NationStates Jolt Archive

Well, here's what I have come up with. Let's say I want reform. My goal is to maximize liberty. However, many of the reforms that I wish to institute will not be accepted by the public as a whole. I understand this and in order implement change, I do it gradually and with regard to deep-rooted tradition and pragmatism. I honestly am not one to revere tradition, but you can't change everything on one swoop and people usually won't accept a change, no matter how rational, if it goes against popular tradition.

Libertarian is, megh.
Liberal is, megh.
Old Whig is, alright
So I came up with this new title, rational traditionalist. I know it doesn't make sense, but it sounds alright.:p

Well, here's what I have come up with. Let's say I want reform. My goal is to maximize liberty. However, many of the reforms that I wish to institute will not be accepted by the public as a whole. I understand this and in order implement change, I do it gradually and with regard to deep-rooted tradition and pragmatism. I honestly am not one to revere tradition, but you can't change everything on one swoop and people usually won't accept a change, no matter how rational, if it goes against popular tradition.

Libertarian is, megh.
Liberal is, megh.
Old Whig is, alright
So I came up with this new title, rational traditionalist. I know it doesn't make sense, but it sounds alright.:p

A political philosophy based on manipulating and tricking people. Sounds honest at least.

A political philosophy based on manipulating and tricking people. Sounds honest at least.
Basically.

Basically.
Sounds fun...

Well, here's what I have come up with. Let's say I want reform. My goal is to maximize liberty. However, many of the reforms that I wish to institute will not be accepted by the public as a whole. I understand this and in order implement change, I do it gradually and with regard to deep-rooted tradition and pragmatism. I honestly am not one to revere tradition, but you can't change everything on one swoop and people usually won't accept a change, no matter how rational, if it goes against popular tradition.

Libertarian is, megh.
Liberal is, megh.
Old Whig is, alright
So I came up with this new title, rational traditionalist. I know it doesn't make sense, but it sounds alright.:p
So, what are your initial policies? Your final goal policies?

50 Pumpkin Pies say that it's something completely absurd.

So, what are your initial policies? Your final goal policies?
My first policy would be to reform the economic scene in various ways too numerous to count. My final goal is to have a society that may evolve as freely as possible.

So, yes it is completely absurd.

If you're speaking of a kind of libertarianism that stresses practicality over ideology, then that's neolibertarianism (http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=650), of which I'm an open supporter.

Everyone's policies and proposals will be enacted, as soon as my final revision and stamp of approval has been given. ;)

If you're speaking of a kind of libertarianism that stresses practicality over ideology, then that's neolibertarianism (http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=650), of which I'm an open supporter.
Not so much the ideals themselves as it is the rate of change and how it's done. Tie it with a tradition and culture along with pragmatism, and it will have a higher chance of succeeding.

I also have a new title for myslef: the libertarian minarcho-negtive utilitarian.

libertarian and minarchist are self-explanatory.
Now I will attempt to explain my negative utilitarian traits: The basis of that philosophy is that to do the greatest good one must cause the least amount of suffering to one's peers. I don't accept this part of negative utilitarianism, but I do accept one of their corollaries: that if you want to erradicate suffering humanity would have to be wiped out.
^Needless to say it ain't worth it. While I don't want to wipe humanity out, it's just a notion that I have decided to acknowledge