The Political Affiliation/Ideology Thread

Theodore Kurita · 9th November 2003, 11:26 AM

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 · 9th November 2003, 12:14 PM

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 · 9th November 2003, 12:36 PM

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.

9th November 2003, 12:39 PM

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 · 9th November 2003, 12:42 PM

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

Mendor · 9th November 2003, 12:50 PM

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 · 9th November 2003, 01:12 PM

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 · 9th November 2003, 01:36 PM

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 · 9th November 2003, 02:13 PM

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 · 9th November 2003, 02:42 PM

Quote:

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 · 9th November 2003, 03:24 PM

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 · 9th November 2003, 03:36 PM

Moderation.

IN all things, moderation included, too!

shanek · 9th November 2003, 03:41 PM

Quote:

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 · 9th November 2003, 03:47 PM

Quote:

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?

no one in particular · 9th November 2003, 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by shanek
I had to vote "None of the above,"...

Quote:

Originally posted by Suddenly
I picked none of the above...

Quote:

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 · 9th November 2003, 05:41 PM

Quote:

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!

BillyTK · 10th November 2003, 09:37 AM

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 · 10th November 2003, 10:07 AM

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 · 10th November 2003, 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by shanek

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

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

shanek · 10th November 2003, 11:36 AM

Quote:

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 · 10th November 2003, 11:39 AM

Quote:

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 · 10th November 2003, 11:52 AM

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 · 10th November 2003, 12:08 PM

Quote:

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 · 10th November 2003, 12:12 PM

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 · 10th November 2003, 02:22 PM

Quote:

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/afr...hat_is_as.html

billydkid · 10th November 2003, 02:41 PM

Quote:

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 · 10th November 2003, 07:44 PM

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

I'll take ruthless conquerors to royalty born into spoiled, wealthy lives any day.

Cecil · 10th November 2003, 09:57 PM

Quote:

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 · 11th November 2003, 07:06 AM

Quote:

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.
[dream]

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.

[/dream]

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 · 11th November 2003, 09:33 AM

Quote:

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/afr...hat_is_as.html

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

BillyTK · 11th November 2003, 09:35 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Cecil
Well, I've got Monty Python to thank for that.

Funny and educational! You just carnt beat it, can you?!!

Do you have experience with EVP?	0	0%
Ever gotten quality articulate recordings?	0	0%
Voters: 0. You may not vote on this poll

9th November 2003, 11:26 AM	#1
Theodore Kurita Leader of the Draconis Combine Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 907	The Political Affiliation/Ideology Thread 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.

9th November 2003, 12:14 PM	#2
shanek by Charles M. Schulz Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 15,990	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.
	__________________ "James Randi is awesome!" —Ian Bernard, primary host of Free Talk Live "It really does take people like Penn & Teller or James Randi to be able to see through these deceptions, and so those are perhaps the people we should be paying the most attention to." —Harry Browne, 4/10/2004 I know there is a lesson to be learned here somewhere, but I don't know what it is.

9th November 2003, 12:36 PM	#3
Cleopatra Diva Caissa Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Athens-Greece Posts: 9,272	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.
	__________________ Whiskey is for drinking. Water is for fighting.~ Mark Twain.

9th November 2003, 12:39 PM	#4
Suddenly Guest Posts: n/a	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.
Suddenly Guest Posts: n/a

9th November 2003, 12:42 PM	#5
geni Anti-homeopathy illuminati member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: UK Posts: 26,557	Technocratcy; the one system I have chance of getting to the top of.

9th November 2003, 12:50 PM	#6
Mendor Critical Thinker Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 298	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.
Mendor Critical Thinker Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 298	__________________ Member of the Liberati

9th November 2003, 01:12 PM	#7
PogoPedant Muse Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 764	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.
PogoPedant Muse Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 764	__________________ GENERATION 7: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

9th November 2003, 01:36 PM	#8
Dancing David Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Central Illinois Posts: 34,702	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.
	__________________ Hell, dynamiting fish in a barrel is more challenging. - Ladewig I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager

9th November 2003, 02:13 PM	#9
Zep Banned Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 26,985	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)
Zep Banned Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 26,985

9th November 2003, 02:42 PM	#10
Theodore Kurita Leader of the Draconis Combine Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 907	Quote: 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.

9th November 2003, 03:24 PM	#11
MoeFaux Suspicious Mind Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 3,919	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.
MoeFaux Suspicious Mind Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 3,919	__________________ This post brought to you by the artist fauxmerly known as Moe.

9th November 2003, 03:36 PM	#12
jj grumpy old skeptic Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Deep in the rain Posts: 18,503	Moderation. IN all things, moderation included, too!
	__________________ The Power to Quit

9th November 2003, 03:41 PM	#13
shanek by Charles M. Schulz Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 15,990	Quote: 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.
	__________________ "James Randi is awesome!" —Ian Bernard, primary host of Free Talk Live "It really does take people like Penn & Teller or James Randi to be able to see through these deceptions, and so those are perhaps the people we should be paying the most attention to." —Harry Browne, 4/10/2004 I know there is a lesson to be learned here somewhere, but I don't know what it is.

9th November 2003, 03:47 PM	#14
shanek by Charles M. Schulz Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 15,990	Quote: 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?
	__________________ "James Randi is awesome!" —Ian Bernard, primary host of Free Talk Live "It really does take people like Penn & Teller or James Randi to be able to see through these deceptions, and so those are perhaps the people we should be paying the most attention to." —Harry Browne, 4/10/2004 I know there is a lesson to be learned here somewhere, but I don't know what it is.

9th November 2003, 03:50 PM	#15
no one in particular muse Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Ithaca, NY Posts: 1,004	Quote: Originally posted by shanek I had to vote "None of the above,"... Quote: Originally posted by Suddenly I picked none of the above... Quote: 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.
	__________________ We need more xoup.

9th November 2003, 05:41 PM	#16
shanek by Charles M. Schulz Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 15,990	Quote: 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!
	__________________ "James Randi is awesome!" —Ian Bernard, primary host of Free Talk Live "It really does take people like Penn & Teller or James Randi to be able to see through these deceptions, and so those are perhaps the people we should be paying the most attention to." —Harry Browne, 4/10/2004 I know there is a lesson to be learned here somewhere, but I don't know what it is.

10th November 2003, 09:37 AM	#17
BillyTK Master Poster Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 2,625	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!
BillyTK Master Poster Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 2,625	__________________ Part-timer.

10th November 2003, 10:07 AM	#18
Nyarlathotep Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 7,514	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.
	__________________ Why stay sane in a sick world?

10th November 2003, 10:27 AM	#19
MoeFaux Suspicious Mind Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 3,919	Quote: Originally posted by shanek Ah, so you believe in a lot of Rand's nutty ideas? Yup. Man, everything in AS just seems right to me. I adore Rand, sorry to dissapoint you.
MoeFaux Suspicious Mind Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 3,919	__________________ This post brought to you by the artist fauxmerly known as Moe.

10th November 2003, 11:36 AM	#20
shanek by Charles M. Schulz Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 15,990	Quote: 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).
	__________________ "James Randi is awesome!" —Ian Bernard, primary host of Free Talk Live "It really does take people like Penn & Teller or James Randi to be able to see through these deceptions, and so those are perhaps the people we should be paying the most attention to." —Harry Browne, 4/10/2004 I know there is a lesson to be learned here somewhere, but I don't know what it is.

10th November 2003, 11:39 AM	#21
MoeFaux Suspicious Mind Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 3,919	Quote: 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?
MoeFaux Suspicious Mind Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 3,919	__________________ This post brought to you by the artist fauxmerly known as Moe.

10th November 2003, 11:52 AM	#22
Cleopatra Diva Caissa Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Athens-Greece Posts: 9,272	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.
	__________________ Whiskey is for drinking. Water is for fighting.~ Mark Twain.

10th November 2003, 12:08 PM	#23
shanek by Charles M. Schulz Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 15,990	Quote: 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...
	__________________ "James Randi is awesome!" —Ian Bernard, primary host of Free Talk Live "It really does take people like Penn & Teller or James Randi to be able to see through these deceptions, and so those are perhaps the people we should be paying the most attention to." —Harry Browne, 4/10/2004 I know there is a lesson to be learned here somewhere, but I don't know what it is.

10th November 2003, 12:12 PM	#24
aerocontrols Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2001 Posts: 3,445	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
	__________________ Misunderestimated in 2000. Unredefeated in 2004. My dog does his tricks. My roomate's dog tries to escape the kitchen. We call you to be a people of manners, principles, honour, and purity; to reject the immoral acts of fornication, homosexuality, intoxicants, gambling's, and trading with interest. Source

10th November 2003, 02:22 PM	#25
Theodore Kurita Leader of the Draconis Combine Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 907	Quote: 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/afr...hat_is_as.html

10th November 2003, 02:41 PM	#26
billydkid Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Blanchester, OH Posts: 4,930	Hey Dave Quote: 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.

10th November 2003, 07:44 PM	#27
peptoabysmal Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 3,467	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 I'll take ruthless conquerors to royalty born into spoiled, wealthy lives any day.

10th November 2003, 09:57 PM	#28
Cecil Muse Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Vancouver Posts: 991	Quote: 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.
	__________________ "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." --Albert Einstein "The common man marvels at the uncommon; the wise man marvels at the commonplace." --Confucious "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." --Bertrand Russell

11th November 2003, 07:06 AM	#29
Dancing David Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Central Illinois Posts: 34,702	Re: Hey Dave Quote: 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. [dream] 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. [/dream] 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.
	__________________ Hell, dynamiting fish in a barrel is more challenging. - Ladewig I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager

11th November 2003, 09:33 AM	#30
BillyTK Master Poster Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 2,625	Quote: 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/afr...hat_is_as.html <sectarianism>He's an anarcho-socialist! Give him back you thieves!</sectarianism>
BillyTK Master Poster Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 2,625	__________________ Part-timer.

11th November 2003, 09:35 AM	#31
BillyTK Master Poster Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 2,625	Quote: Originally posted by Cecil Well, I've got Monty Python to thank for that. Funny and educational! You just carnt beat it, can you?!!
BillyTK Master Poster Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 2,625	__________________ Part-timer.