NationStates Jolt Archive

Alright, so my mind started going into circles again and I thought up this idea, that I know is not original, yet nevertheless wanted to start a discussion of it here on the board. Instead of referring to yourself as leftist, centrist or rightist, you shall do as I do. It's all opinions, by the way.

Now, I believe myself to be an egalitarian. I think everyone should have equal oppurtunity in life. This doesn't mean everyone will end up equal, but everyone should start out on equal footing and certain aspects of life (which I will define as beings needs as opposed to wants) should be equally available to all. Specific examples of this include that I believe that, regardless of the background of students, taxes should finance all levels of education for everyone. I also feel that it is important that everyone has access to healthcare (at least rudimentary) and for that to happen, it needs to be such that it is free (i.e. paid for by society as a whole).

I also like to think of myself as an individualist. Sometimes it may conflict with my other ideas, but generally I think that people should be able to make their own choices, even if this means letting someone else make choices for them. People should have responsibility for their actions. Nevertheless, I see the value in individuals working together to achieve common goals and would encourage this.

Furthermore, having grown up in a country foreign to the one I am supposedly a citizen of and having real life friends from various different countries, I feel that globalisation is a generally good thing. Similarly, I support aspects of the EU that help further an internationalist agenda. This same opinion is also why I have an overall dislike for militaries; They seem to be one cause of strife between peoples and a solution to the same (too circular for my tastes).

Since someone will no doubt bring it up eventually, I regard myself as apathetic towards religion.

Finally, I support a healthy mixture of free market ideals with safeguards. I mentioned I was an egalitarian in social matters and some aspects of this move themselves on to my ideas on economics. I find that a lot about economies is purely based on human ideas. For an example, the only reason I see the US being richer than China or India (despite the two latter both having larger populations), seems to be based off the idea that american goods are worth more than chinese/indian goods. Occasionally true, certainly, due to different standards, production methods, etc... but I really do feel that a very large factor in having a strong economy relies on convincing people that you have a strong economy (being able to back it up is merely a bonus that will keep a stock market crash from happening).

So what about you? What are Your most defining aspects?

Also, how would You define me on a one dimensional political spectrum?

Also, how would You define me on a one dimensional political spectrum?

I would think of you as a democratic socialist, with internationalist tendencies. You're a little more pro-market than most dem-soc's, particularly globally.

So what about you? What are Your most defining aspects?

I am first and foremost, a democrat. (Small 'd', I'm not American.) I'm a firm believer in democracy as a non-violent means of conflict resolution. It engages more people, to the benefit of more people, than any other governmental system tried thus far. That's not to say it's without its flaws - they're there. But it's a work in progress, which needs readjustment to suit the needs of its citizens.

Economically, I am a hampered-market, Keynesian capitalist. I believe in harnessing the power of market forces to drive individuals and society as a whole, but at a pace that benefits the citizens of the state, rather than for the sake of the market itself as some sort of abstract concept. There are plenty of roles that government can play in the economy, and I believe that money spent on creating jobs is better than money spent on Welfare. I am pro-trade, not pro-'free trade'. I highly disagree with opening up our markets to China and out-sourcing our labour there, without being able to sell our products there. I live in 'GM town', and it's slightly galling knowing that we allow ourselves to buy foreign cars from nations that won't buy ours at all. (I guess what I'm saying is, that our current trade agreements are farcical, and even opened up completely, give away our right to control our own economic destiny.)

Socially, I am pro-immigration, pro-multiculturalism, and pro-gay marriage. I believe in utilizing affirmative action in areas where public servants interract with the community. A multi-ethnic community for instance, should have a multi-ethnic police force. It helps to diffuse ethnic tension, while providing visible role-models for people from ethnicities which may be historically disadvantaged. I believe in a complete separation of church and state, and am completely irreligious.

Militarily, I believe that we have to decide precisely what we stand for, what sort of conflicts we are willing to engage in, and then make a commitment to make sure that the men and women we send out into harms way have the funding and equipment they need to do the job we send them out to do. I personally believe that we should only be committed to issues of continental defense, and UN peacekeeping missions... as well as our commitments to defending allied nations from obvious aggression.

While I do believe in working globally to create stablity and peace, and look forward to the benefits of globalization, I remain skeptical. Globalization should be more than just an economic merging. Without substantive reinforcement for breached contracts or unfair trade practices, we are essentially giving up resources and assets to foreign nationals, and making our economic decisions based on their demands, rather than our own.

I'm a Canadian Federalist, but I'm eager about reform. Strict definitions of the boundaries of provincial and federal jurisdictions, pro-Senate reform, abolishing 'first-past-the-post' electoral systems in favour of proportional systems, and creating a national standard for Canadian history and inter-provincial relations. We need to find what we have in common, rather than picking apart the things we dislike about each other.

That's the major points at any rate... that I can think of off the top of my head.

I am pro-trade, not pro-'free trade'. I highly disagree with opening up our markets to China and out-sourcing our labour there, without being able to sell our products there. I live in 'GM town', and it's slightly galling knowing that we allow ourselves to buy foreign cars from nations that won't buy ours at all.
If they're allowed to sell their cars here, but we're not allowed to sell our cars there, that's not free trade.

I support individual freedom. I think democracy is antithetical to individual freedom, as it makes the individual subservient to the majority.

I support the free market because it grants individuals the greatest amount of individual freedom. Any economic system limits the sorts of agreements into which you are permitted to enter is an affront to individual freedom.

I oppose fiat currencies on the grounds that they shouldn't work.

I think religion is a crutch for the weak-minded - people who are unwilling or unable to deal with the presence of uncertainty. I take religiosity as evidence of a general failure of reason.

I think humans should be valued for their cognitive abilities, and any creature found to exhibit similar such abilities should be valued similarly.

If they're allowed to sell their cars here, but we're not allowed to sell our cars there, that's not free trade.

Yeah, I realize I muddled my message there a little and tried to clarify it later. Basically, my point was that our current trade agreements, so-called 'free' or not, should be negotiated with our collective interest at heart, rather than a no-holds barred laissez-faire system, or worse, a trade scheme called 'free', which really isn't.

I'm a free-market, indiviualist, nationalist, capitalist.

I generally support a republic. It keeps away the vast, stupid majority for a smaller, probably at least a little smart, minority.

I support free speech in all of it's glory. No limits, whatsoever.

I support the "if it doesn't harm me, go ahead" idea.

I support the right to bear arms.

That is all.

Yeah, I realize I muddled my message there a little and tried to clarify it later. Basically, my point was that our current trade agreements, so-called 'free' or not, should be negotiated with our collective interest at heart, rather than a no-holds barred laissez-faire system, or worse, a trade scheme called 'free', which really isn't.
Okay.

I think a no-holds-barred laissez-faire system would be in our best interests, but since most countries won't agree to that I'm totally with you.

I am first and foremost, a democrat. (Small 'd', I'm not American.) I'm a firm believer in democracy as a non-violent means of conflict resolution. It engages more people, to the benefit of more people, than any other governmental system tried thus far. That's not to say it's without its flaws - they're there. But it's a work in progress, which needs readjustment to suit the needs of its citizens.

Ahh yes. I wouldn't want to enact any of my opinions into law without a strong public backing, something which inherently becomes democracy.

By any chance, how do you feel about republics / representative democracies? Or is this the style you're speaking of?

economy snip

Are jobs that do not serve any immediate purpose also better than welfare? As in, if I were to say "well, we're going to give you minimum wage for doing this cleaning job" even if there were no cleaning job to be done, would it be better than giving out welfare, such that people can look for jobs? (that is their purpose after all, even if it does get abused).

I perfectly understand not wanting to trade with someone who doesn't want to trade with you.

I am pro-immigration

Me too, though that should be obvious :p

, pro-multiculturalism

I'll have to agree here as well, being an example of at least two, if not more, cultures blended together.

, and pro-gay marriage.

Do you support state sanctions of relationships?

Militarily snip

Sounds like a reasonable position. I don't much like standing armies myself though.

globalisation snip

What exactly makes those natural resources your native resources? If globalisation were really fully realized, then surely, you'd have equal oppurtunity, as anyone else, to access undeveloped and unclaimed natural resources? I understand, of course, the desire to protect nature and such, but that's why the Government claims land and then protects it as green belts and nature reserves, etc...

I support individual freedom. I think democracy is antithetical to individual freedom, as it makes the individual subservient to the majority.

I like to differentiate between political and individual freedoms as being seperate. Of course, they do affect each other once in a while, which is inevitable. I would, at that point, hope that the political freedoms granted to us would in turn lead people to grant us individual freedoms.

I support the free market because it grants individuals the greatest amount of individual freedom. Any economic system limits the sorts of agreements into which you are permitted to enter is an affront to individual freedom.

Do you regard lack of resources as limiting the sort of agreements into which you are permitted to enter?

Most notably, most children are not responsible for their parent's welfare. Hence, if their parents happen to be poor and they want a higher education (but they have to pay for it) - tough luck, they're not getting it. Is that not limiting?

I oppose fiat currencies on the grounds that they shouldn't work.

What are these fiat currencies?

I'm a free-market, indiviualist, nationalist, capitalist.

*twitches at nationalist*

Oh well, we can't all agree. :p

I generally support a republic. It keeps away the vast, stupid majority for a smaller, probably at least a little smart, minority.

You realize, of course, that the stupid majority must vote in this smart minority?

I support free speech in all of it's glory. No limits, whatsoever.

What about libel, slander?

I support the "if it doesn't harm me, go ahead" idea.

Yeah. Me too.

I support the right to bear arms.

Not I, but then, there are fewer arms around here to begin with, so giving the right freely would mean profileration of arms, which would end in the right being necessary.

Ahh yes. I wouldn't want to enact any of my opinions into law without a strong public backing, something which inherently becomes democracy.

By any chance, how do you feel about republics / representative democracies? Or is this the style you're speaking of?

when speaking of 'democracy', I'm usually referring to the modern representative form of democracy. The classic Athenian approach is too unwieldly, (and historically prone to severe problems, as was evident in Athens) although I am a strong proponent of decentralization and local government. I hold the Swiss model in high esteem.

Are jobs that do not serve any immediate purpose also better than welfare? As in, if I were to say "well, we're going to give you minimum wage for doing this cleaning job" even if there were no cleaning job to be done, would it be better than giving out welfare, such that people can look for jobs? (that is their purpose after all, even if it does get abused).

Money re-introduced into the economy is the primary purpose here. I just believe that people going to work every day is a positive influence on society. Generations of people born into a welfare cycle is bad for everyone in the community. So the trick is to create employment in areas which the private sector doesn't seem to be addressing, or in which there is no realizable profit margin for private industry (without direct government funding.)

I'm also a fan of a negative income tax with a flat tax system. Wage supplements, combined with a different 'work rate', vs. a 'welfare rate', could help to bring people off welfare rolls, and into the workforce. Many times, people don't want to look for work, because the private sector won't meet their needs. The government can address this. It is all, however, a fiscal balancing act.

Do you support state sanctions of relationships?

I think the state has no business in our relationships, other to prevent situations which may be abusive, such as child brides. If I decide to marry, what should it matter to the state? Tax purposes? I prefer tax systems that would use the term 'co-habitation' over 'marriage', and simpler tax systems in general.

What exactly makes those natural resources your native resources? If globalisation were really fully realized, then surely, you'd have equal oppurtunity, as anyone else, to access undeveloped and unclaimed natural resources? I understand, of course, the desire to protect nature and such, but that's why the Government claims land and then protects it as green belts and nature reserves, etc...

I'm a statist, and franky, find 'true' globalization to be a pipe dream. The modern incarnation of it is simply a relaxing of financial restrictions to allow large corporations the chance to hire cheap labour, or to buy capital in foreign nations. The problem with this is, that suddenly, resources that should belong to the state, and thus the citizens of the state, are in control of someone outside of the state.

It's an unfortunate reality that large businesses play a role in our governing decisions. A foreign investor has little concern over the issues of the nation, other than their financial investment. Money talks, and we allow foreign interests to manipulate our national concerns when we allow foreign capital to 'hollow out' our corporate leadership.

Do you support state sanctions of relationships?
I certainly don't. I don't see how people's relationships are any of the government's concern.
Do you regard lack of resources as limiting the sort of agreements into which you are permitted to enter?
Yes, but I do not consider such a lack an element of the economic system.
What are these fiat currencies?
Currencies that aren't supported by something of value.

My opinion's summed-up: Do whatever-the-hell you want! Unless A: it Physically harms someone or their property, or B: is CONTINUED harassment; if you violate either of these, there WILL be hell to pay.
I beleive welfare ruins someone's ability to be independent, and should be used as sparingly as possible.
I don't mind immigration, so long as the immigrants get a job, and fit into society with minimal disturbance.
I beleive abortion should be illegal except for a: rape, and b: when it threatens the mother's life.
I think for the most part, gun control is a bunch of hoey, and that a criminal has no problem getting a gun if they're illegal.
I believe it a strong military, and mandatory service, but I don't believe pacifists should be forced to fight when it goes against their morals.
I am not religous one-bit, but I am very God-Fearing.


For the most part, my views can be summed-up in Discourses, by Machiavelli.

I am decidedly unegalitarian- the only egalitarianism I support is equality of essence, since it's self-evident from the commonality of us being human beings. (1 = 1, after all.) This means that I believe that human beings should be free to do what they wish so long as they do not interfere with one another's business through aggresion, since people should be left to pursue their own happiness.

However, I am a very strong proponent of subsidiary institutions- family, church (or other religious edifice), and community. I feel that these are the real foundation of social relationships, as they are all mutually beneficial, voluntary institutions.

I look down upon democracy. This quote from La Boetie sums up my feelings.

Roman tyrants invented a further refinement. They often provided the city wards with feasts to cajole the rabble, always more readily tempted by the pleasure of eating than by anything else. The most intelligent and understanding amongst them would not have quit his soup bowl to recover the liberty of the Republic of Plato. Tyrants would distribute largess, a bushel of wheat, a gallon of wine, and a sesterce: and then everybody would shamelessly cry, "Long live the King!" The fools did not realize that they were merely recovering a portion of their own property, and that their ruler could not have given them what they were receiving without having first taken it from them. A man might one day be presented with a sesterce and gorge himself at the public feast, lauding Tiberius and Nero for handsome liberality, who on the morrow, would be forced to abandon his property to their avarice, his children to their lust, his very blood to the cruelty of these magnificent emperors, without offering any more resistance than a stone or a tree stump. The mob has always behaved in this way – eagerly open to bribes that cannot be honorably accepted, and dissolutely callous to degradation and insult that cannot be honorably endured

I do not feel that this is any different today. Basically, my best hope is for a system where everyone keeps to themselves, in which the masses aren't rushing about stealing from one another or being stolen from, and where the best of the best can continue to follow their own path and make us all better off for it.

My foreign policy is what you might term isolationism. I hate treaties and treaty organizations, because they focus more and more power in the hands of a select few. I prefer having pure, unilateral free trade, with not tariffs or subsidies on our side regardless of whatever the other party does, and keeping ourselves out of their business.

I also dislike war, because it is also a manuever to put more and more power into the hands of a select few. One can subjugate another country and put it under the same regulations and the like as all of the other countries in that sphere of influence, thus increasing the political class' power.

I would consider myself a deist, for lack of a better term, because of the principle of final causality; there is a goal that is not a means to another goal. Without this, we are basically acting without meaning, which I do not think is logically tenable, since everything in existence has an order to it. That goal that is not a mean is not anything material, since material things are finite, but rather must be something infinite that will complete our string of actions. Whether this is a personal God or anything, I do not know. Regardless, I support the Catholic Church as being a subsidiary institution.

I am a 100% capitalist. I do not think anyone should have a legal monopoly (i.e. suppression of entry by force, the classical definition.) Since man's nature is inherently rational, and we can decide what is right and wrong, and all men are equal in essence, I do not think that anyone has any special right to determine what is right and wrong and sanctions etc. when other people can rationalize and act just as much.

Roman tyrants invented a further refinement. They often provided the city wards with feasts to cajole the rabble, always more readily tempted by the pleasure of eating than by anything else. The most intelligent and understanding amongst them would not have quit his soup bowl to recover the liberty of the Republic of Plato. Tyrants would distribute largess, a bushel of wheat, a gallon of wine, and a sesterce: and then everybody would shamelessly cry, "Long live the King!" The fools did not realize that they were merely recovering a portion of their own property, and that their ruler could not have given them what they were receiving without having first taken it from them. A man might one day be presented with a sesterce and gorge himself at the public feast, lauding Tiberius and Nero for handsome liberality, who on the morrow, would be forced to abandon his property to their avarice, his children to their lust, his very blood to the cruelty of these magnificent emperors, without offering any more resistance than a stone or a tree stump. The mob has always behaved in this way – eagerly open to bribes that cannot be honorably accepted, and dissolutely callous to degradation and insult that cannot be honorably endured

You do realize that this quote refers to the Imperial era of Rome, right? Not the Republican period? The 'mob' that they refer to, were largely poor and jobless Subura tribe, that left unfed, and without something to do, would cause more havoc in Rome than any outside enemy. This is by no means a slam on democracy, it's more a slam on economic redistribution.

The funny thing is, during the Republican period, it wasn't the 'mob's' money that was being redistributed to them, it was money taken by other nations via force. The system worked something like this; an aspiring senator who wished to climb the cursus honourum, would try to attain a politically powerful urban position by appealing to the masses. This would cost an enormous amount of money, and they would go to creditors to get said money. Then, they would rally for a political position that would allow them to go to a province which they could squeeze money out of, or better yet, complete war for sale of slaves. This way, they made their money back, the mob is sated, and Rome's reach is spread a little further.

It was only when the Emperors decided to halt their spread, did it become a matter of 'redistributing' wealth. Keeping the masses in check, was a factor regardless of Republican period or Imperial period.

I realize our views on democracy are opposed, and I'm not trying to discredit your view per se. I just felt that this particular quote didn't really address democracy, since it clearly demonstrates the Imperial period, rather than the Republican period.

You do realize that this quote refers to the Imperial era of Rome, right? Not the Republican period? The 'mob' that they refer to, were largely poor and jobless Subura tribe, that left unfed, and without something to do, would cause more havoc in Rome than any outside enemy. This is by no means a slam on democracy, it's more a slam on economic redistribution.

The funny thing is, during the Republican period, it wasn't the 'mob's' money that was being redistributed to them, it was money taken by other nations via force. The system worked something like this; an aspiring senator who wished to climb the cursus honourum, would try to attain a politically powerful urban position by appealing to the masses. This would cost an enormous amount of money, and they would go to creditors to get said money. Then, they would rally for a political position that would allow them to go to a province which they could squeeze money out of, or better yet, complete war for sale of slaves. This way, they made their money back, the mob is sated, and Rome's reach is spread a little further.

It was only when the Emperors decided to halt their spread, did it become a matter of 'redistributing' wealth. Keeping the masses in check, was a factor regardless of Republican period or Imperial period.

I realize our views on democracy are opposed, and I'm not trying to discredit your view per se. I just felt that this particular quote didn't really address democracy, since it clearly demonstrates the Imperial period, rather than the Republican period.

I think I qualified the quote as being my opinion on the mob, not on democracy specifically. It was more to do with the fact that the politicians ladled out benefits to the mob to keep them in line, often to excess (like with eating food until one vomits), then taking from them in another way and getting little opposition. (Let's not forget that so many of the people were there because they had their lands taken away to be put in the latifundia, which is what the author was referring to concerning property, among other things.) My basic position is that the mob is not a good guardian of liberty, regardless of the government.

I think I qualified the quote as being my opinion on the mob, not on democracy specifically. It was more to do with the fact that the politicians ladled out benefits to the mob to keep them in line, often to excess (like with eating food until one vomits), then taking from them in another way and getting little opposition. (Let's not forget that so many of the people were there because they had their lands taken away to be put in the latifundia, which is what the author was referring to concerning property, among other things.) My basic position is that the mob is not a good guardian of liberty, regardless of the government.

That's fair... at least I see your angle at any rate.

The Mob? There is no Mob.

If we're speaking of ancient Rome, I know what he means. In a modern context, it's insulting, but I know what he's saying, even if I completely disagree with it.

I'm just being a smartass.

The Mob? There is no Mob.

If we're speaking of ancient Rome, I know what he means. In a modern context, it's insulting, but I know what he's saying, even if I completely disagree with it.

I'm just being a smartass.

Yeah, I know. But he's not around, and this thread is so lonely...

Yeah, I know. But he's not around, and this thread is so lonely...

I'd stick around and cuddle, but I must soon depart :)

I'd stick around and cuddle, but I must soon depart :)

Yer such a tease...

If they're allowed to sell their cars here, but we're not allowed to sell our cars there, that's not free trade.

I support individual freedom. I think democracy is antithetical to individual freedom, as it makes the individual subservient to the majority.

I support the free market because it grants individuals the greatest amount of individual freedom. Any economic system limits the sorts of agreements into which you are permitted to enter is an affront to individual freedom.

I oppose fiat currencies on the grounds that they shouldn't work.

I think religion is a crutch for the weak-minded - people who are unwilling or unable to deal with the presence of uncertainty. I take religiosity as evidence of a general failure of reason.

I think humans should be valued for their cognitive abilities, and any creature found to exhibit similar such abilities should be valued similarly.
I agree with the above for the most part. I am also in accord with Greill.

i guess I'm socially libertarian....do whatever as long as it doesn't stop anyone else from doing whatever.

I'm also pro-globalization and mostly laissez-faire, although I support a dual system of a public sector involving free education and medical care along with a very free public market.

I support democracy for America and most of the western world, but there is no single perfect model to fit all peoples. I think each system should cater to its people, and the "perfect government" is one that reflects that nation's history and political culture. For example, i would support communism (Marxist) in east Asia because of its parallels to religions of the area, but not in America at all.

I also believe in a democratic system without a chief executive. No, it does not exist anywhere. I think there should be one house "below" the other....I mean that the bottom house would suggest laws, but the top house would actually write the law, passing it by majority, but the lower house would then have to approve it. By suggest I mean, for example, "curb abortion" (i put that really simply)....if the lower house said that, the upper house could then do anything in the range of banning it to limiting it to being legal for most but not all cases. However, they could not fully legalize it there. I guess theres a lot more to it but i don't feel like detailing right now.

I also support a tax system that taxes on net worth at a flat rate and taxes business profit on a progressive scale. There would be no other taxes whatsoever.

oh separation of church and state, thats important.

to me equality means equality of opportunity...I am against discrimination and also again affirmative action.

In foreign affairs i do no believe in aggressive war and I think the mentality of containment, which grew into Bush's ideology, is the worst mistake America ever made.

The police state is I think the thing I oppose more strongly than anything, and I'm probably too quick to label things Orwellian when I don't like them, but oh well.

so that's where I stand. Call it what you will.

The Mob? There is no Mob.

There is no mob? Then who watches American Idol? MENSA members? ;)

The Mob? There is no Mob.

That should have been bolded and in bigger size for a win. Sorry, I cannot give you this thread's win :(

My basic position is that the mob is not a good guardian of liberty, regardless of the government.
Exactly right.

Hmm. Okay. This is going to be grossly unpopular, but here we go.

My current attitude to the world in economic terms can be best be thought of as Technocratic Globalism. Essentially, I think it is possible for the world's resources to be handled, processed and distributed in a renewable, predictable and fair manner, but only if the selfish aspect of humankind is eliminated from the management and production of these resources, as well as in the provision of basic physical service skills. This will have a knock-on effect of eliminating the need to trade for the necessities of life, such as food, clothing, shelter, water and medicine, since such things will be available without the need for any human intervention, and as a result commodities will produced and acquired according to interest rather than capital, the material cost of employment and education will plummet and careers in the sciences and arts will become more or less universal (though an individual may choose not to pursue an explicit career should they so wish).

I am personally opposed to the notion of repercussive justice. I believe that crime is something that can be completely solved by destroying its roots; namely, an unfulfilled desire, perceived structural injustice and the need for vengeance. I do not believe that society should be built up around compensating for the inevitability of crime in a reactionary manner.

I hold the use of nationhood, history and religion to establish a social heirarchy on either the global or local scale with the utmost contempt. I believe aggressive military action against any populace is completely reprehensible, as I do any violent crime. I believe the individual should be free to do as they wish as long as they are not depriving anyone else of their freedoms; the distribution of resources mechanically will ensure a separation of the core essentials, while a basic system of law and order should exist only by the grace of the people to enforce a structure of civil courts and prevent the unlawful seizure of power by any single subset of humanity.

I am not a member of any religion. I am convinced that "religious experience" is genuine, but I do not believe any Religion can sufficiently capture the entirity of what it is, and I am explicitly opposed to any group that thinks they can know exactly what this reality means; including that increasing subset of Atheism that holds science to be a perfect descriptor of the world. I do see artistic merit in a great many of the myths passed on by religions, and am quite happy that they exist in such a way.

Finally, I believe in the fundamental empathy of all mankind. I believe that underlying our base needs and desires is a real and present push to interact with and support one another. I believe that our current institutions largely prevent the surfacing of this, but that it can ultimately be realised in everyone when our pains and grievances are reconciled and our slates are wiped clean.

Finally, I believe in the fundamental empathy of all mankind. I believe that underlying our base needs and desires is a real and present push to interact with and support one another. I believe that our current institutions largely prevent the surfacing of this, but that it can ultimately be realised in everyone when our pains and grievances are reconciled and our slates are wiped clean.
At least someone on your side finally admits that the fundamental nature of humanity has to change for this to work.

People are selfish. I certainly am.

My current attitude to the world in economic terms can be best be thought of as Technocratic Globalism. Essentially, I think it is possible for the world's resources to be handled, processed and distributed in a renewable, predictable and fair manner, but only if the selfish aspect of humankind is eliminated from the management and production of these resources, as well as in the provision of basic physical service skills. This will have a knock-on effect of eliminating the need to trade for the necessities of life, such as food, clothing, shelter, water and medicine, since such things will be available without the need for any human intervention, and as a result commodities will produced and acquired according to interest rather than capital, the material cost of employment and education will plummet and careers in the sciences and arts will become more or less universal (though an individual may choose not to pursue an explicit career should they so wish).


I think this is an inevitable endgame in our progression of technology and government, however such goals are lofty, and probably wouldn't happen without massive upheaval first.

I support direct democracy. This means I oppose the state. The less democracy there is, the greater the infringement on individual liberty.

I am a communist. I oppose capitalism, money, the free market, and ownership rights. I believe that property rights should be determined by use. The more 'free' the market, the greater the infringement on individual liberty.

I am socially libertarian for the most part. There are certain things that I dislike, but as I oppose the state I wouldn't ban them. I would simply live in a community where the people living there chose not to do such things.

I generally oppose military intervention in other communities, but there might be exceptions to this, such as the need to secure human rights for other people. As I oppose countries, I also oppose nationalism, and the idea of national sovereignty.

Hmm. Okay. This is going to be grossly unpopular, but here we go.I don't have a problem with this, but I don't see it working.

At least someone on your side finally admits that the fundamental nature of humanity has to change for this to work.

People are selfish. I certainly am.He didn't say that the fundamental nature of humanity needed to change, he said that there are currently social structures that impede and alter human nature. If this is the case, you are only selfish because you live in a place with social structures that encourage selfishness.

I support direct democracy. This means I oppose the state. The less democracy there is, the greater the infringement on individual liberty.

I am a communist. I oppose capitalism, money, the free market, and ownership rights. I believe that property rights should be determined by use. The more 'free' the market, the greater the infringement on individual liberty.

I love that I'm your polar opposite. You're still cool, though. :D

He didn't say that the fundamental nature of humanity needed to change, he said that there are currently social structures that impede and alter human nature. If this is the case, you are only selfish because you live in a place with social structures that encourage selfishness.
Reason is necessarily selfish.

Reason is necessarily selfish.

Is it "selfish", or is it egoistic, i.e. that one's life exists for the purpose of achieving one's ends, whatever they may be?

Is it "selfish", or is it egoistic, i.e. that one's life exists for the purpose of achieving one's ends, whatever they may be?
I don't think there's a difference.

I don't think there's a difference.
Selfishness is appeased by many socially oriented systems, in that ultimately your needs and wants will continue to be fulfilled and the provision of such fulfilment may, indeed, improve as a result. Egoism is institutionally thrown aside, because the fulfilment of these needs is by contract and agreement rather than by personal endeavour.

I love that I'm your polar opposite. You're still cool, though. :DWhy thank you. You are, as well.

Reason is necessarily selfish.Perhaps, but what is reasonable in one set of circumstances might not be in another set of circumstances.

Reason is necessarily selfish.

No it's not. In fact, selfishness doesn't stand up in the face of reason, because reason would indicate that accomplishments of true value on a cosmic scale would take many--tens, possibly hundreds--of generations of visionaries. When we die, the only value that anything we did will have is its value towards the final goal of eudaimonia, the flourishing of human society, which can only be accomplished through the work of individuals who work towards this goal because they believe in it, not for personal gain.

Also bear in mind that there is such a thing as a collective Absolute Mind, if only in an abstract sense. Everything we do leaves an impression of ourselves on others; all human interaction is a system of individuals leaving an imprint on the larger collective consciousness, and the healthiest human interactions are those where the individuals involved are most in communion.

Of course, this is just my viewpoint. But I mean to show that having faith in reason does not "neccesarily" lead to a philosophy of selfishness.






Back on topic.

I would consider myself to be a liberal. I do not associate myself with socialism, since I am a strong believer in free enterprise. I believe the invisible hand is much more effective at promoting the common good than any government--if the society in which the invisible hand operates has established social conditions that allow the hand to do its work effectively. For this reason, I question some of the elements of globablization and businesses exploiting societies where free enterprise simply isn't possible. I also believe that education and healthcare should be provided to all, with the most effort devoted to helping those who most need it.

I think that there are times when the government should guide the economic activities of the society it governs in favor of the long-term at short-term expense. For example--let's say, for argument's sake, that global warming is a man-made problem, and is reversable. In this hypothetical situation, such a reversal will cost two trillion dollars over the course of fifty years. The economic losses of business-as-usual in the face of global warming would have been ten trillion, but over the course of five hundred years. If this were the case, then the government should impose policies of mitigation, even though it interferes with free enterprise in the short term, because free enterprise will benefit from it in the long run.

That's my position on economics. When it comes to war, I am conservative in the literal sense. That is, I would call into question any war or other international endeavour that is not absolutely neccesary for national security. I oppose the War in Iraq.

I'm pro-choice but anti-abortion; that is, I think it's morally wrong but outside the governemen'ts jurisdiction. I support gay marriage. I oppose strict gun control on the basis that it is highly un-enforce-able. I believe I would be much safer in a city where those who have been screened and properly trained are able to obtain concealed carries than in a city where only criminals can obtain weapons.

Reason is necessarily selfish.

Why?

Why?

Because his idea of "selfish behavior" is a tautology.

My Ideal:


My greatest political doctrine is "The Government is best which governs the fewest" Which is to say that I am more a fan of the city-state system. The fewer people in your political system, the more say you have I would be happy to see all cities being almost entirely independent around the world with the exception of some congress which regulates trade and travel, organize sports, and protects peace (No army, just a platform for negotiations).

Other Fave Ideas:

-Absolutely free travel
-Voluntary disuse of Nuclear weapons
-Universal Suffrage.
-Refuge Cities (like the old Judaic system)

I think I'd be pretty happy.

Let's see, non-directional politics, ok.

Philosophy: The fundamental unit within a human society is the individual and therefore in methodology we must regard the ability of these individuals to fulfill their needs as a major aspect of any society. Another aspect is the welfare of these individuals, while freedom will typically promote the welfare of individuals we must also recognize that outcomes may not be completely perfect and therefore as a matter of consequence it is the goal of a governmental structure to maintain freedom and maintain welfare with the higher regard given to the former over the latter.

Structure: A republic with small government and a balance between centralized functions and that of states that leans more for the latter than the former. I support a semi-democratic government because I feel it has better incentives for dealing with the issue of freedom and individual interests than a non-democratic government. This does not mean I support democracy in all of its forms, tyranny by the many leaves one as screwed as tyranny by the one.

Economic Ideas: Relatively capitalist as I see such a system as allowing for greater liberty and self-determination of individuals as well as improving their welfare. I see government as often hampering this liberty and welfare. The major role of government in economics is the enforcement of property rights, the occasional creation/allowance of certain property structures as is economically efficient such as IP and corporations, the handling of economic externalities or potential social problems, and creating a bank of some form to control the money supply in a manner to keep money stable and economic problems from becoming too problematic.

Social Ideas: Let people do what they want to in most cases unless there is force used.

Foreign Relations Ideas: Avoid military conflict unless it seems necessary. Avoid constricting treaties. Trade freely.

Because his idea of "selfish behavior" is a tautology.
:D

I don't think there's a difference.

Fair enough.

Why thank you. You are, as well.

Thank you. But... may I ask why you feel that more democracy = more freedom? Do you think tyranny by majority is a problem? What about the natural inclination for some people to be leaders, and others to follow? How would that fit in to your system?