NationStates Jolt Archive

Hello ns, sorry I know there's one of these out already but it's a bit of a joke to be honest, so what is your political belief and can you justify it? That could be the interesting part!
By the way, I hate the way any belief above the liberal option on the poll seems to be frowned upon in public in the US of A (not on ns). Any thoughts? I might be wrong here

I don't have political beliefs, but I have cat pics. Do I have to justify them? Cos if you have to explain it it's usually not funny.

I believe all politicians are looking out for themselves first and foremost.

I believe there's nothing more dangerous than a man seeking to leave a "legacy".

So what, in your opinion, is the difference between leftish and liberal?

Political Categories: Insane; Evil; Drunk; Mean Spirited; Scoffing; Caffeine-dependent; Hallucinatory; Feverish; Scary
Party Association: Not any party you'd join, so why ask?
Social Issues: The more people I permit to send off to hell, the better, so, very liberal
Economic Issues: Whatever system keeps the beer and coffee flowing works for me
Why: Whateva! Whateva! I do what I want!

It depends where you live I suppose, but I mean liberal as in sort of neutral and centrist and leftish as social democrat, greens, old British Labour and hippies

Uh...Socialist.

Hello ns, sorry I know there's one of these out already but it's a bit of a joke to be honest, so what is your political belief and can you justify it? That could be the interesting part!
By the way, I hate the way any belief above the liberal option on the poll seems to be frowned upon in the US of A. Any thoughts? I might be wrong here

Well, I'm a communist-anarchist because I believe that real freedom can only exist with real equality. I believe that societies goals should be humanistic rather than materialistic. I want to work for a world where people are not wrapped up in the selfish pursuit of material wealth. I think that the only just way to distribute goods is to do so solely on the basis of need, and accordingly, society should strive to ensure that not only does everyone have all of their material needs met, but also the needs to ensure comfort, happiness and pleasure. I think that direct democracy, and decentralized planning can acheive these goals and can help us ensure that this planet remains livable for humans as well as other life for the foreseeable future.

Poll fails, wheres the other option. My political belief is not one of those.

Poll fails, wheres the other option. My political belief is not one of those.

Ok, :( sorry what is your belief then?

I am american. I believe in the constitution and the bill of rights. I base my political beliefs around them. And no, that's not Libretarian.

Ok, :( sorry what is your belief then?


I believe in true Sharia law.

I believe in true Sharia law.

If that involves beheading, stoning and honor killings, I'm outta here.

Hm...more a code of justice I would of thought but then I don't pretend to be an expert on Islam

As the person who started this thread, I am a Socialist because I believe that wealth is worthless if not everyone may share in it. There is no excuse for African presidents living in palaces and driving big cars while their people die in poverty. Come to think about it, there's no excuse for the international imbalance either.

I'm not a Communist because I do not believe that radical changes for the better have to be brought about by revolution and violence against the current system.

I'm not in one box... I have views on issues I'm interested in (sometimes lefty, sometimes righty, sometimes green, sometimes libertarian and very occasionally authoritarian), and I'm apathetic towards everything else.

It seems a bit silly to just follow one party's ideals (such that they are) no matter what, to be honest. Just vote for the one that you dislike the least...

Socialist, with various bits and bobs here and there.

libertarian - because authoritarian hierarchies and capitalism are harmful and unjust under any plausible conception of justice and are in direct conflict with our evolved psychological needs.

State Socialist.

What, you want a reason?

Liberatarian.

Saying "neo con" equates to "uber capitalist" displays ignorance of the neoconservatives, or capitalism.

Neocons oppose immigration. Capitalists welcome it because it introduces new labor and incourages trade.

Neocons favor war. Capitalists dislike it because it ruins the economy and wastes capital.

Neocons favor big government spending. Capitalists dislike it because high taxation and big government prohibit business.

Neocons favor trade embargos for political reasons (i.e Cuba). Capitalists don't because free trade means more trade, thus more capital.

Neocons are actually more like national socialists.

Fascist in regard to my sensibelities regarding democracy, imigration and nationalism, economically conservative, and socially liberal.

I believe in true Sharia law.

And this is why I start wondering when Soviestan starts threads about what's the best assault rifle.

Unfortunately, each of those has multiple meanings.

I'm Neolibertarian - mostly libertarian on domestic issues, but Neoconservative on foreign policy.

"Leftish": Environmentalist, humanitarian, pacifist

libertarian - because authoritarian hierarchies and capitalism are harmful and unjust under any plausible conception of justice and are in direct conflict with our evolved psychological needs.
Wow, someone who knows the correct definition of libertarian!

Saying "neo con" equates to "uber capitalist" displays ignorance of the neoconservatives, or capitalism.

Neocons oppose immigration. Capitalists welcome it because it introduces new labor and encourages trade.

Neocons favor war. Capitalists dislike it because it ruins the economy and wastes capital.

Neocons favor big government spending. Capitalists dislike it because high taxation and big government prohibit business.

Neocons favor trade embargos for political reasons (i.e Cuba). Capitalists don't because free trade means more trade, thus more capital.

Neocons are actually more like national socialists.
"no true capitalist" anyway!

I am a Capitalist for Economy, Conservative for Social issues, and neocon for Foreign Policy. Some people say I am a Fascist.

Fascists aren't capitalistic.

I am somewhere between conservative and libertarian. I suppose libertarian is a better fit, however, I do have some conservative streaks.

libertarian - because authoritarian hierarchies and capitalism are harmful and unjust under any plausible conception of justice and are in direct conflict with our evolved psychological needs.Ditto.

BTW, why bother with all the 'taking back our bollocks'? It's only Americans and a few Americafied Brits that don't know what a libertarian is, and hey.. Those twits don't even know what a liberal is. Or a conservative, for that matter.

Liberal socialist. How can I choose both? This poll is made of fail.

I don't like adhering to any specific ideology (look at sig); take each issue on its own merits. With that being said... Leftish.

Soviestan: you're joking right?

Fascism is the belief that the human race needs to be cleansed by a subsect of it that they believe to be superior. Not so much of a political leaning as racist tendencies.

For myself.....I'm not sure where exactly I'd fall on the political spectrum. There's a lot of factors to be considered.

For social equality issues (welfare, health care, etc), I lean towards socialism. For economic purposes, the government needs to stay out of big business a bit more often than not, so conservative, I guess. Environmentally, great strides need to be taken, and soon. I'm not sure which part would properly represent that.

Hot button issues:

Gay Rights/Marriage: Cool with me. Spread the misery :P

Abortion: I leave it to the woman to choose. Perhaps some oversight to ensure it isn't being used as post facto contraception and to offer support or couselling where it's requested.

Capital Punishment: For. Not overly concerned with the cruel and unusual punishment arguments against it. Enforce strict guidelines and criteria to be met for it to be on the table, though.

Big Brother aka-privacy concerns: I remember being a kid and being happy that my big brother was watching out for me, making sure I was safe and staying out of trouble and danger.

War: Entered into as a last resort, but when time comes to go to war, there should never be half measures. If that nation has offended you so badly that you are willing to lay waste to its countryside, carpet bomb them back to the 14th century. There's nothing to be gained by taking it easy on your enemy in war.

Religion: No place in politics. There's a reason that the church and the state were separated way back when. All politics needs is a basic "an it harm none, do what ye will". That should suffice.

I'm sure there's some other points that should be covered, but I can't really think of them at the moment.

I am a Capitalist for Economy, Conservative for Social issues, and neocon for Foreign Policy. Some people say I am a Fascist.
No, it just makes you a walking stereotype.

Fascists aren't capitalistic.

Yes, they are (is capitalistic even a word?). All fascist countries have been capitalist.

Liberal socialist. How can I choose both? This poll is made of fail.
They're contradictory terms, how can you be both? Socialists want a socialist economy; liberals want a market economy.

No, it just makes you a walking stereotype.Aka Rightwing Authoritarian. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_authoritarianism) Yes, they are (is capitalistic even a word?). All fascist countries have been capitalist.No they aren't. Fascism is a rigid authoritarian class society, where the state and the economic elite are one and the same. It's got fuck-all to do with capitalism.They're contradictory terms, how can you be both? Socialists want a socialist economy; liberals want a market economy.I'm gonna have to agree with that though. Socialists want at least some state control of the economy. Liberals want the opposite.

BTW, why bother with all the 'taking back our bollocks'? It's only Americans and a few Americafied Brits that don't know what a libertarian is, and hey.. Those twits don't even know what a liberal is. Or a conservative, for that matter.

basically i have an unhealthy love of conceptual clarity. that and merkan political discourse is bad enough without them fucking it up even more.

I don't really fall under any of those titles. I think the government should function to ensure competition in the economy, manage the money supply, try to discourage irrational or harmful usage of resources, provide services that it can clearly provide more efficiently than the market, and protect the country's resources. For example, Americans like to have big grassy yards and space their houses far apart, as a result there is alot of energy put into maintaining the grass and the houses are far apart. I would restructure property taxes to discourage land waste in cities. All of that distance between houses adds up and makes Americans drive farther and more often than people in other parts of the world. Another example would be grocery bags. There is no real reason people can't bring their own bags to put groceries in and it would save grocery stores alot of money and prevent alot of waste from being generated. Government regulation could step in and eliminate this unnecessary use of resources. Economic decisions aren't always rational and I don't want to force everyone to make rational decisions, but in cases where the impact on an individual's life is small, but the benefit to society as a whole is significant the government should step in on behalf of the whole of society.

I don't really fall under any of those titles. I think the government should function to ensure competition in the economy, manage the money supply, try to discourage irrational or harmful usage of resources, provide services that it can clearly provide more efficiently than the market, and protect the country's resources. For example, Americans like to have big grassy yards and space their houses far apart, as a result there is alot of energy put into maintaining the grass and the houses are far apart. I would restructure property taxes to discourage land waste in cities. All of that distance between houses adds up and makes Americans drive farther and more often than people in other parts of the world. Another example would be grocery bags. There is no real reason people can't bring their own bags to put groceries in and it would save grocery stores alot of money and prevent alot of waste from being generated. Government regulation could step in and eliminate this unnecessary use of resources. Economic decisions aren't always rational and I don't want to force everyone to make rational decisions, but in cases where the impact on an individual's life is small, but the benefit to society as a whole is significant the government should step in on behalf of the whole of society.

basically i have an unhealthy love of conceptual clarity.I really can't be arsed, though it's occationally fun to engage the merkans in debate without twisting the terms. Makes 'em all confused. that and merkan political discourse is bad enough without them fucking it up even more.One might say this particular problem's a very damn minor one under those circumstances :p

I really can't be arsed, though it's occationally fun to engage the merkans in debate without twisting the terms. Makes 'em all confused.

hell, they barely understand their own uses of the terms. perhaps because they aren't used as ideological markers at all, but as mascots for opposing sports teams

One might say this particular problem's a very damn minor one under those circumstances :p

minor, yeah. but less hopeless because of it

Neocons are not "uber capitalists." They are statist corporatist bastards.

Yeah, what's the difference between leftish and liberal?

Socially liberal, moderate capitalist.

Yes, they are (is capitalistic even a word?). All fascist countries have been capitalist.

No, they haven't. Read The Vampire Economy: Doing Business under Fascism by Günter Reimann (available in its entirety here (http://www.mises.org/books/vampireeconomy.pdf)).

I'm a Libertarian leaning Centrist because that's what the political quiz said I was.

In answer to the poll question, my politics depend on my mood. At various times, I can be borderline anarcho-capitalist, hard-core dead-center right-in-the-middle centrist, or pro benevolent dictatorship. About half the time, though, I'm apathetically apolitical. :p

Classical Liberal.

You didn't post a joke reply :( No vote for you!
I'm a rational anarchist, the gist of which you can get from Heinlein's Moon is a Harsh Mistress. Why? NYB ;)

Hello ns, sorry I know there's one of these out already but it's a bit of a joke to be honest, so what is your political belief and can you justify it? That could be the interesting part!
By the way, I hate the way any belief above the liberal option on the poll seems to be frowned upon in public in the US of A (not on ns). Any thoughts? I might be wrong here

I said leftish, but that's relative to American politics.

I'd say it's because all the other positions are bullshit because they are driven by ideology instead of reality.

I don't believe in universal health care because it's the government's or because the pharmeceutical industry is robbing us, or because of any other abstract principle based on a philosophy. I believe in it for the very practical reason of it being necessary.

The I don't believe in environmentalism because it's God's Earth and we are it's caretakers, or because the beauty of the natural world is a treasure. I believe in it because if history has shown that environmental neglect leads to disaster.

I don't believe that George W. Bush is a bad president because he's a right-wing wacko, in the pocket of the oil company, or suffering from an Oedipus complex so huge that he's likely to end his term in office by poking his eyes out. I believe his a terrible president because everything he's tried to do has been a total disaster, and accomplishment he campaigned on turned out not to be true.

I suppose I'd have to say my actual political ideology is pragmatism.

I voted leftish, but my political views would probably be considered as extreme left-wing in USA. It's also impossible for me to say what I actually am because my views tend to differ in different questions. Basically I tend to debate every issue on it's merits.

Austroanarchocapitalist, right-libertarian, hardcore propertarian, whatever. I go by all those.

Saying "neo con" equates to "uber capitalist" displays ignorance of the neoconservatives, or capitalism.

Neocons oppose immigration. Capitalists welcome it because it introduces new labor and incourages trade.

Neocons favor war. Capitalists dislike it because it ruins the economy and wastes capital.

Neocons favor big government spending. Capitalists dislike it because high taxation and big government prohibit business.

Neocons favor trade embargos for political reasons (i.e Cuba). Capitalists don't because free trade means more trade, thus more capital.

Neocons are actually more like national socialists.
Right on. This poll is flawed from the outset by trying to equate capitalists with neocons. In fact, I think most neocons hate us more than anything else.

Aka Rightwing Authoritarian. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_authoritarianism) No they aren't. Fascism is a rigid authoritarian class society, where the state and the economic elite are one and the same. It's got fuck-all to do with capitalism.
Again, correct. At best, fascism is a form of Keynesian "capitalism".

Soviestan: you're joking right?

No, he isn't. It's why I start wondering to myself when he starts threads asking what the best assault rifle is.

none of the above. Broadly speaking I'm a mixture of a statist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statism), an autocrat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autocracy), a legalist (in the classical Chinese (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalism_%28Chinese_philosophy%29) sense), a radical traditionalist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_Traditionalism), and a radical environmentalist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_environmentalism).

Communist
Highly idealistic with a ridiculous economic system. Not for me. I find it amusing that the author of this poll can apparently (please no!) not like Fascism but won't make any similar comments for Communism. Bah.

Socialist
Mmm, the system where everyone can be equally poor. No thanks.

Leftish
Liberal
Left-ish? I'm personally not a big fan of the left. Most liberals I know don't really know what they are talking about, and it's not like I don't try to figure it out. A lot of ideas I hear about issues they push forward seem doubly ridiculous and unjustified. Very annoying at times and frustrating, from what I see.

You should of had Conservative, Moderate, and Liberal. None of this "Leftish" AND "Liberal" whatnot.

Libertarian
I know and am friends with several libertarians. Beyond that, I haven't formed much of an opinion. From what I know, I agree with a lot of things they tell me about.

Conservative
As a Christian, Capitalist, and Nationalist, this is my preference. I support Capitalism, but not to the degree of doing absolutely anything for a profit.

Neocon
A bit over the top, a bit annoying.

Fascist
Right in league with Communism. Both of those idealogies need to be snuffed out.

I'm for whoever opposes conservatives.

Traditional values have no place in the world. I hardly think many conservatives would want to live in the paradise of the conservatives 100 years ago as change (usually) brings in things that the next generation take for granted and would hate to lose.

The metric system in Briton was heavily opposed when it was brought in, but now the less complex system has gained popularity and makes the concepts of distance and weight much easier to educate and more precise.

The large amount of religious influence too drives me away, religion needs to be removed from the government, and I'm hardly for most of their policies.

No, they haven't. Read The Vampire Economy: Doing Business under Fascism by Günter Reimann (available in its entirety here (http://www.mises.org/books/vampireeconomy.pdf)).
If they allowed private business at large and small scales surely they were capitalist?

As a Christian, Capitalist, and Nationalist, this is my preference. I support Capitalism, but not to the degree of doing absolutely anything for a profit.
I'm a Christian too and I voted leftish because that comes closest to supporting humanitarian economics (without being a ideological socialist/communist disaster), peace, and a consistent pro-life ethic. While that doesn't mean you must do the same, I do not see how conservative is the natural choice for Christians.

I also don't see why being nationalist is a good thing.

If they allowed private business at large and small scales surely they were capitalist?
As I said, Keynesian "capitalist". It is a mixture of capitalist and socialist economics.

I'm a social liberal: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_liberal

Not a classical liberal, not a social democrat, not a bloody socialist.

I value private property and social liberty, hate on Castro, support secularism, support Israel, and despise the religious right.

It is a mixture of capitalist and socialist economics.

Keynesianism is not a "mixture." It is capitalism with a high degree of state intervention - intervention that need not serve redistributive ends.

The core of my political beliefs is that one day people will not need the government, and that our efforts should move towards this.

Other than that, I'm pretty much evenly between left and right.

Libertarian transhumanist and techno-progressive capitalist.

I believe in the tenets of transhumanism, namely the freedom of people to determine how and through what methods they alter themselves as well as the freedom not to do so. I also believe in the government's responsibility to protect people's right to genetic non-discrimination as well as close the digital divide as a means of narrowing income inequality and the artificial barriers to employment created by that divide. We are entering an age where total freedom to determine our lives and our sense of self will be possible, and it is up to us to protect that freedom from those willing to use it for repressive end.

Technology should be used for bettering the human condition and providing us the freedom to determine our own definition of what our humanity is (obviously Nazi-like dehumanization and other atrocious ideas aren't part of this freedom).

I'm a feminist secularist internationalist revolutionary libertarian anti-productivist anarchist communist.

I hate class systems, and I want to wipe them off the face of the Earth forever. There is no plausible justification for them, when the powerful, by definition, can manipulate any attempt at "regulating" them or subjecting them to some form of discipline. With class comes hierarchy, and with hierarchy comes a basic loss of personal autonomy that is unjustifiable. I fail to see how capitalism differs from any other class system in these respects, and thus I support its eradication.

I think that attempts at achieving efficiency and productivity tend to lead to systems that may be good at producing stuff, but are thoroughly awful at permitting lifestyles characterized by internal goods and genuine freedom.

I think economic relations between human beings - "I work with you because I profit materially from it" - tend to have a negative effect on societies, both in terms of weakening genuinely human and compassionate relations, and in terms of making people dependent on material goods they can only gain from others, and thus becoming unfree.

Socially I am a hard-core leftist and libertarian - pro-affirmative action, pro-reparations, pro-gay rights, fiercely anti-sexist, staunchly opposed to gender roles, and generally negatively disposed towards organized religion and traditional marriage.

I see, rationally, very little hope of my political ideology ever being implemented. My faith in the Revolution is purely religious in character, though not in origin, and should not be taken seriously as a rationally-founded prediction.

I'm still pondering my political beliefs. I have some leftist leanings in that I believe in secular government, I'm generally pro-union, and I think the state does have an obligation to the welfare of it's citizens. However, I'm a firm believer in free-trade and the capitalist economic system, although I tend to dislike corporations, as I think they stifle competition. I also respect traditional values and religious faith, I've taken a swing to the conservative side lately. I staunchly believe in democracy, but lately I've begun to favor technocracy more and more.

I see, rationally, very little hope of my political ideology ever being implemented. My faith in the Revolution is purely religious in character, though not in origin, and should not be taken seriously as a rationally-founded prediction.

gotta be careful with that though - it's been known to transition over to the "hoping for the collapse" camp

Libertarian

gotta be careful with that though - it's been known to transition over to the "hoping for the collapse" camp

I don't think primitivism is the only solution, or the best one, and I like people too much to hope for anything that will result in a mass die-off.

I'm more worried about transitioning over to the "Humanity is doomed, so what's the point anyway?" camp.

Soft-propertarian individual anarchist.

Soft-propertarian

What does this mean?

My beliefs are similar to Soheran's, though I favor democratic implementation of communism. I don't believe that a revolution would be necessary in democracies, even the semi-functioning ones that exist today.

I didn't vote on this poll. No form of government or governmental ideology is the best. The most ideal government varies from nation of people to nation of people based on their respective culture and values.

I didn't vote for any of the above (since I am an independent thinker), but I hate Fascism the least of all the above....so if I had to choose, I'd roll with that.

I'm a feminist secularist internationalist revolutionary libertarian anti-productivist anarchist communist.

*tries saying that ten times fast, gets tongue twisted into a knot*

:p

I didn't vote for any of the above (since I am an independent thinker), but I hate Fascism the least of all the above....so if I had to choose, I'd roll with that.

That's almost as funny as the jar of peanut butter disproving evolution.

"I'm an independent thinker so I vote for fascism, which forbids independent thought."

It would make more sense to say "I'm a firm believer in the power of the free market, so I pick communism." At least that way you can earn a good living as a smuggler and black marketeer.

Machiavellian :)

To be honest I think everyone is something of all, if that makes sense

Secular humanist, and I've been heavily influenced by Canada's socialist social fabric.

I specifically hate anarchy more than any other 'political system'; in what other system could I kill the entire family of the proponent and get away without consequences, should I actually choose to try and evade them? Forgive me, but I honestly believe that anarchism is what people choose to support before they actually realize how impossible it actually is on a global scale.

My personal beliefs probably correspond best to ecofeminist anarchism, but it's not really practicable in today's world, so I simply support measures to promote social liberty and equality.

Socially, I'm definitely leftist.

Economically I'm not so sure. Flexicurity, A mix of capitalism and socialism, maybe throw in microcredit in there (never mind microcredit is slightly conflicting).

But I'm anti-imperialism (especially corporate imperialism) and for globalization- if every group gets a say. Education is a top priority for me- although I realize that each area defines education differently.

Hmm, I guess it depends more on the situation and culture for each political system. I'm still exploring different ideas and systems.

What does this mean?

I do not reject collective property.

Neocons are not "uber capitalists." They are statist corporatist bastards.

How dare you stain statism with those tossers...

Who am I kidding? They give other statism groups a bad name.

Don't forget no one is capitalist (and promotes 'freedom') except for them :rolleyes:

I'm a Libertarian leaning Centrist because that's what the political quiz said I was.

It wasn't that stupid libertarian one (the U.S.A libertarian party flavour) was it?

I didn't vote on this poll. No form of government or governmental ideology is the best. The most ideal government varies from nation of people to nation of people based on their respective culture and values.

That is an element of Titoism. Also an element of many other ideologies (as well as an element of international realpolitik).

Yeah, what's the difference between leftish and liberal?
Socially liberal, moderate capitalist.

Is this a liberal or a Liberal?

none of the above. Broadly speaking I'm a mixture of a statist, an autocrat, a legalist (in the (classical chinese sense), a radical traditionalist, and a radical environmentalist[/URL].

Statism, yay. Meh, autocracy. Legalism is all right on some points and not on others. Definately not radical trad. and radical env.

Aka Rightwing Authoritarian. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_authoritarianism) No they aren't. Fascism is a rigid authoritarian class society, where the state and the economic elite are one and the same. It's got fuck-all to do with capitalism.I'm gonna have to agree with that though. Socialists want at least some state control of the economy. Liberals want the opposite.

Well, fascism has heavy state idolation, with the symbol of the state being a single person. It is easier to control a cartel of companies using the state police than it is to control the masses (here idolation and deprivation of information is from which violence can be further applied) so I guess fascist states in the past usually cosied up to the business side to save themselves some trouble. It is easier in the 20th/21st centuries for fascism to set itself up tightly with capatilists (not complete capitalism but enough to call them that).

Not all socialists want further state control of the businesses (such as anarcho-socialists and libertarian socialists). I myself would favour more state control.

I suppose I'd have to say my actual political ideology is pragmatism.

One of the best ways of looking at the other groups. Though usually really hard to only be a pragmatist and ignore any taking other points of view to heart.

I do not reject collective property.
This dichotomy is supposedly one of those things that distinguishes Konkin's agorism from anarcho-capitalism proper (which is often characterised as 'hard propertatian'); except that it is perfectly possible for collectively held property to exist under the latter as well.

This dichotomy is supposedly one of those things that distinguishes Konkin's agorism from anarcho-capitalism proper (which is often characterised as 'hard propertatian'); except that it is perfectly possible for collectively held property to exist under the latter as well.

How would investment practices done by an equity group fit in?

How would investment practices done by an equity group fit in?
Could you be more specific?

Neocons favor war. Capitalists dislike it because it ruins the economy and wastes capital.

Neocons are actually more like national socialists.

"Both war and peace are good for business."
But I agree that neocon = fascist ;)

hmm...well i guess i would call my self a right-wing authoritarian if i was a ruler ide run a constitutional monarchy or a right-wing democracy.

Could you be more specific?

A private equity group collectivelly owns the companies and institutions it buys so I was wondering if that would if that could be considered some kind of collective ownership.

if i was a ruler ide run...a right-wing democracy.

wouldn't that depend more than a little on what people other than you wanted?

I don't believe that a revolution would be necessary in democracies

And I don't see such a fundamental social transformation taking place politely.

In theory, of course, a libertarian communist party can be elected democratically (ignoring for the moment the difficulty reconciling "libertarian" with statist electoral politics), but that would only work if the opposition abided strictly by the norms of electoral democracy - which it wouldn't.

A political decision like that isn't Democrats v. Republicans, and would not play out in anything close to the same manner.

Edit: At the very least, any revolution at the ballot box would have to be accompanied and defended by a revolution in the streets.

This dichotomy is supposedly one of those things that distinguishes Konkin's agorism from anarcho-capitalism proper (which is often characterised as 'hard propertatian'); except that it is perfectly possible for collectively held property to exist under the latter as well.

Well, I tend to believe that a true market anarchy will lead to collective or communal property through a syndicalist movement, and I also oppose fee simple ownership rights. In fact, I believe that all ownership rights will revolve around usage when people are actually forced to "earn" their ownership.

Is this a liberal or a Liberal?
The liberal of the poll, so I assume without the capitalisation.

The Liberal Party contains as much irony as the Democratic People's Republic of North Korea :p

I don't have political beliefs, but I have cat pics. Do I have to justify them? Cos if you have to explain it it's usually not funny.

!
I have a few cat pics that explain themselves!
!
...what it has to do with various political views i have, however, is a curious situation.

A private equity group collectivelly owns the companies and institutions it buys so I was wondering if that would if that could be considered some kind of collective ownership.
As far as I am concerned it is, and it, like any other collectively owned property, will exist under anarcho-capitalism. I am sure some theorists out there do not see it as collectively-owned property and only refer to entities such as worker-controlled factories etc., but this is immaterial to me.

Well, I tend to believe that a true market anarchy will lead to collective or communal property through a syndicalist movement, and I also oppose fee simple ownership rights. In fact, I believe that all ownership rights will revolve around usage when people are actually forced to "earn" their ownership.
I think wider shareholding will overtake the current corporate model on grounds of efficiency under anarcho-capitalism. There is nothing sacrosanct about the current model. This is why I find this distinction odd; many anarcho-capitalists have this expectation, including those such as Friedman. You should elaborate on your views on property sometime, maybe in a TG if you like.

And I don't see such a fundamental social transformation taking place politely.Politely? No, I'd imagine there'd be lots of civil disobedience.

In theory, of course, a libertarian communist party can be elected democratically (ignoring for the moment the difficulty reconciling "libertarian" with statist electoral politics), but that would only work if the opposition abided strictly by the norms of electoral democracy - which it wouldn't.

A political decision like that isn't Democrats v. Republicans, and would not play out in anything close to the same manner.I was thinking more along the lines of a democratic secession.

Edit: At the very least, any revolution at the ballot box would have to be accompanied and defended by a revolution in the streets.It might be necessarily to defend ourselves, yes.

Where's "Other" and the joke option? Tsk tsk.

Uh... None of the above? I'm a social libertarian who is economically moderately to the right. I do not identify with Libertarians, who are generally too far to the right for my tastes, and not socially libertarian enough, and I do not identify with Liberals, who tend to be too far to the economic left for my tastes.

Does that make me a terminal moderate?

Uh... None of the above? I'm a social libertarian who is economically moderately to the right. I do not identify with Libertarians, who are generally too far to the right for my tastes, and not socially libertarian enough, and I do not identify with Liberals, who tend to be too far to the economic left for my tastes.

Does that make me a terminal moderate?

No, it makes you what your nation name is called. ;)

No, it makes you what your nation name is called. ;)Schizo or sensible? :p

Schizo or sensible? :p

Sensible. :p

Not all socialists want further state control of the businesses (such as anarcho-socialists and libertarian socialists). I myself would favour more state control.I'm pretty sure it was understood in the context that I/we were talking about statists. I'm an syndicalist myself, so obviously it's not news to me that some socialists don't want any kind of state control.Sensible.Damn. Schizo KSP would be more fun.

What's a political belief?

I don't know about you people, but I'm anarcho-tribalist. It means I think civilization and technology just leads to the death of the enviroment, and the perfect way to live would be in nature, letting natural selection weed out the weak, stupid, and unadaptable. Humanity would continue to evolve, and the world would be an even more diverse place (naturally, anyway.) However, this would probably lead to the re-establishment of civilization, and human history would repeat itself. Also, I have a hard time reconciling this with religious thought and empathy for my fellow man, so the ideology I adhere to (that doesn't involve the destruction of civilization) is Libertarianism. Because I want to live just how I want to live, and I don't believe the government has the right to stop me, unless I were to infringe another's rights.

I WAS a Communist. But I figured if democracy was more grassroots, it might work. So Ive recently become a member of the Green Party. Although America still would have alot of issues...

I wouldn't go so far to call myself a full on socialist, but I do support a social safety net and socialized health care.

I WAS a Communist. But I figured if democracy was more grassroots, it might work. So Ive recently become a member of the Green Party. Although America still would have alot of issues...

If you were 'a communist'... why are you speaking of 'communism' and 'democracy' as though they were opposed?

Schizo or sensible? :p

Both!

I wouldn't go so far to call myself a full on socialist, but I do support a social safety net and socialized health care.

Social democrat.

Social democrat.Doesn't make him any more of a social democrat than the majority of rightwingers, from the center-righties to the militant fascists, in countries that have national healthcare, social safetynets and Social Democrats.

I'm gonna take a wild guess and say you're both Americans. Am I right or am I right? :p Both!I knew I liked you for a reason. I agree ;)