Why do you hold the political views you hold?

[Humes fork]

At least among libertarians there is a division between consequentialists and deontologists. The former hold libertarian views because they think libertarianism will lead to good consequences such as happiness and prosperity, and the latter hold libertarian views because they think the initiation of force is immoral, regardless of consequences. Often they proceed from some theory of natural, inalienable rights.

I think this is a useful division for other political ideologies as well. I've come across socialists who think that socialism will lead to a better society, as well as well as one socialist who views capitalism and trade as immoral in and of itself, regardless of consequences.

So regardless of what political views you hold, what is the reason behind your support for them? Why do you hold them?

I'll put forth my views: I'm of the consequentialist variety. I view ideas of deontology and natural rights as a philosophical superstition. There is no evidence for the existence of these natural rights (John Locke derived them from God, and Robert Nozick derived the from Locke), and I think deontology is rather stupid. I think we should adopt the policies that lead to a good society in terms of happiness, well-being and prosperity. That is the reason that I think western Europe and North America have hit upon a better way organizing their societies than say, North Korea and Saudi Arabia. Of course, it doesn't mean that the former can't be improved.

[Dessi]

Originally Posted by Humes fork

So regardless of what political views you hold, what is the reason behind your support for them? Why do you hold them?

That's a helluva question

I think we have a very similar political philosophy. A few important things have a huge impact on my political beliefs:

1) I'm very skeptical of "natural rights" for the same reason as you. This position seems to require some highly speculative prerequisites before we can even consider it to be true. It requires:

- a god to exist,
- that god knows or cares about the affairs of humans,
- that his will can shape moral facts about the universe,
- that he does indeed confer a set of rights to humans,
- that human beings have access to god's mind,
- that humans accurately report the will of god.
- that our picture of rights today, particularly with regard to the intrinsic value of human life and property rights, even closely resembles the will of god.

I think we have every reason in the world to be skeptical of that picture of rights.

2) I come from the view that if something is good, its implied to be generally good, in way or another, for someone. After all, there's no much purpose in requiring gestures that of absolutely no use to anyone. I'm not sure if that makes me a consequentialist by definition, or only incidentally.

At lot people have their own picture of what it means to be "good". I generally view all moral systems, regardless of their philosophical underpinning, as aiming for essentially the same thing: prescribing behaviors that promote happiness, reduce suffering, avoid unnecessary harm.

- utilitarianism is a manifestation of this philosophy.
- social contracts require people to forfeit some of their rights for personal safety, because the state of nature is a rather brutal place to live.
- "do unto others" is only meaningful under the presumption that people like to be treated well and generally avoid being harmed.
- a principle where we reject non-universalizable maxims is only meaningful on the basis that those non-universalizing maxims harm people in some way or another.

I think for the reason above, I'm generally very receptive to consequentialist and utilitarian moral theories as a bedrock for all other moral thinking.

3) I'm very skeptical of the belief that many people have in the intrinsic "specialness" of human life -- that human life and their affairs is the center of the moral universe. Its a religious belief, not much different from the belief that human life and their affairs are at the center of the physical universe, not grounded in anything. My politics are generally more egalitarian that most peoples.

I tend to reject the entire concept of "human rights" -- or at least conceptions that limit human rights to... errmm.. humans. There's no rational basis for limiting a conception of rights to members of our own species. Species membership has nothing at all to do with whether something has an ability to suffer or whether we should take it into consideration.

I also reject the belief that the lives of my own family or nationality matter more than the lives of strangers in other countries. A lot of people are the type who save their own child over the live of a child they'll never see or meet -- I can totally understand why people think that way, but I don't think that behavior has a rational basis in anything. Familiarity should not be a factor in whether we consider a person's rights and interests. In the end, there's no moral difference between a government torturing your child or a strangers child, the victim harmed in exactly the same way to the exact same extent.


If you've read that wall of text, you've probably inferred that I'm insane

[Nursedan]

I hold my political views because they are the most rational and most moral.

[Bill Thompson]

Because of 9-11.

Before 9-11-2001 I was a Liberal.

Now I know that the ideals Liberals hold close to their heart are all lies. People are not good. Peace and passifisim are impractical. There are some people who want to kill Americans for reasons that make no sense and these people need to be killed. This is how the real world is. In fact, I do not understand why everyone has not abandoned Liberalism. I can only assume that as Michael Savage says, Liberalism is a mental illness. I also find it interesting that more Liberals are also conspiracy theorists. Since most mentally ill people also believe in consiracies, I have to assume Savage has a point.

My relatives who knew me all my life -- who are also still Liberals -- cannot understand how I suddenly changed. At the last family get-together a cousin told me she thought it was because I moved to Texas. But when I told her that that did not make sense because I moved to Austin, she kind of assumed it was because I must have lived outside of Austin far enough to be influenced by the extreme right-wingers. I should email her that it was because of 9-11.

But as Dale Carnage has instructed us, it is never a good idea to argue with people we love. They will only hate us when they find that we are correct.

So I waste my time arguing with the Liberals here. They don't care about me.

[Dessi]

And that, friends, is the end of the thread.

So long, and thanks for all the fish.

[Bill Thompson]

Dessi, so you don't believe in God and so you are obligated to be a Liberal. Don't you see how messed up that logic is?

An Aunt told me how important it is for Obama to be president because she figured he is Pro-Choice. So Obama is the Commander in Chief because he is Pro-Choice?!?!

It is kind of like Liberals live in a fog and they cannot see reality. It is like they are semi-awake. 9-11 woke me up. If it did not wake you up, nothing will.

A cousin told me it was great Obama was president because he is black. How is that NOT racist? He is president because of the color of his skin?!?!

The same Aunt I mentioned before expressed admiration because Obama is "so intelligent". That is like saying Einstein woud have made a good General....or Bobby Fischer... or Enrico Firmi....or that the CEO of a company would be able to do every job at a corporation well. But that kind of complex idea that intelligence is not linear is too much for people who live in a fog.

[DC]

Originally Posted by Bill Thompson

Because of 9-11.

Before 9-11-2001 I was a Liberal.

Now I know that the ideals Liberals hold close to their heart are all lies. People are not good. Peace and passifisim are impractical. There are some people who want to kill Americans for reasons that make no sense and these people need to be killed. This is how the real world is. In fact, I do not understand why everyone has not abandoned Liberalism. I can only assume that as Michael Savage says, Liberalism is a mental illness. I also find it interesting that more Liberals are also conspiracy theorists. Since most mentally ill people also believe in consiracies, I have to assume Savage has a point.

My relatives who knew me all my life -- who are also still Liberals -- cannot understand how I suddenly changed. At the last family get-together a cousin told me she thought it was because I moved to Texas. But when I told her that that did not make sense because I moved to Austin, she kind of assumed it was because I must have lived outside of Austin far enough to be influenced by the extreme right-wingers. I should email her that it was because of 9-11.

But as Dale Carnage has instructed us, it is never a good idea to argue with people we love. They will only hate us when they find that we are correct.

So I waste my time arguing with the Liberals here. They don't care about me.

I hope you find an effective therapy for your trauma.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally Posted by Bill Thompson

Dessi, so you don't believe in God and so you are obligated to be a Liberal. Don't you see how messed up that logic is?

An Aunt told me how important it is for Obama to be president because she figured he is Pro-Choice. So Obama is the Commander in Chief because he is Pro-Choice?!?!

It is kind of like Liberals live in a fog and they cannot see reality. It is like they are semi-awake. 9-11 woke me up. If it did not wake you up, nothing will.

A cousin told me it was great Obama was president because he is black. How is that NOT racist? He is president because of the color of his skin?!?!

The same Aunt I mentioned before expressed admiration because Obama is "so intelligent". That is like saying Einstein woud have made a good General....or Bobby Fischer... or Enrico Firmi....or that the CEO of a company would be able to do every job at a corporation well. But that kind of complex ideas that intelligence is not linear is too much for people who live in a fog.

Conservatives who claim to be former liberals are kind of like romantic comedies. After you see a second one, you realise they're all basically the same and none of them are very plausible.

[Dessi]

Bill Thompson, you're going out of your way to be as incendiary as possible. Not sure what the point was.

This could have been an interesting thread.

[kellyb]

I think "natural rights" are pure woo. So for me, the more moral position is the one that effectively creates the least human suffering while deeply honoring individual liberty (a mix of capitalism and socialism, IMO.)

I'm not sure the deontologists' POV makes a lot of sense without the "natural rights" woo (or some other superstitious "God say so" type of political belief system.)

[Darth Rotor]

To answer your OP:

I hold them because they make sense to me.
What more do you want?

Fifty two years of living and being at the weird end of American policy for some of them has shown me a few things, as has living in other countries, and on all three coasts of the US and in the Heartland. Each has each shaped my views somewhat.

I am not silly enough to attempt to label my beliefs.

[Virus]

I hope some of the hard left extremists can answer this thread.

[Earthborn]

Originally Posted by Humes fork

At least among libertarians there is a division between consequentialists and deontologists. (snip) I think this is a useful division for other political ideologies as well.

It may seem a useful distinction, but I think it gets tricky in the details. If you were to ask a consequentialist by what measure s/he judges certain outcomes as better or worse, you likely get an answer that seems rather deontological. And if you asked a deontologist what makes some acts moral or immoral "in and of themselves" you're likely going to get an answer that appeals to the consequences of taking any other position. I don't think the distinction is as clearcut as it seems at first.

Originally Posted by Bill Thompson

Now I know that the ideals Liberals hold close to their heart are all lies. People are not good. Peace and passifisim are impractical. There are some people who want to kill Americans for reasons that make no sense and these people need to be killed.

I think the reasons for why some people think Americans need to be killed make a lot more sense if you realise that they believe that Americans want to kill them, and they believe that peace and pacifism are impractical...

Quote:

They don't care about me.

Maybe they care more about you than you realise, and think that you would be much happier if you didn't think so negatively. Go smell a rose!

[Virus]

Originally Posted by Earthborn

I think the reasons for why some people think Americans need to be killed make a lot more sense if you realise that they believe that Americans want to kill them, and they believe that peace and pacifism are impractical...

So they're paranoid lunatics with a victimhood complex?

The point would still stand that pacifism and peace with paranoid lunatics is impossible.

[Earthborn]

Originally Posted by Virus

So they're paranoid lunatics with a victimhood complex?

Yes, I think you could say that people who think that others are out to kill them and therefore need to be killed are "paranoid lunatics with a victimhood complex". Of course being a "paranoid lunatic" doesn't mean there aren't any "paranoid lunatics" out to get you.

Quote:

The point would still stand that pacifism and peace with paranoid lunatics is impossible.

I agree that there is certainly nothing easy about them. Real solutions rarely are easy; it is much easier to make an even a greater mess out of things. No peaceful solution for dealing with "paranoid lunatics" comes to mind, but I sure hope such a solution isn't impossible; because the only alternative is to become a "paranoid lunatic" oneself.

[Virus]

Originally Posted by Earthborn

Yes, I think you could say that people who think that others are out to kill them and therefore need to be killed are "paranoid lunatics with a victimhood complex". Of course being a "paranoid lunatic" doesn't mean there aren't any "paranoid lunatics" out to get you.

Just because someone is a paranoid lunatic doesn't mean there's a rational basis for paranoid lunacy. The Nazis thought Jews were out to get them.

Originally Posted by Earthborn

I agree that there is certainly nothing easy about them. Real solutions rarely are easy; it is much easier to make an even a greater mess out of things. No peaceful solution for dealing with "paranoid lunatics" comes to mind, but I sure hope such a solution isn't impossible; because the only alternative is to become a "paranoid lunatic" oneself.

Not really. You could just crush the terrorist network. That's usually what happens to terrorists and insurgents.

[Undesired Walrus]

Originally Posted by Virus

I hope some of the hard left extremists can answer this thread.

Wheras your political views are defining you as what you are not!

[Humes fork]

Originally Posted by Dessi

I think for the reason above, I'm generally very receptive to consequentialist and utilitarian moral theories as a bedrock for all other moral thinking.

So am I. As the philosophical Humean I am, I realize that this is a sentiment that not everyone shares, but I simply can't see, morally speaking, what the hell else we should be doing other than trying to maximize well-being and happiness and other good things for human as well as other sentinent beings. To maintain otherwise would be to keep to deontology even if those rules resulted in misery, which seems preposterous to me.

Again, this is my moral sentiment. But I'm inclined to agree with Bertrand Russell: "It appeared to me obvious that the happiness of mankind should be the aim of all action, and I discovered to my surprise that there were those who thought otherwise."

Originally Posted by Dessi

3) I'm very skeptical of the belief that many people have in the intrinsic "specialness" of human life -- that human life and their affairs is the center of the moral universe. Its a religious belief, not much different from the belief that human life and their affairs are at the center of the physical universe, not grounded in anything. My politics are generally more egalitarian that most peoples.

I for one oppose the fact that halal and kosher slaughter is legal in many countres (luckily not mine!), and it would not be so was it not a religious demand.

Originally Posted by Dessi

I tend to reject the entire concept of "human rights" -- or at least conceptions that limit human rights to... errmm.. humans. There's no rational basis for limiting a conception of rights to members of our own species. Species membership has nothing at all to do with whether something has an ability to suffer or whether we should take it into consideration.

I approve of adoptions of human rights as these result in good consequences. I reject ideas that these are based on "inalienable rights" (woo). But I in principle agree with you on animals. I'm favorably inclined toward the Great Ape Project.

Originally Posted by kellyb

I think "natural rights" are pure woo. So for me, the more moral position is the one that effectively creates the least human suffering while deeply honoring individual liberty (a mix of capitalism and socialism, IMO.)

I'm not sure the deontologists' POV makes a lot of sense without the "natural rights" woo (or some other superstitious "God say so" type of political belief system.)

I agree with you. At a positive note, natural rights as espoused by Locke are more sympathetic than the divine rights of kings. But they are no less a fiction.

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

I hold them because they make sense to me.
What more do you want?

An elaboration. I'm sure that creationism makes sense to religious fundamentalists, but it doesn't say very much, does it?

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

To answer your OP:

I hold them because they make sense to me.
What more do you want?

...snip...

I am not silly enough to attempt to label my beliefs.

Something we can totally agree on.

I would like to think my political views are based on rational evaluations of the evidence available and in areas in which evidence is not forthcoming at least based on sound reasoning and logic. But reality rarely pays attention to what I would like...

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Virus

Just because someone is a paranoid lunatic doesn't mean there's a rational basis for paranoid lunacy. ...snip....

That's a tautology.

[rustypouch]

Originally Posted by Virus

I hope some of the hard left extremists can answer this thread.

Well, I might try.

I don't consider myself a hard left extremist, but I am rather leftist.

I'll try, but this might be a bit rambling and incoherent, and slightly idealized.

I think full-on communism is going to far.

My views run fairly socialist, but with a healthy dose of capitalism. I know some might find this contradictory. I want people to be safe and secure, with rewards and motivation for hard work and innovation.

For the socialist part, I'd like to see some sort of minimum standard of living for people, so that there's no one living in squalor or starving to death in the streets. Likewise, if someone loses their job through no fault of their own, there should be some sort of safety net to help them.

I like the idea of having well maintained and solid infrastructure. Roads, utilities, etc. I also like having a secure society, with decent police, strong IP and consumer protection. I'm also a huge fan of universal health care.

I'll admit, some of the rationale for this is self-interest and laziness. I know that I'll pay less for these things in a socialist society than in a fully capitalistic society. It also takes away many day-to-day worries and hassles. There's less bureaucracy to deal with, for example I don't have to make sure I've paid the right people and filled out the right forms for access to roads. It's just there if I need it.

If I get sick or injured, I just have to worry about getting better, not about dealing with insurance companies, or how to pay for the treatments, or if I'll still have a job at the end of it.

I like knowing that I can trust the products I use and consume, that there are agencies that takes care of testing for safety and such. I don't have to worry about my food killing me, or the newest electronic gadget I bought overheating or shorting out, and burning my house down. Someone else has already done the research so make sure it's safe, so I don't have to.

I also like protecting labour. People shouldn't have to work in unsafe conditions, be badly paid, or forced to work excessively. Also, there should be recourse for when workers are treated unfairly.

Examples like this mean less stress and work in everyday life. It means people are more free to live life as they will, to explore and create. I like the idea of equal opportunity for everyone, with outcomes based on innovation, work, and quality of these.

Strong infrastructure and IP protection also help business. They know they'll have the utilities and resources available to create their product. They can trust that their supplies meet a minimum standard.

With strong IP protection, companies don't have to worry nearly so much about someone else taking their idea and profiting from it. If that happens, there is recourse.

I'm also for a limited free market. People need to be able to profit from their inventions and work. There should be some motivation or reward for people who come with new ideas, or are motivated and work hard. The limits I like are mainly protective. Consumer protection, IP protection, environmental protection, labour protection, etc.

I'd also like people to have more freedom to do want they want with their bodies and property. Drugs, prostitution, gambling, etc. should all be legal. As long as it's by free choice and doesn't harm anyone else, I don't have a problem with it.

So that's a brief rundown.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by rustypouch

Well, I might try.

I don't consider myself a hard left extremist, but I am rather leftist.

I'll try, but this might be a bit rambling and incoherent, and slightly idealized.

I think full-on communism is going to far.

My views run fairly socialist, but with a healthy dose of capitalism. I know some might find this contradictory. I want people to be safe and secure, with rewards and motivation for hard work and innovation.


...snip...

Only ideologues would find that contradictory. Looking around the world that is the type of governance that the majority of people, when they have a free choice, want.

[rustypouch]

Originally Posted by Darat

Only ideologues would find that contradictory. Looking around the world that is the type of governance that the majority of people, when they have a free choice, want.

Well, fair enough. I was thinking of the Teabaggers, libertarians, and 'taxation is theft' types we have around.

[Darat]

From what I know of the tea party lot they appear to not hold any coherent beliefs, so I'd probably put them in in the category of "confused".

[Humes fork]

Originally Posted by Darat

Something we can totally agree on.

I would like to think my political views are based on rational evaluations of the evidence available and in areas in which evidence is not forthcoming at least based on sound reasoning and logic. But reality rarely pays attention to what I would like...

I think you guys are missing the point. It's not about what your political beliefs are, it's about why you hold them.

And to say that you base your political views on evidence is all well and good, but it's not enough. The evidence can help you achieve what you want to achieve, but it can't tell you what you should want to achieve. You can't derive an ought from an is.

[DC]

because i think they will lead to a fairer and a world that is more like i would like it to be.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Humes fork

I think you guys are missing the point. It's not about what your political beliefs are, it's about why you hold them.

And to say that you base your political views on evidence is all well and good, but it's not enough. The evidence can help you achieve what you want to achieve, but it can't tell you what you should want to achieve. You can't derive an ought from an is.

To me what you seem to be asking is where do the goals I want to see achieved come from? To me that is different to a political view. To try and put it in an example:

A political view: We get X by having smaller governments

A non-political view: I want to see X happen

It's the how to get there that is the political element. For me getting to X can be achieved in whatever way is best (this is of course is simplified as getting to X by method Y will probably have a knock on effect on Z, Q and S).

Perhaps I don't have a political view in the sense you are using it?

[gph]

Originally Posted by Virus

I hope some of the hard left extremists can answer this thread.

To answer your trivial probe and to the OP:

Most of me is off the deep end left and, by extension, off the deep end leaning hawkishly right. I hold the value of individual humans in lower regard to the survival and flourishing of our species. Flourishing obviously includes the bio-diversity of this planet. Unless you see flourishing as floating in a space boat, the Japanese whalers were worth less than the Albino whale the Aussie navy stood up to protect, to me.

Next topic:

By my standards today, Churchill was wrong:

Originally Posted by Winston Churchill

Any 20 year-old who isn't a liberal doesn't have a heart, and any 40 year-old who isn't a conservative doesn't have a brain.

While I'm bashing on notable modern-ish figures, Gandhi was wrong as well about the Christ character but that's an aside. They both were gems. My guess is Churchill fell into a trap of capitalist dogma because of his time and he was too close, in time, to Darwin.

Communism was perfect save for the humans involved.

Virus, can you recognize dogma? Judging by your words my guess is no. I don't know the answer but I know triviality is pointless.

We are brains in jars or we may as well be. No one knows and, by straight forward logic, has ever known.

Tossing all that we move to harm as the #1 issue. Is there an alternative grounded in reality?

My bold assertion:

Everyone, save for brain issues, ultimately starts with harm.

Virus, if you're still with me, pin me down with "left" all you like. Why do you, presumably, call yourself right?

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by Darat

Something we can totally agree on.

Darat, in honor of this unusual occasion, I just knocked back a shot of high dollar rye whiskey.

Thanks.

I wish I could PM you one for your own tippling pleasure.

For the OP:

My friend, I have no need, nor any desire to justify my positions to you. They are what they are, and they morph a bit over time so that I expect them to be a bit different three years from now.

If that disappoints you, then I suspect a nice pint, or a shot of fine rye whiskey, may mitigate same.

[Toontown]

I hold my political views because crazed simians running rampant over the earth have driven me to them.

[Humes fork]

Originally Posted by Darat

To me what you seem to be asking is where do the goals I want to see achieved come from? To me that is different to a political view. To try and put it in an example:

A political view: We get X by having smaller governments

A non-political view: I want to see X happen

It's the how to get there that is the political element. For me getting to X can be achieved in whatever way is best (this is of course is simplified as getting to X by method Y will probably have a knock on effect on Z, Q and S).

Perhaps I don't have a political view in the sense you are using it?

I see what you mean I think. "I want to see X happen" might not be a political view in itself (though it can in some circumstances), but such values certainly guide political views.

[Lisa Simpson]

The political views of my youth and young adulthood were held because they were the beliefs that everyone around held. I didn't think about it much. I grew up in Conservative, Republican Orange County, CA. My parents were conservative Republicans (they are still Republicans, but much less conservative than they used to be. They are involved in a liberal Christian church). My progress to the Left started in 1987, when George HW Bush was running for re-election and I realized the GOP hate women. I am a woman, so naturally, I do not wish to be a part of a political party that sees me as inherently inferior to men. So to answer your question, I believe that "liberal" politics will lead to personal happiness.

BTW, I became a liberal in 1987, I didn't become an atheist until about 1995.

[timhau]

I hold mine because they're part of the requirements for grumpy-old-men-in-training.

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by Lisa Simpson

My progress to the Left started in 1987, when George HW Bush was running for re-election and I realized the GOP hate women. I am a woman, so naturally, I do not wish to be a part of a political party that sees me as inherently inferior to men. So to answer your question, I believe that "liberal" politics will lead to personal happiness.

BTW, I became a liberal in 1987, I didn't become an atheist until about 1995.

Error of fact Lisa:

1. GHW Bush in 1987 was not yet president, so he was preparing to run for election as president.

2.. Might want to send a quick email to Sandra Day O'Connor and Elizabeth Dole on that one. They may not have gotten the original memo.

That aside, I recall the mid 80's being a time when the GOP was full of people who were over the top anti abortion, which I suspect informed some of your dislike for their position. I don't think that was woman friendly platform.

[Orsenfelt]

I hold the views I do because I believe that all the other political stances lead to greater injustices against more people.

I'm in a similar position to rustypouch. Left Leaning/Liberal/Some Capitalist Views.

For example, I think a society that cares for people based on the amount of money they earn is more morally wrong than a society that steals a bit of everyones money and tries to help everyone equally.

I don't think personal liberty isn't important. It is. I just think we as a species have gotten far enough into our evolution where it is within the realm of possibility for people not to fight hard every day just to get by. We are capable of providing the basic requirements for healthy living to let people take the next step up and do something else. How much talent and innovation are we wasting by creating a society where people have to spend most of their time working 2 jobs to get enough money together to pay their health insurance so if the worst does happen they don't lose their house as well as their jobs.

People absolutely should have the chance to start business and reach the top. A society that provides for everyone doesn't stop that. You might not make us much money as a purely capitalist society but again, half of the society living in crappy situations trying to scrape by is a greater injustice than some business only making £3m proft instead of £10m.

[leftysergeant]

Originally Posted by Virus

You could just crush the terrorist network. That's usually what happens to terrorists and insurgents.

A hundred years later, we and the Phillipine government are still fighting the Moros. FAIL.

[leftysergeant]

I have both utterly logicval and religious grounds for the beliefs I hold.

I accept that there is a God of some sort, though not neccessarily in the classical Abrahamic, vengeful sky spirit form.

Although it is possible for inanimate matter to organize itself into a sentient form, i.e., a form that is able to percieve its surroundings, I find no logical explanation for how such inanimate matter ever came to give a rat's about whether an act is right or wrong.

The Big Bang and evolution do not rule out the possibility of the existance of a Primal Being that existed before the origin of matter. If matter or proto-matter can be argued to have existed, how is it impossible to deny any possibility of a primal or proto-universal consciousness to have existed and, through it's own will, to have caused that primal matter to come into being?

It would stand to reason that, if such a Primal Being could create something so complex as the universe, it would do so in a logical manner so that the creation would procede in a logical manner without constant tinkering.

I can only speculate as to why such a Primal Being would want to create a universe, but it would seem logical that it would want to experience something beyond the formlessness of its own being.

If we then take it to the next step and accept that this Primal Being, which we shall henceforth refer to as God, gave His creations the ability to percieve the world around them, in order to experience existance first hand, that He would also program them to behave in a predictable manner, even when they eventually developed self-awareness of a human scale. He would, then, have to give them some sense of right and wrong, and would leave evidence in the very nature of the creation as to what is or is not right, and a sign that we, His creations, are firmly bound to the rulels of existance and of nature and cannot re-write them at will. Thus are phenomena clearly discernable and comprehensible.

Thus, the very fossil record will bear traces of what is in keeping with the laws laid down by God at the creation of the universe. The one law which is most apparent from the fossil record is that we should live our lives in such a manner that will secure to the greatest number of our feloow humans the highest level of security and well-being, i.e., happiness and safety. Thus it is that we find fossils of hideously disabled hominids who survived their periods of convalesence because someone obviously provided forthem. Had someone not cared for the hominid found by Johanson at Olduvai, she would have been hyena chow. The examples among the Neanderthal fossills are more abundant still.

Both the fossil record and most of the holy scriptures agree that we are our brother's keepers, and that the resources we steward are to be used to the greatest benefit to all mankind.

This does not, however, preclude rewarding more highly those who are the most productive. It merely moderates the percentage of the commons that one individual should have a right to put to his own use, irrespective of the needs of others.

Thus, it seems clear that God intends us to be liberal.

[Fishstick]

Originally Posted by rustypouch

Well, I might try.

I don't consider myself a hard left extremist, but I am rather leftist.

I'll try, but this might be a bit rambling and incoherent, and slightly idealized.

I think full-on communism is going to far.

My views run fairly socialist, but with a healthy dose of capitalism. I know some might find this contradictory. I want people to be safe and secure, with rewards and motivation for hard work and innovation.

For the socialist part, I'd like to see some sort of minimum standard of living for people, so that there's no one living in squalor or starving to death in the streets. Likewise, if someone loses their job through no fault of their own, there should be some sort of safety net to help them.

I like the idea of having well maintained and solid infrastructure. Roads, utilities, etc. I also like having a secure society, with decent police, strong IP and consumer protection. I'm also a huge fan of universal health care.

I'll admit, some of the rationale for this is self-interest and laziness. I know that I'll pay less for these things in a socialist society than in a fully capitalistic society. It also takes away many day-to-day worries and hassles. There's less bureaucracy to deal with, for example I don't have to make sure I've paid the right people and filled out the right forms for access to roads. It's just there if I need it.

If I get sick or injured, I just have to worry about getting better, not about dealing with insurance companies, or how to pay for the treatments, or if I'll still have a job at the end of it.

I like knowing that I can trust the products I use and consume, that there are agencies that takes care of testing for safety and such. I don't have to worry about my food killing me, or the newest electronic gadget I bought overheating or shorting out, and burning my house down. Someone else has already done the research so make sure it's safe, so I don't have to.

I also like protecting labour. People shouldn't have to work in unsafe conditions, be badly paid, or forced to work excessively. Also, there should be recourse for when workers are treated unfairly.

Examples like this mean less stress and work in everyday life. It means people are more free to live life as they will, to explore and create. I like the idea of equal opportunity for everyone, with outcomes based on innovation, work, and quality of these.

Strong infrastructure and IP protection also help business. They know they'll have the utilities and resources available to create their product. They can trust that their supplies meet a minimum standard.

With strong IP protection, companies don't have to worry nearly so much about someone else taking their idea and profiting from it. If that happens, there is recourse.

I'm also for a limited free market. People need to be able to profit from their inventions and work. There should be some motivation or reward for people who come with new ideas, or are motivated and work hard. The limits I like are mainly protective. Consumer protection, IP protection, environmental protection, labour protection, etc.

I'd also like people to have more freedom to do want they want with their bodies and property. Drugs, prostitution, gambling, etc. should all be legal. As long as it's by free choice and doesn't harm anyone else, I don't have a problem with it.

So that's a brief rundown.

This is basically very close to what I lean to (and currently enjoy), though I'm in favor of weakening or modernizing the current IP laws a bit - things like patent trolling should not be such a common occurance.

[willhaven]

Why am I left of center?

I believe that everybody should be treated equally and should be protected by law (I'm pro gay marriage, I'm not for affirmative action). I believe that corporate interests tend to disenfranchise consumers and lie for profit and that we need regulations to make sure people are protected. I believe that a large interventionalist military is a waste of money and creates enemies for us.

I believe that unemployment benefits, SS, medicare, medicaid, etc are good programs that help people in need. It would be nice for everyone to be personally responsible for their futures, but in reality that isn't feasible. It's better than the alternative.

Ultimately I think there needs to be a blend of ideologies. Some socialism, some capitalism, regulation.

[Kopji]

I was raised to believe that politics were a sort of necessary evil that would persist until our spiritual belief could implement a perfectly just society, a form of heaven on earth. When I left my church and beliefs I did not have much exposure to political ideas, thought, or practice. I find politics by far, a difficult area to sift my old religious ideas from more critical or logical ones.

If cornered into a label, I'd call myself a "Popperian". Karl Popper advocated a democratic, open society that is more of a continual problem solving process than a destination we arrive at by following a strict philosophy. The flavor is classically liberal, and I tend to see something of merit in most political philosophies without feeling compelled to join. To Popper, different political ideas are measured by their 'fitness' to a solve problem rather than their 'trueness'.