NationStates Jolt Archive

I just got curious today. Whats YOUR political party? Forgive me if I left yours out, I had only 10 poll options, please specify if its something different.

Why would I waste my time with political parties?

I said "Fascism" because my political views (Independent) weren't up there.

None, I form my own opinions and rarely agree with even the majority of a particular candidates stated positions

I said "Fascism" because my political views (Independent) weren't up there.
What are your political views?

Not sure. Perhaps conservative, perhaps UKIP, perhaps fascist. Depends what mood I'm in, and how good a day I've had.

What are your political views?

On what? Economy, Social Rights, Political Freedoms, Religion, etc...?

Wow, nobodys voted for socialist or communists. Yet.

And now there's two for socialist

Economy and social rights.

Wow, nobodys voted for socialist or communists. Yet.

And now there's two for socialist

Three actually.
I think his comment sparked a Socialist Revolution..
..in Pollland I might add.

Three actually.
I think his comment sparked a Socialist Revolution..

lol!

I just got curious today. Whats YOUR political party? Forgive me if I left yours out, I had only 10 poll options, please specify if its something different.

Kind of Ameri-centric? At least two of those options are nonsensical anywhere but the US. Also... what's with the qualifiers on fascism and communism?

If you're not going to take the time explaining what you mean by each term, why put pointless teasers on two options?

I don't like saying I'm part of any party. They don't agree with me on all of the issues so I would instead just vote for who gets the closest. That has switched from year to year sooo...

I'd call my self someone too much of a pussy to be a real libertarian.

Kind of Ameri-centric? At least two of those options are nonsensical anywhere but the US. Also... what's with the qualifiers on fascism and communism?

sorry, I haven't been out of the US:(

Kind of Ameri-centric?

You think?

I see political parties as a fundamental flaw in the way we currently govern in the west. I want to voice my opinion for ideas that I like and against ideas that I don't. I don't want to be unfairly forced to delegate responsibility for my say in the matter to someone else.

Kind of Ameri-centric?

Isn't that a recurring theme, a motif if you will, throughout the entire world these days?

sorry, I haven't been out of the US:(

Where they apparently fail to tell you that, in a communist society, there is, by definition, no State.

Isn't that a recurring theme, a motif if you will, throughout the entire world these days?

If you say so. I'm quite happy in little England thank you.:)

Libertarians where our motto is, take care of your own damn self! :D

If you say so. I'm quite happy in little England thank you.:)

You just wait until they break away and form their own country...

libertarian nationalist socialist green party

also an anarcho-fascist

Socialist/Independent

libertarian nationalist socialist green party

also an anarcho-fascist
Err...



As to my own opinion, 'socialist' about covers it, ish.

I am a republican I guess. i would rather be an Independant, but since you didnt have the poll choice, Republican works for me :)

My ideology is an anagram of stalinism, statism, socialism and fascism. I believe in a planned state economy based on a combination of the Five-Year Plan, Lenin's New Economic Policy and a fascist mode of state corporatism. My views on class are also an anagram of both class struggle and collaboration in that I want to destroy all those against the collective will of the state, and incorporate all class people into a singular economic material reality.

By 'Republican' do you mean it in the American sense or the British sense? If British then you can count me as a republican.

My ideology is an anagram of stalinism, statism, socialism and fascism. I believe in a planned state economy based on a combination of the Five-Year Plan, Lenin's New Economic Policy and a fascist mode of state corporatism. My views on class are also an anagram of both class struggle and collaboration in that I want to destroy all those against the collective will of the state, and incorporate all class people into a singular economic material reality.
This is why you will never hold office. Your views are completely self-contradictory and also make you sound stupendously pretentious.

The NEP with Five-Year-Plans. Yes, because those aren't almost the opposite of each other...

Poltical parties are one of the singluler worst institutions in existance. Therefore, I hold no party affiliation.

Libertarian. Socialists, commies and anarchists are all brain defective. :p

Social Democrat (even though that party doesn't exist in this country). I chose "other left-wing party" because "socialist" is too broad a term.

I'm registered as an independent. If I am not limited to US parties, then I'll register as a Kadima voter. Kadima (which translates as "progress") is a centrist Israeli party.

I see political parties as a fundamental flaw in the way we currently govern in the west. I want to voice my opinion for ideas that I like and against ideas that I don't. I don't want to be unfairly forced to delegate responsibility for my say in the matter to someone else.

Indeed. I did say socialist, but that was simply because it seems to bother people

fascism for the lolz.

Libertarian. Socialists, commies and anarchists are all brain defective. :pThe irony of someone following a political ideology that chases after a non-existent creature making that statement is not lost on me. :D

Social democrat. (not on the list; I chose "other left-wing party")

Labour or Labor party..
Not on list, so went with 'Other left wing party'.

I hate all political parties, immensely.

Bertrand de Jouvenel noted that political parties are a sign of the degeneration of a political system. There is no room for political parties when one has a wise electorate, personal interaction between the delegate and those whom he represents, and the sovereignty of social authorities. However, when any fool has the right to vote, there is no personal accountability or respect for the delegate, and delegates are sent not to ensure that his constituency's rights are observed under an antecedent law, but that law is to be made or twisted to serve his constituency's particular interest, the emergence of political parties is inevitable.

These factors ensure that the personal requirements of a delegate are lessened, as fewer people will be able to judge him on these qualities due to a lack of contact. Rather, people will be 'informed' by political machines through propaganda and hysteria in place of personal interaction and reason, and the criteria of the success of these delegates will not be that they are upstanding people but that they will serve the desires of those behind the political machines unquestioningly. The entrenchment of these political machines and the political parties they support will continue until there is such dominance over the electorate that a de facto or de juris one-party state is established.

My ideology is an anagram of stalinism, statism, socialism and fascism.

Your political ideology is a word, phrase, or sentence formed from another by rearranging its letters?

Nationalist for immigration and cultural/ethnic issues, sometimes libertarian for individual freedoms, generally secular, conservative for economic issues and in favor of a government generally a little bigger than most libertarians would like but still small by comparison to what most people think.

I'd say the SVP in Switzerland is my favorite party...but it doesn't perfectly match my view points.

I just got curious today. Whats YOUR political party? Forgive me if I left yours out, I had only 10 poll options, please specify if its something different.

Political parties are an enemy to democracy in my opinion. Partisanship is not very good.

Political parties are an enemy to democracy in my opinion. Partisanship is not very good.

Democracy is an enemy to the State.

Partisanship is not very good.

Maybe blind partisanship... but sometimes one side is solidly right and the other side is solidly wrong.

Your political ideology is a word, phrase, or sentence formed from another by rearranging its letters?

MEGA LOLZ!

Where they apparently fail to tell you that, in a communist society, there is, by definition, no State.

He may have meant capital "C" Communism, i.e. of the U.S.S.R. variety.

I hate all political parties, immensely.

Bertrand de Jouvenel noted that political parties are a sign of the degeneration of a political system. There is no room for political parties when one has a wise electorate, personal interaction between the delegate and those whom he represents, and the sovereignty of social authorities. However, when any fool has the right to vote, there is no personal accountability or respect for the delegate, and delegates are sent not to ensure that his constituency's rights are observed under an antecedent law, but that law is to be made or twisted to serve his constituency's particular interest, the emergence of political parties is inevitable.

These factors ensure that the personal requirements of a delegate are lessened, as fewer people will be able to judge him on these qualities due to a lack of contact. Rather, people will be 'informed' by political machines through propaganda and hysteria in place of personal interaction and reason, and the criteria of the success of these delegates will not be that they are upstanding people but that they will serve the desires of those behind the political machines unquestioningly. The entrenchment of these political machines and the political parties they support will continue until there is such dominance over the electorate that a de facto or de juris one-party state is established.

Which is exactly why I hate both political parties and democracy, a.k.a. The God That Failed.

The party I've come closest to full agreement with was the Michigan Green Party in 2006. I reviewed the candidate for Governor's platform in this post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11941961&postcount=29) and stated what I agreed and disagreed with. Being an antifederalist leftist doesn't give me many options.

Realist.

Which is exactly why I hate both political parties and democracy, a.k.a. The God That Failed.

There actually appears to be a strong positive corelation between increasing democratization and increasing political and civil liberties (http://www.freedomhouse.org/uploads/pdf/Charts2006.pdf):

http://www.freedomhouse.org/uploads/pdf/Charts2006.pdf

One should also note that the strong democracies also tend to be the most economically developed; one need only note which countries in this map (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Freedom_House_world_map_2007_blue.png) (based on the latest Freedom House survey) are green (which denotes the highest levels of freedom):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Freedom_House_world_map_2007_blue.png

"God," as it were, is doing just fine.

Now, noting the strong corelation between economic development and democratization, it fascinates me that this anti-democracy attitude is so common among "Libertarians." The reality of the matter should motovate "Libertarians" to be the strongest proponents of democracy.

Given that this doesn't appear to be the case, I'm inclined to wonder what the "Libertarians" place above human liberty on their list of goals.

...

**votes "meh" on poll**

Given that this doesn't appear to be the case, I'm inclined to wonder what the "Libertarians" place above human liberty on their list of goals.

Libertarians value their liberty, not yours.

Libertarians value their liberty, not yours.

Considering that the "Libertarian" agenda is of most benefit to those with more economic bargaining power, and that "reducing" government is the most effective means of disarming those with less economic bargaining power...

I quit the "Libertarian" Party (http://www.lp.org) once I realized the above. "Liberty for those who can afford it" is not what I had in mind.

-snip-

The viewpoint of Freedomhouse and other democracy advocates suffer from a simplistic and Manichean view as a country either being a 'democracy' or a 'dictatorship', which is only made worse by making the sole criteria of the two whether they have elections or not. In all fairness, elections are completely irrelevant; any regime needs the tacit consent of a large portion of the people, and there is such a divide between the knowledge of a nation (see rational ignorance) and the operations of the state out of self-interest (see iron triangles) that the state has great power to gain its own ends beyond the consent of those it effects, whether it has legitimate elections or not.

In all fairness, democracy and dictatorship are not opposed concepts, but rather the latter is the logical conclusion of the former. Both claim to represent a 'general will' of an arbitrary collection of people; neither believe the law to be something antecedent and transcendent but rather to be legislated as desired (not even constitutions are safe from this, see the amendment process); neither recognize the sovereignty of other social authorities but believe them to be subordinate to their power. In fact, the more accurate terms for 'democracies' and 'dictatorships' would be liberal democracies and illiberal democracies respectively, with what really separating the latter from the former being a lingering respect for liberal/individualist custom. Hence why so many illiberal democracies are in places where no such custom existed in the first place (though a liberal democracy can and will become illiberal, of course. More on that later.)

The only reason that the elections in the liberal democracies are fair is because, as Aristotle said, "Excellence... is not an act but a habit." Everything else is done relatively fairly, so it is only natural that the elections are done with a modicum of fairness. But to blame the illiberality of certain regimes with unfair elections is no more valid than to say that a cough caused a tumor in one's lungs; unfair elections are the necessary result of a system of politics that have come to depend more upon emotion than reason, for they paradoxically have come to be accepted by a large enough portion of the population, brainwashed by political machinery such as cults of personality, as legitimate.

The unfortunate matter is that the seeds are sown in liberal democracy for the political machinery of parties and particular interests vying for domination that eventually strip away liberal custom, as we can see in the United States' conversion from a relatively peaceful and decentralized nation to an international empire and surveillance state. In the end, economic development and freedom are not based upon voting, which is more a feel-good performance than an act of substance, but upon the security of the law versus those who would twist it to satisfy their needs.

Libertarians FTW.

That said, I entertained the idea of voting Facist just for kicks ^_^

Seig Hail!

Libertarians value their liberty, not yours.
Exactly, and that is why 'libertarianism' is only something which the rich and powerful enjoy as it creates monopolies of influence into the hands of the few. Libertarians think they have more of a 'right' not to be taxed and to have just that much more money than other people have a right for necessities for life. Libertarians are arrogant elitists at best.

In need, freedom is latent.

True freedom is the freedom from need and the exploitation of those who control the needs of others, and as such exploit their position of power to better themselves at the expense of others. I consider the collective property of the products of labour as the necessary complement to the collectivist programme, the aid of all for the satisfaction of the needs of each being the only rule of production and consumption which corresponds to the principle of solidarity.

Green party, which is leftist, obviously. :)

GOP, naturally. :cool:

GOP, naturally. :cool:

GOP really stands for Gay Old Pervs. Do you really wanna be associated with them? :p

which is only made worse by making the sole criteria of the two whether they have elections or not.


Freedom House classifies states based on political freedom (including elections) and civil liberties. Thus, elections makes up at most half of their analysis.

One is correct to note that elections alone do not make a democracy. This is why Freedom House includes the civil liberties measure.


Both [democracy and dictatorship] claim to represent a 'general will' of an arbitrary collection of people;


Yes, but only one can and does. At any rate, Rousseau is hardly the whole of democratic political theory.


...neither believe the law to be something antecedent and transcendent...


The rule of law is a key democratic principle.


...but rather to be legislated as desired (not even constitutions are safe from this, see the amendment process);


But, of course, in a dictatorship changes to the law are the arbitrary act of one or a few. In a democracy, such changes are the will of the majority.


...neither recognize the sovereignty of other social authorities but believe them to be subordinate to their power.


The People, the collection of sovereign individuals, is the only legitimate authority.

...

Of course, all of this misses the point. The simple empirical fact is that the most free, developed, and successful societies tend also to be democratic. Thus the claim that democracy is somehow inefficient, a failure, or otherwise undesirable is highly questionable if not patently false. The belief that democracy inevitably collapses into dictatorship has yet to be proven empirically.

No jumble of political philosophy vocabulary changes that.

Exactly, and that is why 'libertarianism' is only something which the rich and powerful enjoy as it creates monopolies of influence into the hands of the few. Libertarians think they have more of a 'right' not to be taxed and to have just that much more money than other people have a right for necessities for life. Libertarians are arrogant elitists at best.


Of course, it is also possible to distinguish between those who actually exemplify a concept and those who simply abuse it for their own gain.

ab abusu ad usum non valet consequentia.

I just got curious today. Whats YOUR political party? Forgive me if I left yours out, I had only 10 poll options, please specify if its something different.

I chose other right wing party because the danish conservatism is not completely like American :D Basicly I would be a Conservative Royalist..

Libertarians value their liberty, not yours.

Thank you for your wonderfully stupid and unsubstantiated strawman.

Moderate Liberal, of no party affiliation.

"independant'

Uhh, Anarchism by definition means "no state", so an Anarchist party is an oxymoron.

Also, "Statist" is a very different concept than most of the other positions you put forward. A Fascist is inherently a Statist, as is a Stalinist, a Republican, a Democrat and pretty much any other party that works to increase or maintain the current level of state power.

Sometimes as a Libertarian Socialist I feel left out. :(

Well, in my case, I would consider myself to be a National Party of New Zealand person (right-wing party in New Zealand)

New British Choose Your Imperial Pogo Stick Wisely Party. Then most diverse party in the history of politics.

Uhh, Anarchism by definition means "no state", so an Anarchist party is an oxymoron.

No state doesn't mean no political parties. They just don't have anything to do.

No state doesn't mean no political parties. They just don't have anything to do.I guess that's true. They'd be free to make up whatever party they'd like, I just figured because they'd effectively be completely obsolete and/or powerless the term wouldn't be applicable under Anarchism. An Anarchist Party would be purely interested in self-destruction, so I suppose theoretically it could exist, but it'd un-exist pretty darn quickly.

green green, its green they say, on the far side of the hill.
green green, i'm goin' away
to where the grass is greener still!

how can anyone fail to see the bias in a poll that offers republican lite, and not GREENS!

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

I guess that's true. They'd be free to make up whatever party they'd like, I just figured because they'd effectively be completely obsolete and/or powerless the term wouldn't be applicable under Anarchism. An Anarchist Party would be purely interested in self-destruction, so I suppose theoretically it could exist, but it'd un-exist pretty darn quickly.

Not only that, there could be(and I'm sure in many cases there is) an anarchist party in some kind of democracy, thier purpose being to get elected and take down the system from the inside, as it were.

Facist! I like faces! BUHAHAHA!

I disagree that Communists automatically always want to give all the power to the State. In original Communism the State was to be dismantled, as it is a vehicle of classism. In its place, various councils were supposed to have been created, with the most powerful councils being the lowest ones--so the communities were sovereign within a global framework of cooperation.

That this ethos was taken by power-hungry authoritarians and turned into a tool of oppression is not the fault of Marx and Engels.

I´m far right, but I´m not actually a facist. Though I put a facist option because it is the closest. The ideology of facism is outdated and mostly it gets mixed up with far right-wing ideology, so I thought facist would do for now. I would vote a less right-wing party because the next party right from the conservatives are the nazis and they will never get to the parliament of Finland. I hope there was a sensible, non over patriotic, non racist far right wing party. Oh well, until then I have to give my vote to the commies :rolleyes:

Not sure. Perhaps conservative, perhaps UKIP, perhaps fascist. Depends what mood I'm in, and how good a day I've had.

UKIP is fascist. And they've got an MEP in jail.

I´m far right, but I´m not actually a facist. Though I put a facist option because it is the closest. The ideology of facism is outdated and mostly it gets mixed up with far right-wing ideology, so I thought facist would do for now. I would vote a less right-wing party because the next party right from the conservatives are the nazis and they will never get to the parliament of Finland. I hope there was a sensible, non over patriotic, non racist far right wing party. Oh well, until then I have to give my vote to the commies :rolleyes:
Uh...you sorta pulled a 180 there....

I'm a registered Republican, but I'm thinking of changing my affiliation to the Lunatic Goofballs Party.

disagree that Communists automatically always want to give all the power to the State. In original Communism the State was to be dismantled, as it is a vehicle of classism. In its place, various councils were supposed to have been created, with the most powerful councils being the lowest ones--so the communities were sovereign within a global framework of cooperation.

That this ethos was taken by power-hungry authoritarians and turned into a tool of oppression is not the fault of Marx and Engels.
I'm talking about the USSR's version of Communism, not the one that Karl Marx made.

Proud member of the Pirate Party of Germany (http://www.piratenpartei.de)!

Libertarians where our motto is, take care of your own damn self! :D

How lovely...

I put Socialist because... well, because I'm a socialist. A liberal one, mind, but one nonetheless. It makes more sense- have an elected government fufill the job of unelected corporations, because a real Free Market just doesn't work.

Oh, and :gundge: btw. I suppose I might as well live up to the stereotype.

Libertarians where our motto is, take care of your own damn self! :D

I prefer socialist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Socialism), where our motto is: Throw off the ruling upper class and its parasitic political and economic systems so that you can be free to take care of yourself and others however you damn well please.

Freedom House classifies states based on political freedom (including elections) and civil liberties. Thus, elections makes up at most half of their analysis.

One is correct to note that elections alone do not make a democracy. This is why Freedom House includes the civil liberties measure.

But Freedom House still makes the assumption that free elections either directly influence or are antecedent to civil liberties in a society, when in fact they are just an emanation of the fairness of liberal custom. Again, elections are not at all important due to rational ignorance and rent-seeking; rather the security of one's rights and the nature of the legitimacy of the state are in determining the extent of one's freedoms.

Yes, but only one can and does. At any rate, Rousseau is hardly the whole of democratic political theory.

Neither do. Democracy only represents a broad number of subjective, particular interests, not an objective general interest; Rousseau realized this, and hence was the reason he opposed plebiscites as they would corrupt the law to the benefit of a certain group and not the objective interest of the whole. (Also, FYI, you seem to have mistaken me for someone who dislikes Rousseau. Rousseau actually made quite a number of intelligent observations. The problem is not that democratic politicians have taken on bad observations from Rousseau; the problem is that they have taken Rousseau's insights and dumbed them down so as to be used for convenience. By eliminating the nuances of Rousseau's thought, they have disregarded it.)

The rule of law is a key democratic principle.

Democracies view law as something that one can make, not as something that is antecedent and must be obeyed. Hence the explosion of regulations and legislation. When one can just make law, there are no restrictions to power.

But, of course, in a dictatorship changes to the law are the arbitrary act of one or a few. In a democracy, such changes are the will of the majority.

Any regime must depend upon the good will of a majority of people in order to maintain itself, hence political machinery, cults of personality and bread and circuses. As both liberal and aliberal democracies must maintain some approval from the populace in order to avoid being overthrown, they both have the will of the majority; in fact, dictators have quite often been admired by the populace that was dominated by them. The difference between the two forms of democracy, liberal and aliberal, is the level of liberal custom that yet remains, i.e. law that is found, not made.

The People, the collection of sovereign individuals, is the only legitimate authority.

The subjective interests of a large number of people is not the only legitimate authority; it is not even a legitimate authority, for just as one man can be wrong so can many men be wrong. The only legitimate authority is one that obeys an antecedent law, not one that he may readily legislate, and renders each his due. Thus can a good father have the same authority as the greatest leader of humankind, for both use their power to follow his obligations to those around him just as they do in turn.

Of course, all of this misses the point. The simple empirical fact is that the most free, developed, and successful societies tend also to be democratic. Thus the claim that democracy is somehow inefficient, a failure, or otherwise undesirable is highly questionable if not patently false. The belief that democracy inevitably collapses into dictatorship has yet to be proven empirically.

Well, actually, it IS proven empirically. Throughout history we have seen an increase in the arbitrary power of the state to the detriment of individual rights, and there is no better indicator for this than war; war is the health of the state, as Randolph Bourne astutely noted. War is necessarily an infringement of liberty, as the amount of regimentation required for its execution is necessarily a reflection of how totalitarian a state is. When the state was not so strong, war was regarded as a personal affair, with kings essentially begging their councils for funds, not being able to rely on their vassals and militias for more than a few weeks or even days, and being able to muster only a few thousand men to their side.

But since then state and its motor war have grown immensely, until now we have wars that are considered the affair of entire nations, with the entire resources and lives of a nation being subject to regulation for the war effort, with millions of soldiers, with conscription of entire male populaces being acceptable in the face of crisis (this is a certainty in the face of a war with Iran), and with weapons able to wipe out entire cities, countries, even the world in the blink of an eye. In order to facilitate this terrifying progress, less autocratic governments have been replaced by more autocratic ones, and the transition, whether peacefully or violently, of relatively liberal democracies into aliberal ones is made clear not only by Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and Soviet Russia but by America.

America once selected its officials on the basis of merit and was relatively peaceful in international affairs, but since then due to the pernicious nature of political machinery it has degenerated into a political morass with the greatest nuclear arsenal, the biggest military budget and the most far-flung empire in the history of mankind. While we have not yet entered the end stage of an authoritarian one-party democracy, the track record of recent executives being free to grant themselves greater and greater power (this is not limited to Mr. Bush), expansion of the surveillance state, and the increasing bitterness of the population in its battles for political power are all fertile soil for the creation of a one-party rulership in the United States to eliminate the last vestiges of liberal custom.

Again, elections are not at all important due to rational ignorance and rent-seeking; rather the security of one's rights and the nature of the legitimacy of the state are in determining the extent of one's freedoms.


I agree that simply having an election doesn't guarantee the existence of civil liberties. Of course, all kinds of dictators have posed "elections" in order to "prove" their legitimacy. But a system or principle abused does not demonstrate that the illegitimacy of the system or principle genuine.

To say that going through the motions of an election is enough to guarantee liberty is absurd. As is to say that "elections are not at all important."


Neither do. Democracy only represents a broad number of subjective, particular interests, not an objective general interest;


Democracy best represents and protects the objective general interest of providing the greatest number of sovereign individuals with the ability to express and pursue their personal interests.

Empowering the protecting the sovereign individual is an important goal, but we need to remember that there are more than one such individual inhabiting a given society.


Democracies view law as something that one can make, not as something that is antecedent and must be obeyed. Hence the explosion of regulations and legislation. When one can just make law, there are no restrictions to power.


Of course, when the "wise statesman" can simply declare what the law is arbitrarily, and bind others to said declaration, there isn't much to restrict power either.


The difference between the two forms of democracy, liberal and aliberal, is the level of liberal custom that yet remains, i.e. law that is found, not made.


By your own argument, there is no difference between the "wise statesman" who "finds" the law arbitrarily, and the populace who "makes" the law arbitrarily.


Thus can a good father have the same authority as the greatest leader of humankind, for both use their power to follow his obligations to those around him just as they do in turn.


I would accept your argument if not for the fact that human history has produced far more bad fathers than good. At least with democracy, those good fathers who do exist can gain position. Without it, one bad father need only exert enough force and all is lost.



Well, actually, it IS proven empirically. Throughout history we have seen an increase in the arbitrary power of the state to the detriment of individual rights, and there is no better indicator for this than war; war is the health of the state, as Randolph Bourne astutely noted. War is necessarily an infringement of liberty, as the amount of regimentation required for its execution is necessarily a reflection of how totalitarian a state is. When the state was not so strong, war was regarded as a personal affair, with kings essentially begging their councils for funds, not being able to rely on their vassals and militias for more than a few weeks or even days, and being able to muster only a few thousand men to their side.

But since then state and its motor war have grown immensely, until now we have wars that are considered the affair of entire nations, with the entire resources and lives of a nation being subject to regulation for the war effort, with millions of soldiers, with conscription of entire male populaces being acceptable in the face of crisis (this is a certainty in the face of a war with Iran), and with weapons able to wipe out entire cities, countries, even the world in the blink of an eye. In order to facilitate this terrifying progress, less autocratic governments have been replaced by more autocratic ones, and the transition, whether peacefully or violently, of relatively liberal democracies into aliberal ones is made clear not only by Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and Soviet Russia but by America.

America once selected its officials on the basis of merit and was relatively peaceful in international affairs, but since then due to the pernicious nature of political machinery it has degenerated into a political morass with the greatest nuclear arsenal, the biggest military budget and the most far-flung empire in the history of mankind. While we have not yet entered the end stage of an authoritarian one-party democracy, the track record of recent executives being free to grant themselves greater and greater power (this is not limited to Mr. Bush), expansion of the surveillance state, and the increasing bitterness of the population in its battles for political power are all fertile soil for the creation of a one-party rulership in the United States to eliminate the last vestiges of liberal custom.


A single case (The United States) does not prove a general trend
War is the absense of democracy, not the inevitable conclusion
There has been noted a correlation between increasing democratization and decreasing warfare: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_peace_theory.
Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and Soviet Russia were the products of revolution, instability, economic collapse, and war. Not democracy.

I'm best described as a centre-left Liberal Democrat or Social Liberal. Most people who call themselves socialists are also Social Liberals, but they just don't know it.

Welfare Statist might be the most apt description.

For actual American political parties, Green may come closest. But mostly I vote Democratic, 'cuz I really hate what the Republican party has become.
Besides, Oklahoma is strictly a two party state. They make it nigh impossible for a third party to get on the ballot.

A single case (The United States) does not prove a general trend
War is the absense of democracy, not the inevitable conclusion
There has been noted a correlation between increasing democratization and decreasing warfare: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_peace_theory.
Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and Soviet Russia were the products of revolution, instability, economic collapse, and war. Not democracy.



Awesome. I think whoever makes the claim that the Soviet Union brought about by the original machinations of Lenin, is a product of democracy, either doesn't understand the first about the Russian Revolution or democracy.

I am a liberal, even though this is what i think of gay marriage::mad:



:gundge::sniper::headbang::mp5::mp5::mp5::(

If guys and girls want to :fluffle: That's allright. But with the same sex, it's just wrong!!

I am a member in good standing of the Drunken Naked Dance Party. *nod*

I've been reading about The Age of Jackson by Arthur Schlesinger, and pretty much agree with everything the Locofocos say. I guess that means I'm a Democrat (although I'd much rather be called a Locofoco).

As the ideologies was brought to light during and after the French revolution, i wonder if you would be able to make a test, what (if any) society would we have today if earth from the beginning to present would have been:

1. Conservative
2. Liberal (Libertarian)
3. Communist
4. Socialist
5. Nationalistic (Nazi/fascist)
6. Anarchy
7. No ideology at all

Its something i have wondered for a some time now, any suggestions.
(it started with trying to visualize a libertarian ant colony...)

Are some of the above or all only possible in developed societies, or small communities, or do they need other prerequisites in order to work?

Democracy (ca 400 bc) as a way of management of our society is now the method that most (if able without repression) people would agree upon to be the least worst way to manage a society.

And i believe it was Winston Churchill who said: "Democracy is the worst method to rule a country, if you disregard the rest"

The difference in the amount of people practicing democracy in Athens at the time and in our countries today is immense. And thus we have parliamentary systems with elected representatives.

As i see it the flaws in the parliamentary system is that the voters think that voting is the only thing required of them. And by not being active and participate in the political life and see to and demand of their representatives that they do what has been decided, that's when the representatives get alienated from the rest of society. And they often try to interpret the voters will...

For me as a voter, the political parties are an arena where you are able to debate both long and short term decisions and still have a wider sense of where the politics are meant to lead (like a compass). I strongly feel it is a support for me to be able to compare the parties to my preferences.

The major enemy of any form of government is ignorance and thus the most important issue for me is education and knowledge.

I believe i have been lucky to have been born in Sweden where we have come a bit on the way towards real freedom for all people. We still have a long way to go but by comparison we are doing quite OK. The question of freedom have to be: freedom to what? and freedom from what?

I label myself as a Democratic socialist and i hope that mankind someday will find a way to govern this planet (whats left of it) in a better way then us.

I agree that simply having an election doesn't guarantee the existence of civil liberties. Of course, all kinds of dictators have posed "elections" in order to "prove" their legitimacy. But a system or principle abused does not demonstrate that the illegitimacy of the system or principle genuine.

To say that going through the motions of an election is enough to guarantee liberty is absurd. As is to say that "elections are not at all important."

Non-sequitur; you do not say WHY this is so. I have stated previously that elections are not at all important because there is a vast range of actions that politicians and members of the state make in their own self-interest without the knowledge of their constituents (again, see iron triangles and rational ignorance.) The only real limitation is that there is some liberal custom that is considered as being antecedent to their authority, but unfortunately in an era where law may be made this custom is seriously weakened.

Democracy best represents and protects the objective general interest of providing the greatest number of sovereign individuals with the ability to express and pursue their personal interests.

Again, non-sequitur. The objective general interest would be to have a law antecedent to one's authority that renders each his due, not vice versa, as when it is the other way around there is no limitation to power but one's whims and thus does not render each their due. As democracy does not believe in a transcendent, antecedent law but believes that the majority or super-majority should get what it wants, it fails to reach objectivity and is merely an amalgam of subjective, particular interests.

Empowering the protecting the sovereign individual is an important goal, but we need to remember that there are more than one such individual inhabiting a given society.

I don't see how this changes anything; whether there is one individual or many individuals, each should receive his due. Objective law is applicable to either. However, the particular interests of those in a democracy are obviously not universally applicable and subjective, and as such fail to satisfy a general interest.

Of course, when the "wise statesman" can simply declare what the law is arbitrarily, and bind others to said declaration, there isn't much to restrict power either.

I never said that I advocate people declaring what the law is; that is why I detest democracy and legislation. This goes against the whole idea of law as custom, as being a series of reiterated exchanges between individuals by which norms are established, and not a system of law imposed from above by legislatures or bureaucracies.

By your own argument, there is no difference between the "wise statesman" who "finds" the law arbitrarily, and the populace who "makes" the law arbitrarily.

Again, I never said anything like that. The objective law is found through people's attempts to satisfy their self-interest through their interactions with others, on a decentralized level, while legislation is forced by particular interests that rule some high-level post. There would be no 'wise statesman' to begin with, as there would be no one with such power. Unfortunately, legislation, which often contradicts those laws that appeared before it, may force people to obey it regardless of whether it is just or not.

I would accept your argument if not for the fact that human history has produced far more bad fathers than good. At least with democracy, those good fathers who do exist can gain position. Without it, one bad father need only exert enough force and all is lost.

You do not seem to understand my argument; I said that one's authority, their sovereignty, proceeds from whether or not they render what is due to their subordinates. In a free society, with a variety of authorities and an objective law, no one would have the kind of power of compulsion that can ruin liberty, and bad fathers would abandoned, ostracized or even punished legally if warranted. Unfortunately, democracies through legislation have all the power to do so, as they are subordinate to no authority but all authorities to them. They cannot be so easily neutralized.



A single case (The United States) does not prove a general trend
War is the absense of democracy, not the inevitable conclusion
There has been noted a correlation between increasing democratization and decreasing warfare: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_peace_theory.
Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and Soviet Russia were the products of revolution, instability, economic collapse, and war. Not democracy.


1.) I gave an example as an illustration, but I referred to other nations such as Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and Soviet Russia.

2.) Warfare is aided by democracy, because the destruction of liberal custom necessarily means that the state, as legislator, may commandeer more wealth and power to its side. The 'dumbing down' of politics through political machinery such as special interest groups, slogans, faceless political parties, etc. removes reason and allows for more docility in the populace, with the most dominant particular interests eventually establishing a single-party state with an entirely tame populace.

3.) This is a post hoc fallacy. Decreasing warfare is caused by the threat of nuclear annihilation, not democracy. The countries of Europe pre WWI had taken on universal or near-universal suffrage by the time of the war (the curia in Austria, the zemstvos and Duma in Russia, etc.), but still heralded in one of the most bloody conflicts in human history. Worse still were the one-party states that evolved from the nationalist mentality of these relatively liberal democracies that ushered in the second World War. Democracy is dearer to war than any other system of governance, and were it not for nuclear weapons and the United States hegemony of the world we would be racked with the most horrific wars imaginable (Likely we would have engaged the Soviet Union soon after WWII.) Even so, in the age of democracy we have endured gruesome, expensive wars by proxy, such as in Korea or Vietnam or Afghanistan for the Russians.

4.) To say that the rise of the one-party states in these nations is not caused by democracy but by crises is like saying that someone being killed by gunshot is the fault of the bullet and so the murderer is exonerated. Were it not for the political machinery pioneered earlier that drowns out reason in hysteria, along with the increased centralization that accompanied it, Nazi Germany and the others would never have achieved the level of domination over its populace by manipulating various crises to their advantage. If Hitler had been born the King of France in the year 1000, he would never have been able to gain such authority over the populace and likely would have been deposed. But thanks to democratic political machinery he and others were able to unleash a horrific war with a most obedient populace.

As Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn correctly noted, "Fifty-one percent of a nation can establish a totalitarian regime, suppress minorities and still remain democratic."

Democracy FTL.

Is this (http://wordincarnate.files.wordpress.com/2007/04/golden-calf.jpg) what Woodrow Wilson wanted to make the world safe for?

I just got curious today. Whats YOUR political party? Forgive me if I left yours out, I had only 10 poll options, please specify if its something different.

Green! :D

This is a good thing, I support authoritarian one-party states. Totalitarianism is the height of human civilization and interdependent collectivism.

Ever thought of moving to North Korea?

Kim Jong-il's pretty ronery. ;)

As Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn correctly noted, "Fifty-one percent of a nation can establish a totalitarian regime, suppress minorities and still remain democratic."

Democracy FTL.

Is this (http://wordincarnate.files.wordpress.com/2007/04/golden-calf.jpg) what Woodrow Wilson wanted to make the world safe for?

This is a good thing, I support authoritarian one-party states. Totalitarianism is the height of human civilization and interdependent collectivism.

This is a good thing, I support authoritarian one-party states. Totalitarianism is the height of human civilization and interdependent collectivism.

Totalitarianism is not the height of human civilization; it is the filthy trough of the most brutal and irrational instincts of mankind left unbound through the stoking of hysteria, hatred, fear and utter obedience to evil men lifted up by lies to seem like gods before the foolish. It is the worst kind of mysticism, fit only for animals.

I don't really support any political parties, though it would be interesting to see a communist party in America. :D

I don't really support any political parties, though it would be interesting to see a communist party in America. :D

Already is one.

Totalitarianism is not the height of human civilization; it is the filthy trough of the most brutal and irrational instincts of mankind left unbound through the stoking of hysteria, hatred, fear and utter obedience to evil men lifted up by lies to seem like gods before the foolish. It is the worst kind of mysticism, fit only for animals.

Not strictly true. There is actually no reason why a totalitarian regime shouldn't be benevolent. Indeed, Christians look forward to the life to come because they envision the ultimate benign dictatorship.

In practise, of course, most people are brutal and irrational.

Not sure...somewhere between Populist Green and Night Watchman Libertarian.

How's that for three-dimensional? :D

As Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn correctly noted, "Fifty-one percent of a nation can establish a totalitarian regime, suppress minorities and still remain democratic."

Democracy FTL.

Is this (http://wordincarnate.files.wordpress.com/2007/04/golden-calf.jpg) what Woodrow Wilson wanted to make the world safe for?

Just because they can doesn't mean that they will. And any alternative to popular power is far worse, for it is by definition a dictatorship. I'd trust democracy long before I'd trust oligarchy or autocracy.

Not strictly true. There is actually no reason why a totalitarian regime shouldn't be benevolent. Indeed, Christians look forward to the life to come because they envision the ultimate benign dictatorship.

In practise, of course, most people are brutal and irrational.

A totalitarian regime can't be benevolent because it doesn't believe in a law that is antecedent to its own authority, in which each must be rendered his due. Rather, the law becomes a matter of will, to be made (legislated), and whenever such a power is available and able to be attained by the worst kind of fear-monger, cheat and liar, it is inevitable that totalitarian power will be evil.

And I am not a Christian, either.

I'm anarcho-communist, so I've refrained from voting. This poll would be a lot better if you asked people their ideology.

The Post-Scarcity Cyborg Party

My ideology is an anagram of stalinism, statism, socialism and fascism. I believe in a planned state economy based on a combination of the Five-Year Plan, Lenin's New Economic Policy and a fascist mode of state corporatism. My views on class are also an anagram of both class struggle and collaboration in that I want to destroy all those against the collective will of the state, and incorporate all class people into a singular economic material reality.

LOL

I'm more beatnik than this political-party shizdatness.

Just because they can doesn't mean that they will.

Yes, it does.

And any alternative to popular power is far worse,

I prefer rule by law to ochlocracy.

for it is by definition a dictatorship.

Prove it.

I'd trust democracy long before I'd trust oligarchy or autocracy.

Note that I advocated neither.

A totalitarian regime can't be benevolent because it doesn't believe in a law that is antecedent to its own authority, in which each must be rendered his due.


Irrelevent. No one said it had to be equalitarian or even fair. But it could be benevolent.

If I am absolute king, supreme monarch, and considered a god on earth... but I'm kind of nice to my subjects, why then I'm a benevolent dictator.

Rather, the law becomes a matter of will, to be made (legislated), and whenever such a power is available and able to be attained by the worst kind of fear-monger, cheat and liar, it is inevitable that totalitarian power will be evil.


Of course, there is actually no reason why such a power grab should even happen. It would be entirely possible to have a democratically elected benevolent dictator.

Cincinnatus is an example of an appointed benevolent dictator...


And I am not a Christian, either.

So? Neither am I. Doesn't make the slightest bit of difference to the point I made, eh?

I prefer authoritarian capitalism, where we stomp the socialists and negotiate with the Libertarians (over economics.)

I prefer authoritarian capitalism, where we stomp the socialists and negotiate with the Libertarians (over economics.)

o.O

I'm in favor of anti-authoritarian totalitarianism. Muahahaha. It doesn't make sense, but it would render the government even more clueless than it is today.

Menshevik.

Libertarian. Definitely Libertarian.

I prefer authoritarian capitalism, where we stomp the socialists and negotiate with the Libertarians (over economics.)
I prefer authoritarian collectivism proper, where we stomp everyone who dissents and negotiate with no one.

I prefer authoritarian collectivism proper, where we stomp everyone who dissents and negotiate with no one.

No, you mean where others do the stomping while you hide safely behind their skirt and shout hackneyed slogans to make yourself look tough.

Pity for the bias in the poll.

I didn't know there was such thing as an anarchist party but that is most appropriate so I put that. Greens would also be an appropriate otion if it was there. I personally would prefer if there were no political parties even if it was still a representative democracy. If you could vote on specific policies rather than on the whole party program, it would give a more realistic view of how people want things to be.

This is a good thing, I support authoritarian one-party states. Totalitarianism is the height of human civilization and interdependent collectivism.I don't enitrely disagree but I don't see civilisation as a necessarily good thing as people make out most of the time so my saying this is not support for totalitarianism. In fact, that's probably the worst form of government possible.

A totalitarian regime can't be benevolent because it doesn't believe in a law that is antecedent to its own authority, in which each must be rendered his due. Rather, the law becomes a matter of will, to be made (legislated), and whenever such a power is available and able to be attained by the worst kind of fear-monger, cheat and liar, it is inevitable that totalitarian power will be evil.

And I am not a Christian, either.
Can you give an example of anyone that does have a law antecendant to itself? The only thing I can think of is Islamic law which is used as the basis of states now.

I'm anarcho-communist, so I've refrained from voting. This poll would be a lot better if you asked people their ideology.But with it the way it is, by not voting, you're screwing the result against yourself.

<snip>

But with it the way it is, by not voting, you're screwing the result against yourself.

True, I am. On the other hand, anyone who cares about my opinion can simply ask me or look it up. I just find the idea of an anarchist party laughable.

Incidentally, you said you voted anarchist. Are you leftist anarchist or rightist anarchist?

Yes, it does.

Non sequitor

I prefer rule by law to ochlocracy.

And who will administer your precious law? The law that in its majesty denies both the opulent and the destitute the right to sleep under a bridge at night. Law has always been the codification of class privilege; despite its attempts to reach a level of humanity, this fact still rings true. Law requires enforcers, and even if the law itself is perfect, the enforcer can and will be corrupted.

Prove it.

If any less than the full people have a say in politics, you have dictatorship. No matter how benign your "rule of law" is, if the people are denied the power to define it, they are nothing more than slaves.

Note that I advocated neither.

Oh, but you have. You talk about rule of law, a law that must be defined and enforced by some group. This group can't be the whole people, or else that horrible dreaded democracy might take root. Logically, it has to be some smaller group. The prerequisite for the rule of law is a State: it is their monopoly on the legitimate use of force that makes the law have power. The State is the worst form of oligarchy in human existence, and its profane powers will never even serve the ends of the flawed standard of justice you defend.

I prefer authoritarian collectivism proper, where we stomp everyone who dissents and negotiate with no one.

*throws a spanner in EA's and Quester's authoritarian works*

Where there is a problem of authoritarianism, there is always an anarcho-syndicalist solution. :cool:

*throws a spanner in EA's and Quester's authoritarian works*

Where there is a problem of authoritarianism, there is always an anarcho-syndicalist solution. :cool:

Hey, it's the spanner again!

I'm actually not that keen on democracy at the moment. I don't feel that any body of the people should be allowed to restrict the freedom of others of the people.

That's currently rather badly defined, but you can hopefully get the idea.

I believe in self-government.
I also recognise the fact that the majority of humanity isn't ready to self-govern.

Hey, it's the spanner again!

I'm actually not that keen on democracy at the moment. I don't feel that any body of the people should be allowed to restrict the freedom of others of the people.

That's currently rather badly defined, but you can hopefully get the idea.

I <3 the spanner!

On a more serious note, of course they shouldn't. For me, democracy is the principle that decision making should be done collectively by the people who are affected by the decision. Matters that concern individuals only are of no concern to the collective, and individuals do not have the right to make decisions that adversely affect the group without the group's consent.

Anything more than that is some form of rule and tyranny.

Irrelevent. No one said it had to be equalitarian or even fair. But it could be benevolent.

If I am absolute king, supreme monarch, and considered a god on earth... but I'm kind of nice to my subjects, why then I'm a benevolent dictator.

No. If you are a monarch or king, there is law antecedent to your authority, whereas to a dictator law is subsequent to their authority thanks to the power of legislation.

Of course, there is actually no reason why such a power grab should even happen. It would be entirely possible to have a democratically elected benevolent dictator.

Cincinnatus is an example of an appointed benevolent dictator...

I never said it was a power-grab; dictators come to power because the fear struck into the populace causes them to think that their authority is somehow legitimate (hence why I despise all forms of political machinery.) It is not necessary that there be unfair elections for there to be a dictator, all that is necessary for dictatorship is to ignore liberal custom.

And as for Cincinnatus, there were de facto limitations on his power, such as the fact that he was expected to resign as soon as the crisis that necessitated his intervention was over, and that his more important decisions were often put to a vote regardless, thus preserving the liberal Roman law of custom against legislation. Also, Cincinnatus was not chosen by political machinery but by his own personal virtue that others could observe themselves, which is far different from the cults of personality that infest countries today. The Roman dictator is not quite equal to the aliberal democratic leaders I was referring to (again, I refuse to call them democracies and dictatorships but rather liberal and aliberal democracies.)

So? Neither am I. Doesn't make the slightest bit of difference to the point I made, eh?

But since I don't believe in Christianity, I don't think their conception of benevolent dictatorship is at all valid. It's just fantasy.

Can you give an example of anyone that does have a law antecendant to itself? The only thing I can think of is Islamic law which is used as the basis of states now.

A cursory check of European political development would show that medieval kings were bound to obey a law that was antecedent to their authority, such as the fact that they swore to uphold the rights of their subjects and could not tax without the permission of the person who was taxed (subsidy was a preferred form of revenue in those days.) This is because of customary law. While this customary law was weakened by kings and the bourgeoise later on, it still held in many places up until the catastrophe of World War I; King Louis XIV's ministers, for example, rebelled against him when he attempted to tax without consent. The tuaths in Ireland and medieval Iceland are other examples, as are the Kapauku Papuans of New Guinea. Legislation, rather than being the source of all law, is actually an extremely new occurence.

If you're really interested, read Bertrand de Jouvenel's Sovereignty and On Power, both of which give a detailed analysis of the history of politics.

I've always wanted to create my own political party, called "The Democratic-Republican Capitalist Party of the United States of America." It's like Republican party, only more capitalism.

I <3 the spanner!

On a more serious note, of course they shouldn't. For me, democracy is the principle that decision making should be done collectively by the people who are affected by the decision. Matters that concern individuals only are of no concern to the collective, and individuals do not have the right to make decisions that adversely affect the group without the group's consent.

Anything more than that is some form of rule and tyranny.

Yes, I noticed you do. Want to marry it?

Also on our more serious note, I feel that where democracy is employed, you basically need assent from all those affected by whatever decision is being made. Even if 30 people collectively decide something, your typical definition of democracy says that 16 of those can ignore the other 14, something that is obviously wrong.

Consensus democracy for the win!

I affiliate right now with the NDP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Democratic_Party) in Canada...I'm definitely Left of Centre but I wouldn't call myself Socialist...

True, I am. On the other hand, anyone who cares about my opinion can simply ask me or look it up. I just find the idea of an anarchist party laughable.

Incidentally, you said you voted anarchist. Are you leftist anarchist or rightist anarchist?I don't really think of politics in a left/right distinction. People often use it to mean many different things and it's never actually clear what people mean by it. The term originates from the French Parliament where the peasant parties sat on the left of the king and the nobles on his right, in which case I would most definitely be leftist. Does that answer your question?

I don't really think of politics in a left/right distinction. People often use it to mean many different things and it's never actually clear what people mean by it. The term originates from the French Parliament where the peasant parties sat on the left of the king and the nobles on his right, in which case I would most definitely be leftist. Does that answer your question?

Sort of. I'm mostly using it to ask if you tend to communism or capitalism. So economically left wing or right wing. I'm guessing, from your answer, that you're at least somewhat in favour of the communist side of things.

Sort of. I'm mostly using it to ask if you tend to communism or capitalism. So economically left wing or right wing. I'm guessing, from your answer, that you're at least somewhat in favour of the communist side of things.Communism v capitalism, eh? Well, I don't particularly affiliate myself with either. Capitalism inherently involves profit which is always for the benefit of the companies so no good in my opinion. Communism, on the other hand, has been used as the name for multiple authoritarian regimes which is a criterion for 1 of the worst governments possible. However, if I take into account the multitude of non-Leninist-Stalinist forms of it which are not nearly so famous, I would say I prefer communism to capitalism.

Communism v capitalism, eh? Well, I don't particularly affiliate myself with either. Capitalism inherently involves profit which is always for the benefit of the companies so no good in my opinion. Communism, on the other hand, has been used as the name for multiple authoritarian regimes which is a criterion for 1 of the worst governments possible. However, if I take into account the multitude of non-Leninist-Stalinist forms of it which are not nearly so famous, I would say I prefer communism to capitalism.

Yes, I wasn't exactly referring to the authoritarian side of communism. And an excellent choice you've made there overall.