NationStates Jolt Archive

I know this only takes pretty broad sweeps at it but I want to know where people consider themselves to be and sorry if I left your place out

Politically, I don't stand. I wander aimlessly. :)

Apathetic Anarchist?

AA?

Alcoholics Anonymous? Only if I admit to it.

Ignore what? :confused:

I know this only takes pretty broad sweeps at it but I want to know where people consider themselves to be and sorry if I left your place out

Either you're making an insightful commentary about how our adherence to political identity is insubstantial and divisive, or you forgot the poll.

Great Britain.

Ignore this please I posted it under the wrong name and messed my post up and there is supposed to be a poll go to the newer one(coming in a few minutes)

Actually, I'm not sure what you would call me. I have sort right of center economic views (not enough to be considered full libertarian), and left wing social views.

I know Im only taking broad sweeps but sure what 'cha gonna do.

recently I would have said left wing but Im more moderate now.

oh yeah and sorry if this has been done before which it almost certainly has

still left wing, but certainly less radical

Like I said in the last one, Alcoholic... I mean Apathetic, with a little bit of Anarchist on the side.

I prefer to sit when discussing politics.

Yes, but what scale are we going by? I'm extreme left by US standards, but on the right wing of leftism by global standards.

all depends on where your from but from my English crumpets I'd say in between far left and slightly left (I shall call it "moderately left")

though I usually put anarchist so I seem sexy and rebellious:cool:

I think the political circle thread is useful for figuring out what politcs you consider yourself to be under. Can't remember the name of the thread though.
You got.
--------Authoritarian--------
Left------------Right
--------Anarchist----------
I think then draw a circle to join them and that's roughly what you'd get, the thread explains it better than i do.

The only people I've ever noticed that would fall neatly into any of those brackets are politicians, and I suspect that they only appear to conform because that's their job. The only people I've ever known who would appear to fall neatly into any of those brackets are Politics students, and I suspect that they only appear to conform because they think that it makes them look well-informed.

Everyone else I've ever met and spoken to for long enough to gauge some of their political opinions seem to have very mixed views about the issues of the day, so I conclude that they don't really fit neatly into any of the poll options other than none/other, which is where I placed my vote.
:)

I name my position as 'liberal', but that is merely the closest one can come to it, and even that is wide of the mark.
At some point I may think up a suitable name for it, and be able to describe it in its entirety. My stance at the moment seems to be limited to a membership of one.

Bah. I repeat what I said on the defunct thread:

I name my position as 'liberal', but that is merely the closest one can come to it, and even that is wide of the mark.
At some point I may think up a suitable name for it, and be able to describe it in its entirety. My stance at the moment seems to be limited to a membership of one.

you sound like a sociology student....Longhaul that is

I thought I already posted in this thread. About preferring to sit. Bah, now LG beat me to a standing related joke. Curse you Goofballs! Curse you!

you sound like a sociology student....Longhaul that is
Interesting. I'm not a big fan of sociology or rather, I'm not a big fan of the ideas of those people who seem to think that it qualifies as a science.

Might be because I've just eaten. I'm always quite mellow and reflective after a good curry :)

I wonder if politicians have cars that can go very fast.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=ph-qv4gYAE8
I'm struggling to see the relevance...

I wonder if politicians have cars that can go very fast.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=ph-qv4gYAE8

Two threads, same name.

who is the fascist may I ask

Extreme right wing is Nazism. Fascism doesn't really fit anywhere on the spectrum.

Myself, a left-wing conservative (in the British sense of the word.)

Extreme right wing is Nazism. Fascism doesn't really fit anywhere on the spectrum.

Myself, a left-wing conservative (in the British sense of the word.)

Nazism is a sub-set of fascism.

Left wing, thought far left on some social issues.

I know this only takes pretty broad sweeps at it but I want to know where people consider themselves to be and sorry if I left your place out

You certainly make it sound like there should be a poll, but I shall take the opportunity to state my views without a poll to pigeon-hole them into one category or another.

I'm a classical liberal, which in Britain and America tends to be a lot closer to a conservative! This isn't always the case, though. The core of my beliefs, social, economic, and political, is that every mentally able person above the age of reason should be free to make their own choices with the safe minimum of restrictions. And to face the consequences of those choices.

So socially, I believe laws are about protecting the innocent first and then punishing the guilty. They should never simply be about forcing anyone to conform to what's "acceptable". If it's legal... what the hell. Do it. What's legal is another matter. I'd sure as hell vote for illegalising smoking and legalising certain soft drugs. Why? Because a smoking ban is a necessary protection of the innocent (from your vile cancerous fumes!) but who exactly is the victim of someone who takes reasonable quantities of harmless (cheap, no medical effects, non-halucigenic) soft drugs?

Gay marriage? Just stay out of my room. Crazy whacko religion? Well, as long you don't rip out hearts and set fire to them. Long-established widely-adhered religion? We won't tax you and you won't blow yourselves up, 'kay?

Economically, the principle is much the same. Free-market capitalism is the only system where people can make their own choices? Service not provided? Found your own company! Service-provider crap? Just switch! In a planned economy or even just a heavily socialist one this choice is restricted because there are less or one provider. Laws, again, protect people first and then punish the guilty. So of course there should be laws against 12-hour days or lies in marketing. And a similar purpose to laws socially is served by government control economically. Your free until it's seriously harmful. Safe minimum of restrictions. So for example the army is public because you can't just have bands of landsknecht wandering the country looting and burning. There's public schools because everyone should have access to education. But there should be private schools to. There are definately more, but I think Medicine, Education, Postage and Delivery is the major places I'd provide public alternatives.

Politically democracy is the only free form of government and thus the only good form of government. Democracy simply means any country where, in practice, all three branches of power are seperate and fundamentally responsible to the people. Britain for example is a democracy despite our monarchy. Proportional representation is best because it prevents the 51 tyrannising the 49 but sometimes regional demands overrule this: the US can't have a proportional senate, obviously. That misses the point. But it could have the two senators being from the two biggest parties in the state (unless of course above maybe 70% of people vote one way. Then it's fare to give that party two senators).

ALL countries should strive to build democracy. Democracy is a superior form of government. I don't buy the argument that only the west has democracy because only the west wants it. Most demoracies are in the west because, cutting through the crap, the west is at a superior stage of political development. After all, a few centuries back, people would have said "the west is pretty much all petty theocracy or feudal monarchy, so clearly that's the best thing for the west." We have evolved politically and so have others. India, Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, South Africa: all have reached this superior stage of development comparatitively recently.

Since we've the national level, let's talk about nationalism. First let's talk about what natioanlism ain't:

Fascism. I'd explain why, but Mussolini did for me. Anyone curious will be given the quotes and source (Mussolini's essay on the meaning of Fascism).

Imperialism. Nationalism is inherently anti-Imperialist.

A stronger form of patriotism. Nationalism is an ideology. A theory. Patriotism is a powerful and controversial emotion.

Racist. Nationalism is equal for all races, religions, and cultures, or its not nationalism.


Nationalism is simply the belief that

1) The existance of a linguistic-cultural group with a shared identity inherently implies the right of that group to an independant homeland.

2) State boundaries should by and large be based on "national" (cultural-linguistic) boundaries. More specifically, they are based on the choice of people living there. Any unit big enough to be really significant, such as a significantly inhabited island or city can choose it's own path and what state it shall or shan't belong to. The nations come in when we start holding referedums. Imagine a Quebec seccesion referendum where everyone in Canada voted. In North America. In the whole world! Quebec's fate is taken totally out of the hands of the Quebecois.

I think maybe I should cut short here.

Actually, I'm not sure what you would call me. I have sort right of center economic views (not enough to be considered full libertarian), and left wing social views.
But are you far enough left on social issues to be a libertarian?

I'm far right on fiscal issues (I don't think any US politicians are far-right on fiscal issues because they have the government interfere in the market so much), and far left on social issues. I don't even think society is a thing, so I certainly don't want the government wasting time regulating it.

I'm a classical liberal, which in Britain and America tends to be a lot closer to a conservative! This isn't always the case, though. The core of my beliefs, social, economic, and political, is that every mentally able person above the age of reason should be free to make their own choices with the safe minimum of restrictions. And to face the consequences of those choices.

So socially, I believe laws are about protecting the innocent first and then punishing the guilty. They should never simply be about forcing anyone to conform to what's "acceptable". If it's legal... what the hell. Do it. What's legal is another matter. I'd sure as hell vote for illegalising smoking and legalising certain soft drugs. Why? Because a smoking ban is a necessary protection of the innocent (from your vile cancerous fumes!) but who exactly is the victim of someone who takes reasonable quantities of harmless (cheap, no medical effects, non-halucigenic) soft drugs?

Gay marriage? Just stay out of my room. Crazy whacko religion? Well, as long you don't rip out hearts and set fire to them. Long-established widely-adhered religion? We won't tax you and you won't blow yourselves up, 'kay?

Economically, the principle is much the same. Free-market capitalism is the only system where people can make their own choices? Service not provided? Found your own company! Service-provider crap? Just switch! In a planned economy or even just a heavily socialist one this choice is restricted because there are less or one provider. Laws, again, protect people first and then punish the guilty. So of course there should be laws against 12-hour days or lies in marketing. And a similar purpose to laws socially is served by government control economically. Your free until it's seriously harmful. Safe minimum of restrictions. So for example the army is public because you can't just have bands of landsknecht wandering the country looting and burning. There's public schools because everyone should have access to education. But there should be private schools to. There are definately more, but I think Medicine, Education, Postage and Delivery is the major places I'd provide public alternatives.

Politically democracy is the only free form of government and thus the only good form of government. Democracy simply means any country where, in practice, all three branches of power are seperate and fundamentally responsible to the people. Britain for example is a democracy despite our monarchy. Proportional representation is best because it prevents the 51 tyrannising the 49 but sometimes regional demands overrule this: the US can't have a proportional senate, obviously. That misses the point. But it could have the two senators being from the two biggest parties in the state (unless of course above maybe 70% of people vote one way. Then it's fare to give that party two senators).

ALL countries should strive to build democracy. Democracy is a superior form of government. I don't buy the argument that only the west has democracy because only the west wants it. Most demoracies are in the west because, cutting through the crap, the west is at a superior stage of political development. After all, a few centuries back, people would have said "the west is pretty much all petty theocracy or feudal monarchy, so clearly that's the best thing for the west." We have evolved politically and so have others. India, Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, South Africa: all have reached this superior stage of development comparatitively recently.

Since we've the national level, let's talk about nationalism. First let's talk about what natioanlism ain't:

Fascism. I'd explain why, but Mussolini did for me. Anyone curious will be given the quotes and source (Mussolini's essay on the meaning of Fascism).

Imperialism. Nationalism is inherently anti-Imperialist.

A stronger form of patriotism. Nationalism is an ideology. A theory. Patriotism is a powerful and controversial emotion.

Racist. Nationalism is equal for all races, religions, and cultures, or its not nationalism.


Nationalism is simply the belief that

1) The existance of a linguistic-cultural group with a shared identity inherently implies the right of that group to an independant homeland.

2) State boundaries should by and large be based on "national" (cultural-linguistic) boundaries. More specifically, they are based on the choice of people living there. Any unit big enough to be really significant, such as a significantly inhabited island or city can choose it's own path and what state it shall or shan't belong to. The nations come in when we start holding referedums. Imagine a Quebec seccesion referendum where everyone in Canada voted. In North America. In the whole world! Quebec's fate is taken totally out of the hands of the Quebecois.

I think maybe I should cut short here. Centre-right.

To answer a couple of specific questions:

I support the War on Terror. It's no clash between civilisations. It's a clash between civilisation, western, eastern, southern, northern, and uncivilisation. These people are using murder and torture to try and enslave people to their perversion of the Muslim faith across the world and we can't allow that to happen. We have a duty to protect people. Everywhere.

I am however, against "bombing anywhere into the stone age". This is not revenge or punishment: we left the punishment of the first criminal we caught, Saddam Hussein, to the Iraqi people through a fair trail. When we find Osama bin Laden, we must make him stand trail in many countries for all his crimes. What this war is a battle to defend civilisation across the globe.

I am a patriot. Three cheers for BRITAIN! I'm not afraid to criticise my country or to analyse it objectively, but I love my country. I'm always insulted when people make an insult at my country (but not fair criticism). But I believe in Britain. I believe in the flag. And I believe that Iron Maiden's The Trooper (http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/adc/10206947A~Iron-Maiden-Trooper-Posters.jpg) is one of the best songs ever written.

I'll never get the hang of this cutting short thing.

Im from Serbia.......politics is very popular these days in my country.

I am for the Serbian Radical Party.

But are you far enough left on social issues to be a libertarian?


I dunno, my political compass score (though a little outdated) is in my sig, so you can judge for yourself.

I know Im only taking broad sweeps but sure what 'cha gonna do.

recently I would have said left wing but Im more moderate now.

oh yeah and sorry if this has been done before which it almost certainly has

Hier stehe ich; ich kann nicht anders.

Actually, I'm not sure what you would call me. I have sort right of center economic views (not enough to be considered full libertarian), and left wing social views.

Moderate or progressive libertarian. "Small L" libertarians are half of most bi-axial political spectra, "Big L" Libertarians are about 1/2 of one quadrant.

The only people I've ever noticed that would fall neatly into any of those brackets are politicians, and I suspect that they only appear to conform because that's their job. The only people I've ever known who would appear to fall neatly into any of those brackets are Politics students, and I suspect that they only appear to conform because they think that it makes them look well-informed.

Everyone else I've ever met and spoken to for long enough to gauge some of their political opinions seem to have very mixed views about the issues of the day, so I conclude that they don't really fit neatly into any of the poll options other than none/other, which is where I placed my vote.
:)

While it is true that nobody fits neatly onto the catagories, 6 billion some odd individual catagories would be too unwieldy to be of any use when talking about politics.

I'm struggling to see the relevance...

hehe,:D:DI like insanity, you know where you stand, it's obvious that i'll do something stupid, the people you need to watch are those who are honest, noone knows what they get up to.
Oh and honesty and insanity are not mutually exclusive, i think.

hehe:D:D,I like insanity, you know where you stand, it's obvious that i'll do something stupid, the people you need to watch are those who are honest, noone knows what they get up to.
Oh and honesty and insanity are not mutually exclusive, i think.
That's... nice, I guess.

You do of course realise that if you are ok with insanity because you know where you stand, but you have to watch out for the honest people, but the honest people might also be insane so you know where you stand, but you have to watch out for them anyway, because they might be honest, that you might end up insane?

Nazism is a sub-set of fascism.


Not really, it's pretty different fundamentally.

Nazism - Peasant ideology, agricultualism
Fasicism - Modernism and Futurism

and so on and so on.

Fascism retains more left-wing ideas than Nazism, coming as it did from the mind of a former socialist agitator.

I dunno, my political compass score (though a little outdated) is in my sig, so you can judge for yourself.
The compass score has some issues on the social scale, I think. I see myself as being far left socially, but I have a more moderate social score than you. I suspect my misanthropy broke the test.

I support Green politics...does that put me extreme left or just left? I put extreme left (I'm quite radical) but then again I might be mistaken. :D

Center-right-- I guess?

Not really, it's pretty different fundamentally.

Nazism - Peasant ideology, agricultualism


This isn't Nazism, this is just one of many things that the Nazi party took pride in and wanted to preserve.


Fasicism - Modernism and Futurism


The Nazis implemented futurism heavily, especially in their architecture. But this really has little to do with politics. Modernism and futurism are not inherent in the ideology of fascism itself, its just used a lot by many fascist governments.


Fascism retains more left-wing ideas than Nazism, coming as it did from the mind of a former socialist agitator.

Bollocks, fascism is by definition, extreme right wing social politics, and statist economics. Exactly like the Nazis were, thus the Nazis were also fascists.

That's... nice, I guess.

You do of course realise that if you are ok with insanity because you know where you stand, but you have to watch out for the honest people, but the honest people might also be insane so you know where you stand, but you have to watch out for them anyway, because they might be honest, that you might end up insane?

ah you found my contradiction, shhhh don't tell everyone. maybe i was being a bit dishonest there.

I support Green politics...does that put me extreme left or just left? I put extreme left (I'm quite radical) but then again I might be mistaken. :D

Neither, unless you're a "watermelon green" (green on the outside, red on the inside). It's quite possible to be a gree conservative/conservative gree.

A few examples:
http://conservativeobserver.blogspot.com/2005/10/green-conservative-or-conservative.html
http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0796greencon.htm

There are several conservation organizations that are supported more by conservative types - mostly hunting conservationists (in the footsteps of TR, the great Republican conservationist). http://www.ducks.org/
(Ducks Unlimited) stands out in particular, as an organization that has done more to perserve wetland habitats than most environmental groups.

It's even possible to be a Libertarian National Socialist Green (http://www.nazi.org/). :eek:

Top wing, looking down on the left and right wings with contempt.

Damn, how long did it take you to type that? You could've saved a lot of time by saying "essentially a libertarian."

Where would "Libertarian" stand? Miniarchist? But that's not up there!(Sob) So mean to me...Everyone is involved in a huge conspiracy aganst me!

I have no idea what I am any more. Here's basically how my mind works.

- So long as they do no harm, the individual should be allowed to do as they wish. When said action becomes CLEARLY harmful, then laws are made to prevent that action.
- I have nothing against government spending, so long as it is INTELLIGENT spending, according to the nation's needs.
- The government exists to serve and protect the country and its people. The government is NOT the country.

That's basically it. If someone feels like giving me a label, feel free...I'd actually like to know of a quick way to explain this so I will no longer have to express my political position in list-form.

I voted Centrist / Mixed, although I lean to the left on most issues (defence, welfare, drugs, health, education... etc.) because there are some issues I'm kind of right-wing on (GUNS, abortion) and I'm kind of undecided on affirmative action.

I would say left leaning libertarian.

Where would "Libertarian" stand? Miniarchist? But that's not up there!(Sob) So mean to me...Everyone is involved in a huge conspiracy aganst me!

All this time, I thought you were a conservative. How is that?

All this time, I thought you were a conservative. How is that?

No, he's a conserative.

Somebody familiar with my posting history classify me.

I stand with Bubblegum Pie.

HURRAH for nonsensicalness!

YUM!

Since we've the national level, let's talk about nationalism. First let's talk about what natioanlism ain't:

*snip*

Racist. Nationalism is equal for all races, religions, and cultures, or its not nationalism.

Well, except for the logical conflict with what you say just afterwards:

Nationalism is simply the belief that

1) The existance of a linguistic-cultural group with a shared identity inherently implies the right of that group to an independant homeland.

2) State boundaries should by and large be based on "national" (cultural-linguistic) boundaries. More specifically, they are based on the choice of people living there. Any unit big enough to be really significant, such as a significantly inhabited island or city can choose it's own path and what state it shall or shan't belong to. The nations come in when we start holding referedums. Imagine a Quebec seccesion referendum where everyone in Canada voted. In North America. In the whole world! Quebec's fate is taken totally out of the hands of the Quebecois.

I think maybe I should cut short here.

You fail to see that your first point is viewed through rose-tinted glasses. Most nationalist parties that have ever existed do not merely believe that point to be true. They enforce it to the point where it is no longer equal for people of other races, beliefs and such, because "It's in our culture to be <race>, <religion> and <stupid>"

Perfect examples are several political parties in Europe as well as a few nations in Africa.

Also, your example with Quebec: Quebec is, as of right now, a part of Canada. Therefore, any attempt to seceed must be accepted by Canada. It would be undemocratic for Canada to allow Quebec to seceed without letting Canadians have their say, because Quebec is a part of Canada. Therefore, the correct turn of events would be:
Quebec votes to see if they want to seceed. Only they vote.
If No: No further action is taken with that regards.
If Yes: Canada, as a federal entity, votes to see if they want to allow Quebec to seceed. All of Canada votes.
If No: Quebec is forced by their ties to Canada to remain a part of Canada.
If Yes: Congratulations! Quebec is now an independent state and will no longer receive nor give funds towards Canada.

That's how it should be, if you want to follow the democratic nature of Canada.

Democratic Socialist

Communist.

Politically, I don't stand. I wander aimlessly. :)

This rather describes me :p

In the corner.

In the corner.

Me, too, except I don't really stand, but sit on a stool, while wearing a dunce cap. :p

*runs*

Anti-revisionist Marxist-Leninist, I traditionally follow the Marxist line of thought as follows: Marx-Lenin-Stalin-Hoxha.

Moderate leaning left. Mostly to irritate my father (;), just kidding).

Extreme left-wing/anarchist.

Somebody familiar with my posting history classify me.

I'm guessing far left based on yo' sig.

'Left' and 'Right' political designations are probably the biggest false dichotomy we have, and personally I blame the French. For many people being socially 'left' is being libertarian, which I would consider Right. Left-liberalism and conservativism are two horns of the same bourgeois beast. I consider scientific and practical Marxism-Leninism, as Lenin himself pointed out, to the above the 'left' and 'right', which are in fact both capitalist ideologies, just with differing degrees of moderation.

'Left' and 'Right' political designations are probably the biggest false dichotomy we have, and personally I blame the French. For many people being socially 'left' is being libertarian, which I would consider Right. Left-liberalism and conservativism are two horns of the same bourgeois beast. I consider scientific and practical Marxism-Leninism, as Lenin himself pointed out, to the above the 'left' and 'right', which are in fact both capitalist ideologies, just with differing degrees of moderation.

Yes they are, but the number of people we have here in the West who stray from fundamental belief in capitalist democracy (in whatever form) is comparatively few.

But I was wondering, how do you justify scientific Marxism, which has failed in every real life trial?

Yes they are, but the number of people we have here in the West who stray from fundamental belief in capitalist democracy (in whatever form) is comparatively few.

But I was wondering, how do you justify scientific Marxism, which has failed in every real life trial?
Wow, maybe Krushevite and Breshevite bureaucratic revisionism has failed, but that's just another way of showing state capitalism failing. Any amount of self-criticism based on dialectical analysis can solve problems. Fundamentally the modern 'left' thinks that capitalism can be regulated, reforms, which in effect means the bourgeois remains intact and will of course work to destroy any progressive moves the government makes, it's like trying to punch down a brick wall to build socialism with the bourgeois intact. Class struggle is socialism, society can only be perfect once the parasitic bourgeois reactionaries are liquidated. Socialism did not 'fail', as the defeatist and revisionist 'left' would want us to believe, in the USSR and China the dictatorship of the proletariat was replaced by the bourgeois dictatorship, and thus now the bourgeois have the upper hand in the class struggle.

“Social Democracy objectively represents the moderate wing of Fascism" - Stalin

which are in fact both capitalist ideologies

Yes, there are moderate leftists who support capitalism. Nevertheless, they are more interested in limiting the inequities and abuses of capitalism than rightists are, and the further left you go, the more anti-capitalist people get.

Your protest, if anything, is directed at the center from which "left" and "right" are derived, and that's an arbitrary choice that has nothing to do with the coherence of the left/right classification.

Wow, maybe Krushevite and Breshevite bureaucratic revisionism has failed, but that's just another way of showing state capitalism failing.

What about the Marxist prediction of periodic worsening economic crises ending in the overthrow of capitalism?

“Social Democracy objectively represents the moderate wing of Fascism" - Stalin

Yeah, that ended well.

Yes, there are moderate leftists who support capitalism. Nevertheless, they are more interested in limiting the inequities and abuses of capitalism than rightists are, and the further left you go, the more anti-capitalist people get.

Your protest, if anything, is directed at the center from which "left" and "right" are derived, and that's an arbitrary choice that has nothing to do with the coherence of the left/right classification.
Both reject class struggle, because allowing bourgeois capitalism to remain intact is completely counterproductive to building socialism, because naturally the bourgeois when not repressed will actively try to destroy socialism.

Wow, maybe Krushevite and Breshevite bureaucratic revisionism has failed, but that's just another way of showing state capitalism failing. Any amount of self-criticism based on dialectical analysis can solve problems. Fundamentally the modern 'left' thinks that capitalism can be regulated, reforms, which in effect means the bourgeois remains intact and will of course work to destroy any progressive moves the government makes, it's like trying to punch down a brick wall to build socialism with the bourgeois intact. Class struggle is socialism, society can only be perfect once the parasitic bourgeois reactionaries are liquidated. Socialism did not 'fail', as the defeatist and revisionist 'left' would want us to believe, in the USSR and China the dictatorship of the proletariat was replaced by the bourgeois dictatorship, and thus now the bourgeois have the upper hand in the class struggle.

“Social Democracy objectively represents the moderate wing of Fascism" - Stalin

Just so you know, the revisionist left is on your side. So basically what you're telling me is that the USSR under Stalin was the golden days, huh?

Both reject class struggle

Yes, moderate leftists do.

That's because they're moderate. Not because they're leftist.

Just so you know, the revisionist left is on your side.

No, EA is a classic Anti-Revisionist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Revisionism).

No, EA is a classic Anti-Revisionist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Revisionism).

oops. thinking of American left-revisionism

Yes, moderate leftists do.

That's because they're moderate. Not because they're leftist.
No, not even modern 'leftists' accept class struggle. This is either from a naive concept that the bourgeois dictatorship (modern states) will not reverse or completely stop any socialist policies, or an opportunistic political 'game' with the 'Right' to 'Win' and get seats in parliament for whatever. Either way, conforming and acting within the framework of the bourgeois dictatorship means that they reject class struggle. They don't seem to understand that the bourgeois dictatorship exists to preserve the bourgeois class, and thus this institutionalized classism will prevent socialism until it is overthrown and replaced by the proletarian dictatorship. All social, legal and whatnot frameworks exist to preserve bourgeois dictatorship, the only way is to overthrow it through revolution.

No, not even modern 'leftists' accept class struggle.

Um, some do.

Are you just going to continue utterly missing the point?

All social, legal and whatnot frameworks exist to preserve bourgeois dictatorship, the only way is to overthrow it through revolution.

The revolution's never going to get anywhere if you spend more time preaching on an internet forum than you do actually, y'know, doing something.

Just a thought. ;)

In answer to the OP:

Extreme right-wing classical liberal monarchist with very strong anarcho-capitalist leanings.

The revolution's never going to get anywhere if you spend more time preaching on an internet forum than you do actually, y'know, doing something.

Just a thought. ;)

Lol, I've been in political groups since 18 really, only really the last 3 years I have been a solid Marxist-Leninist, even before 18 I considered myself a 'socialist' and was a fan of Trotsky. You'll notice that if you read Marx and Engels, they were pretty adamant about revolution and class struggle, if anyone has 'betrayed' Marxism it's the Trots who love the bourgeois elections, see the 'Socialist Equality Party' in my country for this.

I'm an anarchist in personal terms, I live anarchism within everything I do, and let my instincts and self-made morality dictate my actions.

However, I do not expect the world to adapt an anarchist lifestyle, and I don't fight for anarchism, because I don't expect it to happen. I just live with an existentialist, individualist mindset.

In terms of government, I usually support liberal leftists. Though it's hard in America, because the Democrats in a world spectrum are actually center-right. The only candidate I particularly like in the 2008 race is Mike Gravel, but he doesn't have a realistic chance. Once he folds, I'll hope for the Democratic nominee to win the presidency, the lesser of 2 evils.

Is that like "jumbo shrimp?"

"Classical liberal" is a euphemism right-wing libertarians use for right-wing libertarian.

It becomes especially absurd when the more radical among them go all the way to advocating absolute monarchy... while pretending that they're the rightful, indeed the only rightful, heirs of the liberal tradition.

classical liberal monarchist

Is that like "jumbo shrimp?"

I'm guessing far left based on yo' sig.

I think property and the market are the bee's knees.

"Classical liberal" is a euphemism right-wing libertarians use for right-wing libertarian.

It becomes especially absurd when the more radical among them go all the way to advocating absolute monarchy... while pretending that they're the rightful, indeed the only rightful, heirs of the liberal tradition.

I used to think that this affinity for monarchy was just the stuff of the occasional kook (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans-Hermann_Hoppe), but I begin to wonder. The association of "anarcho-*" and "monarchy" threatens to cause massive cranial hemorrhage.

However, I do not expect the world to adapt an anarchist lifestyle, and I don't fight for anarchism, because I don't expect it to happen. I just live with an existentialist, individualist mindset.


"A rational anarchist believes that concepts, such as 'state' and 'society' and 'government' have no existence save as physically exemplified in the acts of self-responsible individuals. He believes that it is impossible to shift blame, share blame, distribute blame... as blame, guilt, responsibility are matters taking place inside human beings singly and nowhere else. But being rational, he knows that not all individuals hold his evaluations, so he tries to live perfectly in an imperfect world... aware that his efforts will be less than perfect yet undismayed by self-knowledge of self-failiure."
-- Robert A. Heinlein, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress

"Classical liberal" is a euphemism right-wing libertarians use for right-wing libertarian.

It becomes especially absurd when the more radical among them go all the way to advocating absolute monarchy... while pretending that they're the rightful, indeed the only rightful, heirs of the liberal tradition.

I don't advocate absolute monarchy, but if the choice was between that or unrestricted democracy, I'd choose the former any day.

As Voltaire said, "Independent of my love for freedom, I still would prefer to live under a lion's paw than under the teeth of a thousand rats who are my fellow citizens."

Herman Melville concurred: "Better to be secure under one king, than exposed to violence from twenty millions of monarchs, though oneself be one of them."

It is a lot easier to dislodge one ruler than it is to dislodge scores of them. Says Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn: "[T]he rule of 999 people over one is more stable, less subject to change, than the rule of one over 999. The one can always be assassinated; majorities are never exterminated, only minorities, by the majorities."

I used to think that this affinity for monarchy was just the stuff of the occasional kook (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans-Hermann_Hoppe), but I begin to wonder. The association of "anarcho-*" and "monarchy" threatens to cause massive cranial hemorrhage.

Hoppe is not pro-monarchy. He makes very clear that he is against monarchism, but views it as a lesser evil than democracy.

Is that like "jumbo shrimp?"

Not at all. There have been many classical liberals who have favored monarchy. Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn was one of them.

Hoppe is not pro-monarchy. He makes very clear that he is against monarchism, but views it as a lesser evil than democracy.

He also thinks that all environmentalists and communists should be exterminated for 'libertarian order' to be maintained.

He also thinks that all environmentalists and communists should be exterminated for 'libertarian order' to be maintained.

I never said the guy was sane, or that I even agreed with him. Only that he is not in favor of monarchy.

I disagree with Hoppe on a lot of things (nearly 100% of the time on social issues); his stance on homosexuals especially disturbs me.

well, compared to the rest of the options, I guess I'm an anarchist - but I'm a constitutionalist - let's bring all government responsibility to the lowest level possible, limit the federal government to the specific powers granted in the Constitution, and quit expecting the government to drive innovation and exploration - let the free market work its wonders.

the u.s. should be an alternative to socialism, fascism, etc. so those of us who want liberty can have it - if you don't want that system, there ate plenty of nations that offer higher levels of government power.
Liberty or death! :sniper:

I don't advocate absolute monarchy, but if the choice was between that or unrestricted democracy, I'd choose the former any day.

No one advocates "unrestricted democracy"--not in the pure "majority rule" form anyway.

Not at all. There have been many classical liberals who have favored monarchy. Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn was one of them.



Kuehnelt-Leddihn often argued that majority rule in democracies is a threat to individual liberties, and declared himself a monarchist and an enemy of all forms of totalitarianism



Two thoughts:


Has it occurred to this man that significant portions of democratic theory also warn about the threat to individual liberties represented by majority rule? That this is the reason for such concepts as the constitution, the rule of law, civil liberties, etc.?
Has it occurred to this man that it is difficult to prevent totalitarianism/authoritarianism/absolutism if we support an implement a form of government most closely associated with totalitarianism/authoritarianism/absolutism?




Contrary to the common historical view, Kuehnelt-Leddihn asserted that Nazism (National-socialism) was a leftist, democratic movement ultimately rooted in the French Revolution that unleashed forces of egalitarianism, identitarianism, materialism and centralization.



Once again I am completely speechless. Someone better warn the Bundesrepublik that they better knock it off with that democracy stuff or the Nazis are gunna come back.

For Dog's sake...

A bit centre of centre.

He also thinks that all environmentalists and communists should be exterminated for 'libertarian order' to be maintained.

Source it.

Hoppe is not pro-monarchy. He makes very clear that he is against monarchism, but views it as a lesser evil than democracy.

He's not crazy crazy, just crazy.

Has it occurred to this man that significant portions of democratic theory also warn about the threat to individual liberties represented by majority rule?

Has it occurred to this man that democracy has never been about "majority rule" anyway?

"Majority rule" is, at most, a procedure we adopt in a democratic system to achieve democratic ends, and that only in the limited context of passing or rejecting particular pieces of legislation (or particular candidates for office.) It is not the end-all and be-all of democracy--indeed, it cannot be, because if we expect the people to rule, we must at the least have universal suffrage.

*snip*

Why not actually read K-L's magnum opus for yourself? He utilizes 150 pages of footnotes to back up each and every one of his claims.

Once again, your stated beliefs are in direct conflict.

Keep telling yourself that.

It is a lot easier to dislodge one ruler than it is to dislodge scores of them.

And yet, the most basic goal of anarcho-capitalism is to dislodge the one ruler (the state) and replace it with scores of them (land owners empowed with an absolute and unrestricted power of private property). Thus, anarcho-capitalism suffers from exactly the same problem as you claim democracy does.

Once again, your stated beliefs are in direct conflict. Heal thyself physician.

Why not actually read K-L's magnum opus for yourself? He utilizes 150 pages of footnotes to back up each and every one of his claims.

Page numbers affect the logical soundness of an argument...how? Argument From Thickness of Book. Is that some kind of modified Argument From Authority?

At any rate, the conclusion that the horrors of Nazism stemmed from anything resembling egalitarianism is patently insane. How, how, can the systematic discrimination, oppression, imprisonment, and murder of ethnic, sexual, religious, and other minorities to the benefit of a specific class possibly be egalitarian in nature?

Equality is not only does not oppose diversity, but in fact it necessarily implies it.

If we believe that human beings are equal, and we have a government founded on that principle, we must respect their differences. Otherwise we are imposing the preferences of some of the people upon others, which is clearly not granting each citizen equal consideration.

Source it.

http://www.samizdata.net/mt/93uhdy736.cgi?entry_id=4776

Equality is not only does not oppose diversity, but in fact it necessarily implies it.

If we believe that human beings are equal, and we have a government founded on that principle, we must respect their differences. Otherwise we are imposing the preferences of some of the people upon others, which is clearly not granting each citizen equal consideration.

Proper respect for the individual places them within the community which us humans live in. Socialism is opposed to classical liberalism which arose as a reaction to absolutism and exhausted its historical function when the community became the expression of the conscience and will of the people. Liberalism denied the community in the name of the individual; socialism reasserts the rights of the community as expressing the real essence of the individual. And if liberty is to he the attribute of living men and not of abstract dummies invented by individualistic liberalism, then socialism stands for liberty, and for the only liberty worth having, the liberty of the community and of the individual within the community.

http://www.samizdata.net/mt/93uhdy736.cgi?entry_id=4776

This just looks like reader comments. Is there a link to the main article? I could look for it myself, but I want to make sure that I get to the right place.

EDIT: Although I'm quoting without having seen the main blog entry/article, this "Shannon Love" still pretty much sums up exactly why I quit American Libertarianism --

"The mass of people, as La Boetie and Mises recognized, always and everywhere consists of "brutes", "dullards", and "fools", easily deluded and sunk into habitual submission."

This is elitist drivel. Libertarianism only makes since if you assume that the majority of people in population are capable of managing their own affairs via voluntary arrangements with others.

If most people are idiots, then Leftist[s] are correct that...some elite [must] manage their economic affairs for them and social conservatives are correct that an elite must manage their personal lives.

Hans-Hermann Hopp echoes the ego-gratifying trope of the Marxist who believed themselves, alone of all the people of the society, to have freed themselves from economic determinism. He invites his readers to join a self-appointed elite by embracing his utopian libertarianism while sneering at the ignorant masses.

The more things change the more they stay the same.
Posted by Shannon Love at October 16, 2003 05:38 PM (http://www.samizdata.net/mt/93uhdy736.cgi?entry_id=4776)

This just looks like reader comments. Is there a link to the main article? I could look for it myself, but I want to make sure that I get to the right place.

Yeah I am looking for it, but that is the quote as I remember it.

Yeah I am looking for it, but that is the quote as I remember it.


This appears to be it (http://www.samizdata.net/blog/archives/2003/10/hanshermann_hoppe_walking_on_t.html).


There can be no tolerance toward democrats and communists in a libertarian social order. They will have to be physically separated and expelled from society. Likewise, in a covenant founded for the purpose of protecting family and kin, there can be no tolerance toward those habitually promoting lifestyles incompatible with this goal. They� the advocates of alternative, non-family and kin-centred lifestyles such as, for instance, individual hedonism, parasitism, nature-environment worship, homosexuality, or communism� will have to be physically removed from society, too, if one is to maintain a libertarian order.


Wow. One can almost hear the trains rolling...

What's the cause of Nazism again? I'm certainly not going to associate this trash with libertarianism or anarcho-capitalism. This Hoppe guy is clearly on his own very frightening planet. If you'll excuse me, I'm going to go sit in the corner and try to not puke.

This appears to be it (http://www.samizdata.net/blog/archives/2003/10/hanshermann_hoppe_walking_on_t.html).



Wow. One can almost hear the trains rolling...

What's the cause of Nazism again? I'm certainly not going to associate this trash with libertarianism or anarcho-capitalism. This Hoppe guy is clearly on his own very frightening planet. If you'll excuse me, I'm going to go sit in the corner and try to not puke.
You'll probably notice that he is also a big hit with the extreme-right in Germany and elsewhere.

Proper respect for the individual places them within the community which us humans live in.

That's right. Humans are social creatures, and naturally dependent on others--a dependence only heightened by modern economies and the advanced division of labor. Our freedom and happiness can only be assured at the social level, and in modern societies this means (among other things) political and economic democracy--socialism.

At no point does it mean that we should conform to social norms. Such conformity does not imply taking an equal place within the community, but rather subordinating oneself to the community. It is a conservative doctrine, not a leftist one.

I'm certainly not going to associate this trash with libertarianism or anarcho-capitalism.

Trouble is, libertarians and anarcho-capitalists are all too eager to associate Hoppe with themselves.

"This" is conformity to social norms?

Yes.

At no point does it mean that we should conform to social norms. This does not imply taking an equal place within the community, but rather subordinating oneself to the community. It is a conservative doctrine, not a leftist one.

"This" is conformity to social norms? The wording is slightly unclear (is "This" refer to "At no point does it mean..." or "conform to social norms.")

Trouble is, libertarians and anarcho-capitalists are all too eager to associate Hoppe with themselves.

In fairness, I think I have run into two subsets of those claiming to be "anarcho-capitalist," one of which I am confident would be horrified by that passage as much as I am. Ditto for American Libertarians (especially of the left-libertarian variety (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-Libertarianism#Dissident_free-marketeers), who are often critical of the Austrian and other right-libertarian types).

But yes, that anyone associates with such filth at all is extremely disheartening.

Yes.

OK. Doesn't make much sense otherwise, but just making sure.

Trouble is, libertarians and anarcho-capitalists are all too eager to associate Hoppe with themselves.
If it's any consolation, I'm not. Never have been.

I'm an anarchist in personal terms, I live anarchism within everything I do, and let my instincts and self-made morality dictate my actions.

However, I do not expect the world to adapt an anarchist lifestyle, and I don't fight for anarchism, because I don't expect it to happen. I just live with an existentialist, individualist mindset.

"A rational anarchist believes that concepts, such as 'state' and 'society' and 'government' have no existence save as physically exemplified in the acts of self-responsible individuals. He believes that it is impossible to shift blame, share blame, distribute blame... as blame, guilt, responsibility are matters taking place inside human beings singly and nowhere else. But being rational, he knows that not all individuals hold his evaluations, so he tries to live perfectly in an imperfect world... aware that his efforts will be less than perfect yet undismayed by self-knowledge of self-failiure."
-- Robert A. Heinlein, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress

These sum me up quite nicely.

...It's always nice when other people post for me, saves me time and effort. :p

...It's always nice when other people post for me, saves me time and effort. :p

"TANSTAAFL."
-- Robert A. Heinlein, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress

Actually, I'm not sure what you would call me. I have sort right of center economic views (not enough to be considered full libertarian), and left wing social views.
That sounds extremely familiar, actually.

I prefer to sit when discussing politics.

Certainly, since political discussion seems to bring out the bugger in all of us. :p

As far away from politicians as possible.

I know this only takes pretty broad sweeps at it but I want to know where people consider themselves to be and sorry if I left your place out

Libertarian.

Libertarian, constitutional monarchy, with a twist of socialism if I could have my own planet. :D

-Rafe

Well, except for the logical conflict with what you say just afterwards:

That's not "logical conflict". What would be logical conflict is if I said "nnationalism aint't racist" followed by "nationalism is a doctorine preeching the supremacy of the X race". What you have is a "percieved conflict between the theory and the observed reality". Get it right!

You fail to see that your first point is viewed through rose-tinted glasses. Most nationalist parties that have ever existed do not merely believe that point to be true. They enforce it to the point where it is no longer equal for people of other races, beliefs and such, because "It's in our culture to be <race>, <religion> and <stupid>"

Perfect examples are several political parties in Europe as well as a few nations in Africa.

Yes, the Three Letter Acronym Party of Burkina-Faso is a perfect example of how evil nationalism is. I concede the debate. :rolleyes:

I think your argument would have more weight with a few actual examples.

You're probably going to pounce on the BNP, so let's clear this up.

1)The BNP is bad. Very bad.

2)The BNP is an extremist nationalist organisation. But hey, take anything to the extreme and what do you end up with? Communism, fundamentalism...

3)The BNP is racist. Yes, that I'll admit. But now, here's a real logical conflict for you:

All cats are mammals.
I am a mammal.
Hence I am racis... cat.

That's not even a perfect example because of course thousands of racists of racists aren't nationalists.[/quote]

Also, your example with Quebec: Quebec is, as of right now, a part of Canada. Therefore, any attempt to seceed must be accepted by Canada. It would be undemocratic for Canada to allow Quebec to seceed without letting Canadians have their say, because Quebec is a part of Canada. Therefore, the correct turn of events would be:
Quebec votes to see if they want to seceed. Only they vote.
If No: No further action is taken with that regards.
If Yes: Canada, as a federal entity, votes to see if they want to allow Quebec to seceed. All of Canada votes.
If No: Quebec is forced by their ties to Canada to remain a part of Canada.
If Yes: Congratulations! Quebec is now an independent state and will no longer receive nor give funds towards Canada.

That's how it should be, if you want to follow the democratic nature of Canada.

I don't think it's even worth having a debate, because we clearly have fundamentally conflicting beliefs. I think that all that is necessary for negotiations to begin on Quebec independance is a majority of Quebecois votes.

The situation you'll end up with is a province witha clear culture and identity of its own as well as a Canadian one, where a majority of people support secession, but are prevented from doing so by the Anglo-Canadians, who claim Quebec has no right to make decisions about its own sovereignty.

Do you seriously think this is "democratic"? An entity retaining a status against the will of its people?

"TANSTAAFL."
-- Robert A. Heinlein, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress

"I note one proposal to make this Congress a two-house body. Excellent— the more impediments to legislation the better. But, instead of following tradition, I suggest one house of legislators, another whose single duty is to repeal laws. Let the legislators pass laws only with a two-thirds majority... while the repealers are able to cancel any law through a mere one-third minority. Preposterous? Think about it. If a bill is so poor that it cannot command two-thirds of your consents, is it not likely that it would make a poor law? And if a law is disliked by as many as one-third is it not likely that you would be better off without it?"


"Thing that got me was not her list of things she hated, since she was obviously crazy as a Cyborg, but fact that always somebody agreed with her prohibitions. Must be a yearning deep in human heart to stop other people from doing as they please. Rules, laws— always for other fellow. A murky part of us, something we had before we came down out of trees, and failed to shuck when we stood up. Because not one of those people said: "Please pass this so that I won't be able to do something I know I should stop." Nyet, tovarishchee, was always something they hated to see neighbors doing. Stop them "for their own good"—not because speaker claimed to be harmed by it."

-- Robert A. Heinlein, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress


...one of my favorite books. :)

At any rate, the conclusion that the horrors of Nazism stemmed from anything resembling egalitarianism is patently insane. How, how, can the systematic discrimination, oppression, imprisonment, and murder of ethnic, sexual, religious, and other minorities to the benefit of a specific class possibly be egalitarian in nature?
From what I've read, K-L's argument essentially boils down to "Democrats and egalitarians opposed traditional aristocratic elites. The Nazis also opposed traditional aristocratic elites. Therefore the Nazis were democratic egalitarians."

It's a particular case of the standard fallacy saying that you're a Nazi because you oppose some of the things that the Nazis also opposed.

somewhere just beyond the left edge of the universe. but i don't expect ANY idiology to be a magic wand.

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

I was somehow undecided between left-wing and extreme left-wing. What's the placement of an Eurocommunist in this spectrum?

I consider myself a very confused Leftist at the moment.

Extreme centre leftist...
Authothrian too (Would that make me a Stalin? Or Putin? LOL)

And Extremist Muslim (see thing a 'bit' too extreme)
Indonesian Nationalistic? You right!

What's the placement of an Eurocommunist in this spectrum?
Far-right.
http://marxists.anu.edu.au/reference/archive/hoxha/works/euroco/env2-1.htm

its annoying living under gmt.Everybody posts when Im asleep or at school.Seven pages have appeared I gave up at 7 lol

I dunno what I am. I'm on the left on some issues, mostly social ones (abortion, stem cells, gay marriage, church & state) and on the right on others (war & foreign policy, immigration, capital punishment). I'm not all that familiar with economic issues.

Left on some things, right on others. Economically I'm in line with a lot of what the European centre-left goes for. I see the need for capitalism, but with social programmes and some regulation to curb its excesses. My stance on that is based on what I think works out better for the population rather than anything ideological. I'm also in favour of greater environmental protection, though not to the extent of organisations like the Green Party. On other things I'm right wing, such as law and order, immigration and multiculturalism (Though this seems to be less of a clear cut left wing-right wing thing these days) and my views on the EU (Though I'm not rabidly anti-EU). Also there are other stances which have never been clearly left or right wing, such as my desire for Britain to have a less interventionist foreign policy, not getting dragged into other people's wars.

To be honest, I'm don't really like the whole left wing-right wing way of neatly categorising things.

I strongly support the EU and hopefully a superstate.See If I became taoiseach of Ireland I wouldnt be powerful or remembered for a long time but if the whole of europe thats something else

I strongly support the EU and hopefully a superstate.See If I became taoiseach of Ireland I wouldnt be powerful or remembered for a long time but if the whole of europe thats something else
That's one reason I'm completely against the idea of an EU superstate. I like the trading bloc as it works out well for the people of Europe, but I'm not too keen on the idea of creating a superstate just because of the obsessions of some megalomaniac politicians to put their little 'legacy' down in the history books. The chances of you or any other everyday Irishman of becoming Taoiseach are very slim, so your thirst for power wouldn't be quenched in that way anyway.

Besides, being remembered isn't necessarily good. Look at the track record of some of the most memorable world leaders of the 20th century.

I BEFRIEND CHESTNUTS;13355524']That's one reason I'm completely against the idea of an EU superstate. I like the trading bloc as it works out well for the people of Europe, but I'm not too keen on the idea of creating a superstate just because of the obsessions of some megalomaniac politicians to put their little 'legacy' down in the history books. The chances of you or any other everyday Irishman of becoming Taoiseach are very slim, so your thirst for power wouldn't be quenched in that way anyway.

Besides, being remembered isn't necessarily good. Look at the track record of some of the most memorable world leaders of the 20th century.

Thats actually very likely because taoiseach is the PM of Ireland so it would generally be irish people who run our country.Its just as likely I would get elected as a dutchman, a pole or an italian.

BTW I dont mind

I strongly support the EU and hopefully a superstate.See If I became taoiseach of Ireland I wouldnt be powerful or remembered for a long time but if the whole of Europe thats something else

That's all there is to it? This seems a bit of a content-free argument. After all, how powerful was Mannerheim? Do you have any idea who Mannerheim was? No? Exactly. Few people outside Finland remember Mannerheim.

How powerful was his opponant, Stalin? How well known?

By comparing these, it's obvious that the Communist Dictator who murdered thousands in his Purges, caused an utterly devastating famine in the Ukraine, allowed Hitler to rise to power, and ruled the USSR with an iron fist was a far better ruler than the democratically elected presidant who had previously saved Finland from annexation into the USSR and the horrible ruin that would doubtlessly cause and had previous to that secured his country's independance and liberty against heavy odds.

Bigger =/= better.

And the EU certainly isn't better than Ireland, or any European state.

Imagine the EU parliament passes a law banning... I don't know an Irish example, but banning soft drugs in coffee shops. It's pretty certain to pass, despite most of the Dutch speaking out against it. And this leaves the poor Dutch in a bit of a lurch.

And us Brits, being a much bigger country than you, could gather a coalition and have you declared the British Province of Greater Ulster and then draft you all and send you to Afghanistan. How can you stop us? Your democratic legislature passed these measures.

That's why the EU can tyrranise any member no matter how democratic it's institutions are (not very. Did you vote for the commision? Can you do anything about a decision from the council). Sure, free trade is all well and good, but I fail to understand why a free trade pact needs a parliament to lord it over it's members.

So down with Brussels tyranny, long live Britain and long live Ireland!

Actually, I'm not sure what you would call me. I have sort right of center economic views (not enough to be considered full libertarian), and left wing social views.

I believe you should consider yourself left winded,because the criteria,that should be set so as to name someone as left or right,should be no other tha n the social politics the goverments promote.Money policy follows social,not conversely,you adopt an economical system that can help you more easily acheave your social goals.Republic stands for people's freedome and welfare ;)

I suppose you are right but I was thinking along federal lines like most huge countries or the US at any rate