The Political Affiliation/Ideology Thread

[Theodore Kurita]

Lets just get a good count of how many people are in certain parts of the Political Spectrum.

Please post and explain why you support your political affiliation/ideology.

Thank You.

[shanek]

I had to vote "None of the above," because although I am very much a Libertarian, I am NOT a follower of Ayn Rand. Ayn Rand's followers are objectivists, not libertarians. Many objectivists are libertarians, but that doesn't mean they're the same thing.

[Cleopatra]

Also, can we define conservatism? European conservatism has nothing to do with the American one, unless you don't want Europeans to vote and you are interested in the views of the American posters only.

[Suddenly]

I picked none of the above because you didn't have a choice labeled "Pragmatic social libertarian."

I'm not sure if I'm kidding about that. I do agree with shanek that you are leaving libertarians out in the cold on this one. I think a minority of those calling themselves "libertarians" are followers of Ayn Rand. More are libertarians that believe in the utility of libertarianism, that it is good because it works, or that have a natural rights view that is more John Locke than Ayn Rand.

[geni]

Technocratcy; the one system I have chance of getting to the top of.

[Mendor]

Is monarchy a political ideology? I suppose it is, if you're the monarch in question.

I'm a liberal. More sort of leaning towards social democrat, which isn't quite the same as democratic socialism. Ah, the murky world of the Left.

p.s. This is in Scottish terms. Bear in mind that the political centre in Scotland is considerably to the left of that in the US.

[PogoPedant]

Hm... difficult choice. I ended up picking monarchy, conservative, and social democratic. This is mostly because I live in a kind of capitalist, limited democracy with a constitution, a king, and a socialist bent. Now because I have a soft spot for Burke-style conservatism*, I'm partial to maintaining a system that works, and that's just what we have.

*Assuming that my interpretion of his ideas isn't complete bunk.

[Dancing David]

More none of the above, I am a socialist in that I feel no one should go hungry or homeless.

I believe in free market economics with some controls.

I do not want to see state ownership of the means of production, but employee owned busineses are cool.

Americnas don't have cool parties like the Conservative Progressives and the like.

I am most likely a Social Democrat by the european definition.

[Zep]

I'm a bit similar to Dancing_David in my own politics - social democrat style, I suppose.

I have no problem with boosting private businesses and seeing them flourish - a capitalist economy with light touches on the reins.

I do see a place for more centralised (i.e. federal) government management of SOME aspects of our country's life: health, education, transport, police, social welfare (these are currently a mix of state and federal control).

I support a federal well-paid, trained and equipped military, that has many roles beyond simply defence (as has been demonstrated amply in times past).

I happen to be a "republican" Australian - I have no problems at all with Queen Elizabeth II per se, but to me she is Queen of England, not Australia. We really are grown up enough now to have our own head of state, but our current forward-to-the-1950's PM can't stand the thought... (end of repub. rant)

[Theodore Kurita]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Also, can we define conservatism? European conservatism has nothing to do with the American one, unless you don't want Europeans to vote and you are interested in the views of the American posters only.


When I am talking about Conservatism, I am talking about European Conservatism.

As for you Libertarians...

I knew I should have added some more options... But I ran out of room! :(

Why does not having Planet X create that violates a cardinal sin?

Anyways...

Just give your evidence points for your beliefs in your political ideology.

[MoeFaux]

I vote Libertarian for Ayn. I prefer to be called a Political Whackjob, but that option wasn't up there.
I lean towards objectivism often. I vote LP, and like their ideas. I agree with 97% of what Shanek says. But I've got some nutty ideas of my own. And as he pointed out Libertarianism and Objectivism are different things.

[jj]

Moderation.

IN all things, moderation included, too!

[shanek]

Originally posted by Theodore Kurita
As for you Libertarians...

I knew I should have added some more options... But I ran out of room! :(

You could have just said "Libertarian" and left it at that. There was no need to single out the Randians.

[shanek]

Originally posted by MoeFaux
I vote Libertarian for Ayn. I prefer to be called a Political Whackjob, but that option wasn't up there.
I lean towards objectivism often. I vote LP, and like their ideas. I agree with 97% of what Shanek says. But I've got some nutty ideas of my own. And as he pointed out Libertarianism and Objectivism are different things.

Ah, so you believe in a lot of Rand's nutty ideas? :p

[no one in particular]

Originally posted by shanek
I had to vote "None of the above,"... Originally posted by Suddenly
I picked none of the above...Originally posted by Dancing David
More none of the above... To be contrary I voted for all of the above, you know, because I could.

I would be all for Libertarians except that they do not seem to want to blow stuff up as much as Republicans and Democrats. Still, I agree with Libertarians on seemingly everything domestic. I can not bring myself to vote for them (for presidency, that is) yet because I do not want to pay for my neighbors health care and it appears as though the next time a Democrat gets into office they are going to push the hell out of centralized health care.

[shanek]

Originally posted by no one in particular
To be contrary I voted for all of the above, you know, because I could.

Including "None of the above"? Now, THAT'S surreal! :p

[BillyTK]

I had to vote anarcho-syndicalism because it's the first time I've seen it included in a political affiliation thread. That makes four of us who know what it is!

[Nyarlathotep]

I voted 'None of the above'. I find I agree with the libertarian point of view 80-90% of the time, but I don't think that's quite enough to call myself a libertarian. Besides, Since you specified 'Ayn Rand Style' I couldn't vote that anyway because I have never read Ayn Rand and have no idea what her views are or how they differ (if they do at all) from the form of libertarianism that I am familiar with.

Other than that my politics are hard to pigeonhole. I generally try to look at all issues individually and support whichever position seems the best to adress that issue, rather than adopting any sort of party line or overarching political philosophy. My personal ethical philosophy can best be decribed as utilitarian, and that pretty much defines my politics as well.

[MoeFaux]

Originally posted by shanek


Ah, so you believe in a lot of Rand's nutty ideas? :p

Yup. Man, everything in AS just seems right to me. I adore Rand, sorry to dissapoint you.

[shanek]

Originally posted by MoeFaux
Yup. Man, everything in AS just seems right to me. I adore Rand, sorry to dissapoint you.

I must admit I've never read Atlas Shrugged. I tried making it through The Fountainhead, but found the writing to be so atrocious that I just couldn't make it all the way through. So most of what I know about Rand's philosophy comes from her nonfiction writings. She had some great ideas, sure, but she also had a lot of real nutty ideas...and some of them downright scary (the government funding itself through "contract insurance," for example).

[MoeFaux]

Originally posted by shanek


I must admit I've never read Atlas Shrugged. I tried making it through The Fountainhead, but found the writing to be so atrocious that I just couldn't make it all the way through. So most of what I know about Rand's philosophy comes from her nonfiction writings. She had some great ideas, sure, but she also had a lot of real nutty ideas...and some of them downright scary (the government funding itself through "contract insurance," for example).

I guess I don't know anything about that. I can't remember ever reading any of her nonfiction. What's the idea?

[Cleopatra]

I voted for conservatism because I belong to the European Liberal Right as it is expressed politically by the Christian Democrats.

I have one reason which is completely sentimental. My father's family survived the Germans in order to be arrested and tortured by the Communists during the Greek Civil War.

So, there is no way for me to vote for a communist party ever in my life.To me Communism symbolizes hatred.

The reason I vote for the Christian Democrats is because all around Europe, the wing of the Christian Democrats is a wing of choices and action.

Christian Democrats are those that take decisions and make them true and the Socialists are those who exist to criticize them.

Socialists were useful in Europe's History but not essential because Hisory was written by the Conservatives.

[shanek]

Originally posted by MoeFaux
I guess I don't know anything about that. I can't remember ever reading any of her nonfiction. What's the idea?

Basically, that the government should fund itself through "contract insurance" (and give itself a monopoly to prevent any competitors from emerging). What would happen is, when you enter into a contract, if you wanted the government to enforce it, you would pay them a small percentage of the value of the value of the contract. Then, in the event of a breach, the government would raid the other party's property and sieze their assets. In other words, it would turn the government into hired thugs working a protection racket. (Which, really, isn't all that different from what they are now, but still...) It's hardly what I would consider a Libertarian idea.

In fact, one of the nominees for President at the Libertarian National Convention in 2000 proposed this idea during the debates. The crowd did not react favorably...

[aerocontrols]

I felt that I had to post a vote for Monarchy. I believe that God chooses a King and his heirs who then rule by Divine Providence for all eternity or until God chooses a new king or until Satan convinces the wicked to support the peasantry against God's Chosen One.

Or something like that ;)

[Theodore Kurita]

Originally posted by BillyTK
I had to vote anarcho-syndicalism because it's the first time I've seen it included in a political affiliation thread. That makes four of us who know what it is!

Anarcho-Syndicalism is the type of Anarchy that is associated with most leftists like me.

Funny thing is that most every Anarcho-Syndicalist rejects Marxism... Not to shabby...

Here is a like for more info if you are curious.

So you know, Noam Chowsky is an example of an Anarcho-Syndicalist.


http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/africa/wsfother/what_is_as.html

[billydkid]

Originally posted by Dancing David
More none of the above, I am a socialist in that I feel no one should go hungry or homeless.



Hey Dave, do you think there is a political viewpoint who advocates that people go hungry and homeless? A lot of people accuse libertarians of having that view. In fact, what the libertarians believe is that the state is worst and least efficient means of achieving that - that government, at best, interferes with achieving those ends and government intervention is the least effective means of achieving an equitable society.

[peptoabysmal]

I had to go with the Planet-X option on this one. My deepest suspicions were just confirmed. I am not from this planet.

Besides that; there is one conservative option and about ten liberal / socialist ones. Playing with the odds?

Why wasn't there an "Attila the Hun" option? I'd vote for him :p I'll take ruthless conquerors to royalty born into spoiled, wealthy lives any day.

[Cecil]

Originally posted by BillyTK
I had to vote anarcho-syndicalism because it's the first time I've seen it included in a political affiliation thread. That makes four of us who know what it is! Well, I've got Monty Python to thank for that. ;)

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by billydkid


Hey Dave, do you think there is a political viewpoint who advocates that people go hungry and homeless? A lot of people accuse libertarians of having that view. In fact, what the libertarians believe is that the state is worst and least efficient means of achieving that - that government, at best, interferes with achieving those ends and government intervention is the least effective means of achieving an equitable society.

Truely deep queston with no simple answers.(unless you want to look at the oligarchies that existed in the 1700,1800, then I would say oligarchy)

i would say that there are a number of factors that lead to homelessness and hunger, so I would not pin any particular brand of politics with that stigma.

I understand that there are those who believe that the government is the least efficient way to provide these services. But I just happen to disagree, the states are notorious at not providing services, most charitable food organizations are heavily dependant on the commodity programs.

In an ideal world we would all take care of our neighbors but that is an ethics that is slowly crumbling in the USA,

I just feel that there are some areas where we as a society could take care of the indigent. But I would not establish a dole.


First I would support more safe places for children, where they could go and be safe and fed. Private charities have a pathetic record of molesting children, so I don't trust them, of course the government isn't much better. But because of the biological imperative of the Regan administration children who are abused by thier parents have no choice, endure the abuse or be homeless.

Second, I believe in very utilitarian but safe housing for people, segregated into men, women, families. Not fancy, just tolerable and safe. Dormitory style except for the families. And a hard fast , no drugs, alcohol or weapons policy.

Third, i don't think that the food stamp program is the best, but it is the one that works in a free market. In Illinois we have debit cards for food purchase. I just feel that more people could use the benefit, especialy the elderly.




Now, who would run these systems best, certainly not faith based organizations, they have the worst track record of all.

I would think competitive bidding on a per capita basis based upon local costs would be the best. Run by whoever wants to take a whack at it, with very heavy oversight.(Which is what is lacking in faith based systems). So I would advocate for that kind of blended initiative,

but hey if we had a flat tax, that might make the economy so much better that we wouldn't need these services. But I feel that the dole style systems don't provide enough incentive for people to care for themselves.

And in our modern economy a dual income/minimum wage family can not make ends meet if they have ven one child.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Theodore Kurita


Anarcho-Syndicalism is the type of Anarchy that is associated with most leftists like me.

Funny thing is that most every Anarcho-Syndicalist rejects Marxism... Not to shabby...

Here is a like for more info if you are curious.

So you know, Noam Chowsky is an example of an Anarcho-Syndicalist.


http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/africa/wsfother/what_is_as.html

<sectarianism>He's an anarcho-socialist! Give him back you thieves!</sectarianism>
;) :D

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Cecil
Well, I've got Monty Python to thank for that. ;)
Funny and educational! You just carnt beat it, can you?!!