Total Posts:56|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Political Ideology

Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2010 5:58:57 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Liberalism. (albeit my version).
You are free to do what you will so long as it does not unduly harm others. Seems like a pretty good principle to me, requiring no further expansion or defence.
Religious freedom, freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, no backward bigots controlling your personal life due to the whim of their imaginary friends.
Free markets are generally better than controlled ones, but it is foolish to deny that someone must be steering the ship.
Small government, living in fear of and accountable to the people, creates efficiency and denies tyranny.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2010 6:54:30 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/19/2010 6:06:02 AM, Mirza wrote:
I see. But why is it that you are against rights to possess guns?

There is no legitimate need for the majority of the population to own them, they put everyone else at risk, the figures show that even when large scale ownership is tightly regulated gun related crime goes through the roof. Also I am British, it's almost hardwired.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2010 7:32:45 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/19/2010 6:54:30 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Also I am British, it's almost hardwired.

I'm American.

I want a gun and a bowie knife :)
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2010 8:13:45 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Libertarian...however, I strongly believe in a pluralistic society, and the security of plurality must be insured. A system that defaults toward freedom over equality without an absolute in pretty much anything.

A single doctrine that is narrow in definition, and obsessively adhered to is probably a bad idea.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2010 9:02:31 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/19/2010 8:54:57 AM, comoncents wrote:
Democratic socialism

JK

Now if we are talking about America than we need to follow a strong constitution, free market economic system, conservative principles, and equality.
Government should not be trying to limit natural selection or even interfere with it.
Government should be there for protection.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2010 9:07:48 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/19/2010 9:02:31 AM, comoncents wrote:
Now if we are talking about America than we need to follow a strong constitution,

The constitution is not infallible. In fact, it has been amended and rewritten throughout history specifically because it's not always right.

free market economic system,

Free but limited, mayhaps? :)

conservative principles,

Economically sure, socially no.

and equality.

Only if you mean equal rights...
President of DDO
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2010 9:13:24 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/19/2010 9:07:48 AM, theLwerd wrote:
At 5/19/2010 9:02:31 AM, comoncents wrote:
Now if we are talking about America than we need to follow a strong constitution,

The constitution is not infallible. In fact, it has been amended and rewritten throughout history specifically because it's not always right.


Yes, that is why amendments are needed.

free market economic system,

Free but limited, mayhaps? :)


A "watched" free market for sure.

conservative principles,

Economically sure, socially no.


Yep.

and equality.

Only if you mean equal rights...

Every man and every women are seen as equals. Non is exalted above the other.
MikeLoviN
Posts: 746
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2010 9:15:09 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/19/2010 9:02:31 AM, comoncents wrote:
At 5/19/2010 8:54:57 AM, comoncents wrote:
Democratic socialism


JK



Now if we are talking about America than we need to follow a strong constitution, free market economic system, conservative principles, and equality.
Government should not be trying to limit natural selection or even interfere with it.
Government should be there for protection.

That's a contradiction if I've ever seen one.

For domestic policy the correct answer is neo-conservatism (or at least the Canadian version of it :P )
For foreign policy, it's something much less interventionist, which I haven't decided upon yet.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2010 9:17:12 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
It's nearly impossible to say in any objective sense or clarity which ideology is truly "best" for society, except that those which seek to destroy society are clearly not in the running. The question is actually quite silly and invites people to attack each other on partisan grounds over barely anything.

The fact is, liberalism, libertarianism, authoritarianism, progressivism, conservatism, communism, even anarchism all have good ideas in mind designed, in their own way, to reflect and grow society in their own way. Some are successful, some aren't. Even those that aren't, people still decide to follow for the sake of the idea of society's direction.

For myself, I'll only say this: any ideology which puts the individual at the forefront has so far proven to be more successful than the others, simply because they address the root of society, kinda like addressing the root of a problem. It's more effective when you start from the bottom up.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2010 9:21:20 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/19/2010 9:15:09 AM, MikeLoviN wrote:
At 5/19/2010 9:02:31 AM, comoncents wrote:
At 5/19/2010 8:54:57 AM, comoncents wrote:
Democratic socialism


JK



Now if we are talking about America than we need to follow a strong constitution, free market economic system, conservative principles, and equality.
Government should not be trying to limit natural selection or even interfere with it.
Government should be there for protection.

That's a contradiction if I've ever seen one.


No it is not.
It is how you insert equality.

If you are trying to make everyone on the same plan as far as economics and way of life than no. That is not what I am talking about.

If you are trying to see everyone as the same (man is not better than women, gay is not better than straight, black is not better than white, treat everyone with the same basic equality) than yes.
MikeLoviN
Posts: 746
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2010 9:25:24 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/19/2010 9:21:20 AM, comoncents wrote:
At 5/19/2010 9:15:09 AM, MikeLoviN wrote:
At 5/19/2010 9:02:31 AM, comoncents wrote:
At 5/19/2010 8:54:57 AM, comoncents wrote:
Democratic socialism


JK



Now if we are talking about America than we need to follow a strong constitution, free market economic system, conservative principles, and equality.
Government should not be trying to limit natural selection or even interfere with it.
Government should be there for protection.

That's a contradiction if I've ever seen one.


No it is not.
It is how you insert equality.

If you are trying to make everyone on the same plan as far as economics and way of life than no. That is not what I am talking about.

If you are trying to see everyone as the same (man is not better than women, gay is not better than straight, black is not better than white, treat everyone with the same basic equality) than yes.

Ah, gotcha. In that case I don't think "equality" was the right term to use because of its historical association with the first definition you provided.
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2010 9:30:47 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/19/2010 9:17:12 AM, Volkov wrote:
For myself, I'll only say this: any ideology which puts the individual at the forefront has so far proven to be more successful than the others, simply because they address the root of society, kinda like addressing the root of a problem. It's more effective when you start from the bottom up.

Historically speaking, that is not entirely correct. Feudalism emphasized hierarchy and role in the community. It was quite "successful" for centuries. It had its own way of addressing the root of society - by enforcing strict social norms and a strict hierarchy.

Obviously I am with you on liberalism (focus on the individual).
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2010 9:39:18 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/19/2010 9:25:24 AM, MikeLoviN wrote:
At 5/19/2010 9:21:20 AM, comoncents wrote:
At 5/19/2010 9:15:09 AM, MikeLoviN wrote:
At 5/19/2010 9:02:31 AM, comoncents wrote:
At 5/19/2010 8:54:57 AM, comoncents wrote:
Democratic socialism


JK



Now if we are talking about America than we need to follow a strong constitution, free market economic system, conservative principles, and equality.
Government should not be trying to limit natural selection or even interfere with it.
Government should be there for protection.

That's a contradiction if I've ever seen one.


No it is not.
It is how you insert equality.

If you are trying to make everyone on the same plan as far as economics and way of life than no. That is not what I am talking about.

If you are trying to see everyone as the same (man is not better than women, gay is not better than straight, black is not better than white, treat everyone with the same basic equality) than yes.

Ah, gotcha. In that case I don't think "equality" was the right term to use because of its historical association with the first definition you provided.

Yes, you have to be very careful about the use of that word equality. Precise language surrounding it would be prudent.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2010 9:40:02 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/19/2010 9:30:47 AM, JBlake wrote:
Historically speaking, that is not entirely correct. Feudalism emphasized hierarchy and role in the community. It was quite "successful" for centuries. It had its own way of addressing the root of society - by enforcing strict social norms and a strict hierarchy.

I suppose you're right about that. I should've caught that before, oh well.

Obviously I am with you on liberalism (focus on the individual).

Who isn't? Except maybe Mirza.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2010 9:46:47 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/19/2010 9:40:02 AM, Volkov wrote:
At 5/19/2010 9:30:47 AM, JBlake wrote:
Historically speaking, that is not entirely correct. Feudalism emphasized hierarchy and role in the community. It was quite "successful" for centuries. It had its own way of addressing the root of society - by enforcing strict social norms and a strict hierarchy.

I suppose you're right about that. I should've caught that before, oh well.

Obviously I am with you on liberalism (focus on the individual).

Who isn't? Except maybe Mirza.

I never ever think of liberalism being a focus on the individual. Unions are not for the good of the individual, the tax laws by liberals are not for the good of the individual. Large centralized power is not good for the individual. Liberalism almost always opts toward equality of all versus the rights of the individual. Libertarianism is definitely about the individual, that Ayn Rand sort of freedom allowing the individual to achieve his or her greatest potential. Perhaps i am looking at liberalism wrong?
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2010 9:49:27 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/19/2010 9:46:47 AM, innomen wrote:
At 5/19/2010 9:40:02 AM, Volkov wrote:
At 5/19/2010 9:30:47 AM, JBlake wrote:
Historically speaking, that is not entirely correct. Feudalism emphasized hierarchy and role in the community. It was quite "successful" for centuries. It had its own way of addressing the root of society - by enforcing strict social norms and a strict hierarchy.

I suppose you're right about that. I should've caught that before, oh well.

Obviously I am with you on liberalism (focus on the individual).

Who isn't? Except maybe Mirza.

I never ever think of liberalism being a focus on the individual. Unions are not for the good of the individual, the tax laws by liberals are not for the good of the individual. Large centralized power is not good for the individual. Liberalism almost always opts toward equality of all versus the rights of the individual. Libertarianism is definitely about the individual, that Ayn Rand sort of freedom allowing the individual to achieve his or her greatest potential. Perhaps i am looking at liberalism wrong?

I am using the generalized "liberal." The Liberalism the way the rest of the world knows it. :) American conservatism falls within liberalism.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2010 9:55:13 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
It seems to me that almost any ideology can be successful depending on the individuals it governs. For instance, consider the reasons most of us agree that socialism would fail [insert reasons here]. Now if everyone in the society were hard working and all strived to do great work (and profit), then maybe most of those reasons would be eliminated and socialism could be successful. Another example is authoritarianism vs. democracy of sorts. Do you really think a direct democracy in a country like Chad would work? That country has one of the worst literacy rates; the population can't even read let alone make complex political decisions. In other words, the citizens and country as a whole might benefit from having less say in government. Libertarianism might be the best course of option if all people were X, Y and Z but not everyone is X, Y and Z.

I think it all comes down to two things: what role you believe the government should play, and what system works best considering the circumstances of the people. My personal opinion is that the government should be used as a tool to protect and improve people's quality of life. In other words, it's a safety net of sorts. I believe in liberty but I also believe in the social contract. I'm a pragmatist (not philosophically speaking) in the political sense that I value practicality - even if it means socializing things (which usually it does not). A completely hands-off government is not practical or sustainable. I believe in a much smaller government; I am socially liberal and economically conservative in the sense that I think a sh!t ton of pork spending needs to cease, as well as most social programs. I acknowledge the need for minimal taxes to help run the country, but overall think we should be pretty free...
President of DDO
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2010 9:56:29 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/19/2010 9:46:47 AM, innomen wrote:
I never ever think of liberalism being a focus on the individual. Unions are not for the good of the individual, the tax laws by liberals are not for the good of the individual. Large centralized power is not good for the individual. Liberalism almost always opts toward equality of all versus the rights of the individual. Libertarianism is definitely about the individual, that Ayn Rand sort of freedom allowing the individual to achieve his or her greatest potential. Perhaps i am looking at liberalism wrong?

You're confusing "American liberalism," or at least broad left-wing-ness, with real liberalism, innomen.

Liberalism has a heavy focus on the individual, but there are always different ways of going about it, as well as different compromises that need to be made. But throughout its history, liberalism has been about individuals. In fact, libertarianism is simply an offshoot of liberalism, when you get right down to it.

As for unions, centralized power, etc. - these things are not necessarily liberal in scope, though they're not exclusive either. For example, unions are beneficial to individuals simply because an individual taking part in a group designed to benefit and level the playing field for workers, of which the individual is one. How is that not good for individuals? Not everything done in a group is bad, you know. The, though, is to make it voluntary and not forced. Individual and voluntary association is the liberal amendment to this socialist idea.
BellumQuodPacis
Posts: 1,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2010 9:58:42 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/19/2010 9:56:29 AM, Volkov wrote:
At 5/19/2010 9:46:47 AM, innomen wrote:
I never ever think of liberalism being a focus on the individual. Unions are not for the good of the individual, the tax laws by liberals are not for the good of the individual. Large centralized power is not good for the individual. Liberalism almost always opts toward equality of all versus the rights of the individual. Libertarianism is definitely about the individual, that Ayn Rand sort of freedom allowing the individual to achieve his or her greatest potential. Perhaps i am looking at liberalism wrong?

You're confusing "American liberalism," or at least broad left-wing-ness, with real liberalism, innomen.

Liberalism has a heavy focus on the individual, but there are always different ways of going about it, as well as different compromises that need to be made. But throughout its history, liberalism has been about individuals. In fact, libertarianism is simply an offshoot of liberalism, when you get right down to it.

As for unions, centralized power, etc. - these things are not necessarily liberal in scope, though they're not exclusive either. For example, unions are beneficial to individuals simply because an individual taking part in a group designed to benefit and level the playing field for workers, of which the individual is one. How is that not good for individuals? Not everything done in a group is bad, you know. The, though, is to make it voluntary and not forced. Individual and voluntary association is the liberal amendment to this socialist idea.

Could someone determine my ideology?
BellumQuodPacis
Posts: 1,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2010 10:02:51 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/19/2010 10:00:44 AM, Volkov wrote:
At 5/19/2010 9:58:42 AM, BellumQuodPacis wrote:
Could someone determine my ideology?

You don't know it?

Honestly...all the tests i take are all different. Its an ongoing mystery since i joined this site.
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2010 10:05:04 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/19/2010 9:55:13 AM, theLwerd wrote:
It seems to me that almost any ideology can be successful depending on the individuals it governs. For instance, consider the reasons most of us agree that socialism would fail [insert reasons here]. Now if everyone in the society were hard working and all strived to do great work (and profit), then maybe most of those reasons would be eliminated and socialism could be successful. Another example is authoritarianism vs. democracy of sorts. Do you really think a direct democracy in a country like Chad would work? That country has one of the worst literacy rates; the population can't even read let alone make complex political decisions. In other words, the citizens and country as a whole might benefit from having less say in government. Libertarianism might be the best course of option if all people were X, Y and Z but not everyone is X, Y and Z.

Yes and no... Probably one of the major reasons that countries like Chad have low literacy rates is because of the authoritarian nature of their government. If hat changed and resources were shifted over to education and other benefits for the individual then literacy rates would rise. Unless your argument is that Chadians (?) and others under authoritarian rule are inherently less intelligent. If that is the case then I have very different grounds to oppose your argument. ;) I don't think that is what you are saying, though.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2010 10:05:14 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/19/2010 10:02:51 AM, BellumQuodPacis wrote:
Honestly...all the tests i take are all different. Its an ongoing mystery since i joined this site.

Fair enough. Just looking at your BIG issues, I'd say you're somewhere inbetween liberal and conservatism. I mean, you're anti-SSM yet pro-marijuana legalization. Doesn't get more confusing than that. xD
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2010 10:07:18 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
To continue my point:
The first years of a transition from authoritarian to liberal might be rough. It was certainly rough for the western world when we made our shift from feudalism to liberalism. But in the long run, it is for the better. Of course, "better" is subjective and entirely based on the fact that I (and we) grew up when we did. :)
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2010 10:08:22 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/19/2010 10:05:14 AM, Volkov wrote:
At 5/19/2010 10:02:51 AM, BellumQuodPacis wrote:
Honestly...all the tests i take are all different. Its an ongoing mystery since i joined this site.

Fair enough. Just looking at your BIG issues, I'd say you're somewhere inbetween liberal and conservatism. I mean, you're anti-SSM yet pro-marijuana legalization. Doesn't get more confusing than that. xD

Perhaps if you filled out the comments on your BIG issues we could understand why you support/oppose things. Then we could get an idea as to your ideology.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2010 10:23:14 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/19/2010 10:05:04 AM, JBlake wrote:
Yes and no... Probably one of the major reasons that countries like Chad have low literacy rates is because of the authoritarian nature of their government.

Not necessarily, unless the authority in power outlawed books and education. I'm not for that type of oppression, obviously.

If that changed and resources were shifted over to education and other benefits for the individual then literacy rates would rise.

What resources? Chad is a poor country... And sure, in a literate country, there is no need for authoritarianism and such. I was saying that if a country WAS ignorant however (for whatever reason), then clearly that form of government would be most beneficial... again, assuming that it wasn't oppressive. To clarify I should have said that I am against government oppression, but theoretically different systems would work best depending on the goals and populace.

Libertarians would say that we do know how people are - they're inherent selfish and only work toward their self-interest, therefore that system would be most beneficial. But for reasons I mentioned (and commented on in my Big Issues for clarity) it's just not feasible, practical or in my opinion the most fair course. *Shrugs* I'm probably not being clear lol I should have another coffee.
President of DDO