NationStates Jolt Archive

Where do you get your political leanings from? What events, people, or places, etc. influenced your political outlook?

Personally, I started out in a very conservative family. My parents totally bought into Reagan, which was ironic considering that my mother was a hippy, and a musician in the 60s.

I thought I held conservative beliefs myself until I moved out of their house. That was when I realized that conservatism is all about being a bully in order to preserve the status quo. I found that there was no brightness and hope in that ideology, only fear and ignorace. And what is it afraid of? Other human beings. For no good reason. I finaly became disgusted with conservatism when I found out that the only thing it tries to 'conserve' is the way things were in the bad old days, i.e. forced pregnancy, female servatude, segregation, etc. The last straw was in 1995, when I lived in San Diego CA. The GOP convention was there that year, and the fundies descended on the city like flies to a carcass. There was a march in Balboa Park, made up of conservatives of all stripes (though the only "color" I saw was glaring, pasty white), they carried all manner of signs, some with aborted fetuses, some with the generic "Democrat=Communist", and many more. It was not only off-putting, but it brought to the edge of being physically ill. I had thought that I agreed with this ideology, but seeing it in action gave me chills and cold sweats.

Now, people who call themselves conservative just make me angry. Probably a by-product of feeling like I was lied to for the first twenty years of my life.

Anyone else?

Two books by Robert Heinlein, Stranger in a Strange Land and Moon is a Harsh Mistress.

Two books by Robert Heinlein, Stranger in a Strange Land and Moon is a Harsh Mistress.

But, what has that done? Where do you lean because of those books?

But, what has that done? Where do you lean because of those books?

Well, I could tell you, but you'd get more out of reading them yourself.

I don't have politics. I have cat pics.

I'm an anarchist. I've spend many years trying to figure out just what kind of anarchist I am, but that's about the extent of it. Oh, and I spend quite a few years being unwilling to declare my colours, as some procentage of the population assumes anarchists are criminally insane chaos worshippers out eat their children and sodomise their dogs. It finally dawned on me that those particular assholes are almost always rightwinged scum, and since there's just no talking to those people anyway, why worry about them taking you seriously?

Well, I could tell you, but you'd get more out of reading them yourself.

I have. But, thye didn't really have any kiind of impact on my politics, because I just saw them as works of fiction. What did they do for you?

Ideology doesn't matter. Only people matter. So whatever works for people. If I told you what I believe you'd probably call me a liberal or a leftist. If that makes it easier, you can think of me that way.


Yay! This is my first post on the NationStates forums!

Mostly just Gandhi and Marx, though I don't agree with Marx a lot on authoritarianism.

The backs of cereal boxes. *nod*

My beliefs have come purely from thinking through the issues...most would think my beliefs on certain matters rather odd, but in any sane world i'd be a moderate:p

The backs of cereal boxes. *nod*

You eat Politic-Os too?

The backs of cereal boxes. *nod*

You're a Quaker? :eek:

You eat Politic-Os too?

With only two kinds of Os that always stick together. Occasionally they try to add a third kind of Os but the other two invariably break them down before they can get established. *nod*

You're a Quaker? :eek:

Doesn't it show? :D

I've done a lot of reading, a lot of thinking, a lot of news-watching, and a lot of debating and discussing of the issues.

My parents and family and friends have had very little influence on my political views, primarily because we discuss them so rarely.

Two books by Robert Heinlein, Stranger in a Strange Land ...I have this one... I've read it once when I was much younger. I can barely remember what happened. I just remember all the Heinlein books as one big blur (that I enjoyed). I dare not read the book again as the pages are orange with age and half the pages aren't attached to the spine anymore. (I just checked the inset - it's from a UK july 1970 print run).

Erm…I guess I used to be some sort of authoritarian nationalist then I realised I was full of shit and that Red alert 2 is no basis for a political institution…

I guess I grew up :(

I have. But, thye didn't really have any kiind of impact on my politics, because I just saw them as works of fiction. What did they do for you?

The Moon is a Harsh Mistress is strongly libertarian (There ain't no such thing as a free lunch). Haven't read the other one.

Where do you get your political leanings from? What events, people, or places, etc. influenced your political outlook?

Personally, I started out in a very conservative family. My parents totally bought into Reagan, which was ironic considering that my mother was a hippy, and a musician in the 60s.

I thought I held conservative beliefs myself until I moved out of their house. That was when I realized that conservatism is all about being a bully in order to preserve the status quo. I found that there was no brightness and hope in that ideology, only fear and ignorace. And what is it afraid of? Other human beings. For no good reason. I finaly became disgusted with conservatism when I found out that the only thing it tries to 'conserve' is the way things were in the bad old days, i.e. forced pregnancy, female servatude, segregation, etc. The last straw was in 1995, when I lived in San Diego CA. The GOP convention was there that year, and the fundies descended on the city like flies to a carcass. There was a march in Balboa Park, made up of conservatives of all stripes (though the only "color" I saw was glaring, pasty white), they carried all manner of signs, some with aborted fetuses, some with the generic "Democrat=Communist", and many more. It was not only off-putting, but it brought to the edge of being physically ill. I had thought that I agreed with this ideology, but seeing it in action gave me chills and cold sweats.

Now, people who call themselves conservative just make me angry. Probably a by-product of feeling like I was lied to for the first twenty years of my life.

Anyone else?

Your post is a rant on conservatives but you never said what your political leanings are.

I am an anti-democratic, natural law, natural order market anarchist. I had always distrusted democracy as being a system by the stupid for the stupid. I was a conservative until two years ago, until I had an epiphany about prohibition of prostitution and drugs and became a lower case L libertarian. I continued to be Republican until the November elections of last year, when I realized that both political parties sucked terribly. After that, I have rejected the state and democracy in its entirety.

I used to be a hardcore conservative and Republican. Then I realized that both parties are shit and want to control my life.

Now I'm a libertarian.

Jesus, environmentalism and Amnesty International.

Your post is a rant on conservatives but you never said what your political leanings are.
Anti-conservative, and thus progressive presumably!

With only two kinds of Os that always stick together. Occasionally they try to add a third kind of Os but the other two invariably break them down before they can get established. *nod*

I thought I saw three of them stuck together once, but really it was just two sitting on top of the third :(

Where do you get your political leanings from? What events, people, or places, etc. influenced your political outlook?

Personally, I started out in a very conservative family. My parents totally bought into Reagan, which was ironic considering that my mother was a hippy, and a musician in the 60s.

I thought I held conservative beliefs myself until I moved out of their house. That was when I realized that conservatism is all about being a bully in order to preserve the status quo. I found that there was no brightness and hope in that ideology, only fear and ignorace. And what is it afraid of? Other human beings. For no good reason. I finaly became disgusted with conservatism when I found out that the only thing it tries to 'conserve' is the way things were in the bad old days, i.e. forced pregnancy, female servatude, segregation, etc. The last straw was in 1995, when I lived in San Diego CA. The GOP convention was there that year, and the fundies descended on the city like flies to a carcass. There was a march in Balboa Park, made up of conservatives of all stripes (though the only "color" I saw was glaring, pasty white), they carried all manner of signs, some with aborted fetuses, some with the generic "Democrat=Communist", and many more. It was not only off-putting, but it brought to the edge of being physically ill. I had thought that I agreed with this ideology, but seeing it in action gave me chills and cold sweats.

Now, people who call themselves conservative just make me angry. Probably a by-product of feeling like I was lied to for the first twenty years of my life.

Anyone else?

You do realize that those people in the march are a very very slim minority who in no way represent the majority of conservatives, right?

Conservatism has nothing to do with bullying, fear, or ignorance, we just like things the way they are and would like to keep them that way.

Now, back on-subject, I got my leanings from my parents and surroundings, but I like to make sure that I really agree with what they think, so I make myself listen to/read from liberal sources.

Turns out that, indeed, I am a true conservative.

Now, before anybody jumps to conclusions, I'm not racist, homophobic, or sexist. Just thought I'd put that out for the record because I know what lots of people on these forums think about us neo-cons.

Conservatism has nothing to do with bullying, fear, or ignorance, we just like things the way they are and would like to keep them that way.
Yes, it does, because the way things are depend on coercion, unfairness and lack of respect for human rights and dignity. I find it the ultimate irony that in America the conservatives claim to be the Christian side of the debate, though it is predictable and typical behaviour for them, as Jesus Himself pointed out.

I'm socialist. I dilsike capitalism because I don't see why, where there is a sum of money, someone decides, "Hey let's give three quarters of the money to one guy and make the other work for him!" I am not liberal, because I don't believe that liberty can go hand-in-hand with peace. I would allow freedom of expression, so long as it doesn't go against the law, which should be the law of the bible. It is freedom of expression that leads to arguments and war and race crime, and I would not allow liberty to excuse a life of blatant wrong.

Yes, it does, because the way things are depend on coercion, unfairness and lack of respect for human rights and dignity. I find it the ultimate irony that in America the conservatives claim to be the Christian side of the debate, though it is predictable and typical behaviour for them, as Jesus Himself pointed out.

What? No, you've got it all wrong. Not to give you a history lesson, but the staunchest opponents of de-segregation weren't conservatives! Shocking, I know. :rolleyes:

And, again for the record, the majority of Christians in this country are conservative. No I don't have a source to back myself up off-hand, but if you really want to know, go find the information yourself.

I got my politics from my mum, essentially. We're both lefties. I wasn't really conscious of politics, though, until I got into the Manic Street Preachers. Incoherent sloganeering their lyrics may mostly be, but it sounds damn cool when you're 14. I still retain an affection for the band, though I know I wouldn't think much if I heard them for the first time tomorrow.
The song that did it was If You Tolerate This. Yeah, their biggest hit, I'm lame. I was 14, it was getting airplay on commercial radio which was where I got my taste from at the time, and I thought "Wow! This music talks about issues! Cool!"
To this day I do not have a girlfriend.

To this day I do not have a girlfriend.Radical leftism/post-leftism is teh way to hot sex. You're prolly just being too moderate. Or you've got too much integrity.

Difficult to say with any great clarity. Certainly, Thatcher and Churchill are in there, as is Machiavelli and the parts of Le Pen's politics that don't err into anti-semitism.

In regard to religion, I would cite laicite as an overarching principle.

Radical leftism/post-leftism is teh way to hot sex. You're prolly just being too moderate. Or you've got too much integrity.

No, I'm just surrounded by idiots at the moment actually. Before that it was cowardice, now the cowardice is gone but so's the opportunity. The LAST cool woman I hung out with regularly is being very understanding of my current behaviour, I must say...

I'm socialist. I dilsike capitalism because I don't see why, where there is a sum of money, someone decides, "Hey let's give three quarters of the money to one guy and make the other work for him!"

That's not what capitalism is, per se. In capitalism, your reward for the work you do is based off of the market, the most unbiased entity you'll find, and what I call the potency of your work. For example, a construction crew does a lot of manual labor in their line of work, and they are, of course, an integral part of the company. That said, why should the CEO of their construction company get paid so much more than they do, considering that he doesn't do any manual labor? Well, the answer is that the work that he does, the work of actually running the company and keeping it in the black is what keeps those construction workers their jobs. Thus, those workers owe the CEO their jobs; the value of their jobs is their salary, so the CEO's salary is roughly the sum of all his employee's salaries, give or take.

But this isn't an economics thread, so to get back on-topic, I'm a conservative capitalist :)

My politics are actually more conservative than those of my Dad. Frankly, I find his beliefs naive and unrealistic. He's an anarcho-primitivist lately, and believes all sorts of pseudo-philosophical stuff. I say 'lately' because his politics, though always left-wing, depend completely on what books or articles he's been reading.

I'm fairly left-wing myself, and have politics that many people would also consider naive. I believe in publicizing instead of privatizing. I'm a Democratic Socialist. Socialized medicine and welfare are good, in my book.

I got my politics from... well, I'm not sure, really. I lived in Belgium for two years, and they have socialized medicine as well as a system called 'chaumage' wherein people actively seeking work get paid by the government even if they are unemployed. It was a highly criticized program, but I liked it.

I still don't know where I got my politics, though. I've never met anyone who fully agrees with them.

I am an Anarcho-Communist. My ideology is based on trying to prevent the disaster's that i saw in most of the authoritarian communist countries ever happening again by learning the historical lessons from them, and also their lack of focus on tearing down heirarchial systems of domination within their countries, which in my opinion should have been a main focus. A favourite reference point of my 'ideal' society that i like to use is of an event wayyyy back in 1871 called 'The Paris Commune'. Although the Commune was short lived, it showed how dangerous counterrevolutionary elements are to a new leftist revolutionary regime. The Paris Commune survived for just two months, before being violently crushed, but only after many of the people of Paris rose up against the counterreolutionaries. (The counterrevolutionaries then had many of the populace, men women and children, shot or hanged) . The Paris Commune also showed that you dont need an authoritarian government to drive revolutionary policies forward, as there was no real government in existence at all in Paris during this period! Try looking up 'Paris Commune' in Wikipedia for more info, it has a good page all about it with photographs and maps as well etc.

What? No, you've got it all wrong. Not to give you a history lesson, but the staunchest opponents of de-segregation weren't conservatives! Shocking, I know. :rolleyes:
Yes, they were. I'm not American so I lack an expertise in your history, but Thurmond and Goldwater were surely considered conservatives?

And, again for the record, the majority of Christians in this country are conservative. No I don't have a source to back myself up off-hand, but if you really want to know, go find the information yourself.
I don't believe you, but I do not know nor care whether they are. I just don't see how there can be any consistency in being a Christian and being intensely conservative, politically.

I'm socialist. I dilsike capitalism because I don't see why, where there is a sum of money, someone decides, "Hey let's give three quarters of the money to one guy and make the other work for him!" I am not liberal, because I don't believe that liberty can go hand-in-hand with peace. I would allow freedom of expression, so long as it doesn't go against the law, which should be the law of the bible. It is freedom of expression that leads to arguments and war and race crime, and I would not allow liberty to excuse a life of blatant wrong.
God gave us free will to follow His laws or not. History shows that the imposition of strict theocracy leads to war. I do however, like the idea of a Christian-influenced civil law.

The problem with socialism is that it advocates violent overthrow of capitalism. Some forms of it also enforce equality of outcome.

I smoked pot and never looked back at Christianity or Republican ideals ever again at the age of 14. Not exactly true but true enough for you people. Now, cobble me some shoes!

I smoked pot and never looked back at Christianity or Republican ideals ever again at the age of 14. Not exactly true but true enough for you people. Now, cobble me some shoes!

Man, the stuff tastes sweet when you're 14.

Where do you get your political leanings from? What events, people, or places, etc. influenced your political outlook?

I used to be a moderate Republican, which is where I started. When Bush won the 200 election and Gore started fighting about recounting the votes, I began to get a bit...irritated with those guys. I'd just accepted that Bush won, and that was the end of it. (Turns out he did, but just barely...but that's history.) Then, I was pretty indifferent for a while. In 2004, I really leaned towards Bush because I was honest-to-God scared sick about what could happen if someone like Kerry won. It was more of a "Anyone but Kerry" thing rather than being for Bush...

As 2005 came and went, I got sick and tired of the do-nothing Republicans, and dissociated myself from that party. Since then, the biggest influences on my politics have been The Doctrine of Fascism, Mein Kampf (one of the most difficult reads ever--rambling, incoherent, you name it), and I've also been heavily influenced by the society depicted in Starship Troopers (Most recently, I'd prefer to live in that society).

I don't like conservatives, but I really fucking hate liberals. Especially communists, socialists, pinkos, bleeding hearts, and the such.

a million things that i can't possibly catalogue.

Political influences? Well, I'd say that I get some of my political beliefs partially from my own views on the world which includes my desire for personal success and to be relatively left alone. I would say that I am influenced somewhat by Machiavelli, Friedman, Austrianism(despite distrusting many of their conclusions), and some feelings of nationalism as well, and many other sources to be certain.

Depending on your point of view, I'm either right or left of centre. Not due to any particular desire of being 'centrist', I just end up being kind of in the middle after all the cards are played.

I started out as an NDP supporter (Canadian socialist). Then I watched Bob Rae and his provincial party triple our government's debt, hand over a highway to foreign interests, and alienate even his own union support. I became disillusioned with lefty-politics.

Provincially speaking, I then started agreeing with many right of centre politics found in the Mike Harris platform (provincial conservative party); lower taxes, cutting bureaucracy, and attracting foreign investment. Of course, their method of 'cut spending, and let everyone else sort it out' only served to alienate thousands and cut into the quality of our health care and education system. And the issue which I was most concerned with - balancing the books and fighting down the now collosal provincial debt - fell by the wayside once Ernie Eves took over the mantle of Ontario's premiere.

I started following federal politics just around the time Kim Campbell was horribly humiliated and the PC party was thrown into chaos. I watched successive Liberal parties promise everything, and do absolutely whatever they wanted in spite of what they promised. I watched as our first-past-the-post system allowed our country to fragment into multiple parties, where only the big one mattered. I thought, 'well at least the finance minister (Paul Martin), isn't a complete asshat.' He had balanced the books, and was using surplusses to tackle the debt. And then we had Adscam. And Paul Martin became PM and stood for whatever the latest polls happened to show. And it soon became really apparent that the Liberals stood for nothing, because they could say whatever the hell they liked, behave however they liked, and they would continue to get into power as long as they could suceed in demonizing their opponents.

I am generally disatisfied with the state of Canada's democratic system. I don't have any faith in any particular party. All I want is a system that is representative of what people actually want, with a few checks and balances. I want parliamentarians that can be held accountable for performing opposite of the way they campaigned for (knowing full well that they can just appeal to the masses right before election time.)

I'm basically a liberal that wants a functional system to operate in. That means quality education and health' and cities free from crime and poverty. I want a system that works for Canadian business, from the large comapanies, to the smallest business owners. I don't narrow my opinion to the sections of any one particular newspaper. I read all the major papers in Toronto, varying which paper I pick up to keep my perspective fresh.

Because, franky, siding on to a particular political party or ideology defeats the purpose of what our democratic system is meant for; options.

I don't like conservatives, but I really fucking hate liberals. Especially communists, socialists, pinkos, bleeding hearts, and the such.

That's a rather shotgun approach. I'm especially interested in what you define as a "bleeding heart". Because to me, it's a flower (http://www.studiolo.org/WPS/PR/images/WPS-Reilly_A_BleedingHeart.jpg) that grows in my back yard.

Well, my political orientation...

I have none.

Democrats subvert facts, only choosing the ones that benefit them, and seem unwilling to look in depth to both sides of an issue. Sure, they might glance, but that will be only to make it seem like they looked in depth. And plus they are soft on illegal immigration. I don't care if these people came from a worse off place, what they are doing is against the law. You wouldn't sympathize with a man who robbed your house because he needed money, would you?:confused:

Republicans are like democrats, just in a less subtle sense. They too are thick-skulled to get past petty differences and actually do something constructive, like, say, get out of Iraq. Most of what they do is to spite the democrats.:eek:

So, as a result, I just look at a situation, then look at the facts, and side with the party who's argument looks the most viable.

However, it startles me that too often I find myself on the side of conservatives... must be the beer.:headbang:

Anywho, I'm pretty down the middle.:D

I'm especially interested in what you define as a "bleeding heart".

I mean those kinds of radical morons you find protesting at every event possible. Cindy Sheehan is the first that comes to mind, but in reality, any of those activist annies, or any man-hating feminists. I just dislike protests on principle and would rather see them silenced--they're threats to public safety, moral decency and proper conduct, and they're in the damn way.

I'm a conservative.

*ducks a thrown knife*

I mean those kinds of radical morons you find protesting at every event possible. Cindy Sheehan is the first that comes to mind, but in reality, any of those activist annies, or any man-hating feminists. I just dislike protests on principle and would rather see them silenced--they're threats to public safety, moral decency and proper conduct, and they're in the damn way.

So, how would you rather people air their grievences? Or should they just STFU, learn their place, and take what they're given?

I'm a conservative.

*ducks a thrown knife*

Would never have guessed. I'll bet you're a ton of fun at orgies... :p

I mean those kinds of radical morons you find protesting at every event possible. Cindy Sheehan is the first that comes to mind, but in reality, any of those activist annies, or any man-hating feminists. I just dislike protests on principle and would rather see them silenced--they're threats to public safety, moral decency and proper conduct, and they're in the damn way.
Congratulations! You're an RWA! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_Wing_Authoritarianism)

I'm a conservative.

*ducks a thrown knife*

*swings bat as you come back up*

:p

Would never have guessed. I'll bet you're a ton of fun at orgies... :p

Hey, I like my share of naked nuns...not gonna lie.

I'm a liberal socialist.

My influences were my mom. She is a liberal and everything she told me stuck in my head until I started to think for myself, but ended up keeping it in the long run.

*swings bat as you come back up*

:p

*shields blow with a liberal's head*

I'm also a liberal socialist. I got my ideas from a friend who introduced me to the idea of communism, then I did some extra reading from there.

*shields blow with a liberal's head*

Ouch! :p

*shields blow with a liberal's head*

But that would mean that you'd have to have been willingly sitting, or standing, next to a liberal. Are you admitting to "sleeping with the enemy" or something?

Congratulations! You're an RWA! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_Wing_Authoritarianism)

Can I have a psychological classification too?

But that would mean that you'd have to have been willingly sitting, or standing, next to a liberal. Are you admitting to "sleeping with the enemy" or something?

What a prepostrous suggestion!! Like every good conservative, I keep a liberal's head handy for situations such as these.

You see, one of the requirements of belonging to the conservative club is that you must cut off a liberal's head and carry it wity you at all times(the other two are buy all of Ann Coulter's books, and tape every Bill O'Reilly show).

Clearly, you're very ignorant of the ways of conservatives, my friend.

So, how would you rather people air their grievences? Or should they just STFU, learn their place, and take what they're given?

In a more civilized manner. For a start, protestors generally need to get a damn haircut (hippies), get a shower (again, hippies, but pot heads as well), and stop making yourself look like an ass while you're at it (A great soundbite of Hillary Clinton losing it at a feminist's rally comes to mind, but I can't find it).

What a prepostrous suggestion!! Like every good conservative, I keep a liberal's head handy for situations such as these.

You see, one of the requirements of belonging to the conservative club is that you must cut off a liberal's head and carry it wity you at all times(the other two are buy all of Ann Coulter's books, and tape every Bill O'Reilly show).

Clearly, you're very ignorant of the ways of conservatives, my friend.

Can't say I've been keeping up. But, knowing what you just said, I can't say I'd want back in either :p

You are single-handedly making me even more glad at my choice to abandon the "club". :D

In a more civilized manner. For a start, protestors generally need to get a damn haircut (hippies), get a shower (again, hippies, but pot heads as well), and stop making yourself look like an ass while you're at it (A great soundbite of Hillary Clinton losing it at a feminist's rally comes to mind, but I can't find it).

That's your opinion. I tend to agree with you, but we need to remember that people are different, and that it's generally not a good idea to force your opinions down their throats, be they religion, fashion, politics, etc.

I actually think that the way most of these protesters look and the manner in which they present themselves does much to lose them their credibility. It hurts them more than it helps them, but if they want to keep at it, well, who am I to say no?

Or for that matter, who are you to say no?

Can I have a psychological classification too?
No.

Liberals have great social policies, but terrible economic policies. Conservatives have great economic policies, but terrible social policies. So take the best from each, and bam!

Libertarianism.

No.

Oh, what, so only RWAs get psychological classifications?

Oh, what, so only RWAs get psychological classifications?
What makes you think you have the right to get anything (psychological classification, or otherwise) handed to you? Go and find it yourself!

What makes you think you have the right to get anything (psychological classification, or otherwise) handed to you? Go and find it yourself!

Oh, I'm not saying I have a right to it. That would be un-libertarian. I was just wondering if you'd be nice and possibly give me one.

Yes, they were. I'm not American so I lack an expertise in your history, but Thurmond and Goldwater were surely considered conservatives?
There is a big difference between actively trying to keep laws mandating segregation on the books (what Thurmond did) and opposing laws that forbade segregation in the private sector (what Goldwater did). The former is bad; the latter is good.


I don't believe you, but I do not know nor care whether they are. I just don't see how there can be any consistency in being a Christian and being intensely conservative, politically.
You're right--Christianity is socialist, which is why I'm not a Christian. Socialism is evil.

Common sense and the Golden Rule, mostly.

Lots of reading, thinking, debating, evaluating...

When I was younger I don't recall ever thinking about "what is right and wrong," I mostly just tried to go with what was fair. My parents never tried to indoctrinate me in any political or religious beliefs, they just encouraged me to read. They told me I had questions I could ask them, or read about what I wanted to know.

Then I went to school (yah, I was reading well before I started grade 1) and because I'd been reading for years and had a bit more knowledge than a lot of the other kids, the 'nerd' ostracism started. It was subtle right up until I got glasses in grade 4 (I think, might be off a year one way or the other) and then it was unholy terror. Fairness became even more important as I realised, increasingly, that it was lacking in a lot of people. So I had the outsider's concern for justice between individual people-- "don't hurt me and I won't hate and want to hurt you"-- for as long as I can remember.

When I started university all kinds of courses called out to me: psychology, philosophy, sociology, religious studies, political science, and of course my major: English. In other words, a lot of reading, and most of it about what makes people-- and the communities they form-- tick. The beginning of university was also when I came out, and started making myself more aware of the history and issues of gay people, and from there I was drawn to consider the histories and issues of other minority groups who've been-- and who are-- oppressed and exploited: Africa and Africans, women, religious minorities, and others. All of that informed and solidified what I already felt and knew: "don't hurt me and I won't hate and want to hurt you." Be fair to me, and you won't detract from my innate inclination to be fair to you.

So that's where my politics comes from. I educated myself, about the world and about the people in it-- the good and bad that they do, their justifications and their excuses, their nobility and ignobility, their wisdom and their ignorance, their blind faith and their reason, hopes and fears-- and I lived some of it too. I've tried just leaving people alone, I've tried doing good by them, and as my convictions have gotten stronger I've tried confronting people when I think they're being unfair and unjust. And trying to do that, and sometimes meeting *willful* ignorance and malice-- a refusal to entertain reason or consider fairness, an arrogance that places them 'above justice' in their own minds-- has made my politics angry. Now when I encounter those people, I try to challenge them to think about why they're being bullies. I try to open their minds to rationality and to the sensibilities of people who've been walked on and beaten and repressed and killed. But I don't give them long, because you can only beat your head against the same wall for so long before you get to feeling like you could do more good elsewhere.

I'm also inclined, though, to come back to the wall with a big hammer and try to knock it down for being an obstruction to those of us who want a more just world.

I really don't think that you can teach virtue. You can teach obedience to the law, and the law *can* be good and just, but laws can also be fickle and abusive, written by unjust people with power in order to keep themselves in power at the expense of others. Virtue, though, I think, exists with or without us, and I think that in order to apprehend it we have to learn reason, and learn about people and the world, and feel-- at least once-- what it is to be under threat from others in power who themselves have done nothing to deserve their oppressive power. Until you've been bullied be someone who got bigger than you through dumb luck, or genetics, or abdicating their personal responsibility for thinking in order to belong to some strong group, you don't *really* understand and feel the need to topple injustice and abused power.

One might ask "But won't society just degenerate into historically disadvantaged groups whipping the majorities, taking out their frustrations?" I don't believe so. I believe-- and I think history supports the case-- that individually, oppressed people might feel like they want revenge; but I think in groups, those same people temper each other, realising "if we're to be better than those who've abused us, we have to be just and *level* the field, not tip it the other way." Of course, those on top are going to *feel* put out in the process, but not because they're experiencing anything like what they've dished out-- because those who've enjoyed priviledge will tend to resist losing their special status, will want to stay on their ill-gotten pedastal. Even when there are concessions made to justice, the advantaged try to find ways to go on feeling superior. Oh no, we have to let our slaves go? Well, as long as they don't get to vote. Or Oh no, it's illegal to beat up fags now? Fine, just don't let them marry, or adopt, or teach.

So in the world according to me? Yeah, the bullies-- the traditionally strong and priviledged and inconsiderate-- have to endure the fear and trembling of being pulled down onto the ground with those they've been standing on; those who, separately, have been easy prey but together, joined in a common cause of restoring fairness, become strong. The whips and cudgels and chains get taken away-- not turned on their former owners, just taken away, and without their coercive power they're forced to comprimise, and play fair, and share the playground, and *earn* their priviledges in equal competition (because no, I'm not *quite* so far left that I think there should be no competition). And I think there should be safeguards to prevent excessive accumulation of power such that it becomes a renewed threat to justice-- no line of kings and no simplistic "majority rules, with or without conscience or compassion."

And I fully expect that there are those who'd scream bloody murder at the transition that it would take to achieve such a regime. Just as I suspect most of them would be the priviledged and the advantaged, many of whome probably got there through no virtue of their own-- just dumb luck, or genetics, or abdicating their personal responsibility for thinking in order to belong to some strong group, and who don't *really* understand and feel the need to topple injustice and abused power.

I was raised in a Democrat household, my dad was from New York, so of course he was a Democrat and still is. My mom is more of a moderate and I used to be a Democrat myself. But then I started listening to Talk radio on 1110 AM WBT. I also began working and realized how much money Government was taking out of my wallet. So I switched over to being a Republican for awhile, but then I realized that the Democrat wants to control us via our wallet (taxes) and the Republicans want to control us through laws directing our 'moral' behaviors. So then I started researching third parties, and the party that I liked the most was the Libertarians. Libertarians basically don't care what you do, all you do is pay a little bit of taxes to keep the government running (which is to be restricted in size and in fundings) and you can basically do whatever you want to do as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others. So, that how I became a Libertarian!

For me, my Conservative beliefs originated in several places.

First of all, it was because of my religious background. I have been quite religious and I have always believed that nations should follow quite stringent moral standards - of course I have been highly offended at the legalisation of prostitution, civil unions and now a ban on smacking that has been pushed through by a left-wing government. That has naturally pushed me towards Conservatism.

It was also the teachers strike that plagued the schools down here in 2002. I did not at all enjoy the fact that a bunch of Commies used us students as some sort of weapon in their pay dispute. That pushed me towards Conservatism.

Also, I suppose I am the product of my area. Out in East Auckland, we curse the Labour Party and praise the National Party. Anyone that supports Labour is almost immediately shot down as a Godless Communist.

I'm a Fascist in belief, politically and socially. I'm not a Nazi or Religious radical however; I don't believe in racial superiority when science does not support those theories or that I must kill anyone outside my faith.

I guess history influenced my belief, along with my own experiences with people.

When I was young, I was a total Anarcho-communist; a product of my taste in music, a general feeling that the whole political establishment was against me, and a desire to reject my father's moderate-liberalism.

However, a lot of things (starting with the realization that creativity is crushed in a true communist society) drove me away from communism and anarchism. Now I'm a progressive of a sort. I'm not really a liberal and not really a libertarian. I tend to fit right in with the progressives until they start talking applied economics and globalization.

Depending on my mood, I'm either borderline anarcho-capitalist, hard-core centrist, or in favor of benevolent dictatorship.

My family has money, so I'm Republican, to an extent.

Two books by Robert Heinlein, Stranger in a Strange Land and Moon is a Harsh Mistress.

Those influenced me as well...as did Starship Troopers, Time Enough for Love, and Job: A Comedy of Justice.

Depending on my mood, I'm either borderline anarcho-capitalist, hard-core centrist, or in favor of benevolent dictatorship.

I feel the same way. :p

...I grew up in a house with a Conservative Lutheran mother and a Liberal lapsed Catholic father.

I wound up neither liberal, nor conservative...and pretty damn secular. :p

My family has money, so I'm Republican, to an extent.
Silly Ruffy. My family has money, too, and I've always been a proud lefty. :)

Silly Ruffy. My family has money, too, and I've always been a proud lefty. :)

Yeah, a Communist. *shudders*

Perhaps it's how our families earned their money? Or maybe I'm just greedy..

Not sure what started it. My teenage years were comfortably middle class, but I was interested in politics from an early age. I became interested in Marxism, but took issue with several points and identified more strongly with anarchism.

As for now, i'm completely apathetic, since i'm just one person who has views that are abhorrent to the vast majority of people. Can't really motivate myself to be active anymore or even debate my beliefs, but I still feel that they're just.

Yeah, a Communist. *shudders*

Perhaps it's how our families earned their money? Or maybe I'm just greedy..I'm not a Communist, more like a very left Green Social Democrat. =)

And I don't understand what you mean by "how" - as in some "old money" as opposed to "my parents worked their way up" kinda thing? Which of the two would mean the kids become Conservative, then?

And of course you are.

I'm not a Communist, more like a very left Green Social Democrat. =)

And I don't understand what you mean by "how" - as in some "old money" as opposed to "my parents worked their way up" kinda thing? Which of the two would mean the kids become Conservative, then?

And of course you are.

Green? Social? Oh dear..

I mean "mafia" and "hard work". Of course, my family came over durring the potato famine. My grandfather became a judge, worked hard, and became a very successful man. Of course, there is that time when he took bribes.. and that other time.. Well.. I wont mention the hooker, but he was rich, and respected.

Unlike you and your "Give to the people" bank robbing family, of course.

*swims in money*

Personally, my influences are primarily Ayn Rand (her Virtue of Selfishness), Friedrich von Hayek, Murray Rothbard (For a New Liberty - the guy is amazing) and Hans-Hermann Hoppe (Democracy - the God that failed and The Ethics and Economics of Private Property). I consider the latter to be a genius, and my intellectual focus. I also have a great deal of respect for Rand. So essentially my politics are austroanarchism, with a tint of Friedmanite, Objectivist and Nozickian elements to it. I am not in complete agreement with the neo-Austrian School on the methodology of economics (I side more with Hayek on this, but I may yet be convinced otherwise), but I support a lot of their conclusions (which Friedman and Hayek reach anyway). Vittos also influences me quite a bit with his original thinking. :) My newest influence is my professor in economics - a staunch Hayekian intellectual. I'm not too influenced by my parents (mother is relatively libertarian, father more conservative) nor my economic position (middle class).

I used to be a monarchist (I still favour ultraminimal forms of monarchy) and biased to the conservative right, but that has changed with time.

As for now, i'm completely apathetic, since i'm just one person who has views that are abhorrent to the vast majority of people. Can't really motivate myself to be active anymore or even debate my beliefs, but I still feel that they're just.
Meh, I feel that way about mine too. :/

Here's me;

I grew up right. Think Bob Jones-ish, but not quite. I joined a debate team about 3 years ago. That opened my mind to many broad issues. After much extensive pondering, I am now a democrat by official registration, but a libertarian by belief. Oh, did i mention that I am a Christian? A rational, intelligent Christian. feel free to challenge me on an issue. I will at least listen to your position, and To your argument, I will ponder, and respond. Be calm and rational please, as shouting matches take neither side anywhere, :headbang: :mp5: whereas open discussion can lead to mutual growth and understanding, and even revolutionizeing points of view.

influences would be Socrates, Plato, G.K. Chesterton, Orwell, Pope, Blake, Voltaire, Orwell, Huxley, among others.

none i go on how i feel at the time

Green? Social? Oh dear..

I mean "mafia" and "hard work". Of course, my family came over durring the potato famine. My grandfather became a judge, worked had, and became a very successful man. Of course, there is that time when he took bribes.. and that other time.. Well.. I wont mention the hooker, but he was rich, and respected.

Unlike you and your "Give to the people" bank robbing family, of course.

*swims in money*

That accent is so strong, it's showing up in your writing!

That accent is so strong, it's showing up in your writing!

Shit! I swear, I'm not from Boston!

*flees*

Green? Social? Oh dear..

I mean "mafia" and "hard work". Of course, my family came over durring the potato famine. My grandfather became a judge, worked had, and became a very successful man. Of course, there is that time when he took bribes.. and that other time.. Well.. I wont mention the hooker, but he was rich, and respected.
So basically hard working mafia?

Unlike you and your "Give to the people" bank robbing family, of course.Oh, make no mistake, my family is conservative. Sadly, really, because my dad is really a very reasonable man and we agree on many (most?) things... but in terms of solutions to problems he still goes the tried and trusted conservative party route.

*swims in money*Honey, neither of our families is that rich. *pats* :p

That accent is so strong, it's showing up in your writing!

LMFAO

That accent is so strong, it's showing up in your writing!
Why, just like the Bostonian-at-heart that he is. :p

So basically hard working mafia?
Best of both worlds, really.
Oh, make no mistake, my family is conservative. Sadly, really, because my dad is really a very reasonable man and we agree on many (most?) things... but in terms of solutions to problems he still goes the tried and trusted conservative party route.
I like him.
Honey, neither of our families is that rich. *pats* :p

I meant pennies.. :rolleyes:

Why, just like the Bostonian-at-heart that he is. :p

So that's why he has that "Norm Abrams Speaks" audio tape in his bedroom...

*shifts eyes*

First a conservative, then libertarian, now I have no idea what. Closest thing I can find, party wise, is Federalist, but they haven't been around since they got stupid and tried to get New England to secede.

Rather Left (and I mean real Left, not American-Left, which is sort of Centrist), kind of Green-hippie-if-I-spoke-the-language-I'd-move-to-Amsterdam sort of Left. Where did it come from? I grew up during the Reagan era: my brother bought into it, I didn't. I'm too cynical to be a mindless sheeple-conservative, and yet oddly too idealistic to be apathetic. I don't know whether to scorn this society, or pity it.

it ain't people, places, events or any of that, but the kind of world i'd like to live in and my efforts to avoid deceiving myself.

(and the resault of THAT is eco-socialist anarcho-pacifism!)

=^^=
.../\...

Ideology: Conservatism.
Reason: Neighbouring countries. (I shouldn't have to elaborate on this one)

Ideology: Conservatism.
Reason: Neighbouring countries. (I shouldn't have to elaborate on this one)

actualy you do. "conservatism" deliberately makes enimies of "neighboring countries" and anyone else it can, to terrorize you into kissing its ass.

ouch, i didn't mean to make that sound personaly critical. we all arrive at where we are by our own roads. i've just too often heard 'conservatism' misrepresented as the critical thinking it isn't.

sorry again twice. i didn't see where you were from when i stated the above. there ARE valid conservative values in japan. unlike the u.s., where the only valid ones to my way of thinking are those of the continent's preamerican indiginous cultures.

the very meaning of such terms as conservative and liberal are rather extremely dependent on context. or at least the merits of the concepts behind them.

what i said does seem to apply otherwise in general in most parts of the planet. which obviously i'm not personaly familiar with the situation "on the ground" everywhere. but i do know the ainu traditions weren't thrown out with the bath water the way indigininous cultural values and beliefs have attempted to have been throughout most of the western hemisphere.

and what i ment by conservative here (in the u.s.), is the pseudo-conservatism of the grafted on, invasive, now dominant society, that trys to make everything have to begin and end with little green pieces of paper and neither knows nor cares where the air we breathe comes from.

=^^=
.../\...

For me, my Conservative beliefs originated in several places.

First of all, it was because of my religious background. I have been quite religious and I have always believed that nations should follow quite stringent moral standards - of course I have been highly offended at the legalisation of prostitution, civil unions and now a ban on smacking that has been pushed through by a left-wing government. That has naturally pushed me towards Conservatism.
What is your religion?

I don't have politics. I have cat pics.

Speaking of which, did you ever caption the pic of my cat?

I don't like conservatives, but I really fucking hate liberals. Especially communists, socialists, pinkos, bleeding hearts, and the such.

Liberals =/= communists, socialists etc.

That said, I'm a communist-anarchist. I thoroughly detest mainstream political discourse. I think liberals miss the root of the issue, progressives are too reformist, mainstream conservatives are focused on the wrong issues, paleocons want a non-existent glorious past to return, neo-conservatism is just right-wing Trotskyism (seriously think about. Substitute every instance of "proletarian" etc. for "democracy" and you arrive at neocons!), and centrism has become a handy excuse for not taking a stand on issues.

My politics come from my working class family background, my mom's continually cynical questioning of the status quo, and all of the books that i've read into since I've been in high school. Mostly, i picked up my belief in communist-anarchism from reading Michael Harrington, Murray Bookchin, Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, Edward S. Herman, Michael Albert and Peter Kropotkin. I think the most influential books that I've ever read would be Socialism by Michael Harrington, The Ecology of Freedom by Murray Bookchin, and Manufacturing Consent by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky.

a lot of my politics comes from my parents, and their experiences i witnessed as a child. they were running their own business in the early '90s, doing quite well, when a number of things happened including being sued (with no grounds) by a overtly christian tory, and the recession engineered by the tories in 1992, which spiralled out of control. between these things we went from being really quite well off to being all but bankrupt. i've said it before on here: if you earn, say, £50,000 a year and have £55,000 going out the door on debts, then you're probably worse off than someone earning minimum wage.

i blame a lot of that on the tories. i also hate the often uncompassionate attitude that permeates right wing thinking. i remember walking along the high street in Winchester and seeing a tramp begging for money. it was a weekday in the early afternoon, and a woman wearing furs and lots of jewelery, carring shopping bags, stood in front of the man and yelled at him to 'get a job'. i remember feeling sick at her lack of compassion and her obvious hypocracy, at her flaunting of her wealth, and just correlate that with conservatism. a lot of people in that town, especially our neighbours, were staunchly conservative, and very rich.

my views got futher compounded, and radicalised, at uni studying economics and politics.

Here's me;

I grew up right. Think Bob Jones-ish, but not quite. I joined a debate team about 3 years ago. That opened my mind to many broad issues. After much extensive pondering, I am now a democrat by official registration, but a libertarian by belief. Oh, did i mention that I am a Christian? A rational, intelligent Christian. feel free to challenge me on an issue. I will at least listen to your position, and To your argument, I will ponder, and respond. Be calm and rational please, as shouting matches take neither side anywhere, :headbang: :mp5: whereas open discussion can lead to mutual growth and understanding, and even revolutionizeing points of view.

influences would be Socrates, Plato, G.K. Chesterton, Orwell, Pope, Blake, Voltaire, Orwell, Huxley, among others.

You must be a Kiwi. Eeek, I personally have not heard about Sir Bob Jones and his political stuff in a while, although I still find his views on scoutmasters, sunglasses, cellphones and beards quite amusing

What is your religion?

Christian of the Protestant kind.

I got my political views from actually putting some deep thought into political issues on my own.

If you can't decide on a political position yourself, with your own solution or idea (at least not completely taken from someone else), you should not be debating politics.

I am a right-leaning libertarian, because I've done a lot of political thinking and this is the best description of my ideals.

I tend to be considered more "Conservative" by my friends in High School. I make my own decisions about politics and actually read into them a bit when I bored.

If I had to give myself a label I would call meself a "Socialist Dictator" (Even if this is totally contradictory its the best way I can describe it without typeing for to long.)

With economics I belive that people should be allowed to have more money than others if they can make it. I also dislike programs like welfare and Unemployment Insurance. I think that anyone that has the capability to work should for there money.

In terms of Authoritarian vs Anarchy im definatly more towards Authority there. I think that a single person to rule the country would be best, but only if they were benvolent and truly cared for the people under them. ("Government" Under my NSWiki has a deeper explination of how I think a system could work.)

centrism has become a handy excuse for not taking a stand on issues.

No, centrists are actually the most sane and level-headed individuals. They seldom see things in black and white like rightists and leftists do, are the most pragmatic and realistic, are usually able to think for themselves more than people of other ideologies, are able to criticize the bad and recognize the good in both leftism and rightism, and are willing to concede defeat and amend their ideas if they're proven wrong, rather than insanely and blindly following an ideology.

and centrism has become a handy excuse for not taking a stand on issues.
I agree. I'm not too fond of centrists.

If I had to give myself a label I would call meself a "Socialist Dictator" (Even if this is totally contradictory its the best way I can describe it without typeing for to long.)
Based on your economics I'd say more of a right-wing authoritarian.

I agree. I'm not too fond of centrists.

Centrists are the people least likely to reside in fantasy land.

Centrists are the people least likely to reside in fantasy land.
And also the least likely to ever effect any changes to the world. So they leave me indifferent.

No, centrists are actually the most sane and level-headed individuals. They seldom see things in black and white like rightists and leftists do, are the most pragmatic and realistic, are usually able to think for themselves more than people of other ideologies, are able to criticize the bad and recognize the good in both leftism and rightism, and are willing to concede defeat and amend their ideas if they're proven wrong, rather than insanely and blindly following an ideology.

Agreed, but what about libertarians?

I actually think that anyone who places themselves in a certain party and refuses to budge is probably not level-headed.

If you are telling the world 'I refuse to change my position, irregardless of any proof or evidence for the opposing position!', and remain in a certain 'party' indefinitely, you are basically telling everyone you are an idiot.

Agreed, but what about libertarians?
If you're referring to partisan libertarians of the likes of those affiliated with CATO (such as the execrable Tom Palmer), my position on them is that they can fuck off and keep on fucking off.

Agreed, but what about libertarians?

I actually think that anyone who places themselves in a certain party and refuses to budge is probably not level-headed.

If you are telling the world 'I refuse to change my position, irregardless of any proof or evidence for the opposing position!', and remain in a certain 'party' indefinitely, you are basically telling everyone you are an idiot.

Some libertarians seem sane, but many are absolutely gonzo.

No, centrists are actually the most sane and level-headed individuals.

Since the center is constantly moving, I think that would be very hard to justify.

They seldom see things in black and white like rightists and leftists do

And this has nothing to do with sanity and level-headedness.

Slavery is not "okay." Centrists thought it was.

are the most pragmatic and realistic,

A centrist might think so.

Personally, I think anyone who supports anything resembling the status quo is neither.

are usually able to think for themselves more than people of other ideologies,

Nonsense. Justify that.

are able to criticize the bad and recognize the good in both leftism and rightism,

So are we extremists. We just recognize that one side has a whole lot more good and a whole lot less bad than the other.

and are willing to concede defeat and amend their ideas if they're proven wrong

Extremists are perfectly capable of doing this.

Indeed, it was recognizing the fallacies in some of my positions that drove me towards extremism in the first place.

And also the least likely to ever effect any changes to the world. So they leave me indifferent.

They also have realistic expectations and know that the wonderful paradises communists, anarchists, anarcho-capitalists, etc. describe, are completely unrealistic and unworkable.

Centrists are the people least likely to reside in fantasy land.

Not if radical change is actually necessary.

Howard Zinn has a book: You Can't Be Neutral on a Moving Train. That about sums it up.

They also have realistic expectations and know that the wonderful paradises communists, anarchists, anarcho-capitalists, etc. describe, are completely unrealistic and unworkable.

Like liberal constitutional democracies and societies where the different "races" can coexist without forced stratification?

Because plenty of people thought those ideas were "completely unrealistic and unworkable", too....

And this has nothing to do with sanity and level-headedness.

Slavery is not "okay." Centrists thought it was.

Some centrists did, others didn't.

Personally, I think anyone who supports anything resembling the status quo is neither.

?

Nonsense. Justify that.

I never said leftists or rightists couldn't think for themselves, or that centrists always thought for themselves, only that from my experience, most of the people who can think for themselves are centrists.


So are we extremists. We just recognize that one side has a whole lot more good and a whole lot less bad than the other.

And there are others who see their side as all good and the other as all bad. i.e., most communists see capitalism in all black and most right-wingers see socialism in all black. Most people from both sides refuse to see either in gray.

Extremists are perfectly capable of doing this.

Indeed, it was recognizing the fallacies in some of my positions that drove me towards extremism in the first place.

Yes, some are. And they should be lauded. But then are people (some who have graced these boards) who never, ever concede a point, no matter how many facts you use to refute them.

Like liberal constitutional democracies and societies where the different "races" can coexist without forced stratification?

Because plenty of people thought those ideas were "completely unrealistic and unworkable", too....

Being a cynic, I assume any political system is unworkable until it's proven otherwise. What few attempts at communism (Paris Commune, etc.) were never successfully proven, as they were crushed by external forces before it could be determined for sure if they worked or not, and as for anarcho-capitalism, one look at Somalia is all it takes to convince me that that's a disaster.

Not if radical change is actually necessary.

Howard Zinn has a book: You Can't Be Neutral on a Moving Train. That about sums it up.

I'll check it out.

Some centrists did, others didn't.

If they supported the abolition of slavery (and not at the will of the slave-owners), they weren't "centrists."

?

Seeing as we're heading straight for massive ecological catastrophe, among other things....

I never said leftists or rightists couldn't think for themselves, or that centrists always thought for themselves, only that from my experience, most of the people who can think for themselves are centrists.

Many centrists have difficulty breaking out of the "acceptable" political paradigm. Instead of coherently considering more radical positions, and arguing for or against them, they tend to resort either to meaningless trite nonsense instead of actual arguments, or to be continually convinced of a position, only to be dissuaded soon after.

Obviously, there are plenty of exceptions - but there are at least as many ways for centrists to not think for themselves as there are ways for leftists and rightists to not think for themselves.

And there are others who see their side as all good and the other as all bad. i.e., most communists see capitalism in all black

Capitalism is a vile depraved abomination so incredibly evil that "centrism" on the subject of its existence is either moral depravity or gross error. I may not say it very often - it rarely gets anyone anywhere constructive - but I believe it, and right-wing libertarian extremists probably think similarly about at the very least state socialism.

Only if you assume the falsity of that statement can NOT seeing it as some kind of "in between" system be seen as irrational.

That is to say, centrism may be better - but only if centrism is right about its political positions. Which goes without saying.

But then are people (some who have graced these boards) who never, ever concede a point, no matter how many facts you use to refute them.

And this does not necessarily preclude centrism.

I'll check it out.

Not the book. It's just an autobiography. The title.

Since the center is constantly moving, I think that would be very hard to justify.

You're saying that someone who changes their mindset is an idiot just because of the fact? That everyone should have 100% faith in whatever their stance is forever, regardless of new information?

Or does what you said not mean anything at all?

I came from a conservative Catholic family. I found some Catholic teachings to be at odds with the conservative mentality. Now I am an atheist socialist.

As far as democracy goes... I am happy with a democracy of informed rational citizens. Not too keen on everyone getting to vote.

More of a natural aristocracy than universal suffrage sort of person.

You're saying that someone who changes their mindset is an idiot just because of the fact? That everyone should have 100% faith in whatever their stance is forever, regardless of new information?

Or does what you said not mean anything at all? i think the implication is that because the real politic center is always shifting with whatever political winds are blowing, it would be hard to consistantly maintain true centrism. i would think however that most political centrists stake out a position the believe is in the middle and only change it when their own view are changed and not whjen one position or another gains momentary vogue and shifts the center of the political spectrum.

You're saying that someone who changes their mindset is an idiot just because of the fact? That everyone should have 100% faith in whatever their stance is forever, regardless of new information?

Or does what you said not mean anything at all?

Neither.

Simply that if centrism advocates different positions every decade, it can hardly be said to be CONSISTENTLY sane and level-headed - especially since the center's position does not change because of new evidence or arguments, but because the political spectrum does.

Centrists today look negatively upon the centrists of the past who insisted that blacks needed to be kept down and women denied equal rights. And fifty years after the Revolution, centrists might look at all the past supporters of capitalism and statism as similarly crazy.

most political centrists stake out a position the believe is in the middle and only change it when their own view are changed and not whjen one position or another gains momentary vogue and shifts the center of the political spectrum.

Rational centrists do, certainly.

Which is why they cannot claim that centrism as such is saner or more level-headed than extremism. Because in a different society, past or future, the positions to which they are rationally committed might be extremist.

What it comes down to is that all political positions must be evaluated on their rational foundations. Not their position on the spectrum.

Dismissing extremism BECAUSE it is extremism (or centrism BECAUSE it is centrism) is irrational and unjustified.

I would consider my self as a right-wing authoritarian.Only because im christian and this is how god would rule if he was a ruler.My reasons are simple god would care for his people and help them out but he would make everyone equal in the way of economic statice (not communist).He would have a strong military to defend against heathen swine(not left wing hippies and ect..) .he would rule as a king (or queen for those femenist out there).To some it up it sound like god is more conservative than liberal.:p

Neither.

Simply that if centrism advocates different positions every decade, it can hardly be said to be CONSISTENTLY sane and level-headed - especially since the center's position does not change because of new evidence or arguments, but because the political spectrum does.

Centrists today look negatively upon the centrists of the past who insisted that blacks needed to be kept down and women denied equal rights. And fifty years after the Revolution, centrists might look at all the past supporters of capitalism and statism as similarly crazy.

I guess I just don't like classifying one's self into a political party and sticking firmly to 'the party's beliefs' instead of sticking to your own beliefs (which can change due to new info.)

Anyone that is unwilling to change is an idiot. Being willing to change makes you level-headed.

If they only change based on the political spectrum - that would make them all not level-headed, based on your idea, because they all change.

I would consider my self as a right-wing authoritarian.Only because im christian and this is how god would rule if he was a ruler.

The funny thing is that others have argued that God would be an anarcho-communist, based on the same religion and the same holy text.

If they only change based on the political spectrum

Not centrists. The center.

A person who consistently holds by positions considered centrist TODAY might be considered an extremist decades from now and might have been considered an extremist decades before now.

So they can hardly claim that their positions are sane and level-headed BECAUSE they are centrist.

Not centrists. The center.

A person who consistently holds by positions considered centrist TODAY might be considered an extremist decades from now and might have been considered an extremist decades before now.

So they can hardly claim that their positions are sane and level-headed BECAUSE they are centrist.

OK, makes sense to me. ;)

As long as they have their own opinion, they are level-headed. usually.

[QUOTE=Soheran;12475892]The funny thing is that others have argued that God would be an anarcho-communist, based on the same religion and the same holy text.

Why would god be anarcho-communist?

anarchy.

Anarchy is a chaotic society without goverment or law that dont sound like god to me.

communist.

A theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state. Now this might sound like gods ruling type but communist goverments have big flaws so it wouldnt stand.

anarchy.

Anarchy is a chaotic society without goverment or law that dont sound like god to me.

Anarchy is order. Society freed from the arbitrary oppression of capitalism and the state, and as such capable of organizing itself in ways consistent with freedom and dignity.

But nevermind that. Christian anarchists generally emphasize the contrast between the implicit violence upon which the power of the state is based and the non-violence teaching of Jesus. They may also get it from an advocacy of social justice they base on Christian moral teachings.

communist goverments have big flaws

Christian communists (not just Christians who are communists, but Christians who found their communism in Christianity) tend not only to agree with the general leftist argument that most "communist governments" were in fact nothing of the sort, but also sometimes maintain that one reason for the corruption and degradation of the so-called "communist" regimes was their secular foundation.

Regardless, you can hardly claim that there is not a good deal of support for the communist position in the Gospels (and for a variety of welfare measures in the Mosaic law.)

conservatism.

the disposition to preserve or restore what is established and traditional and to limit change.

authoritarian.

favoring complete obedience or subjection to authority as opposed to individual freedom: authoritarian principles; authoritarian attitudes

god didnt say free land of no order (anarchy)

I can see communist no matter how much a hate admiting this being the kingdom of heaven.

but not anarchy go has a "kingdom" not "anarchy"

Regardless, you can hardly claim that there is not a good deal of support for the communist position in the Gospels (and for a variety of welfare measures in the Mosaic law.)

sometimes i think it might be fun to go deep cover and become a minister at one of those lunatic right wing megachurches, and then freak everyone out by reading other passages from the bible, rather than just the ones that happen to fit their bigotries.

sometimes i think it might be fun to go deep cover and become a minister at one of those lunatic right wing megachurches, and then freak everyone out by reading other passages from the bible, rather than just the ones that happen to fit their bigotries.

Come on - everyone knows that Christianity must not be perverted with Christianity. ;)

You damn spot on about conservatism. It's nothing but an ignorant hatred of change. Too bad the British Tories continued to alienate "middle Britain" who are their supposed core constituency, with their anti-education reform bias in the 1997, 2001 and 2005 elections.

I used to be a conservative, but like you, I just got damn fed up with their inability to come up with anything better than a crude opposition to any changes that the current incumbent centre-left party was implementing.

It goes to show how you can still be pro-life, pro-death penalty and pro-gun without actually being a conservative. Conservatism is a dogma that goes much deeper in a philosophy based on nostalgia and neophobia than simply holding positions on current moral and economic issues.

If I was in the US I would probably have supported a right-wing morally conservative democrat like Al Gore.

ok look here all you democrat and liberals.conservatives dont support education cause if the kids dont get it done then it's a waste of cash,witch brings us to another point if we didnt get rid of spanking the kids would be more obedient causing them to sit down and do what there told.welfare ya it's nice to an exstent if your house burns down or you get laid off you should get some help but there should also be a dead line for it so you do get some lazy fool in there.we dont spend money on rehab cause it dont work how many crimanal have stop and how many have done it again i would say 10% stopped but i would probly be wrong those kinds of people dont stop or won't easily we need to end the problem right there exicution.You people complain about the war lasting longer that ww2 guess what if you compare somthing dont make it look good ww2 death rate
(72 million people dead both allied and axis)was much higher than the iraq war and cost a hell of alot less. There have been 3,500 coalition deaths -- 3,242 Americans, two Australians, 134 Britons, 13 Bulgarians, six Danes, two Dutch, two Estonians, one Fijian, one Hungarian, 32 Italians, one Kazakh, three Latvian, 19 Poles, two Romanians, five Salvadoran, four Slovaks, 11 Spaniards, two Thai and 18 Ukrainians -- in the war in Iraq as of March 27, 2007.50,000 Terrorist Casualties in Iraq (captured or killed).This is the firgure for cost in iraq $411,930,287,442.this is ww2 $288,000,000,000 (money was worth more back then).in 2006 dollar was worth around 60 cents.

now add that up and compare:D

god didnt say free land of no order (anarchy)

(How the hell did I miss this?)

No, but He did say:

38"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.'[g] 39But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

Which makes it rather difficult for the state to maintain its exclusive arbitrary rule and "order." And also calls into question private property.

i dont know how to convert that in to normal every day sentence but what i heard in there was law and order they get what is coming to them.eye for eye tooth for tooth.sueing requires a judge witch requires a system witch requires law.:D

I... quite honestly haven't a clue what I am. I know I oppose the general stance of the conservatives, but I also hate liberals. I disagree with communism but also want to get rid of capitalism, hate democracy, autocracy, anarchy, and pretty much every other system I can think of.


I guess that makes me a whiny bastard. :D

I guess you would be a wierd moderate?

i dont know how to convert that in to normal every day sentence but what i heard in there was law and order they get what is coming to them.eye for eye tooth for tooth.

That's the old way. Jesus wishes to bring in a new one.

Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.

Are you seriously unfamiliar with this passage? It's part of the Sermon on the Mount, and I question the sincerity of your Christianity if you don't know what it's talking about.

sueing requires a judge witch requires a system witch requires law.:D

Come on. You can do better than that. :rolleyes:

Come on - everyone knows that Christianity must not be perverted with Christianity. ;)

ah yes, i'd forgotten.

what i've always liked is how stuck on weird interpretations of a very few select passages so many christian sects seem to get.

I know alot of passages i just have trouble converting them in to modern day english.:headbang:

I know alot of passages i just have trouble converting them in to modern day english.:headbang:

The version I just quoted is in modern-day English.

I know it is wrighten but how it is said is hard to convert.

While I detest the religious fundamentalists who have taken over the Republican party, I detest the Democrats even more and as a result I'm a registered Republican.

I guess that makes me a whiny bastard. :D
Pretty much. I cannot think of a system you'd support, because you've ruled out nearly every element that exists in such systems.

Conservative States, how old are you by the way?

(How the hell did I miss this?)

No, but He did say:
There was this program on the History Channel about varying interpretations of the "Turn the other cheek" statement, to the effect that it can even mean demanding the person striking you to treat you as an equal, and not as a lesser. The quote you've supplied though doesn't seem to leave room for any such intepretation. :confused:

There was this program on the History Channel about varying interpretations of the "Turn the other cheek" statement, to the effect that it can even mean demanding the person striking you to treat you as an equal, and not as a lesser.

In context, none of those make sense - or if they do, they merely emphasize the dignity of non-violence, rather than justify violence.

The words of Jesus are clear and unambiguous. I don't see much room for wiggle-room here.

No, centrists are actually the most sane and level-headed individuals. They seldom see things in black and white like rightists and leftists do, are the most pragmatic and realistic, are usually able to think for themselves more than people of other ideologies, are able to criticize the bad and recognize the good in both leftism and rightism, and are willing to concede defeat and amend their ideas if they're proven wrong, rather than insanely and blindly following an ideology.

I'm talking about how the phrase "centrist" is being used in American politics. People who describe themselves as centrist use it to shield themselves from having to take a stand on any issues. You don't find too many real centrists in America.

I get my political beliefs from historical fact, the U.S. Constitution, and common goddamn fucking sense. As a result, I'm what you might call a "Neolibertarian" or "South Park Republican" - that is, mostly libertarian on domestic issues and Neoconservative on foreign policy issues.

"And Kim Jong-il... is an asshole."

I get my political beliefs from...common goddamn fucking sense. As a result, I'm...Neoconservative on foreign policy issues.

nice

And common sense is clubbed over the head like the baby seal that it is.

There was this program on the History Channel about varying interpretations of the "Turn the other cheek" statement, to the effect that it can even mean demanding the person striking you to treat you as an equal, and not as a lesser. The quote you've supplied though doesn't seem to leave room for any such intepretation. :confused:

there is sort of a longstanding cottage industry of trying to make the radical shit jesus and the apostles say in the new testament somehow more palatable to both rich people and militarists. it's never made the slightest sense to me.

there is sort of a longstanding cottage industry of trying to make the radical shit jesus and the apostles say in the new testament somehow more palatable to both rich people and militarists. it's never made the slightest sense to me.
Meh, if they can deal with the hypocrisy of being both Christian and contorting its core principles, then so be it. Kind of like that Ted Haggard guy, although he is Christian in name only. I find it stupid.

In context, none of those make sense - or if they do, they merely emphasize the dignity of non-violence, rather than justify violence.

The words of Jesus are clear and unambiguous. I don't see much room for wiggle-room here.
After reading the quote I must agree with you - I am not sure how such an interpretation can stand.

I'm a socialist type, I get my policies from logic and I also liked the play "An inspector calls" by J.B priestly, essentially a socialist work.

However I've got a bone to pick with conservative states on his speech.

"conservatives dont support education cause if the kids dont get it done then it's a waste of cash,witch brings us to another point if we didnt get rid of spanking the kids would be more obedient causing them to sit down and do what there told."

The first bit is slightly incomprehensible, but the statement about spanking has an obvious flaw. Surely teaching children at an early age that violence is an easy solution when someone doesn't do what they want will not help society as a whole. Hitting children as a general rule does not work, makes them worse behaved in the long run. That's a general rule, as in a few cases it can be beneficial, but not usually.

"welfare ya it's nice to an exstent if your house burns down or you get laid off you should get some help but there should also be a dead line for it so you do get some lazy fool in there.we dont spend money on rehab cause it dont work how many crimanal have stop and how many have done it again i would say 10% stopped but i would probly be wrong those kinds of people dont stop or won't easily we need to end the problem right there exicution.

The first section is correct here, welfare payment is a very good thing for people in dire need of help, and the disabled who cannot support themselves. Welfare benefit cheats are being chased up by the police all the time in the UK for people who claim incapacity, or disability and are perfectly well.
Rehabilitation is currently in my opinion not working. We need to drastically improve the methods of rehab, rather than closing it down. Executing common criminals is a REALLY bad idea. I'm personally against the death penalty, but if it were enforced in the UK, I would definately like to see that only serial killers and perhaps violent rapists were killed. Your average robber will probably not become a serial killer or serial rapist. It's not the kind of transition they make.

"You people complain about the war lasting longer that ww2 guess what if you compare somthing dont make it look good ww2 death rate
(72 million people dead both allied and axis)was much higher than the iraq war and cost a hell of alot less. There have been 3,500 coalition deaths -- 3,242 Americans, two Australians, 134 Britons, 13 Bulgarians, six Danes, two Dutch, two Estonians, one Fijian, one Hungarian, 32 Italians, one Kazakh, three Latvian, 19 Poles, two Romanians, five Salvad
oran, four Slovaks, 11 Spaniards, two Thai and 18 Ukrainians -- in the war in Iraq as of March 27, 2007.50,000 Terrorist Casualties in Iraq (captured or killed).This is the firgure for cost in iraq $411,930,287,442.this is ww2 $288,000,000,000 (money was worth more back then).in 2006 dollar was worth around 60 cents."

I really have to dispute this section. The Iraq war is certainly nothing compared to WW2 you are correct but this is not the nature of my complaint about the war. In my opinion the war was a really stupid idea, as I have thought from the start. Saddam Hussien certainly did not have any WMD and even more so would not intend to use any. What's more Saddam was very
much a secularist dictator, he disliked the sharia (islamic religious law) and Al-Quida forces on many occasions attempted to kill him. He certainly was not a pleasent ruler and performed many heinous crimes. It would be foolish to think.

Islamic extremist influence (the perpetrators of 9/11) has increased in Iraq since the end of Saddam's regime, due to a possible power vacuum and sectarianism. The so-called "terrorists" you quote being killed is in fact a much lower figure. The Iraqi army had a fatality level of up to 10,800 deaths, these could not be called terrorists by any sense of the word.
The insurgent death level is over 7942 deaths, most of which could legitimately be called terrorists. What has been alarming is the massive rate of civillian casualties in Iraq, due to the criminal and religious gangs now in full operation in Iraqi cities.

Sorry about the massive speech, it just narked me.

age doesnt matter(im 15)if you know your facts and shit then it dont matter.

dont start on my age or ill start doing this:upyours: and this:eek: :sniper:

ive gotten spankens yes and they hurt but it tought me to act better but ever sence they have stopped ive gone in a spiral down i ahev nothing to push me to act good.
and i didnt mean kill common thugs i meant people like rapist and murderers.
you can't say saddam hussien didnt own wmd russian could have hid them or anything and plus they have that urainum thing over in iran why could saddam hide them there or get them from there it would be really easy.

Where do I get it? Common fucking sense.
Ever hear of it?

age doesnt matter(im 15)if you know your facts and shit then it dont matter.
Physical age does not. Mental age certainly does.

dont start on my age or ill start doing this:upyours: and this:eek: :sniper:
Is that an invitation to fuck? :) Heaven knows what you must be insinuating with that sniper shooting down an open-mouthed smily. ;)

yah heaven must be:eek: :sniper:

And also the least likely to ever effect any changes to the world. So they leave me indifferent.

Actually, as they make up the voters most likely to change their opinion come election time, they are the most likely to make changes to the world. When election time comes, preach to the choir all you want, it's those undecided moderates who make the final call.

Actually, as they make up the voters most likely to change their opinion come election time, they are the most likely to make changes to the world. When election time comes, preach to the choir all you want, it's those undecided moderates who make the final call.
I was referring to the ideologues, not the voters.

I was referring to the ideologues, not the voters.

Ah. Centrism as an ideology is kinda silly. I agree.

(Even if I do end up as a centrist once all the cards are played.)