Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

**Sean** · Feb 16, 2004, 05:17 pm

What do you think your political ideology can do for society that others cannot?

Also, what do you want for the world that makes you so (conservative, liberal, etc).

I know it's a pretty broad question, but it's also a broad forum (member-wise)-so it should be interesting.

Feb 16, 2004, 05:50 pm

I could be called liberal. I am in this broad classification because I support: universal healthcare, a higher safety net for the poor, and many other liberal issues (affirmative action, gay rights, etc).

I want the world to truly be a place of opportunity, and I believe that things like excessive health-care costs, and the quality of our schools, have an effect on how much opportunity is available to everyone. I think that the whole <"programs=taxes, and taxes=less revenue for ME"> doesn't consider that if healthcare was cheaper, and education was better, we would have more consumers, and more business opportunities.
Just my quick opinion on this matter.

Stigmata66 · Feb 16, 2004, 05:52 pm

So you're a racist...?

Feb 16, 2004, 06:33 pm

haha, you're supposed to argue your point a little bit, you didn't even try.

This thread is about explaining your reasons for being in a general political category, and you make such a general + worthless statement. :rolleyes:

Supporting affirmative action isn't racism, it's correcting the imbalance that we've caused in our structure during slavery/segregation.

A class division is very apparent even still in America if you travel to any major city. If programs that promote diversity did not exist America's law firms, business's, etc would all be one color.

If you think it's racism, you need to explain why. Being a prick and saying SO YOU'RE RACIST, is pointless. I'm not here to play little insult games with you, so offer your opinion+explain it please.

RebelWithanAK · Feb 16, 2004, 07:16 pm

Considering that taxes = roads, bridges, hospitals, police and fire forces, schools, airports, cheap power and clean water, and in some cases housing and health care for the poor, it shocks me that people would take the utterly selfish and detrimental route of essentially voting themselves money from the treasury. Just wait 'till they find out just how much highway maintenance and gasoline was subsidized...

tman_ndsu08 · Feb 16, 2004, 07:25 pm

Affirmative action is reverse discrimination.

The bottom line is that employers who own businesses are in demand for employees who will help them with their businesses.

The employer has absolute control over who he wants to hire. If there exists a black person who is more qualified than anyone else and the employer doesn't choose that person, he/she is hurting his business.

It's exactly the same as a consumer who wouldn't buy the best product for his/her money. It's foolishness... and yet the consumer has always had that option.

As far as taxes go. Taxes are money that government forces people to pay so they can fund services that are deemed public goods.

The only problem is that government services are grossly inefficient compared to businesses in the private sector. That's simply a fact and will never change because of the nature of government.

The laws of supply and demand are absolute no matter what ethos you subscribe to. If people demand someone there will be someone to supply it. If they demand roads...then someone will proviede them at a cost.

RebelWithanAK · Feb 16, 2004, 07:52 pm

1) The reason we have Affirmative Action is because businesses couldn't be trusted to hire employees based on ability alone, as they've proven time and time again that they couldn't look past the color of the person's face, so now we have to force them. Just like government had to do with minimum wage laws, environmental regulation laws, workplace safety laws, antitrust laws...

2) One word: Enron.

antayla · Feb 16, 2004, 08:13 pm

Hmm. Well I guess I would call my political ideology the same as my philosophy. I'm a chaotic. Basically, I figure that things take care of themselves, one way or another. But... seeing as I think it might be kinda fun to survive as a species, I propose to compete with government to get it back into line, minimize nationalism/war through global networking, and get rid of greed/hatred by giving people fewer reasons to feel insecure. It's not like those of us who want peace on earth don't outnumber the few idiots who are agressive and greedy enough to waste their time living a war (cause war is such a hassle and bad for real business.) I'm done fighting. I'm ready to undermine rather than overthrow, compete by collaborating. Has anyone really tried this one yet? And I'm not talking about anything that has anything to do with force...

check my webpage: http://home.comcast.net/~pglg

castille · Feb 16, 2004, 10:13 pm

My political ideology offers you the opportunity to truely take power, wealth, strength, whatever you take, without having to meet the approval of 40 billion other people :)

Also, government services are MUCH more inefficient than private businsses. Yes, some moron mentions "Enron" as the single example of corporate inefficiency, but I could spend the whole day counting inefficient government services that are inefficient.

RebelwithanAK: Since Enron must be a reflection on the entire business community, does this mean Stalin is a reflection on the entire Communist ideology?

Examples of government inefficiency:

-Budgets for government departments are set according to their spending levels. Example: if the police department gets funding of $100M, but only spends $70M, then its budget for next year is decreased to $70M!

The problem is, departments then try to outspend each other in order to get more funding. "I think I'll buy 10 more cars this year, so next year my department gets more funding!"

In business, this is called inefficiency, and you would be fired (or else, like Enron, your company would collapse).

But governments don't usually collapse. The US government DOES act like Enron, but due to its absolute control, theres no chance of having an Enron-style collapse.

Kyran · Feb 16, 2004, 10:46 pm

My political philosophy, Fusionism, is a demand for liberty, justice, economic freedom, and limited government.

On the justice end, we would like to return to the days of true civil and criminal law. The lawbooks can be reduced to two rules.

Do not damage/take/control another person's life, liberty, or property.

Do not abuse your own life, liberty, or property.

This works in multiple ways. Environmentally aware citizens could sue a plant for polluting to clean up their mess; which will allow us to shut down government departments that regulate pollution rather than deal with it. Victimless crimes (prohibitions) would be brought to an end. Rather, Prohibition in itself would be a crime. It would be illegal to create laws controlling the behavior of others.

The latter rule does not result in Trial & Punishment. Abusing your own life ranges from suicide to self-ridicule. Abusing your freedom is relinquishing your rights to others. Abusing your property (animal abuse, burning down your house, addicting yourself to drugs, aborting your unborn child, etc.) can be severe. Can government do anything good in response? Not really. But this is important to specify about. Govt should never criminalize anyone who attempts to stop someone from abusing themselves. There will be times when people have to use force to do this. Government will have to be notified.

You'll notice that the First Law is basically how libertarians think we should operate. The Second Law betrays the prohibitionists' system of incarceration for damaging oneself while still respecting the conservative standpoint on man's dignity. My philosophy is a lesser known one in between the two.

Fusionism is capitalist. Businesses are property, and government should respect this. Every individual has the right to choose whether he/she will be an employee or an employer. Social programs are best implemented by society itself, not government. Charities have spent centuries aiding those in need. Government may usefully census national reports on how well or bad charities are doing. The only tolerable form of taxation is Sales tax. All other taxes should be eliminated, and we should return to the gold standard.

Government should be limited from:
--engaging in religious activity; i.e. swearing on bibles, marrying people
--redistribution of taxpayer money to the Specially Selected

There's a "catch" to Fusionism that many will not agree with; but hear me out. It is only implementable in a Republic where people do not have the Right to Vote lawmakers into office. When you pay someone a 6-figure income to create new laws every year, you are gonna get laws laws laws laws and more laws. Fusionism only needs 2 rules to operate correctly; there is no need for lawmakers. The legislative branch of government is fulfilled and done away with forever. The tradition of electing officials by vote for government roles is not an enemy of fusionism. But the concept of giving people power over and over to legislate has resulted in a legal code only lawyers understand...and a voter base only interested in shoving their way of life on everybody else. No one has the right to do that.

Your thoughts and comments.

tman_ndsu08 · Feb 16, 2004, 11:13 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Just like government had to do with minimum wage laws, environmental regulation laws, workplace safety laws, antitrust laws...<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

They just HAD to didn't they? For the good of the people, right?

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
businesses couldn't be trusted to hire employees based on ability alone, as they've proven time and time again that they couldn't look past the color of the person's face, so now we have to force them<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Why should a business have to be trusted to do anything?!?!

Who cares? If YOU don't like a particular business for any reason you want, then don't buy from them. Hell, create a petition for a boycott against them, who cares?

You DON'T have the right to force any business to do anything.

Trust me, if a business didn't hire the best person for the job then they would be hurting themselves.

If a huge plasma screen TV and a medium sized CRT both cost the same amount, would you buy the CRT? Obviously not...but you have the choice to do so.

The government doesn't make you buy the plasma screen because plasma has been discriminated against in the past.

the_anawim · Feb 17, 2004, 12:31 am

I'm a Christian pacifist. I'm not quite sure what to label my political philosophy--maybe (in memory of John H. Yoder) The Politics of Jesus. I represent a marginalized group of Christians who believe that the Gospel is fundamentally social/political, and that the Church is called to be a non-violent social institution that is a witness against the "powers that be," and which does not separate love of God and love of neighbor. I have real problems with bourgeois capitalism and contemporary consumer culture, modern individualism, civil religion, etc--and I don't really believe that any political system is or can be wholly just, save the kingdom of God that the Church (at its best--which isn't often in America!) is making manifest.

I'm sure all of that sounds like a bullshit political philosophy to most of you, but that's how I see it--and, at the very least, it's a hell of a lot more exciting than your run of the mill "God Bless America" religion.

Take care.
Scott
the Ekklesia Project

floridian · Feb 17, 2004, 09:05 am

My political philosophy is to think independently. It is valuable in overcoming the groupthink that all parties and coallitions fall into.

Ideas should be considered and adopted on their merits. Issues like abortion, the economy, gun control, and the war in Iraq have little or nothing to do with each other. You would never know that from observing the two major US political parties.

starvingeyes · Feb 17, 2004, 02:59 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Do not abuse your own life, liberty, or property.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

2 questions.

1. why do you care if i damage my own life, liberty and property?

2. what gives you the right to interfere with me choosing to do this?

--

i'm an anarcho-capitalist/libertarian/whatever. i don't think i really need to explain to you all what that means.

it's simple, folks. freedom is progress. so, let's be free.

libertyminded · Feb 17, 2004, 09:26 pm

I'd call myself a Libertarian but with slightly more Phillanthropic leanings.

Reasons I see to support the Libertarian platform over any other are:

a) Freedom should be as unadultrated a thing as possible. Early America was a unique experiment in freedom (minus a few peculliar institutions like slavery but that was the rule of the day all over the world at the time). This ideal garnered widespread literacy and education and an unprecedented sense of personal responsibility and entrepreneurship. This spread a more comfortable quality of life to more people more quickly than any other system in the history of the world.

b) Authoritarians on the left and the right have motivations to curtail freedom in support of engineering society into something that I can only see as being Orwellian in it's long term results.

c) Free market economies always work better than ones controlled by a government force. Government is an institution that inevitably uses it's ability to control and enforce it's will to expand it's influence into the lives of what should be sovereign citizens and organizations. This is a circular process wherein the government continually demands more and more control.

d) If virtually unanimous consensus cannot be reached by the citizenry in regard to whether government has the right to authority on a particullar issue the authority should not be given. I believe it is tyrannical to force people that don't support things to abide by them/pay for them.

Those are just a few of the principals I believe in. I feel like there's more in me but I'm not quite sure how to put all of my ideas about how things should be into words.

Packratt · Feb 17, 2004, 09:38 pm

Personally, I think that there should be a nation for each socio-political philosophy. Let them all do their things and let the people decide which system they want to live under...

Of course, that won't work, the horrible systems that start losing productive people will use coercion like they do now, and people will suffer, have wars of resources, etc...

So, my philosophy is that I must currently try to survive the system I am under while instilling in my children my memetic code as well as my genetic code so that I will live on through them until the day when human kind actually evolves socially to the point where they aren't so damned self destructive.

Oh, for those supposed self-proclaimed "antistatists" and libertarians, I still say there is absolutely no difference between a "state" and a corporation. The choice of which master you will serve is no choice at all. Feudalism didn't work too well in the dark ages, it's not going to work any better now.

Good luck to you all.

nalex · Feb 18, 2004, 12:45 am

Politics appears to evolve around lying to gain popularity and selling your own ideals out to get the other side to vote for you.

I believe in unremitting leadership, goal oriented government, and creating opportunities to expand the education base. We live for our children as that is what we do. I think that we do not have a right to human life (it is a privilege) nor do we have a right to take it away.

I believe that greed is a good economic stimulent but is in essence a form of evil. Having to have another million dollars when your friends are starving is silly.

At heart, I am a liberal/objectivist, which is the opposite of a socialist/fascist.

G. Adams · Feb 18, 2004, 04:45 am

Well I'm not a fan of labels really but for clarification, if your new and havn't my extensive rantings, I'm a libertarian regarding social issues and fully communist regarding economic issues. I'm not revolutionary in the way of Guevara (using the early revolution as a method of creating the conditions for proletarian revolt) although I admire him greatly, nor am I a Leninist, having a vanguard of educated elites to lead the populace from Capitalism through Socialism to Communism. I don't think the conditions for Communism exist yet, and may never, so currently I am working to advance free-trade capitalism in the international sense while supporting liberal democracies to spread through the world. In that way, when we have a world of liberal democracies, if the capitalists are right about their system, everything will be good (generally) and I'll accept defeat. But if it's not, the populaces will be in a better position to revolt. So it's win-win really.

In terms of parties, I'm a card carrying Liberal Democrat, and if you see a Prime Minister with the initials LRB in office you'll know it's me. What am I saying, I mean when, not if :)

syracusa · Feb 18, 2004, 10:59 am

Antayla and Ana_wim,
I love you. :)
G. Adams - you too.

So, there - I'm with them. :)

Kyran · Feb 18, 2004, 11:53 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (starvingeyes,)
2 questions.

1. why do you care if i damage my own life, liberty and property?

2. what gives you the right to interfere with me choosing to do this?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

The first question answers itself. I wouldn't think anyone would consider a friend who stopped them from committing suicide to be infringing on their rights. That's not somebody trying to subjugate others.

You can call it force, and you can have a problem with it. But what you've got to realize is moderate America has no trouble with the government prohibiting self-destruction. They won't call the police if someone jerks up a crack addict and puts them in rehab.

If people aren't free to step into the lives of others this way, they are gonna get the government to do it. Have we earned our right to have any of those things if we abuse them? Those who would trade liberty for security deserve neither.

Am I wrong? Do you think people oughtta be imprisoned for this brand of "rights infringement." I don't think you do. You just don't want to be controlled. There's nothing wrong with that.

Feb 16, 2004, 05:17 pm	#1 (permalink) (top)
Sean former overlord Location: New York Posts: 2,383	What do you think your political ideology can do for society that others cannot? Also, what do you want for the world that makes you so (conservative, liberal, etc). I know it's a pretty broad question, but it's also a broad forum (member-wise)-so it should be interesting. So it goes

Feb 16, 2004, 05:52 pm	#3 (permalink) (top)
Stigmata66 Molten Ash Location: Pennsylvania Posts: 74	So you're a racist...? Hate heals, you should try it some time! Fukin Arch Enemy!

Feb 16, 2004, 07:16 pm	#5 (permalink) (top)
RebelWithanAK Igneous Magma Location: New York City Posts: 739	Considering that taxes = roads, bridges, hospitals, police and fire forces, schools, airports, cheap power and clean water, and in some cases housing and health care for the poor, it shocks me that people would take the utterly selfish and detrimental route of essentially voting themselves money from the treasury. Just wait 'till they find out just how much highway maintenance and gasoline was subsidized... . . . whenever any government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such forms as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Feb 16, 2004, 07:52 pm	#7 (permalink) (top)
RebelWithanAK Igneous Magma Location: New York City Posts: 739	1) The reason we have Affirmative Action is because businesses couldn't be trusted to hire employees based on ability alone, as they've proven time and time again that they couldn't look past the color of the person's face, so now we have to force them. Just like government had to do with minimum wage laws, environmental regulation laws, workplace safety laws, antitrust laws... 2) One word: Enron. . . . whenever any government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such forms as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Feb 16, 2004, 08:13 pm	#8 (permalink) (top)
antayla Molten Ash Location: Portland, Oregon Posts: 56	Hmm. Well I guess I would call my political ideology the same as my philosophy. I'm a chaotic. Basically, I figure that things take care of themselves, one way or another. But... seeing as I think it might be kinda fun to survive as a species, I propose to compete with government to get it back into line, minimize nationalism/war through global networking, and get rid of greed/hatred by giving people fewer reasons to feel insecure. It's not like those of us who want peace on earth don't outnumber the few idiots who are agressive and greedy enough to waste their time living a war (cause war is such a hassle and bad for real business.) I'm done fighting. I'm ready to undermine rather than overthrow, compete by collaborating. Has anyone really tried this one yet? And I'm not talking about anything that has anything to do with force... check my webpage: http://home.comcast.net/~pglg Member of the Free State Project. http://www.freestateproject.com

Feb 16, 2004, 05:50 pm	#2 (permalink) (top)
dotComa Guest Posts: n/a	I could be called liberal. I am in this broad classification because I support: universal healthcare, a higher safety net for the poor, and many other liberal issues (affirmative action, gay rights, etc). I want the world to truly be a place of opportunity, and I believe that things like excessive health-care costs, and the quality of our schools, have an effect on how much opportunity is available to everyone. I think that the whole <"programs=taxes, and taxes=less revenue for ME"> doesn't consider that if healthcare was cheaper, and education was better, we would have more consumers, and more business opportunities. Just my quick opinion on this matter.

Feb 16, 2004, 06:33 pm	#4 (permalink) (top)
dotComa Guest Posts: n/a	haha, you're supposed to argue your point a little bit, you didn't even try. This thread is about explaining your reasons for being in a general political category, and you make such a general + worthless statement. :rolleyes: Supporting affirmative action isn't racism, it's correcting the imbalance that we've caused in our structure during slavery/segregation. A class division is very apparent even still in America if you travel to any major city. If programs that promote diversity did not exist America's law firms, business's, etc would all be one color. If you think it's racism, you need to explain why. Being a prick and saying SO YOU'RE RACIST, is pointless. I'm not here to play little insult games with you, so offer your opinion+explain it please.

Feb 16, 2004, 07:25 pm	#6 (permalink) (top)
tman_ndsu08 BANNED Posts: 5,021	Affirmative action is reverse discrimination. The bottom line is that employers who own businesses are in demand for employees who will help them with their businesses. The employer has absolute control over who he wants to hire. If there exists a black person who is more qualified than anyone else and the employer doesn't choose that person, he/she is hurting his business. It's exactly the same as a consumer who wouldn't buy the best product for his/her money. It's foolishness... and yet the consumer has always had that option. As far as taxes go. Taxes are money that government forces people to pay so they can fund services that are deemed public goods. The only problem is that government services are grossly inefficient compared to businesses in the private sector. That's simply a fact and will never change because of the nature of government. The laws of supply and demand are absolute no matter what ethos you subscribe to. If people demand someone there will be someone to supply it. If they demand roads...then someone will proviede them at a cost.

Feb 16, 2004, 10:13 pm	#9 (permalink) (top)
castille Citizen #21521 Posts: 2,599	My political ideology offers you the opportunity to truely take power, wealth, strength, whatever you take, without having to meet the approval of 40 billion other people :) Also, government services are MUCH more inefficient than private businsses. Yes, some moron mentions "Enron" as the single example of corporate inefficiency, but I could spend the whole day counting inefficient government services that are inefficient. RebelwithanAK: Since Enron must be a reflection on the entire business community, does this mean Stalin is a reflection on the entire Communist ideology? Examples of government inefficiency: -Budgets for government departments are set according to their spending levels. Example: if the police department gets funding of $100M, but only spends $70M, then its budget for next year is decreased to $70M! The problem is, departments then try to outspend each other in order to get more funding. "I think I'll buy 10 more cars this year, so next year my department gets more funding!" In business, this is called inefficiency, and you would be fired (or else, like Enron, your company would collapse). But governments don't usually collapse. The US government DOES act like Enron, but due to its absolute control, theres no chance of having an Enron-style collapse. Ideological loyalty is the act of giving your soul to a vague concept, to be manipulated by people smarter than you.

Feb 16, 2004, 10:46 pm	#10 (permalink) (top)
Kyran Igneous Magma Location: East Coast, USA Posts: 451	My political philosophy, Fusionism, is a demand for liberty, justice, economic freedom, and limited government. On the justice end, we would like to return to the days of true civil and criminal law. The lawbooks can be reduced to two rules. Do not damage/take/control another person's life, liberty, or property. Do not abuse your own life, liberty, or property. This works in multiple ways. Environmentally aware citizens could sue a plant for polluting to clean up their mess; which will allow us to shut down government departments that regulate pollution rather than deal with it. Victimless crimes (prohibitions) would be brought to an end. Rather, Prohibition in itself would be a crime. It would be illegal to create laws controlling the behavior of others. The latter rule does not result in Trial & Punishment. Abusing your own life ranges from suicide to self-ridicule. Abusing your freedom is relinquishing your rights to others. Abusing your property (animal abuse, burning down your house, addicting yourself to drugs, aborting your unborn child, etc.) can be severe. Can government do anything good in response? Not really. But this is important to specify about. Govt should never criminalize anyone who attempts to stop someone from abusing themselves. There will be times when people have to use force to do this. Government will have to be notified. You'll notice that the First Law is basically how libertarians think we should operate. The Second Law betrays the prohibitionists' system of incarceration for damaging oneself while still respecting the conservative standpoint on man's dignity. My philosophy is a lesser known one in between the two. Fusionism is capitalist. Businesses are property, and government should respect this. Every individual has the right to choose whether he/she will be an employee or an employer. Social programs are best implemented by society itself, not government. Charities have spent centuries aiding those in need. Government may usefully census national reports on how well or bad charities are doing. The only tolerable form of taxation is Sales tax. All other taxes should be eliminated, and we should return to the gold standard. Government should be limited from: --engaging in religious activity; i.e. swearing on bibles, marrying people --redistribution of taxpayer money to the Specially Selected There's a "catch" to Fusionism that many will not agree with; but hear me out. It is only implementable in a Republic where people do not have the Right to Vote lawmakers into office. When you pay someone a 6-figure income to create new laws every year, you are gonna get laws laws laws laws and more laws. Fusionism only needs 2 rules to operate correctly; there is no need for lawmakers. The legislative branch of government is fulfilled and done away with forever. The tradition of electing officials by vote for government roles is not an enemy of fusionism. But the concept of giving people power over and over to legislate has resulted in a legal code only lawyers understand...and a voter base only interested in shoving their way of life on everybody else. No one has the right to do that. Your thoughts and comments.

Feb 16, 2004, 11:13 pm	#11 (permalink) (top)
tman_ndsu08 BANNED Posts: 5,021	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Just like government had to do with minimum wage laws, environmental regulation laws, workplace safety laws, antitrust laws...<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> They just HAD to didn't they? For the good of the people, right? </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by businesses couldn't be trusted to hire employees based on ability alone, as they've proven time and time again that they couldn't look past the color of the person's face, so now we have to force them<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Why should a business have to be trusted to do anything?!?! Who cares? If YOU don't like a particular business for any reason you want, then don't buy from them. Hell, create a petition for a boycott against them, who cares? You DON'T have the right to force any business to do anything. Trust me, if a business didn't hire the best person for the job then they would be hurting themselves. If a huge plasma screen TV and a medium sized CRT both cost the same amount, would you buy the CRT? Obviously not...but you have the choice to do so. The government doesn't make you buy the plasma screen because plasma has been discriminated against in the past.

Feb 17, 2004, 12:31 am	#12 (permalink) (top)
the_anawim Sedimentary Rock Location: Clinton, MS Posts: 15	I'm a Christian pacifist. I'm not quite sure what to label my political philosophy--maybe (in memory of John H. Yoder) The Politics of Jesus. I represent a marginalized group of Christians who believe that the Gospel is fundamentally social/political, and that the Church is called to be a non-violent social institution that is a witness against the "powers that be," and which does not separate love of God and love of neighbor. I have real problems with bourgeois capitalism and contemporary consumer culture, modern individualism, civil religion, etc--and I don't really believe that any political system is or can be wholly just, save the kingdom of God that the Church (at its best--which isn't often in America!) is making manifest. I'm sure all of that sounds like a bullshit political philosophy to most of you, but that's how I see it--and, at the very least, it's a hell of a lot more exciting than your run of the mill "God Bless America" religion. Take care. Scott the Ekklesia Project

Feb 17, 2004, 09:05 am	#13 (permalink) (top)
floridian Molten Ash Posts: 84	My political philosophy is to think independently. It is valuable in overcoming the groupthink that all parties and coallitions fall into. Ideas should be considered and adopted on their merits. Issues like abortion, the economy, gun control, and the war in Iraq have little or nothing to do with each other. You would never know that from observing the two major US political parties.

Feb 17, 2004, 02:59 pm	#14 (permalink) (top)
starvingeyes Sedimentary Rock Location: canada Posts: 4	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Do not abuse your own life, liberty, or property.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> 2 questions. 1. why do you care if i damage my own life, liberty and property? 2. what gives you the right to interfere with me choosing to do this? -- i'm an anarcho-capitalist/libertarian/whatever. i don't think i really need to explain to you all what that means. it's simple, folks. freedom is progress. so, let's be free. <span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%'> In this hope do I say to you: I despise you. I despise your order, your laws, your force-propped authority. Hang me for it! </span> - louis lingg

Feb 17, 2004, 09:26 pm	#15 (permalink) (top)
libertyminded Molten Ash Location: Seattle, Washington USA Posts: 69	I'd call myself a Libertarian but with slightly more Phillanthropic leanings. Reasons I see to support the Libertarian platform over any other are: a) Freedom should be as unadultrated a thing as possible. Early America was a unique experiment in freedom (minus a few peculliar institutions like slavery but that was the rule of the day all over the world at the time). This ideal garnered widespread literacy and education and an unprecedented sense of personal responsibility and entrepreneurship. This spread a more comfortable quality of life to more people more quickly than any other system in the history of the world. b) Authoritarians on the left and the right have motivations to curtail freedom in support of engineering society into something that I can only see as being Orwellian in it's long term results. c) Free market economies always work better than ones controlled by a government force. Government is an institution that inevitably uses it's ability to control and enforce it's will to expand it's influence into the lives of what should be sovereign citizens and organizations. This is a circular process wherein the government continually demands more and more control. d) If virtually unanimous consensus cannot be reached by the citizenry in regard to whether government has the right to authority on a particullar issue the authority should not be given. I believe it is tyrannical to force people that don't support things to abide by them/pay for them. Those are just a few of the principals I believe in. I feel like there's more in me but I'm not quite sure how to put all of my ideas about how things should be into words. "Any man willing to trade freedom for security deserves neither." -Benjamin Franklin

Feb 17, 2004, 09:38 pm	#16 (permalink) (top)
Packratt Molten Ash Location: Crimetown USA Posts: 130	Personally, I think that there should be a nation for each socio-political philosophy. Let them all do their things and let the people decide which system they want to live under... Of course, that won't work, the horrible systems that start losing productive people will use coercion like they do now, and people will suffer, have wars of resources, etc... So, my philosophy is that I must currently try to survive the system I am under while instilling in my children my memetic code as well as my genetic code so that I will live on through them until the day when human kind actually evolves socially to the point where they aren't so damned self destructive. Oh, for those supposed self-proclaimed "antistatists" and libertarians, I still say there is absolutely no difference between a "state" and a corporation. The choice of which master you will serve is no choice at all. Feudalism didn't work too well in the dark ages, it's not going to work any better now. Good luck to you all. "...the worker's liberty... is only a theoretical freedom, lacking any means for its possible realisation, and consequently it is only a fictitious liberty, an utter falsehood. -Bakunin

Feb 18, 2004, 12:45 am	#17 (permalink) (top)
nalex Sedimentary Rock Posts: 24	Politics appears to evolve around lying to gain popularity and selling your own ideals out to get the other side to vote for you. I believe in unremitting leadership, goal oriented government, and creating opportunities to expand the education base. We live for our children as that is what we do. I think that we do not have a right to human life (it is a privilege) nor do we have a right to take it away. I believe that greed is a good economic stimulent but is in essence a form of evil. Having to have another million dollars when your friends are starving is silly. At heart, I am a liberal/objectivist, which is the opposite of a socialist/fascist.

Feb 18, 2004, 04:45 am	#18 (permalink) (top)
G. Adams Fyrdman Location: Middlesbrough UK Posts: 4,161	Well I'm not a fan of labels really but for clarification, if your new and havn't my extensive rantings, I'm a libertarian regarding social issues and fully communist regarding economic issues. I'm not revolutionary in the way of Guevara (using the early revolution as a method of creating the conditions for proletarian revolt) although I admire him greatly, nor am I a Leninist, having a vanguard of educated elites to lead the populace from Capitalism through Socialism to Communism. I don't think the conditions for Communism exist yet, and may never, so currently I am working to advance free-trade capitalism in the international sense while supporting liberal democracies to spread through the world. In that way, when we have a world of liberal democracies, if the capitalists are right about their system, everything will be good (generally) and I'll accept defeat. But if it's not, the populaces will be in a better position to revolt. So it's win-win really. In terms of parties, I'm a card carrying Liberal Democrat, and if you see a Prime Minister with the initials LRB in office you'll know it's me. What am I saying, I mean when, not if :) Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. Winston Churchill

Feb 18, 2004, 10:59 am	#19 (permalink) (top)
syracusa Igneous Magma Posts: 623	Antayla and Ana_wim, I love you. :) G. Adams - you too. So, there - I'm with them. :) COMPETITION BRINGS THE BEST IN PRODUCTS AND THE WORST IN RELATIONSHIPS.

Feb 18, 2004, 11:53 am	#20 (permalink) (top)
Kyran Igneous Magma Location: East Coast, USA Posts: 451	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (starvingeyes,) 2 questions. 1. why do you care if i damage my own life, liberty and property? 2. what gives you the right to interfere with me choosing to do this?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> The first question answers itself. I wouldn't think anyone would consider a friend who stopped them from committing suicide to be infringing on their rights. That's not somebody trying to subjugate others. You can call it force, and you can have a problem with it. But what you've got to realize is moderate America has no trouble with the government prohibiting self-destruction. They won't call the police if someone jerks up a crack addict and puts them in rehab. If people aren't free to step into the lives of others this way, they are gonna get the government to do it. Have we earned our right to have any of those things if we abuse them? Those who would trade liberty for security deserve neither. Am I wrong? Do you think people oughtta be imprisoned for this brand of "rights infringement." I don't think you do. You just don't want to be controlled. There's nothing wrong with that.