide what to do with their money.

For consevaties in the states a big divide is isolationism. Many conservatives are hardcore isolationists, many are power projection advocates. My problem is I see merit in both sides and so swing back and forth.
My gut feeling is brings the troops home, don't waste any USian blood in any foreign wars unless they directly threaten US soil. No troops to project business, no troops to protect travelers, nothing.
My realistic side says this just won't work in the real world, we have to have some protection of our interests.
Then my angry bitter side says, screw all you guys out there, we outta really actually crank up the USian war machine, spread out over half the globe and show all of the anti-USers what a US empire could really look like if we wanted one.

Thankfully the last one only pops up only when I am blinded by anger and quickly disappears when I calm down after five minutes.

And I don't just mean in America, so you can mention immigration if you wish.

What gets them riled up???

Abortion, immigration, taxes, war, what do you think?
Abortion ... no contest. :(

And I don't just mean in America, so you can mention immigration if you wish.

What gets them riled up???

Abortion, immigration, taxes, war, what do you think?
It's more fundamental than any one issue, it's more of a philosophy of whether we should depend on government or whether the government should serve the people.

As to a specific issue, I'd vote for abortion. Hands down that is the most polarizing issue. I like to talk politics at work, but abortion encompasses so much more that I won't participate in any discussion involving it. Here, again, you've got the idea of the government usurping individual rights. Or protecting them...

Politics.

Sex.

Immigration is an issue because foreigners come in and steal our women and there's less sex for us. Abortion is an issue because both legal contraception and abortion increase the general likelyhood of sex. Economics is an issue because the more money and time you have, the more you can afford to be having sex. And in general, any issue at all between me and you is divided by the fact that I want to have more sex than you and spread my genes as far as possible, so you getting your way and having fun and success might come at the cost of that goal.

Sex.

Shouldn't this be a poll?

What divides...

the fact that maybe both sides are wrong and the true way to do things is actually a compromise?

And I don't just mean in America, so you can mention immigration if you wish.

What gets them riled up???

Abortion, immigration, taxes, war, what do you think?

The real issue behind all of that is this one: can people be perfected, and can it be done by the government?

The real issue behind all of that is this one: can people be perfected, and can it be done by the government?
People can be bettered, but NOT perfected - and government interference only slows the process

People can be bettered, but NOT perfected - and government interference only slows the process

but they get worse when there isn't something to keep them from doing something to make themselves worse, like doing drugs.

Values -- end of story.

Which political ideology equates to evil

Values -- end of story.
Values? Bullshit thats just another word for a campaign issue, but that is ONE reason.

...sex.

Come on, you all know I'm right. When was the last time you voted for something you knew would diminish your sex life?

Social security, privatize it. Not Bush's plan, which one could hardly consider privatizaion, I mean actually letting the people decide what to do with their money.

Tried that once ... somewhere around September 1929.

Tried that once ... somewhere around September 1929.
I think I was drunk when I wrote that, or is that now?

I think I was drunk when I wrote that, or is that now?

It's tomorrow.

People can be bettered, but NOT perfected

People can be battered and fried to golden brown perfection, though.

It's hard to say if there is a single issue which is in most controversy between ALL three groups. Each one of them has different views on different issues for different reasons.

I would have to say "general economic policy" is the largest common denominator to which all three have massive contesting issues with one another on.

overall, if you look at governmental form it's libertarians vs. liberals/conservatives...

if you look at civil issues, its libertarians/liberals vs. conservatives

When it actual comes to individual liberties and economic issues, you finally get to liberals vs. libertarians vs. conservatives...

For other peoples responses...

Immigration: No... Conservatives tend to oppose it, liberals and libertarians tend to be in favor of it (though with minor differences)....

Big Government: No.... Conservatives and Liberals tend to be for it, libertarians oppose it...

Abortion: No... Another issue to which liberals and libertarians generaly agree, and which Conservatives oppose...

Values: No... It's not even really a singular issue in the US. Depending on the "value" you can have disagreement and agreement... If you are reffering to operational mandating of moral viewpoints... That is an issue to which libertarians/liberals will disagree, and Conservatives agree...

From my gist of the question, it is what divides ALL THREE positions the most... Not just one or two...

What divides it in the end is the Profit Now vs A Future contradiction.

On a philosophical level, probably economics, finances and taxation. But on an emotional level, probably morality issues.

Hey Swimmingpool, you left out the people who are authoritarian both socially and economically. You forgot the fascists!
:D
I'm not going to put a few extra words in just for Yupneau. I know what divides him most from everyone. Government cameras in our bedrooms!

guess you can figure out where I stand, even without my political compass score.
You know what you need more of? Social libertarianism!

It depends. If you're talking about which issue divides us the most politically, I would say it would have to be the practice of economics and the sanctity or lack thereof of property rights.

If you want to talk about which issue seperates us mostly on a personal or emotional level, i'd have to go with abortion and religion. Tough call there.
Economics. Funny that liberals and conservatives don't seem to be drastically divided on that. Even the most left-wing of them still favour some form of capitalism.

Abortion, yes is a big one. Probably the single most divisive issue in Ireland. Unfortunately, the social conservatives have a majority of control on that issue in the government and the courts.

For consevaties in the states a big divide is isolationism. Many conservatives are hardcore isolationists, many are power projection advocates. My problem is I see merit in both sides and so swing back and forth.
Why would any isolationist conservatives ever support Bush?

The real issue behind all of that is this one: can people be perfected, and can it be done by the government?
How does this apply to specific issues?

Values -- end of story.
'Values' is a very vague term. What do you mean by that?

On a philosophical level, probably economics, finances and taxation. But on an emotional level, probably morality issues.

General morality issues, Libertarians and Liberals tend to agree for the most part (except on some sigular points like Capital Punishment)... While the bulk of both the Libs and LP are opposed to Conservative mandation of moral viewpoints...

Oppose:

----------------------------Conservative---Liberal---Libertarian
______________________________________________________
Abortion--------------------------x---------------------------
Capital Punishment----------------------------x---------------
Social Welfare---------------------x---------------------x----
Corporate Welfare-----------------------------x---------x----
Immigration-----------------------x---------------------------
Big/Strong Government-----------------------------------x----
Religious Liberties-----------------x-----------x*--------------
Privitisation-----------------------------------x---------------
Gay Marriage/Rights---------------x---------------------------
Freedom of Press/Speech----------x-----------x*--------------
Isolationism-----------------------------------x---------------
Recreational Drug Usage-----------x-----------x*--------------

(*)Liberals tend to take moderation views on these. Not to the same extent as conservatives... But also not the same in affirmation as libertarians. Example: Conservatives would be likely to ban certain forms of speech damaging to their position; Liberals would tend to ban speech if deemed "harmful" or "obsetting" to an person/group, Libertarians on the other hand are for complete freedom of press/speech... Example, if a NAACP raly and a Aryan raly wanted to hold a parage, Conservatives would likely support the Aryan Raly but oppose the NAACP, Liberals would likely oppose the Aryans, and support the NAACP... Libertarians would likely allow both.

It may be my bias... But I tend to like to call libertarianism "consistent liberalism"... That is, it maintains a relatively "liberal" view of all points of order... Where both conservatives and liberals tend to deal with things inconsistently.. depending on the issue.

Oppose:

----------------------------Conservative---Liberal---Libertarian
______________________________________________________
Abortion--------------------------x---------------------------
Capital Punishment----------------------------x---------------
Social Welfare---------------------x---------------------x----
Corporate Welfare-----------------------------x---------x----
Immigration-----------------------x---------------------------
Big/Strong Government-----------------------------------x----
Religious Liberties-----------------x-----------x*--------------
Privitisation-----------------------------------x---------------
Gay Marriage/Rights---------------x---------------------------
Freedom of Press/Speech----------x-----------x*--------------
Isolationism-----------------------------------x---------------
Recreational Drug Usage-----------x-----------x*--------------

Nice chart.

General morality issues, Libertarians and Liberals tend to agree for the most part (except on some sigular points like Capital Punishment).
I though Libertarians opposed capital punishment.

One thing that you forgot is that capital punishment and abortion are a dividing issue for libertarians. Many oppose the death penalty and many oppose abortion. Then again, they may oppose abortion morally, but not legally.

I though Libertarians opposed capital punishment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_perspectives_on_the_death_penalty

One thing that you forgot is that capital punishment and abortion are a dividing issue for libertarians. Many oppose the death penalty and many oppose abortion. Then again, they may oppose abortion morally, but not legally.

That is more or less why I left them out of that one, the LP had no direct platform on the issue of CP, but do have a supportive platform for Abortion.. Even though some oppose it.... Though you are right, most opposition to Abortion comes from morality... And the LP generally does mix their personal morality into politics, unlike the other two... You can basically say Libertarian Morality is "Liberty" in society... Generaly Conservatives and Libertarians see the law as "retributive/restitutional" where as Liberals see it as "rehabilitative"... CP isn't a firm issue, most libertarians disagree on the scope of its "retributive" aspect. And even the LP CP supporters don't tend to accept CP to the level the Conservatives like...

I can't imagine anything less libertarian than giving the government the power to kill its citizens.

Example: Conservatives would be likely to ban certain forms of speech damaging to their position; Liberals would tend to ban speech if deemed "harmful" or "obsetting" to an person/group, Libertarians on the other hand are for complete freedom of press/speech... Example, if a NAACP raly and a Aryan raly wanted to hold a parage, Conservatives would likely support the Aryan Raly but oppose the NAACP, Liberals would likely oppose the Aryans, and support the NAACP... Libertarians would likely allow both.

I disagree. Those with liberal viewpoints would also allow both. They would decry the thoughts behind the Aryan rally, but would not block it from occurring.

To highlight the LP platform on criminality...

They oppose the idea of "victimless" crime, such as gambling, recreational drug use, etc.
They are for the ability of the wronged to pardon the wrongdoer.
End the government seizure of property of the accused, untill convicted.

etc.... in Criminal Law...

I disagree. Those with liberal viewpoints would also allow both. They would decry the thoughts behind the Aryan rally, but would not block it from occurring.

I wasn't dealing with all in the group, but the majority... That is "general consensus" of each... I've seen my own share of liberal/conservative bias in determination of peoples exercized rights to assemble one way or the other... Not necessarily saying that "all liberals look at it this way"... or "all conservatives look at it this way", or "all libertarians look at it this way"...

I can't imagine anything less libertarian than giving the government the power to kill its citizens.

Not necessarily... You're taking the liberal "rehabilitative" approach... Libertarians tend to look at civil law in the "restitutional" sense... Conservatives in the "Retributive" sense.... Depending on ones views on restitutional aspects of law, they could or could not support CP...

Strictly, however, the LP has no official platform on Capital Punishment (a majority of LP members are for neutrality on the issue)...

I wasn't dealing with all in the group, but the majority... That is "general consensus" of each... I've seen my own share of liberal/conservative bias in determination of peoples exercized rights to assemble one way or the other... Not necessarily saying that "all liberals look at it this way"... or "all conservatives look at it this way", or "all libertarians look at it this way"...

And the general consensus I have seen from self-described liberals is that they would allow both, while looking down on one more than the other.

Strictly, however, the LP has no official platform on Capital Punishment (a majority of LP members are for neutrality on the issue)...
How can they be for neutrality. You're either for or against Capital punishment.

How can they be for neutrality. You're either for or against Capital punishment.

Let me guess, you are either Conservative or Liberal?

Why do so many of you have problems with seeing shades of grey? Everything has to be black and white for you...

How can they be for neutrality. You're either for or against Capital punishment.
It's a Schroedinger's Cat kinda thing.
http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/0,,sid9_gci341236,00.html
Just replace the cat with the prisoner, and poof! He's neither dead nor alive!

:D

Let me guess, you are either Conservative or Liberal?

Why do so many of you have problems with seeing shades of grey? Everything has to be black and white for you...
I'm certainly not conservative, and liberal is such a loaded word that I don't use to descibe myself. I'm against capital punishment. Most issues are not black and white, but this is. Someone is either dead or alive. A criminal can't be half-dead, or half-alive.

It's a Schroedinger's Cat kinda thing.
http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/0,,sid9_gci341236,00.html
Just replace the cat with the prisoner, and poof! He's neither dead nor alive!

:DNo, this does not work. Cats and prisoners are both too large for their wave-functions to interfere probabelistically.
But I so want that Shroedinger's cat T-shirt from thinkgeek.com

I'm certainly not conservative, and liberal is such a loaded word that I don't use to descibe myself. I'm against capital punishment. Most issues are not black and white, but this is. Someone is either dead or alive. A criminal can't be half-dead, or half-alive.

yes they can, torture should be a required heavy punishment.

yes they can, torture should be a required heavy punishment.So lets see, you think poor people deserve to die, and torture should be mandatory? Wow. just wow.

I'm certainly not conservative, and liberal is such a loaded word that I don't use to descibe myself. I'm against capital punishment. Most issues are not black and white, but this is. Someone is either dead or alive. A criminal can't be half-dead, or half-alive.

We're not talking about a person, we're talking about a party... Composed of people... A party can take a neutral stance on the issue... A person can take a neutral stane on the issue... The LP is in disagreement over the scope and level of CP... As such, it decides to remain neutral on the issue.

It's not as black and white as your bias wishes to make it.

So lets see, you think poor people deserve to die, and torture should be mandatory? Wow. just wow.

pretty much. except i wouldn't call torture mandatory. just used to replace death penalty and death penalty for almost every lower crime. and you can't say that death penalty doesn't work, look at saudi arabia, very low crime rate. that's probably majorly because of how strong religion is over there though.

pretty much. except i wouldn't call torture mandatory. just used to replace death penalty and death penalty for almost every lower crime. and you can't say that death penalty doesn't work, look at saudi arabia, very low crime rate. that's probably majorly because of how strong religion is over there though.Yeah, because Saudi Arabia should be the western world's model for humanitarian values and justice, right?

On topic: I believe the military is a big divider between the different political affiliations. But of course all this is a big sliding mushy scale: Take the bush administration: they've cut taxes (conservative), run up a huge deficit (liberal), expanded some government programs, but are virulently against abortion and gay marriage. The democrats may have had a different combination of stances on economy and social policy, but they probably wouldn't have gone to war, or be spending as much on the military and missile defence.

I'm certainly not conservative, and liberal is such a loaded word that I don't use to descibe myself. I'm against capital punishment. Most issues are not black and white, but this is. Someone is either dead or alive. A criminal can't be half-dead, or half-alive.

You are right death is a black and white thing - but whether or not death should be used doesn't have to be. There are many who think it should be used, but only in a very restricted set of cases. Some think it should be used, but don't think we are able to properly determine when. Etc, etc, etc.

It isn't "you either want to kill the criminals or you don't." A lot of times you have to look at the exact case being presented.

No, this does not work. Cats and prisoners are both too large for their wave-functions to interfere probabelistically.
Shh, you're spoiling the fun.
:D

Shh, you're spoiling the fun.
:D Good. :D....actually, having taken my last physics exam ever, I don't give a shit what innacuracies are perpetuated on this board in the name of humour henceforth.

Abortion ... no contest. :(
libertarians and liberals basically agree on abortion as i remember

Values -- end of story.
which ones?

Democrats want to legislate corporate morality and hold big business as reasponsible and responsive to the people as they believe the government should be. The Liberal belief is that we need this change now and some upheaval is okay to acheive it.

Republicans want to legislate morality to the individual, i.e., what a citizen does in their private life. They think that the government should make people live a certain way, but that big business should be subject to market forces alone. Conservatives want to stick with what works and minimize upheaval, and become reactionary when they feel we should go back to the way things were before (as in repealing abortion).

It isn't "you either want to kill the criminals or you don't." A lot of times you have to look at the exact case being presented.
I never said it was like that.