NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm sure there's been a survey about this, but I'd like to get some more recent results. I added the notes on parties which fall into a certain category, just so nobody gets confused.

Oh, I also only added the top categories. So, if you're a Trotskyist and you're upset that you're thrown in with all of the Leninists, Maoists, Castroists, and Stalinists---I'm sorry.

I don't know what the hell one would call my political views. I'm in favor of robust government regulation on capitalism and some redistribution of wealth through taxes and government programs to eliminate poverty, but I'm a hawk when it comes to international politics.

Monocrat.

The Anarchists are winning!!!!!!!

I'm a Socialist.

anarcho-communist/communitarian, apparently

i'm weird :D

I don't know what the hell one would call my political views. I'm in favor of robust government regulation on capitalism and some redistribution of wealth through taxes and government programs to eliminate poverty, but I'm a hawk when it comes to international politics.
That's an easy one. Social Liberal. What you basically described is like half of the Democratic party in the U.S.

More of the Democrats are becoming pro-military, meaning, they support great funding for conventional weaponry and military benefits, but still largely oppose advanced weapons research, which separates them from the Republicans which have been primarily focusing military spending on advanced weapons R&D. John F. Kennedy, a Democrat, started Vietnam. And President Clinton signed a bill (or was it an Executive order?) to support the Kurdish rebels in Iraq.

(from a famous John F. Kennedy speech)

I have, therefore, chosen this time and this place to discuss a topic on which ignorance too often abounds and the truth is too rarely perceived--yet it is the most important topic on earth: world peace.

What kind of peace do I mean? What kind of peace do we seek? Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war. Not the peace of the grave or the security of the slave. I am talking about genuine peace, the kind of peace that makes life on earth worth living, the kind that enables men and nations to grow and to hope and to build a better life for their children--not merely peace for Americans but peace for all men and women--not merely peace in our time but peace for all time.
He also founded the Peace Corps. And interestingly enough, the Neoconservative group, the PNAC, used the derogatory term "Pax Americana," to describe their goal of American, global domination. The Neoconservatives have also written, "Neocons do not feel that kind of alarm or anxiety about the growth of the state in the past century, seeing it as natural, indeed inevitable." So, they don't oppose big government.

That's why Neoconservativism is rather frightening, because Neoconservatives disguise themselves as Republicans, when they totally betray traditional Conservative values about big government, the national debt, and Constitutional constructionism in regards to national security.

But anyway, to characterize your beliefs, just ask yourself these questions:
#1. Do you want the world to be run by America?
#2. Do you believe war does not always need to be a last resort?

If you answered no to both, you're a Social Liberal, just like JFK. If you answered yes to either, then you're a Social Liberal, but agree with some of the Neoconservatives' expansionist policies.

That's an easy one. Social Liberal. What you basically described is like half of the Democratic party in the U.S.

More of the Democrats are becoming pro-military, meaning, they support great funding for conventional weaponry and military benefits, but still largely oppose advanced weapons research, which separates them from the Republicans which have been primarily focusing military spending on advanced weapons R&D. John F. Kennedy, a Democrat, started Vietnam. And President Clinton signed a bill (or was it an Executive order?) to support the Kurdish rebels in Iraq.


He also founded the Peace Corps. And interestingly enough, the Neoconservative group, the PNAC, used the derogatory term "Pax Americana," to describe their goal of American, global domination. The Neoconservatives have also written, "Neocons do not feel that kind of alarm or anxiety about the growth of the state in the past century, seeing it as natural, indeed inevitable." So, they don't oppose big government.

That's why Neoconservativism is rather frightening, because Neoconservatives disguise themselves as Republicans, when they totally betray traditional Conservative values about big government, the national debt, and Constitutional constructionism in regards to national security.

But anyway, to characterize your beliefs, just ask yourself these questions:
#1. Do you want the world to be run by America?
#2. Do you believe war does not always need to be a last resort?

If you answered no to both, you're a Social Liberal, just like JFK. If you answered yes to either, then you're a Social Liberal, but agree with some of the Neoconservatives' expansionist policies.
What if I answered yes to both?

Monocrat.
Uhh.. That's a euphemism for Fascism\Populism.

You want to be a King?

Socialist, but I vote democrat because I dislike the republican ideology. A vote for a socialist candidate in this country is the equivalent of a vote for Nader. Wasted.

What if I answered yes to both?
Like I said, Social Liberal, but you agree with the Neoconservatives' expansionist policies.

Whether you're a Social Liberal or a Neoconservative depends on which issues you think are more important, national security or everything else.

In other words, if it came to two candidates:
#1. One who proposed American supremacy but restricting civil rights for National Security, and no welfare or intervention in the economy.
#2. One who proposed ignoring foreign governments, or just funding anti-government groups in corrupt countries, but supported the welfare and intervention in the economy you agree with.

You're a Neoconservative if you'd vote for #1, Social Liberal if you'd vote for #2.

I don't know what the hell one would call my political views. I'm in favor of robust government regulation on capitalism and some redistribution of wealth through taxes and government programs to eliminate poverty, but I'm a hawk when it comes to international politics.
You're a left-winger. Just because you're not naively pacifist like most social liberals doesn't make you a right-winger. I share most of your views.

You're a left-winger. Just because you're not naively pacifist like most social liberals doesn't make you a right-winger. I share most of your views.
That's what I thought at first, too. But he said America SHOULD rule the world and that war DOES NOT need to be a last resort.

If his views on national security and war hold more weight than his stance on domestic policy, then he would be characterized as a right-winger, and he'd vote for Neoconservative Republicans. For President, anyway.

Deep Ecologist.

Like I said, Social Liberal, but you agree with the Neoconservatives' expansionist policies.

Whether you're a Social Liberal or a Neoconservative depends on which issues you think are more important, national security or everything else.

In other words, if it came to two candidates:
#1. One who proposed American supremacy but restricting civil rights for National Security, and no welfare or intervention in the economy.
#2. One who proposed ignoring foreign governments, or just funding anti-government groups in corrupt countries, but supported the welfare and intervention in the economy you agree with.

You're a Neoconservative if you'd vote for #1, Social Liberal if you'd vote for #2.I'll take candidate 2. I guess I'm a Social Liberal.

I believe in South-Western European Liberal Moderatism (Catholic, social liberal, strongly for free trade, wine for every occasion, free immigration, cultural diversity, normaly with a tendancy for political activism).

But I do agree with the Dutch when it comes to drug laws; prohibition only encourages substance abuse.

In terms of Canadian politics I suppose I lean more towards the Bloc. USA: Democrat (lots of variety, eh?), British...(Liberals, I think), France: great Liberal party but needs a change of leadership, Italy: anything thats not Forza Nero or has Berlesconi in it... I could go on.
-Chris

Yeah! Anarchy Rules! Lets all go die in the Somolia Genocide! Hell yeah!

...Ah got to love middle class western societies and our rebelion against it.

SWM, 28, Classical Liberal, card-carrying member of the Libertarian Party, ACLU, and NRA. Enjoys free minds and free markets, walks on the beach, art & lit, and posting occasionally on NS.

Moderate smoker/drinker/pothead preferred. Either gender welcome. ;)

Yeah! Anarchy Rules! Lets all go die in the Somolia Genocide! Hell yeah!

...Ah got to love middle class western societies and our rebelion against it.

here's what i don't get about people such as yourself. you obviously have not the slightest clue about the political theory of anarchism, and you somehow think this gives you a solid position to attempt to make fun of it from. wouldn't it save a lot of embarassment to make fun of things from a position of knowledge rather than a position of stupidity?

I don't know what the hell one would call my political views. I'm in favor of robust government regulation on capitalism and some redistribution of wealth through taxes and government programs to eliminate poverty, but I'm a hawk when it comes to international politics.

social democrat with imperialistic tendencies, perhaps?

I WILL NOT BE HELD DOWN BY YOUR FACIST LABELS.


I am a beautiful-and-unique-snowflake-ist.

"What's your political ideology?"

Don't have one.

here's what i don't get about people such as yourself. you obviously have not the slightest clue about the political theory of anarchism, and you somehow think this gives you a solid position to attempt to make fun of it from. wouldn't it save a lot of embarassment to make fun of things from a position of knowledge rather than a position of stupidity?

Nope, got you there! Here's What I dont get about people such as yourself. You have no position to judge what I know and what I dont know.

Your absolutly right, the oppinion that I stated was not in the context of legitamate PolySci text book, and also it is inacurate to the context of the pre-Italian state system which took place untill Garraboldi did his Italian pen sweep creating the Italian Rep. However it is taken into context if you are considering the current modern western definition that has been accepted by today's media...

The thing is whether you are talking about chaos or comunal collectivism, any and all aspects of anarchism end in a lot of people getting hurt. I know, I know, you have theory. But have you seen it work?...

Unless you just made up a new definition of anarchy, in which case good for you write a text book. But most likely if your idea does work in practice it is not anarchy.

Nope, got you there! Here's What I dont get about people such as yourself. You have no position to judge what I know and what I dont know.

Your absolutly right, the oppinion that I stated was not in the context of legitamate PolySci text book, and also it is inacurate to the context of the pre-Italian state system which took place untill Garraboldi did his Italian pen sweep creating the Italian Rep. However it is taken into context if you are considering the current modern western definition that has been accepted by today's media...

The thing is whether you are talking about chaos or comunal collectivism, any and all aspects of anarchism end in a lot of people getting hurt. I know, I know, you have theory. But have you seen it work?...

Unless you just made up a new definition of anarchy, in which case good for you write a text book. But most likely if your idea does work in practice it is not anarchy.
WTF is "PolyScy" anyway? Multiple scientific studies in one class, like in Elementary School? :confused: Please enlighten me.

Also, are you aware that there are many, many different forms of anarchism?
From the far left, to far right and all around therein?

I'm no anarchist (possibly minarchist, at the most), but I don't need to be to know you could use some brushing up on the ole' Poli-Sci.

That's what I thought at first, too. But he said America SHOULD rule the world and that war DOES NOT need to be a last resort.

If his views on national security and war hold more weight than his stance on domestic policy, then he would be characterized as a right-winger, and he'd vote for Neoconservative Republicans. For President, anyway.
Neither of his answers make him right-wing. Being a neocon is not right-wing.

"What's your political ideology?"

Don't have one.
Sure you do. You think that democracy should be spread by military means. That probably counts as an ideology.

PS, shrub, what made you think that the UK Labour Party was classical liberal? They are authoritrian, and they used to be socialist.

The Anarchists are winning!!!!!!!

Yeah, and I'm beginning to lose faith in mankind because of it :headbang:
What on earth makes you think anarchy will work and will not just succumb to the power of the strong?

Poly Sci is the means by which we discuss politics. It normally contains the theories political scientists and historians have devised from theory and historical practice. We could go beyond that and into the concept of present and future reality, but then we would have to turn off the computer and do something besides talk about it.

So yeah I base what I know on political science because in a discussion about political ideaology political science is the the expected medium of expression. If your ideaologies go beyond this, please feel free to elaborate what ever the hell it is your are talking about.

Ooh! I'm politically ignorant because I am not a pscycic!
-Chris :confused:

Wow, I'm surprised that there isn't the "Liberal," bias on Nationstates that others claimed. If anything, the majority of NSers are Anarchists or Libertarians.

According to these polls, there's actually more Conservatives than Liberals. But Communists and Socialists are often percieved as Liberals. Because this forum has so many people from Europe and all over the world, that explains that.

PS, shrub, what made you think that the UK Labour Party was classical liberal? They are authoritrian, and they used to be socialist.
Because they aren't really socialist, even if they call themselves that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_Party_%28UK%29

It retained its position in the 2001 and the 2005 general elections. Under Blair's leadership, many policies such as taxation have been more to the right than under previously Labour leaders, which was important in making Labour electable in 1997 and subsequent elections.

One of the first acts of the Labour government was to give the Bank of England operational independence in setting interest rates, a move that had not been foreshadowed in the manifesto or during the election campaign. Labour held to its pledges to keep to the spending plans set by the Conservatives, causing strain with those members of the party who had hoped that the landslide would lead to more radical policies. Left-wing MPs rebelled when the government moved to cut benefits paid to lone parents in December 1997. The government also promoted wider use of Public Private Partnerships and the Private Finance Initiative, which were opposed particularly by trade unions as a form of privatisation.

The name "New Labour" has been widely satirised. Critics associate the new name with an unprecedented use of 'spin doctoring' in the party's relationship with media. The Conservative Party attempted to tarnish the new Labour tag during the 1997 election campaign using the slogan 'New Labour, New Danger'. After Gordon Brown's budgets became more and more Keynesian, Private Eye began to call the party 'New' Labour. Oddly, it continues to do so even in articles relating an example of privatisation or free-market initiatives by Labour (a frequent theme, especially in Doing the Rounds, the medical column, and In the Back, the investigative section), or other right-wing or illiberal policies, in which context the ironic inverted commas would be more appropriate around "Labour" than around "New".
The New Labour Party are Classical Liberals. They're slightly-more-liberal Libertarians.

The New Labour Party are Classical Liberals. They're slightly-more-liberal Libertarians.
No, they're not. They're authoritarian on security, drugs, and other political and social issues. Read: not liberal.

I'm an anarchist, all the way, specifically an anarcho-communist, with some influences from Marxism (mainly limited to indirect things and the Internationale).

islamist

being ruled under the islamic rules, but not the fundamental rules that the fanatics out from there empty heads...
im no MR religious, but i find them very realistic...
i guess its called caliphetism, which is like a kingdome, then when the leader dies we vote for another, and so on...
i also fancy communism

so where does that put me????
:headbang: :mp5:

I don't know what the hell one would call my political views. I'm in favor of robust government regulation on capitalism and some redistribution of wealth through taxes and government programs to eliminate poverty, but I'm a hawk when it comes to international politics.

Pinko Asskicker

hehe

Classic Liberal with a respect for property rights a la John Locke and Adam Smith, and a moral standpoint that tries to follow Kant's Categorical Imperative.

Uhh.. That's a euphemism for Fascism\Populism.

You want to be a King?

Sure, but that's not what I said! I said "monocrat", not "monarch"! Monocrats are for governments ruled by one person.

Um, I guess I'm other?
I'm sort of a mixture of liberal, liberatarian, and socialism. (And tree-ism? Not even sure what THOSE come out to. Or how best to describe them. It's more philosophic than political, though, so I guess I should just go with the first three.)

Um, I guess I'm other?
I'm sort of a mixture of liberal, liberatarian, and socialism. (And tree-ism? Not even sure what THOSE come out to. Or how best to describe them. It's more philosophic than political, though, so I guess I should just go with the first three.)
Perhaps Libertarian-Communist?

Sure you do. You think that democracy should be spread by military means. That probably counts as an ideology.
And that would be???

The Anarchists are winning!!!!!!!

Anarchists Unite! lol

No matter how many Anarchists there are, they can never really "win" seeing as they have no leader to consentrate their efforts.

And that would be???
Neoconservatism?

I’m a libertarian.
Anyway, how the heck is the Labour Party classically liberal? Didn’t Blair recently ban shrooms or something?

Neoconvervatism?
ROFLMAO!!! Yeah. Right! LOL!

"He don't know me vewwy well, do he?" :D

ROFLMAO!!! Yeah. Right! LOL!

"He don't know me vewwy well, do he?" :D
To call Eutrusca a NeoCon is judging him far too soon without hearing him out on a wider breadth of topics.

Mr. Miogi say: "Don't be so quick to label someone else, lest ye be judged a fucking douchebag." ;)

I think that Eutrusca fits quite well into the Classic Conservative ideology. He may vary a little bit, but his rational seems to be in line with that choice.

My sig says my stance loud and clear...

My sig says my stance loud and clear...
WTF is a "Totalitarian Republican?" Sounds like an oxymoron to me.

I think that Eutrusca fits quite well into the Classic Conservative ideology. He may vary a little bit, but his rational seems to be in line with that choice.
Not to label him, but that sounds like the most appropriate term available.

WTF is a "Totalitarian Republican?" Sounds like an oxymoron to me.

Perhaps a dictatorship that pays lipservice to the concept of a republic.

Perhaps a dictatorship that pays lipservice to the concept of a republic.
:p

Environmental socialist for me.

I remember reading this Canadian essay comparing American and Canadian politics. In the essay, the author says something to the effect of "America has one party, really. One-half calls themselves Republican, and the other half calls themselves Democrat". His point was that there are Democrats who support the death penalty and nuclear energy, but they support workers over business. Here's what I am: I am a States' rights, social libertarian, anti-gun control, pro-choice, pro-death penalty, pro-environment, isolationist, Democrat. What does that make me on this poll?

Here's what I am: I am a States' rights, social libertarian, anti-gun control, pro-choice, pro-death penalty, pro-environment, isolationist, Democrat. What does that make me on this poll?
sound like a libertarian to me, like you say, minus the environmental bit - which means Classic Liberal on the poll.
not much like a democrat at all, mind.... then again i'm not american so what would i know?

Authoritarian/Totalitarian or whatever for me. Kill all dissenters! :D

WTF is a "Totalitarian Republican?" Sounds like an oxymoron to me.
The Republican Party, in recent years, has become rather authoritarian.

Absurdist. All poliotcs are Absurd. Ultimately amounting to nothing more than hot air and shuffling of money.

*points to Politcal Compass in sig*

That is all you need to know.

This is probably just an example of the shift in American politics, but Libertarian's of today's politics are not Democrates or Liberals. This is a common misconception simply because they have the same first five letters. Libertarian's believe that Government should stay largely out of our lives and only express the rights granted to them under the Constitution. Liberalism, that is the political philosophy developed out of the 1960s, is completly opposite of this. Liberalism today is more in line with Socialist philosophy of yesteryear.

No, they're not. They're authoritarian on security, drugs, and other political and social issues. Read: not liberal.
Dude, the laws on marijuana in the U.K. are nothing compared to the U.S.. And you have gays in the military. There's no way Labour Party is "Conservative," except sometimes in their economics.

islamist

being ruled under the islamic rules, but not the fundamental rules that the fanatics out from there empty heads...
im no MR religious, but i find them very realistic...
i guess its called caliphetism, which is like a kingdome, then when the leader dies we vote for another, and so on...
i also fancy communism

so where does that put me????
:headbang: :mp5:
Any theocracy must be fascist, in order to exist. Look at Iran. They are democratic, but can only maintain religious rule by allowing the Mullahs to veto whoever they want from the ballots.

I hesitated to vote under the anarchist option, because most "anarchists" are leftist nuts who think we can live in a perfect utopia if we abandon the state and the market and live with each other as brothers and sisters. Their approach will lead only to poverty and eventually either statism or my breed of anarchism: anarcho-capitalism.

Basically I believe that the free market is the most effective and moral institution that can possibly guide society. I take "The government which governs best governs least" to it's logical extreme: The government which governs best governs not at all. If private law and reliable institutions of private force can be established(definitely possible, but not certain) society will be able to flourish within a completely free market system.

In addition I also favor freedom in personal issues, and so I am also a classical liberal, which would be my next choice. I think other classical liberals should look into anarcho-capitalism, there's a wealth of literature to respond to common objections, as well as to expand upon what I've already said at the following websites:

New Libertarian Manifesto (http://www.blackcrayon.com/page.jsp/library/nlm/nlm1.html)

Anti-State.com (http://anti-state.com/)

Strike the Root(mild anti-state propaganda warning) (http://www.strike-the-root.com/)

islamist

being ruled under the islamic rules, but not the fundamental rules that the fanatics out from there empty heads...
im no MR religious, but i find them very realistic...
i guess its called caliphetism, which is like a kingdome, then when the leader dies we vote for another, and so on...
i also fancy communism

so where does that put me????
:headbang: :mp5:

In HELL!!!!


Sorry couldn't resist.

I'm a Falangist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falangism).

Between Neocon, Progressive (meaning both (or all three, if you count TR's one-election flop) parties in the early 20th-century US), and Classical Liberal. If I were a Brit, I'd vote Labour. Here in the 'States I'm a secularist humanist athiest republican... *shrugs*


I think that the principal goal of the state is to protect the most amount of freedom for as many of its people as possible, while balancing that freedom with preventing harm from coming to people. This means free enterprise so long as it does not devolve into plutocracy, giant trusts, and/or exploitation of workers. It means no draft unless one is needed to keep the country safe from a clear danger.

The secondary goal of the state is to pursue its own best interests, by big-stick diplomacy or force of arms if neccessary.

The third is to try to protect the freedom and happyness of people outside its borders, by big-stick diplomacy or force of arms if neccessary.

Social Security should be strongly weighted towards those who cannot support themselves due to physical disability or extreme age, and not used as a retirement program.

I think that unrestricted democracy is very dangerous to freedom because it gives demagogues, not good men, power. Tests should be required to vote. These tests should be part of a constitution, to ensure that they are fair. They would test knowledge of the government's operation, and basic reading, writing, and arithmatic.

State-sponsored primary schools are essential.



Anybody care to rate me?

I'm a Libertarian Socialist...

You have no position to judge what I know and what I dont know.

well, i suppose i could assume you actually do know better but play dumb on the internet. i'm not sure that that would count as being charitable to the opposition though.

The thing is whether you are talking about chaos or comunal collectivism, any and all aspects of anarchism end in a lot of people getting hurt. I know, I know, you have theory. But have you seen it work?...

you've seen attempts to implement the institutions proposed by anarchism fail due to problems internal to them, have you? i doubt it, since all the large-scale modern attempts seem to have run pretty damn well actually, but been outnumbered and outgunned while up against the most badass forces of the past few centuries. shit, liberal democracies held up less well than anarchists did against our opponents.

I'm a Falangist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falangism).

Why not just come right out and admit you are a fascist?