NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm just wondering what people's political philosophies are here on NationStates. I'm conservative on social issues, but my views on government lean more towards the US Libertarian party

Hmm... social democrat, Scandinavian style. High civil freedoms, medium economic freedoms, and a nice, big, fluffy welfare state.

Right now, my view is that if the nation pays for the debts of private businesses, the nation should own the business.

Other than that, I'm of the "do to others what you'd want done to you" side of politics.

eco-socialist anarcho-pacifist. that poll NEEDS to be multiple choice and include a none of the above.

the myth that everything that isn't makiavellian has to be procustian or worse has to be one of the biggest big lies in all of human history.

That poll is pretty worthless...

Libertarian progressivism is a good descriptor of my politics. Liberal, moderate, libertarian, and U.S. constitutionalist are all variously applicable.

eco-socialist anarcho-pacifist. that poll NEEDS to be multiple choice and include a none of the above.

the myth that everything that isn't makiavellian has to be procustian or worse has to be one of the biggest big lies in all of human history.

I just included some of the most common poltical philosphies out there..... Fairly simple question, I would think...... Can you explain more what you mean by "eco-socialist and anarcho pacifist"?

That poll is pretty worthless...
i aggree. almost everyone is a combination of several of those things and more others then there are poll slots to mention. each of us our own unique combination of them.

I think the government should exist to protect civil rights, do things the people as a collective can't and to keep the peace.

I just included some of the most common poltical philosphies out there..... Fairly simple question, I would think......

What about economic social capitalism with social liberalism?

I think the government should exist to protect civil rights, do things the people as a collective can't and to keep the peace.

I always thought is the head of the people's collective?

What about economic social capitalism with social liberalism?

(head spinning), if I put all the possible political philosophies on this, there would be a list about 100 long, maybe, besides NS only lets you put up 10 options....

I just included some of the most common poltical philosphies out there..... Fairly simple question, I would think...... Can you explain more what you mean by "eco-socialist and anarcho pacifist"?

Offhand, it sounds like a cross between Leo Tolstoy and Murray Bookchin. Strongly concerned with environmental issues, broadly left wing, anti government, opposed to violence, etc.

Indeed, somewhere similar to myself, assuming I've interpreted Cameroi right.

You also have to remember we've been on this site for years --- this poll crops up every three months or so, so most of us have canned answers already. And yes, the poll really should be multiple choice. I marked myself as anarchist, but would have happily added socialist, communist, feminist and ecologist if they were up there, etc.

(head spinning), if I put all the possible political philosophies on this, there would be a list about 100 long, maybe, besides NS only lets you put up 10 options....

Well, then what's the use of that poll to begin with?

I just included some of the most common poltical philosphies out there..... Fairly simple question, I would think...... Can you explain more what you mean by "eco-socialist and anarcho pacifist"?

real people don't live in pegeon holes. (real pigeons probably don't either)

i should thing my combination self explanatory. you could even call it my perception of stocastic realism, as opposed to pseudo-stocastic conventionality, which as mentioned, is only a statistical conclusion which no actual individual actually occupies.

people depend on environemt and are more important then money, large scale conflict depends on hierarchal social organization and making big holes in the ground full of unhappy dead people isn't a very good idea if you want to live in a world with a reasonable opportunity for one's own gratification.

Offhand, it sounds like a cross between Leo Tolstoy and Murray Bookchin. Strongly concerned with environmental issues, broadly left wing, anti government, opposed to violence, etc.

Indeed, somewhere similar to myself, assuming I've interpreted Cameroi right.

You also have to remember we've been on this site for years --- this poll crops up every three months or so, so most of us have canned answers already. And yes, the poll really should be multiple choice. I marked myself as anarchist, but would have happily added socialist, and possibly more.

OK, many of you are right, I should have included multiple choice in the poll, i myself would have put conservative and libertarian or US Constituionalist
"The US Constituion is hanging by a thread"
--Glenn Beck
"Governments don't slove problems, they only rearrange them"--Reagan

Well, then what's the use of that poll to begin with?

If NS let me put up more options, I could have included more, I do realize some people are combination of philosphies, myself included...

"Governments don't slove problems, they only rearrange them"--Reagan

Really?
And here I was thinking that tax-funded education for all had more or less solved the problem of illiteracy... I must have been mistaken.

My political philosophy is that I'm right and you can all go to hell. I'll make my own country. With blackjack, and hookers!

If NS let me put up more options, I could have included more, I do realize some people are combination of philosphies, myself included...

And if you had more options, you would have ended up with one or two votes for each option.
Politics aren't catch-phrases.

My political philosophy is that I'm right and you can all go to hell. I'll make my own country. With blackjack, and hookers!

In fact, forget the country...

Really?
And here I was thinking that tax-funded education for all had more or less solved the problem of illiteracy... I must have been mistaken.

So don't address what is being said, but mock the person saying it?
I was typing fast, and using a computer that only has Internet Explorer for a browser, no spell checker, honest spelling mistake.....

If NS let me put up more options, I could have included more, I do realize some people are combination of philosphies, myself included...

virtually ALL people are combinations. it doesn't need MORE choices, just more choice. these are not the same things. ns DOES allow polls to be multiple simultanious choice AND to include some kind of "other" option!

So don't address what is being said, but mock the person saying it?
I was typing fast, and using a computer that only has Internet Explorer for a browser, no spell checker, honest spelling mistake.....

Wow, that shoe fits, huh?
I was in fact replying to the Regean-quote of yours, about government not solving problems...

socially I have vague libertarian leanings. Economically liberal

In fact, forget the country...

and the blackjack!

I always thought is the head of the people's collective?

:confused: I meant........grr.......I need a nap.

Like, if it can't be done privately without mass discrimination or hurting people than the government should do it.

The government should be the fail-safe or something.

Really?
And here I was thinking that tax-funded education for all had more or less solved the problem of illiteracy... I must have been mistaken.

and that whole "slavery" thing...

Wow, that shoe fits, huh?
I was in fact replying to the Regean-quote of yours, about government not solving problems...

OK, no offense taken then...... some people can get quite rude and hostile on forums like this for no good reason, that's what I was assuming was happening.

Governments don't solve problems, it was government "regulation", mismangaged that caused the bank crisis in the US, ever heard of Community Reinvestment Act?

and that whole "slavery" thing...

General literacy and the abolition of slavery just rearranged the problems of keeping the masses ignorant and getting cheap labor. Which, ironically, Reagan helped to solve as head of state.

Governments don't solve problems, it was government "regulation", mismangaged that caused the bank crisis in the US, ever heard of Community Reinvestment Act?

You mean their regulation about not regulating, right?

You mean their regulation about not regulating, right?

Lol, essentially yes, governemnts, especialy large governments are by their very nature corrupt and mismanaged. I support smaller government, in smaller governments, the government has less power and taxpayer money that they can abuse and waste.

Governments don't solve problems

What a pithy little catch phrase.

it was government "regulation", mismangaged that caused the bank crisis in the US, ever heard of Community Reinvestment Act?

If you're trying to sell that line, I fear the current economic situation may be a bit too complex for you to discuss.

Lol, essentially yes, governemnts, especialy large governments are by their very nature corrupt and mismanaged. I support smaller government, in smaller governments, the government has less power and taxpayer money that they can abuse and waste.

But where would a small government get the authority or insight to regulate big banks?

What a pithy little catch phrase.



If you're trying to sell that line, I fear the current economic situation may be a bit too complex for you to discuss.

Yes, it was a complex mix of problems, mismanaged "regulation" of banks and financial instituions by governments, governments overprinting currency, causing inflation, high gas prices in many nations, greed by corporations and individuals alike in Western countries.... any situation like this has many factors to it.

But where would a small government get the authority or insight to regulate big banks?

It was "regulation" and bad economic policies by governments that caused this. Through the Community Reinvestment Act, the US Government encouraged banks to take part in the irresponsible lending practices that led to this financial crisis, then the US government is propping up these coroporations with taxpayer money, it's outrageous....

It was "regulation" and bad economic policies by governments that caused this. Through the Community Reinvestment Act, the US Government encouraged banks to take part in the irresponsible lending practices that led to this financial crisis, then the US government is propping up these coroporations with taxpayer money, it's outrageous....

U-hu.... so it's the government having forced the banks now to throw money at people who couldn't repay it? Wow.

U-hu.... so it's the government having forced the banks now to throw money at people who couldn't repay it? Wow.

They didn't "force" them, but I'm using this as an example of why governments should stay out of markets, why should we trust governments to interfere more and more, when their stupidity proves they are too irresponsible to begin with? The banks have their responsiblity in this mess, but the fact that the government encouraged it is appalling.....

Poll fails, but I'm somewhat close to a http://www.google.com/url?sa=U&start=1&q=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Democrat&ei=WI1GSd6iMaKcev73hNgI&usg=AFQjCNFb-V2MH_JrtzXHR9eGdcztj3aATA.

It was "regulation" and bad economic policies by governments that caused this. Through the Community Reinvestment Act, the US Government encouraged banks to take part in the irresponsible lending practices that led to this financial crisis, then the US government is propping up these coroporations with taxpayer money, it's outrageous....

again I don't think you understand this situation well enough to comment on it. Although the CRA was designed to end the discriminatory practice of "redlining" various loan applications, and while CRA regulated loans made up a predominance of lower income loans, they represented, at best, one fourth of those subprime loans that inevitably caused the shakey financial situation.

So, while CRA regulated loans accounted for a majority of lower income loans, of those "subprime" loans that constituted the initial problems that lead to larger issues, CRA regulated loans made up about a fifth to a fourth. In essence, while CRA did encourage loans to lower income groups, those banks that actually followed CRA regulations found that their low income loans were, on the whole, largely profitable.

it's the banks that simply lent money willy nilly in the subprime market (which is their right) without paying attention to the regulatory standards set up by CRA (again, which was their right) that faced the most problems.

Yes CRA did advocate loans to lower income individuals, however loans that followed CRA guidelines were, on the whole, profitable, and did not contribute substantially to the overall subprime mortgage crisis, because they were managed smartly.

Subprime loans made by lending institutions that simply saught to cash in on a rising housing bubble without regard to safe and secure accounting and loan practices are the ones that got hurt. low income loans made under the guidelines of CRA regulations were, for the most part, profitable for the lending institutions.

In short, if the government had made those regulations mandatory, and not simply advisory, we probably would NOT have had the mess we're in.

Again, if you want to discuss the current financial issues, I suggest you try to understand them first.

It was "regulation" and bad economic policies by governments that caused this. Through the Community Reinvestment Act, the US Government encouraged banks to take part in the irresponsible lending practices that led to this financial crisis, then the US government is propping up these coroporations with taxpayer money, it's outrageous....

You're failing to recognize several things here.
1) All markets require regulation. Markets in physical goods require concrete regulations, e.g. no murdering people to sell their organs. Abstract markets like the financial services sector require more abstract regulations.
2) What encouraged banks to use irresponsible lending practices was the deregulation, not excessive regulation. The danger of excessive regulation is discouraging risks and causing stagnation. The problem here was the opposite--encouraging too much risk and causing excess volatility.
3) You are trying to tell us that Reagan favored minimal government, when in fact his policies were military Keynesianism. The idea that redistributing money to a defense contractor to build a missile defense system, instead of redistributing it to schools and roads is based on class and racial resentment, not on sound economics.

It was "regulation" and bad economic policies by governments that caused this. Through the Community Reinvestment Act, the US Government encouraged banks to take part in the irresponsible lending practices that led to this financial crisis, then the US government is propping up these coroporations with taxpayer money, it's outrageous....

again, the CRA wasn't just a blanket "you, you should lend money to poor people!" it was a systematic plan to encourage banks to make loans to lower income individuals in such ways as to encourage home ownership while at the same time, devising a system so that the banks would not lose substantial investments. It was essentially a system designed to make at risk loans less risky.

And for the most part, it worked. While CRA accepting low income loans made up the bulk of those mortgages, they made up only a small fraction of the defaulted subprime loans that caused the financial system in the first place. That disaster was born on the backs of subprime loans that did NOT follow CRA guidelines, and were simply an attempt to cash in on a rising bubble.

and the blackjack!

Hey hey hey, lets not stray into minarchism here.

I could consider myself a libertarian with several socialist tendencies.

I'm an anarcho-authoritarian-libertarian-socialdemocratic-oligarchal-statist-corprotist-conservative-liberal-syndicalist-statist-communist-totalitarian!

I'm an anarcho-authoritarian-libertarian-socialdemocratic-oligarchal-statist-corprotist-conservative-liberal-syndicalist-statist-communist-totalitarian!

You're all!!:eek:

MISregulation and UNDER, NOT over, regulation. market forces DO NOT equal personal freedom, and capitolism only bennifits real people, places and things, as opposed to its own circular illogic alone, when it accepts a reasonable degree of social responsibility.

granted, the longer an earthquake takes to happen, the longer there is no slippage along a fault line, the more violent the quake wil be when it occurs, and inappropriate regulation HAS prevented the 'correction' slippage that could have, prevented the melt down in confidence to make credit easily available.

but that would have ment not only allowing economic enterprises to fail, no matter how "too big to" they might be, but also a general recognition of the blind inainity of the bigger is better/gobosh phylosophy in bussiness economics. which of course WOULD both have been much better things then what we have now instead.

which again gets back to having put little green pieces of paper, (and large scale 'economic intrests', read corporate mafia) ahead of real people, places and things!

again, the CRA wasn't just a blanket "you, you should lend money to poor people!" it was a systematic plan to encourage banks to make loans to lower income individuals in such ways as to encourage home ownership while at the same time, devising a system so that the banks would not lose substantial investments. It was essentially a system designed to make at risk loans less risky.

And for the most part, it worked. While CRA accepting low income loans made up the bulk of those mortgages, they made up only a small fraction of the defaulted subprime loans that caused the financial system in the first place. That disaster was born on the backs of subprime loans that did NOT follow CRA guidelines, and were simply an attempt to cash in on a rising bubble.
Part of the problem was the idea that encouraging home ownership would be good for the economy, when all it did was create bubble growth. But as you say, that had little to do with the CRA itself, which is just a way for people to demonize the poor and minorities.

-snip-

Please download a spell checker.

Please add nonconformist - individualist to the list...

Please download a spell checker.

please kiss the diversity of reality and learn to read phonetically.

it isn't that money is inheirently bad, its that the amount of faith people seem to have in it is absurd, especially when when it blinds them to even survival, let alone real gratification.

(ps. i do get these little red underlines of words my browser disaggrees with my spelling of, it just doesn't tell me what spellings it would prefer. and would those spellings better express my intentions? this i seriously doubt!)

(ps. i do get these little red underlines of words my browser disaggrees with my spelling of, it just doesn't tell me what spellings it would prefer. and would those spellings better express my intentions? this i seriously doubt!)

If you right click on the red lines, it should list the correct spellings.

political philosophy

is irrelevant.

you' know all this bitching you hear about the public not caring about politics always comes from politicians :confused:

I'm an anarcho-authoritarian-libertarian-socialdemocratic-oligarchal-statist-corprotist-conservative-liberal-syndicalist-statist-communist-totalitarian!

that just a buzzword for Nazi-militant-feminist-technocrat!

which again gets back to having put little green pieces of paper, (and large scale 'economic intrests', read corporate mafia) ahead of real people, places and things!

the paper represents the wealth the government has in gold and such so I guess your wrong

plus have you ever tried to tear down a forest using bartering *shudders*

Please add nonconformist - individualist to the list...

I'd say this only less emo>.>

I suspect that there are very few people who could sum up their political philosophy in a single word (or couplet, or triplet, etc.), since it's always more complicated than that. Even within major political parties there are vast differences in opinion on almost every aspect of policy, so it's no surprise that the poll in this thread has drawn the comments that it has so far. I note that the OP has conceded that a multiple choice poll would have been better but, to be frank, it still wouldn't have done the job, because it's just not that easy to pigeonhole people into categories that way, unless they're single-issue political animals.

For myself, I've never come across a single ideology that matches my views on all the issues that crop up in the world. I'm a 'green' who wholeheartedly believes in the value of using more nuclear power, a 'socialist' who also likes to see people who are really good at what they do being rewarded for their efforts. I like the idea of fairly small groups of people having a large degree of self-governance, but I also like the idea of more global agreements about how certain things should be done. The list goes on and on...

What it all boils down to is that I'm never likely to find a nice, convenient label to apply to my own political views and I'm never likely to join an established political party. I prefer to examine each and every issue on its own, consider the pros and cons as I see them, and then form my own opinion. I honestly think the world would be a better place if everyone else did the same, but at the same time I recognise that pretty much everyone feels that way about their own political philosophy, so I tend not to push the point.

that just a buzzword for Nazi-militant-feminist-technocrat!


Well those damned male Jews should be wiped out for their discrimination against women!

If you right click on the red lines, it should list the correct spellings.
correct is in the eye of the beholder, but i will try that. btw, it puts one of those red lines under your name. one of its suggestions for a correction is hydroplane.

correct is in the eye of the beholder, but i will try that. btw, it puts one of those red lines under your name. one of its suggestions for a correction is hydroplane.

Awesome! Oh, btw, capital letters at the beginning of each sentence makes what you say slightly easier to read as well.

I suspect that there are very few people who could sum up their political philosophy in a single word (or couplet, or triplet, etc.), since it's always more complicated than that.
True, but if you have a coherent worldview, there's probably a way to succinctly give the gist of your philosophy. If someone can't, it's more likely that they haven't thought much about their ideas than that their philosophy is so unique and divergent that it defies description.

SNIP

couldn't you say your really just quiescent?

arise ye slaves of activity!

Well those damned male Jews should be wiped out for their discrimination against women!

its people like you who gave birth to Germaine Greer

the paper represents the wealth the government has in gold and such so I guess your wrong

paper money represents what a government would like to pretend to have so it can keep paperhanging. that is why american currency no longer says silver certificate in the banner accross the top and no longer has the words "redeamable for silver" printed on it anywhere. now it says federal reserve note, which really means its just a kited check.

when they WERE silver certificates there was at least 20 cents worth of precious metals to back them up. this is ancient history, from when i was a teenager in the 60s. i don't think anyone is doing estimates of how much anything is actually being backed by these days, with everything "leveraged" so far out there as it is, just looking for a place to collapse.

(ps, i don't use initial caps because to me they indicate a lack of humility that i refuse to be party to. as for making anything more readable, that is entirely in the eye of arbitrary and unfounded expectations.)

(ps, i don't use initial caps because to me they indicate a lack of humility that i refuse to be party to. as for making anything more readable, that is entirely in the eye of arbitrary and unfounded expectations.)

Eh, what?

the paper represents the wealth the government has in gold and such so I guess your wrong

plus have you ever tried to tear down a forest using bartering *shudders*

Nope, Nixon took us off the gold standard in '71.

Strongly conservative/right on most issues. Libertarian tendencies on some issues (e.g., legalized prostitution, free speech, adult entertainment/porn; on the fence regarding drug policies).

I'm 2/3rds a moderate conservative Social Democrat and 1/3rd a realpolitik Green.

erm...small central government, small as possible welfare state, low as possible taxation, strong police force, well funded selective education system. Fairly well represented by UKIP realistically.

Nope, Nixon took us off the gold standard in '71.

Fiat currency is effectively 100% backed by the economic output of the United States; as long as people buy our products, our currency has intrinsic value. This is why the countries of the Eastern Bloc had so many economic difficulties during the 1980's; their products were poor and had little external demand so their currency was generally worthless outside of the CEMA.

Oh, btw, capital letters at the beginning of each sentence makes what you say slightly easier to read as well.

bah!

erm...small central government, small as possible welfare state, low as possible taxation, strong police force, well funded selective education system. Fairly well represented by UKIP realistically.

You're not from Devon are you? :p

You're not from Devon are you? :p

Would I be using the internet if I was?

Fiat currency is effectively 100% backed by the economic output of the United States; as long as people buy our products, our currency has intrinsic value. This is why the countries of the Eastern Bloc had so many economic difficulties during the 1980's; their products were poor and had little external demand so their currency was generally worthless outside of the CEMA.

Well not 100%. Your currency has intrinsic value because of this OPEC agreement in the 70s whereby all oil is to be bought and sold in $$$. The only problem is that some of the OPEC countries have recently switched to €€€. Like, for example, Iraq... shortly before it was invaded in 2003.

Would I be using the internet if I was?

:D Fair point.

UKIP seems to be something of a fetish around there, that's why I was asking.

:D Fair point.

UKIP seems to be something of a fetish around there, that's why I was asking.

If you say so. I've never, as far as I can recall, ventured into Devon thank God.

I'm just wondering what people's political philosophies are here on NationStates. I'm conservative on social issues, but my views on government lean more towards the US Libertarian party

I am what you would call "librul"

I'm 2/3rds a moderate conservative Social Democrat and 1/3rd a realpolitik Green.

Interesting.

Fiat currency is effectively 100% backed by the economic output of the United States; as long as China buys our treasury securities, our currency has intrinsic value. This is why the countries of the Eastern Bloc had so many economic difficulties during the 1980's; their products were poor and had little external demand so their currency was generally worthless outside of the CEMA.

^Fixed.

Can you explain more what you mean by "eco-socialist and anarcho pacifist"?

Never ask people who use terms like that seriously what they mean, because there is always the danger that they'll tell you.....at length.

My political philosophy is that I'm right and you can all go to hell.

What a coincidence...that's my philosophy too. I've found it more useful than really any other one out there.

Never ask people who use terms like that seriously what they mean, because there is always the danger that they'll tell you.....at length.



What a coincidence...that's my philosophy too. I've found it more useful than really any other one out there.

Of course, you assume that people like that are silly. Often I find that people who use labels in unusual ways have the best thought out and considered positions, and are often able to quickly provide a summary, like Cameroi did.

Of course, you assume that people like that are silly.

That's because 99% of the time, I'm right. You hear a hundred ducks, and then you hear a 'quack', it's not really going out on a limb to assume it's a duck.

Often I find that people who use labels in unusual ways have the best thought out and considered positions

Because if Hollywood has taught us anything, it's that people who are considered 'odd' or 'unusual' or who do things in an 'unconventional' manner are going to be smarter, quicker, more fill-in-the-blanker than the rest of us. :rolleyes:

Other:

More Beer!

I'm probably mostly a mix of moderately libertarian, and moderately socialist. An odd combination I know. However I hold conservative views personally (not nessissarily politically) on a number of social issues, and I'm at least as interventionist as the neo-cons, if for different reasons. In the end, I take politics on a more issue-by-issue basis, rather than foolishly pledging loyalty to a particular narrow and inflexible ideology or corrupt party. As a result, their is no choice on this poll that would adequately express my political views.

Economically Fiscal, Socially Liberal and registered Libertarian.

I'm personally conservative and tend that way on economic issues, although I probably end up more moderate or centrist on those.

I'm libertarian (some would say to an extreme) on social issues. Basically, I don't think the government should be mucking around in anyone's personal life. If you can't come up with a damn good reason to make something illegal, it shouldn't be, no matter how icky it is.

There are a few things that I might be described as socialist on. I think the government should protect its people and, in my mind, that requires a guarantee of food, shelter, and basic healthcare.

That's because 99% of the time, I'm right. You hear a hundred ducks, and then you hear a 'quack', it's not really going out on a limb to assume it's a duck.



Because if Hollywood has taught us anything, it's that people who are considered 'odd' or 'unusual' or who do things in an 'unconventional' manner are going to be smarter, quicker, more fill-in-the-blanker than the rest of us. :rolleyes:

No, that's not what I claim. What I do think is that people who have taken the time to analyse their own position and come up with a fairly accurate label for it, even if that label is unconventional, are often more interesting to discuss politics with it, as they've thought it out more beforehand.

There are very few people who are perfectly and accurately represented by a single simple label, without major provisos. But most people who give a stock response of "Liberal" or "Conservative" have not really thought it through much, or are about to then add "Conservative, except I support Gay Marriage and the right to abortion" or something like that. Hell, look at The Romulan Republic (not to pick on you, but you just posted). Describe those views with a normal label.

As a result, when I come across someone who describes themselves with a single common label, my default assumption is they haven't thought about it yet. And contrariwise, people who combine labels in an unusual but logical way do tend to have thought it through, and do tend to be well informed.

Of course, if they're making up words, then that's a slightly different case.

I'm personally conservative and tend that way on economic issues, although I probably end up more moderate or centrist on those.

I'm libertarian (some would say to an extreme) on social issues. Basically, I don't think the government should be mucking around in anyone's personal life. If you can't come up with a damn good reason to make something illegal, it shouldn't be, no matter how icky it is.

There are a few things that I might be described as socialist on. I think the government should protect its people and, in my mind, that requires a guarantee of food, shelter, and basic healthcare.

I'd dispute the right to food, shelter and "basic healthcare", unless it is in a government institution, in which employment is also provided.

People should be as self-sufficient as possible.

I'd dispute the right to food, shelter and "basic healthcare", unless it is in a government institution, in which employment is also provided.

People should be as self-sufficient as possible.

I agree. I also recognize that there are times when people cannot be self-sufficient, whether temporarily or permanently.

That said, I am of the opinion that government programs which provide such things should also be programs that move people towards self-sufficiency. The food, shelter, and basic healthcare are the bare minimum. A smart government system would also provide things like job training and placement for those who can work, budgeting classes, etc. so that those who are receiving government help can become self-sufficient.

I'd dispute the right to food, shelter and "basic healthcare", unless it is in a government institution, in which employment is also provided.

People should be as self-sufficient as possible.

What about those who are unable to be so? What about those who are disadvantaged by circumstances out of thier control, like being a child born into poverty, being the victim of a depression, or being crippled as a result of another's negligence with no family able to take care of them?

Like it or not, neither poverty nor dependency are not nessissarily the fault of the person suffering it, and a system that tells an innocent victim of circumstance to go fuck themselves to save you some tax money is not just a callous example of social Darwinism, but simply evil.

These things are and must be treated as rights, at least for those unable to provide them for themselves.

And contrariwise, people who combine labels in an unusual but logical way do tend to have thought it through, and do tend to be well informed.

Now see, I'm the exact opposite. If I come across someone who describes themselves as an eco-anarcho-communitarian socialist' or whatever-the-hell, my default assumption is that they're either a bright 14 year old who has just found the philosophy section at a bookstore, or a college freshman who has had a semester of Civics 101 under a leftist PoliSci professor(although really, is there any other kind at a university these days?)

As a result, when I come across someone who describes themselves with a single common label, my default assumption is they haven't thought about it yet.

And conversely, I would think that someone who describes a political philosophy in a single word had thought about it to the point that they've boiled it down to the essentials. Much the same way in which if asked the color of the sky, you don't bother describing all the myriad colors in the sky and merely describe it as 'blue.'

What about those who are unable to be so? What about those who are disadvantaged by circumstances out of thier control, like being a child born into poverty, being the victim of a depression, or being crippled as a result of another's negligence with no family able to take care of them?

Like it or not, neither poverty nor dependency are not nessissarily the fault of the person suffering it, and a system that tells an innocent victim of circumstance to go fuck themselves to save you some tax money is not just a callous example of social Darwinism, but simply evil.

These things are and must be treated as rights, at least for those unable to provide them for themselves.

One deals with the cards dealt; life isn't fair, but frankly, I'd rather extirpate the feckless and irresponsible from society and incur the odd innocent victim than the opposite.

I'm 2/3rds a moderate conservative Social Democrat and 1/3rd a realpolitik Green.

:eek2: don't make him angry!

SNIP

SNIP

*sets up tinfoil vendor*

If you say so. I've never, as far as I can recall, ventured into Devon thank God.

its where hamsters go when they die ;)

More Beer!

*hands you a pamphlet for the Jack Daniels party*

I'd rather extirpate the feckless and irresponsible from society

but thats everyone :confused:

also how do you feel about government investment for instance grants and the like?

Now see, I'm the exact opposite. If I come across someone who describes themselves as an eco-anarcho-communitarian socialist' or whatever-the-hell, my default assumption is that they're either a bright 14 year old who has just found the philosophy section at a bookstore, or a college freshman who has had a semester of Civics 101 under a leftist PoliSci professor(although really, is there any other kind at a university these days?)

Nice phrase. Ignores the interactions between, for example, "Eco", "Anarcho", and "Socialist". Being all three, or the negation of any, at once is perfectly reasonable, as each refers to an independent dimension --- one economic, one social, one ecological. If we were to tag "Pacifist" onto the end, that's a statement about means instead of ends.

You get the point, I hope.


And conversely, I would think that someone who describes a political philosophy in a single word had thought about it to the point that they've boiled it down to the essentials. Much the same way in which if asked the color of the sky, you don't bother describing all the myriad colors in the sky and merely describe it as 'blue.'

Snappy line, it really is. Unfortunately, most political philosophies don't really boil down that nicely. Want the essentials of what I think: Freedom. That doesn't work as an answer to the poll question though --- for a start, how have I defined freedom?

Hell, let's take the simplest possible demonstration. Consider the political compass. Are you really certain that every single point on there can be neatly summed up as a single word? Then lets take into account all the information the political compass misses out. Add another axis: Ecocentric to Anthrocentric. Now can you define any position with just one word? What's the difference between a liberal leftist who is strongly ecocentric and one who is strongly anthrocentric, and how do you express that in one word? You end up needing to coin phrases like ecosocialist, and then we're back where we started.

There are too many dimensions in the space of political ideologies to be able to define anybody with a single simple word, without erasing important information. Say I'm mostly conservative, but strongly environmentalist. What's the one word definition of that position?

And if you don't believe all the argument so far, please sum up your political position in a single word, without leaving any major gaps in your beliefs. Unless you're practically the dictionary definition of a conservative or liberal, it will be very tricky. And the vast majority of the population aren't the dictionary definitions, they fall into the gaps somewhere. Combining terms is the only practical method for providing information easily.

Hmm I'd say I am an poltical moderate though I have Progessive leanings and slightly socially conservative leanings. I feel that Government and businesses should employ and advance people not based upon race, sex and background by purely by merit. if an person is best suited for an job, it shouldn't matter if they are an four armed Alien from Planet X as long as They can do the job well. I believe if an politican is corrupt, he or she should be cast down and barred from politics for life to show what happens to those who abuse the publics trust.

I believe that people should take care of the less fortunate who can't help themselves. On the other hand, for those who take advantage of the system and don't work because they rather leach off of society and take money meant to help those who can't help themselves, they should be cut off forced to survive on their own so the money can go to those who do need it.

On the other hand I feel abortion is murder, expecally if its an late trimester or an breach abortion. I feel if abortion must be done it should only be done in cases of rape or to save the mother's life.

I consider myself a conservative. The government should keep the citizens safe. I hate corruption. Waste of tax dollars, welfare, I hate all of that.

a bit of Rousseau, a lot of Rawls, and a pinch of Locke

a college freshman who has had a semester of Civics 101 under a leftist PoliSci professor(although really, is there any other kind at a university these days?)


Yes actually. Most political science professors in my experiance, for example, are cynical libertarians or crazy natural rights Christians who are obsessed with John Locke. I dont think Ive had a single "leftist" political science professor.

History professors, sure.:p

Anyway, I tend to be pretty leftist. The governments job is to help those in its nation who are not well off and to protect those who need protection.

I dont trust the government. But I trust the private sector less. That essentially shapes my politics.

Yes actually. Most political science professors in my experiance, for example, are cynical libertarians or crazy natural rights Christians who are obsessed with John Locke. I dont think Ive had a single "leftist" political science professor.

History professors, sure.:p

my old economics professor was an economic advisor to Margaret Thatcher.

thank fuck the politics department was sane (and there were a few dissident leftists in the business school, too) :p

One deals with the cards dealt; life isn't fair, but frankly, I'd rather extirpate the feckless and irresponsible from society and incur the odd innocent victim than the opposite.

Would I be right in translating that as: "you're poor, so you deserve to die?"

Poor and disabled people are a diverse group of individuals, who do not nessissarily choose to be in their condition. They are often capable of making valuable contributions, especially if they have a bit of help to crawl above subsistance level or below. And they are also human beings, and deserving of the rights accorded to such.

Saying "let them die" should be treated as every bit as appalling a statement as if you got up and said, "let the Jews die" or "let the Africans die". You are demonstrating that you are a callous jerk who's idea of society is to practice social Darwinism. We are an intelligent life form that has develloped organized societies, and their is no reason why we have to live on the level of animals in this respect. Fuck, even wolves supposedly bring food to the injured members of the pack.:mad:

Yes life isn't fair, but saying "that's the way it is", hardly qualifies as an argument for why we should keep it that way if its in our power to change it. Until recently, massive infant mortality rates were "the way it was". Months to travle around the World were "the way it was." Death from now curable illnesses was "the way it was." Your argument is a non-argument, likely born of a mix of stupidity and apathy.

my old economics professor was an economic advisor to Margaret Thatcher.

thank fuck the politics department was sane (and there were a few dissident leftists in the business school, too) :p

To be fair, I do very much enjoy the cynical libertarians.

Right now, my view is that if the nation pays for the debts of private businesses, the nation should own the business.

OMG you commie!!!:D

Anyway, as for political orientation, sort of eurocommunist (quod wiki) here.
As for political phylosophy, I like Machiavelli, Gramsci, a bit of Kant, Montesquieu and Rousseau.

Yes actually. Most political science professors in my experiance, for example, are cynical libertarians or crazy natural rights Christians who are obsessed with John Locke. I dont think Ive had a single "leftist" political science professor.


I'd say that John Locke is more of an influence on liberal democratic political movements, rather than anything right wing.


History professors, sure.:p

But sociology professors are the most left wing. Although to be fair, one of my economics professors is probably more left wing than any sociology professor.

One deals with the cards dealt; life isn't fair, but frankly, I'd rather extirpate the feckless and irresponsible from society and incur the odd innocent victim than the opposite.

Curious, I would rather tolerate the feckless and irresponsible in society than risk there being innocent becoming victims. That seems a tad more humane.

Cons: Some people leech off the state
Pros: Human lives are maintained

And I even pay taxes right now! Who would have thought?

My political philosophy is that I'm right and you can all go to hell. I'll make my own country. With blackjack, and hookers!

ahh, forget the blackjack...

I'd say that John Locke is more of an influence on liberal democratic political movements, rather than anything right wing.


I never said he was right wing in the sense usually mentioned. Locke, however, is a big propponent of natural rights. And my crazy natural rights Christians political science teachers all loved him.

But sociology professors are the most left wing.

Uh-uh. Art/Drama professors.

Interesting.
:eek2: don't make him angry!

http://www.clipartof.com/images/emoticons/xsmall2/507_twitching_eye.gif Huh?

How's that interesting?
And while not making me angry is good advice, why should my political orientation have anything to do with it?

The shortest I can boil my political philosophy down to is social ecology. But that word is meaningless to most of you, so to Heinleinites' chagrin, I will elaborate.

This means I'm a believer in radical ecology, grassroots participatory democracy, anarchism, socialism, feminism and federalism.

Kind of mix of Zen Buddhism, Robert Nozick, and Karl Marx.
Yes, I just listed three unrelated proper nouns together. I leave it up to the reader to interpret what it actually means.

Yes, I just listed three unrelated proper nouns

Forget "unrelated"... Nozick and Marx are very near mutually incompatible.

Forget "unrelated"... Nozick and Marx are very near mutually incompatible.

Well, it's a very complicated political philosophy. I wouldn't expect you to understand it.

a guy with opinions on stuff.

Well, it's a very complicated political philosophy. I wouldn't expect you to understand it.

Try me :p

Try me :p

Mu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mu_(negative)).

btw

What exactly is a U.S. Constitutionalist?

I was a run-of-the-mill center-left Social Democrat, but I'm having an intellectual crisis. :confused:

I was a run-of-the-mill center-left Social Democrat, but I'm having an intellectual crisis. :confused:
Which way does the crisis sway you?

Which way does the crisis sway you?

Some strain of left wing anarchism, I think. I still believe in social and economic justice, but I'm becoming unconvinced of the usefulness of state as a vehicle for it.

Some strain of left wing anarchism, I think. I still believe in social and economic justice, but I'm becoming unconvinced of the usefulness of state as a vehicle for it.

I remember going through that crisis myself.

I remember going through that crisis myself.

Oh? How did it work out for you?

Paleo-Libertarian.

I was a run-of-the-mill center-left Social Democrat, but I'm having an intellectual crisis. :confused:
The state is ace.

moderates: 10
anarchists: 9

i love nsg

Anarcho-capitalist.

They didn't "force" them, but I'm using this as an example of why governments should stay out of markets, why should we trust governments to interfere more and more, when their stupidity proves they are too irresponsible to begin with? The banks have their responsiblity in this mess, but the fact that the government encouraged it is appalling.....

Well, which one is it?
Did they make the banks give out irresponsible loans, in which case it's only just and fair that they now cover the bad debts?
Or didn't they do it, in which case they shouldn't bail them out?

And, btw, as long as there is no legislation outlining who a bank can give a loan to and who they can't, it's completely up to the banks who they give money to. To say they've been encouraged by government and that has caused the problem is like saying the guy who caused the car crash had been encouraged to drink by a Busweiser ad, and therefore Budweiser is to blame.

And, btw, as long as there is no legislation outlining who a bank can give a loan to and who they can't, it's completely up to the banks who they give money to. To say they've been encouraged by government and that has caused the problem is like saying the guy who caused the car crash had been encouraged to drink by a Busweiser ad, and therefore Budweiser is to blame.

Automobiles are a perfect example of where regulation is necessary to prevent irresponsible behavior. They're a good analogy for banks. Saying that over-regulation caused the financial crisis is like saying that a traffic accident was the result of the speed limit being too low. Blaming individual homeowners is like blaming pedestrians for being hit after you repeal the speed limits and DUI laws.

I'm a socilaist nominaly, but I alos have a soft spot for anarchy and see that as the ultimate end for humanity. That is the conclusion that I have reached tells me that anarchy will be the only viable polictical system that we will reach in some far off distant time.

Oh? How did it work out for you?

I became an anarchist.

The shortest I can boil my political philosophy down to is social ecology. But that word is meaningless to most of you, so to Heinleinites' chagrin, I will elaborate.

This means I'm a believer in radical ecology, grassroots participatory democracy, anarchism, socialism, feminism and federalism.

I do recognise the phrase, and I recall Bookchin being a proponent of that. If you've read anything of his, where would you recommend I start?

Would I be right in translating that as: "you're poor, so you deserve to die?"

Poor and disabled people are a diverse group of individuals, who do not nessissarily choose to be in their condition. They are often capable of making valuable contributions, especially if they have a bit of help to crawl above subsistance level or below. And they are also human beings, and deserving of the rights accorded to such.

Saying "let them die" should be treated as every bit as appalling a statement as if you got up and said, "let the Jews die" or "let the Africans die". You are demonstrating that you are a callous jerk who's idea of society is to practice social Darwinism. We are an intelligent life form that has develloped organized societies, and their is no reason why we have to live on the level of animals in this respect. Fuck, even wolves supposedly bring food to the injured members of the pack.:mad:

Yes life isn't fair, but saying "that's the way it is", hardly qualifies as an argument for why we should keep it that way if its in our power to change it. Until recently, massive infant mortality rates were "the way it was". Months to travle around the World were "the way it was." Death from now curable illnesses was "the way it was." Your argument is a non-argument, likely born of a mix of stupidity and apathy.

Since my original point wasn't an advocate for letting the poor die, the above is largely immaterial. The only germane point is that concerning social darwinism, and, in response, I see no other premise upon which society should be based.

I have no objections to temporary relief, contingent upon an attempt to improve one's situation, but quite simply, unless one is making effort to sae oneself, I see little reason why the state should compensate.

I see no other premise upon which society should be based.


I personally believe our society should be based on the concept of diminishing marginal utility.

Poll sucks, but I chose liberal.

Centrist or moderate pretty much the same thing. Middle of the road. I feel the pendulum is best if it not swung at all. Too much of anything is usually a bad thing.

Too much regulation -> Bad
Too much freedom -> bad

Reasonable, realistic, and balanced

I became an anarchist.

Was it something you read? Do the anarchists in your town throw better parties?

I don't think ideology labels are very meaningful; especially when you get into "liberal vs. conservative"; the labels for what they mean don't even seem consistent. The most common one I hear is that conservative means "traditional" and liberal means "non-traditional"; but whose traditions would be referred to? What would seem to have been traditional in the past would probably contradict what would've been seen as traditional in the futher past before then, so the distinction becomes kind of arbitrary.

On most subjects my views seem to be the ones that would be considered liberal, but there's also things that are labelled liberal that I strongly disagree with, like being opposed to genetically engineered crops and experiments on animals. I find it ironic, then, that by supporting animal testing and genetic engineering of crops that I'd be considered less "non-traditional" for refusing to conform to things considered "liberal"; doesn't that defeat the purpose of not conforming to tradition?

Since my original point wasn't an advocate for letting the poor die, the above is largely immaterial. The only germane point is that concerning social darwinism, and, in response, I see no other premise upon which society should be based.

My mistake then. And thank you for clarifying that you would accept temporary relief. However, you still advocate survival of the fitest while ignoring that a great many people may be poor or needing help for reasons beyond their control, and that these people very often will sufure shorter life spans if they are not helped. In short, you still appear to be advocating a callous and ruthless philosophy which puts the fat pocketbooks of the rich before the lives of the poor, and assumes that poverty is usually the fault of the victim.

I have no objections to temporary relief, contingent upon an attempt to improve one's situation, but quite simply, unless one is making effort to sae oneself, I see little reason why the state should compensate.

Some people can't make that effort, and others are but are still unable to improve their circumstances. I'm not saying we should waste money on the lazy for anything more than basic nessesities for survival, but their are a lot of reasons for being poor or disabled besides laziness/choice. As for why the state should compensate, it should do so because in a modern democracy, the state exists to serve the people and to protect their rights.

I do recognise the phrase, and I recall Bookchin being a proponent of that. If you've read anything of his, where would you recommend I start?

Start with his book Post Scarcity Anarchism, and then move into his later opus, The Ecology of Freedom. That's the basic bedrock of social ecology, though he did write more prescritptive tomes on the subject.

Was it something you read? Do the anarchists in your town throw better parties?

Well, the books I listed above served to solidify my change in ideology, but yes, anarchists do make better lovers. :P