NationStates Jolt Archive

Which party/political stance are you most aligned with, and why?

Which party/political stance are you most aligned with, and why?

Libertarians... I'm all for moral and economic freedoms... :)

Which party/political stance are you most aligned with, and why?

I vote for the candidate, not the party. I am a leftist-liberal-socialist type. However, since the terms "liberal" and "leftist" seem to have differing definitions, I'll simply say that I believe it is your duty and your patriotic responsibility to help those less fortunate than you and if you can't be trusted to do it on your own, I will gladly tax you more.

As for why, it's because I actually give a damn about people other than myself.

nice poll, I like it!

I am most closely a Minarchist.

Today however in the primary election I had to vote with my registered party (closed primary) which is not anything to do with my actual political stance, but the lesser of two evils in my area. ;)

Give me a definiation of each, and then i'll say.

I tend to identify with a weird mixture of libertarianism, meritocracy, and technocracy - society should have the minimum number of laws needed to ensure a stable, relatively secure society with a social safety net. Jobs in government operations and the judiciary should be filled according to merit, not political connections (legislators and executives should be filled by election or lottery), and education should be reformed following the models of business hiring and school athletics programs, so that the best and brightest are allowed to rise to glory and all students are rewarded for their academic achievements, as demonstrated through competition.

I will elect whichever politician promises to make penguins the dominant form of life on this planet.

Anarchist socialism with strong Communist elements, implemented primarily through direct democratic institutions.

ParEcon socialist with Marxist tendencies. I tend to support political platforms that favor honesty and actually trying to help promote equity.

Which party/political stance are you most aligned with, and why?

The only parties that interest me are wild drunken parties that don't officially begin until someone gets naked. :)

Perhaps it is just me, but wouldn't looking at each other's nations answer the question?

Perhaps it is just me, but wouldn't looking at each other's nations answer the question?

Not really. Some people enjoy having tyrant regimes without actually supporting despotism.

True, but I figured that's what socks are for.

As for me, I believe pretty much the way I run my nation. I think the government should stay out of everyone's buisness, regulating some, but very little. I also believe in not having elections because it just makes tyrants run for office and trick stupid voters with rhetoric.

Perhaps it is just me, but wouldn't looking at each other's nations answer the question?

Oh, Great God, no.

My Nation is run by a guy nobody has ever met, whose political strategies and ambitions make Kim-Jong-Il look "fair and balanced", and whose acumen at diplomacy and statesmanship make Cobra Commander look like Glenda the Good Witch.

The Precepts he runs the nation under, known as the 3 Maws of Kherberus, are abstract sayings that equate "correct living" with eating people; specifically, one another.

I can't imagine what actual political leanings this would conjure up, short of "Representative Dementocracy", or "Direct Homocidalism".

Centrist!!

You forgot "Federal Republic", which is technically what the USA is. Seems to work.

I chose socialist...but more accurately social democrat on economic issues, liberal on most social and law and order issues except punishments for murder, rape and pedophilia upon which im actually quite authoriarian. Nice 'n' simple then :D

You forgot "Federal Republic", which is technically what the USA is. Seems to work.

Yeah... I'd say that system of government works alright.

Yeah... I'd say that system of government works alright.

I'm sure that the USA would fit into another category, probably a Republic (in the classical sense) as that was how it was founded. The USSR was a self-proclaimed communist federal republic.

I live being an irate pedantic bastard.

Today however in the primary election I had to vote with my registered party (closed primary) which is not anything to do with my actual political stance, but the lesser of two evils in my area. ;)
I've never understood that. Why is the party system regulated by the government?

I've never understood that. Why is the party system regulated by the government?

Primary elections (exemplified by the United States) exist to allow voters to choose which candidate will run for a particular office (President, for example) for that party. Prior to this system, candidates where usually chosen by party committies that often met and operated in secret. Charges of corruption and other ills were very common. Thus, primary elections were seen as a way to bring candidate selection out in the open to remove corruption and make the overall process more democratic. See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_elections

I think I could choose at least six of the poll options (anarchism, minarchism, socialism, republicanism, direct democracy, other) and make them all work together, given particular definitions.

Anarchism/minarchism:

"...a form of government or constitution in which public and private consciousness, formed through the development of science and law, is alone sufficient to maintain order and guarantee all liberties. In it, as a consequence, the institutions of the police, preventive and repressive methods, officialdom, taxation, etc., are reduced to a minimum. In it, more especially, the forms of monarchy and intensive centralization disappear, to be replaced by federal institutions and a pattern of life based on the commune."
-- Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anarchism&oldid=65389479

Socialism:

The abolishment of charity and the welfare state, replaced by local community voluntary associations based on mutual aid and individual property. Such organizations would compete against each other on the free market. Aid is not rendered as in a charity, where a hierarchical relationship of donor and recipient is created, as this encourages dependence and an abandonment of personal responsibility; aid should be rendered only to those who voluntarily contribute resources to assist in rendering aid to others, and even then only to those who actually require aid (Malingering (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malingering) will not be tollerated). Individual responsibility and free association are primary, collective solutions only where absolutely necessary, where individual responsibility and free association are not sufficient to solve a particular problem.

Republicanism/Direct Democracy:

The vast majority of governmental functions will exist at the lowest community level possible, administered democratically (direct democracy). Federalism/Republicanism or other relatively distant or representative government will exist, again, only where such greater levels of government are absolutely necessary; where individual responsibility, free association, or local government are not sufficient to solve a particular problem (national defense, diplomatic relations with other states, etc).

Primary elections (exemplified by the United States) exist to allow voters to choose which candidate will run for a particular office (President, for example) for that party. Prior to this system, candidates where usually chosen by party committies that often met and operated in secret. Charges of corruption and other ills were very common. Thus, primary elections were seen as a way to bring candidate selection out in the open to remove corruption and make the overall process more democratic. See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_elections
But shouldn't democracy have taken care of that? If the party is corrupt, the people shouldn't vote for it.

And beyond that, why are you limited to belonging to just one party at a time? I like to belong to as many parties as I can so I can influence candidate selection more.

I myself am a liberal socialist I want the poor to be looked after well (even if they refuse the opportunity to work which I will go into in a thread once I finish here), I don't mind gay couples having the same rights as "normal" couples and marijuana should be legal

The short answer is that I'm a democratic capitalist.

The long answer is that I'm very serious about democratic reform, and about making democracy a functioning tool for the average citizen. Although I tend to be right of centre (from a Canadian standpoint, which makes me left of centre or moderate in the US) economically, ultimately I like to keep my options open.

Generally, I believe in the state as an apparatus to further the advancement of its members, however that may work. Nothing irks me more than a democratic system where less than half the peole elect a leader who isn't responsible to the promises that they make to get that position. I'm a federalist, and possibly even a Confederalist... I think most decsions and power should be brought down to a local level.

I'm sure that the USA would fit into another category, probably a Republic (in the classical sense) as that was how it was founded.

Perhaps that's how it started but it's more like a father knows best state nowadays.

Socialism:

The abolishment of charity and the welfare state, replaced by local community voluntary associations based on mutual aid and individual property. Such organizations would compete against each other on the free market. Aid is not rendered as in a charity, where a hierarchical relationship of donor and recipient is created, as this encourages dependence and an abandonment of personal responsibility; aid should be rendered only to those who voluntarily contribute resources to assist in rendering aid to others, and even then only to those who actually require aid (Malingering (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malingering) will not be tollerated). Individual responsibility and free association are primary, collective solutions only where absolutely necessary, where individual responsibility and free association are not sufficient to solve a particular problem.


All that can be done under free market capitalism ;)

I'm not aligned to any political stance, so I'll have the waffles please.
No really, as long as I'm not ruling the world, I don't care that much. Just as long as they don't bother me too much.

Democrats on most social Issues..as long as they are not too far left and Republicans on national defense...the Dems would have my kids going to a madras and under Islamic law..see recent history..Johnson..Vietnam ..Carter IRAN...Clinton Somalia nd every other place he screwed up..no please ..find me a democrat with some onions...fiscal policy depends on who is running..Clinton did a decent job even though he cut social spending..but Bush gaave all the cuts back and more....you would have thought the opposite ..but thats whats good about being an independent .

And I live in a Democratic capitalist Republic..with some socialism to take the rough edges of capitalism off .

Its nice living in a hybrid .

Schweizerische Volkspartei (Swiss Peoples Party)

I like Direct Democracy!

The SVP..*is* the perfect party for me...though not exactly the best party for America...so I wouldnt want us to have it over here, as it does not exactly preach whats best for America. BUT, if I were to not live in America, I would live in Switzerland and be a prominent member in the SVP.:)

"The SVP is strongest in German-speaking areas of Switzerland and after the 2003 general election is the largest party in the Swiss lower house of parliament with 55 out of 200 seats. Its president is Ueli Maurer. It is a member of the governing coalition and has two members on the Swiss Federal Council, former President of the Confederation Samuel Schmid and Christoph Blocher."

"The SVP is the right-most of the four co-governing political parties in Switzerland. It is best known for opposing Swiss membership in international organisations such as the EU and UN, and for its campaigning against perceived flaws in the immigration, asylum and penal laws. The party is socially and fiscally conservative (although secular in outlook). It is in favour of traditional family values, tough penal laws, strict immigration limits, deregulation and reduced government spending (except for the areas of domestic security, the military and agricultural support). The SVP supports the Swiss traditions of private gun ownership, armed neutrality and the national militia army and opposes most forms of international security cooperation."

*Makes love to Swiss Peoples Party*:)

"At the expense of the major parties of the centre, the SVP has greatly increased its voter support in the last decades and presently holds roughly 25% of the national vote. In the 2003 elections, its ascendancy to the strongest party in Parliament led it to demand an additional seat on the Federal Council at the expense of the Christian Democrats (now the weakest of the parties in the governing coalition) and threatened to go into opposition if it didn't get it. Finally, Blocher was elected to the council, replacing Ruth Metzler-Arnold."

....And growing baby!;)

I like much of the design of the US government (though all the good bits are currently being dismantled in favor of installing a fundamentalist theocracy).

I am a libertarian socialist with sympathies towards direct democratic anarchist communism. Will that do?

I support democratic socialism because it is the system that works best to ensure maximum happiness for the maximum number of people.

You forgot "Federal Republic", which is technically what the USA is. Seems to work.
As is Germany.

Democrats on most social Issues..as long as they are not too far left and Republicans on national defense...the Dems would have my kids going to a madras and under Islamic law.
So are Democrats far left liberals, or Islamist authoritarians? Make up your mind.

"The SVP is the right-most of the four co-governing political parties in Switzerland. It is best known for opposing Swiss membership in international organisations such as the EU and UN, and for its campaigning against perceived flaws in the immigration, asylum and penal laws. The party is socially and fiscally conservative (although secular in outlook). It is in favour of traditional family values, tough penal laws, strict immigration limits, deregulation and reduced government spending (except for the areas of domestic security, the military and agricultural support). The SVP supports the Swiss traditions of private gun ownership, armed neutrality and the national militia army and opposes most forms of international security cooperation."

*Makes love to Swiss Peoples Party*:)

Sounds like a good ol' pro-violence and pro-suffering party.

I have no political party. I don't have the need for one.

Libertarian or socially moderate right-winger. Thanks to the guys on the other thread :) [insert cheesiness here about finding out who I am]

Sounds like a good ol' pro-violence and pro-suffering party.

For The Win!:p

For The Win!:p
How about you follow your own religion... and mine... and treat other people as you would like to be treated yourself.

I am a liberal left wing sort of person but in the end its the candidate that matters most. if a democratic/liberal politician didn't agree with my views on the country, i would vote not based on party but on their views. more than i can say for most republicans.......

Sounds like a good ol' pro-violence and pro-suffering party.

Sounds Calvinist.

How about you follow your own religion... and mine... and treat other people as you would like to be treated yourself.

He's Jewish.

Sounds Calvinist.
Well..it is Swiss?

How about you follow your own religion... and mine... and treat other people as you would like to be treated yourself.

buddhist maybe?

buddhist maybe?
Actually, as Kanabia put it, Jewish.

How about you follow your own religion... and mine... and treat other people as you would like to be treated yourself.
I doubt we are of the same religion.

I guess minarchy is what a libertarian identifies himself with.

Bloody difficult to establish. I suppose it would be a Thatcherite conservative party with a European tinge.

Libertarians... I'm all for moral and economic freedoms... :)


moral and economic freedoms...wow..can you say socialism?

The only respectable form of government is a capitalistic democracy. and for the record, parliamentary systems suck, its all about the 2 party system. How can world parliamentary democracies call themselves democracies when they can have like 20 parties in one parliament? Half of the countries have a prime minister which reflects the views of 20% of the country. At least in a 2 party system your evenly split and the country is represtented better. Why else would america have lasted for 150 years in a world dominated by monarchy?:D


GOP '06

I'm a Goldwater conservative. I don't want to say Republican because there's a lot of Republicans that I don't like, and I think the Christian Right is WAY too influential within the Republican Party. Anyway, I'm for a strong military, free enterprise, and tolerance regarding things like gay marriage and abortion.

The only respectable form of government is a capitalistic democracy. and for the record, parliamentary systems suck, its all about the 2 party system. How can world parliamentary democracies call themselves democracies when they can have like 20 parties in one parliament? Half of the countries have a prime minister which reflects the views of 20% of the country. At least in a 2 party system your evenly split and the country is represtented better. Why else would america have lasted for 150 years in a world dominated by monarchy?:D

Excuse me?

Parliamentary democracy ensurses that the interests of all the populace are met to a fashion, and thus engenders a reasonably vibrant democracy, as opposed to the intransigent choices offered in the USA. Furthermore, the Prime minister in a parliamentary democracy, if one accepts, quite wrongly, that he represents "20% of the population", will thus be compelled to compromise to the tune of his colleagues if a bill is passed.

Excuse me?

Parliamentary democracy ensurses that the interests of all the populace are met to a fashion, and thus engenders a reasonably vibrant democracy, as opposed to the intransigent choices offered in the USA. Furthermore, the Prime minister in a parliamentary democracy, if one accepts, quite wrongly, that he represents "20% of the population", will thus be compelled to compromise to the tune of his colleagues if a bill is passed.


PLEASE!!!! in israel's last parliamentary election they almost had a party with a base which was souly there to get people to smoke more weed. their symbol was a pot leaf.

in a parliament you have so many parties that you need coalitions to get anything done. You cant have that many viewpoints, well you can, but it keeps the government from getting anything done. and seriously you cant operate a government when a vast minority of the population is represtented by the ruling party. a plurality shouldnt run government you need a true majority, thats the reason why most of the worlds monarchies have been deposed.

PLEASE!!!! in israel's last parliamentary election they almost had a party with a base which was souly there to get people to smoke more weed. their symbol was a pot leaf.

Good. All views should be represented if they have popular support. In a two-party system like ours, that portion of the population would not receive proportional representation, and that would be undemocratic.

in a parliament you have so many parties that you need coalitions to get anything done.

And in a two-party system, both parties are essentially coalitions, only it's far more difficult for part of a party to secede. That's less democratic, not more.

You cant have that many viewpoints, well you can, but it keeps the government from getting anything done.

Not true. Things get done in Israel, and in other countries with proportional representation. People like to moan about the power small parties have, but this power can easily be counteracted - form your own small party, and let it compete with the one you don't like.

and seriously you cant operate a government when a vast minority of the population is represtented by the ruling party. a plurality shouldnt run government you need a true majority, thats the reason why most of the worlds monarchies have been deposed.

Yes, hence "coalitions." If the majority of the parliament (who represent, theoretically at least, the majority of the people) is opposed to the Prime Minister, they can remove him in a vote of no confidence.

PLEASE!!!! in israel's last parliamentary election they almost had a party with a base which was souly there to get people to smoke more weed. their symbol was a pot leaf.

in a parliament you have so many parties that you need coalitions to get anything done. You cant have that many viewpoints, well you can, but it keeps the government from getting anything done. and seriously you cant operate a government when a vast minority of the population is represtented by the ruling party. a plurality shouldnt run government you need a true majority, thats the reason why most of the worlds monarchies have been deposed.

Really? Monarchies didn't fall, of course, due to their repressive and unrepresentative nature? Oh, silly me.

Very few parliamentary democracies descend into the myriadic crisis you profile above. The British parliamentary democracy, if it is deserving of the title, is a democratic system that leads to a genuine degree of representation, whilst also being the effector of efficient government.

Indeed, the French process allows for the presence of parties derived from all facets of the political plane, from the socialist partie to the National front, and still constitutes effective government.

Do you, incidentally, contend that either a democrat or republican administration genuinely represents the interests of the majority as opposed to the desperation of an electorate with no party representative of their individual inclinations?

Finally, by your excruciating logic, you predicate an argument upon the notion that government ought to be dictated by what the majority wnat, not what they require, or what serves the interests of the nation. May I suggest the term demagogue?

Democratic socialism.

Democratic socialism.

How quaint

TWAT

moral and economic freedoms...wow..can you say socialism?
Socialism doesn't involve economic freedom. Socialism forces us to share.

Republics in the house!!! w00t! w00t! :eek:

And beyond that, why are you limited to belonging to just one party at a time? I like to belong to as many parties as I can so I can influence candidate selection more.

I don't think there is any way to (legally) restrict how many parties I belong to. However, primary elections can be open, closed, or some combination thereof (varying from state to state). In an open primary, an individual can vote under whatever party he wishes, regardless of the party he indicates on his voter registration. In a closed primary, an individual can only vote under that party which he indicates on his voter registration. Those who advocate closed primaries cite freedom of association, and argue that the closed nature is necessary to prevent opponent political forces from interfering with the ability of a party to choose its own candidate (Party A can't get a bunch of its members to vote in such a way that Party B ends up running a candidate that is more favorable to Party A, etc).

All that can be done under free market capitalism ;)

Not necessarily true, as I would argue that capitalism tends to promote both charity and the welfare state, institutions that I have rejected in my statement. Capitalism and the welfare state are closely associated in that the generation of wealth is a necessary condition for the operation fo the welfare state in the first place; how else will the state extract the necessary wealth in the form of taxes? Note the relationship between mixed capitalist economics and strong welfare states in Europe. (Edit: See also the book From Mutual Aid to the Welfare State, by David T. Bieto, for a description of how the Progressive movement and private commerical enterprise both worked to destroy voluntary cooperative mutual aid, and replace it with charity and the welfare state, in the United States.)

Even so, I would also assert that, assuming the existance of government as I described, as the state gets smaller and relationship between individuals becomes more voluntary and cooperative, "capitalism" and "socialism" begin to merge to a single point (thus the stated similarity to "free market capitalism," although the similarity depends on the same assumptions about proper government that I make). Whatever it is called, this singularity will not resemble any "capitalism" as the term is understood today. (edit: as evidence of this merge, note how anti-capitalist market anarchism and anarcho-capitalism both claim general individualist anarchist heritage.)

My chief concern, then, is the tendency, observed in my own studies of history, for "capitalist" and "socialist" forces to not create the governmental conditions described, making the state bigger and relationships less voluntary and cooperative.

(edit: and besides all that, what I refer to as "socialism" also includes rejection of the corporation, intellectual property, and other needlessly hierarchical and overtly statist institutions typically associated with "capitalism.")

Other, im too right wing to accept some of democracy, there is too much discussion and not enough action, to many people fearing they will offend others by saying the slightest thing... wow...I think im actually disallusioned. I think the Britain has got the economy about right, maybe free it from a lot of the red tape, I dont agree with gay marriage rights, and pot should be illegal.

EDIT: Everything should also be run as an absolute meritocracy, complete with Darwinian survival, if you cant look after yourself, eg Alcoholic, druggie etc, then you are probably doing the gene pool a favour.

Leftist.. Probably closer to liberalism to be more accurate..

Not necessarily true, as I would argue that capitalism tends to promote both charity and the welfare state, institutions that I have rejected in my statement

Perhaps. But it doesn't exacly encourage it, and any welfare generally comes with forth comming responcibilities from the recipient.


Capitalism and the welfare state are closely associated in that the generation of wealth is a necessary condition for the operation fo the welfare state in the first place; how else will the state extract the necessary wealth in the form of taxes?

Money is also taxed simply when it changes hands as well and goods are bought. And the ideal welfare state is one that tries to make itself un neccessary for the future.


Note the relationship between mixed capitalist economics and strong welfare states in Europe. (Edit: See also the book From Mutual Aid to the Welfare State, by David T. Bieto, for a description of how the Progressive movement and private commerical enterprise both worked to destroy voluntary cooperative mutual aid, and replace it with charity and the welfare state, in the United States.)


How can the state or a company stop two consenting individuals from working together for mutual benefit if they really want to.


Even so, I would also assert that, assuming the existance of government as I described, as the state gets smaller and relationship between individuals becomes more voluntary and cooperative, "capitalism" and "socialism" begin to merge to a single point (thus the stated similarity to "free market capitalism," although the similarity depends on the same assumptions about proper government that I make). Whatever it is called, this singularity will not resemble any "capitalism" as the term is understood today. (edit: as evidence of this merge, note how anti-capitalist market anarchism and anarcho-capitalism both claim general individualist anarchist heritage.)


It seems neither the free market capitalism or the small state socialism exists today the way its described.


My chief concern, then, is the tendency, observed in my own studies of history, for "capitalist" and "socialist" forces to not create the governmental conditions described, making the state bigger and relationships less voluntary and cooperative.


I agree. It does seem harder under socialism to achieve this as it relies on individuals acting only in a co-operative manner. Whilst capitalism only wants individuals to do as they please be it competative or co operative.


(edit: and besides all that, what I refer to as "socialism" also includes rejection of the corporation, intellectual property, and other needlessly hierarchical and overtly statist institutions typically associated with "capitalism.")

While I agree both have its faults I wouldn't agree for an outright rejection of them. Both have pro's that can be utilised without over powerful government.