What is Your Political Philosophy? - Page 3

Lawrence of Arabia · May 12, 2003, 20:24

Quote:

What should they do during the next major recession/depression?

Monetary policy?

Shi Huangdi · May 12, 2003, 20:32

My Political Philosphy:

-Absolute unquestioned rule for me

-Mass Public Executions of all who oppose me

-Temples erected for people to praise me constructed throughout the land

-All the finest women of the land to be placed into a harem for me

-Free Beer for all

Oerdin · May 12, 2003, 20:45

Quote:

Free Beer for all

I'd vote for him.

Japher · May 12, 2003, 21:02

I did something like this about a year ago...

My philosophy is more of a laissez faire that would actually extend into public and political systems...

My goal would to be to abolish many government programs that deal with the public and set up councils/boards monitored by the government to establish these institutions.

Example: Health Care Reform - Develop a council of medical care provider, drug manufactorers, and publicly elected units as well as a cabinet appoint member (moderator/monito). This council would act more like a corprate board that would deligate the issues surrounding universal health care. Money will come from the companies and corporations that they represent. Their taxes will go directly to this board, and not to the main government body. Also, tax breaks will be given to such industries that develop drugs, give care, administer said services. Thus, batches asprins made specificly to go to this board would not be taxed on their sales, from the manufacturer down to the consumer.

I think this can work for all fields, including welfare, disability, revenue collection and social security. I feel we should utilize the minds of these great economist, buisness developers/managers/CEOs, and engineers that we have to better society, thier personnal buisnesses, and the country on a whole.

I know that their will be fights for these positions amongst corporations. Thus, undeveloped rules would have to be put in place that impose the check and balances that are needed... This is almost one part removed of socialism, but at the same time is totally capitalist by giving decissions to corporations, yet offers them incentives for doing so. Limiting government involvement would save a lot of money in the run.

With the government not having to worry about many of these domestic issues they can focus more on foreign affairs and social issues.

May sound absurd, and for sure, checks and balances would need to be developed, but the idea of employing the most capable for the positions they are most capable of performing will take "government efficiency" of the list of classical oxymorons.

Japher · May 12, 2003, 21:03

Oh yeah, and free beer for all

cinch · May 12, 2003, 22:40

DF:

Quote:

But wait, governments are elected by and for the people of the US (for example). And in your example of allowing raised taxes and the like, why should the taxpayers fund other countries, who are not paying taxes to the government, and hence not contributing to your social welfare or health care funds?

I suppose because I think that the countries that are 'on top' now won't always be on top; that it's better to help those less fortunate (through strategic spending, rather than just 'throwing money at the problem') than gorge ourselves in excess. I think I just haven't become disillusioned enough yet, in that I still see some intrinsic "Good" in at least attempting to help those less fortunate.

Berzerker · May 12, 2003, 23:35

Live and let live.

OzzyKP · May 12, 2003, 23:40

I'm...

Pro-Life
Anti-Death Penalty
Anti-War
Pro-Youth Rights
Pro-Civil Rights
Anti-Afirmative Action
Pro-Women's Rights
Pro-Gay Rights
Pro-First Amendment
Pro-Second Amendment
Pro-Union
Anti-Socialism
Pro-Capitalism
Anti-Materialism
Pro-Environment
Anti-Big Government
Anti-Drug
Anti-Drug War

A Christian
A Patriot
A Libertarian
A Free Thinker
An American
A Pragmatist
An Idealist

loinburger · May 12, 2003, 23:43

Hmm, my political philosophy is frighteningly similar to BD's. Well, replace "mass executions of those who oppose me" with "devious psychological torture to break the spirit of those who oppose me."

Zero · May 13, 2003, 00:04

I....

- have no morals
- stands on the side that benefits only me
- tend to be "live and let live"
- in favor of dictatorship (with me being dictator of course)

VJ · May 13, 2003, 00:06

I have very strong morals, but my morality is definetily relative.

Quote:

Originally posted by Shi:
My Political Philosphy

Cruddy · May 13, 2003, 17:02

My political philosophy? To do the best thing to benefit the most number of people with the least amount of suffering and hardship.

In other words, either right or left policies, depending on the situation, with no preference for either on a long term basis.

I doubt if any political party would be successful with such a philosophy. But this being on one side or the other without any reason strikes me as well, unbalanced.

Az · May 13, 2003, 17:13

Buck's political philosophy is perhaps the only one that scares me in a similar fashion to the political philosophy of Floyd. The believe of a society in which constant struggle, rivarly and factionalism are the cornerstones, make me scared. It's not based on principles of right or wrong, but on principles of power, albeit political power, cunningness and charisma, and not physical strength.

Buck Birdseed · May 13, 2003, 17:54

I believe most straightforward principles of political right and wrong can be derived from the desire to create a stable government and society through which all groups can express their desires in a fair way. For instance, the principle of Free Speech is essential as its institution makes sure no one group can dominate wholly.

Buck Birdseed · May 13, 2003, 17:57

Anyway, how can you be a communist without believing in the existence of a class struggle?

Az · May 13, 2003, 18:02

I don't "believe" that it should be perpetuated for ever. I think that it exists now, and existed throughout history. I think that it should be abolished and a far more egalitarian society should emerge.

Buck Birdseed · May 13, 2003, 20:05

Who believes in perpetuating conflict? I believe in as equal a society as is possible, but I do not believe that society should be on the terms of any one group but that all groups should have a say. Unlike a communist I recognise the reality of diversity, and even celebrate it.

I think the entire idea of being able to create one, conformist cultural entity with perfect operational knowledge where all differences are erased is bogus, even genuinely evil, and the reason why Communist states tend towards totalitarianism. Social groups that are not part of the dominant one are to be subdued and brought into the party line. Communism is a disturbingly right-wing ideology in its attitude to women, to homosexuals, to cultural sub-groups, all of whose ideas are ignored, all of whom are percecuted and turned subservient. A real society of the people would be one of all the people, not just the dominant groups in power.

Cruddy · May 13, 2003, 20:48

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Buck Birdseed
Who believes in perpetuating conflict? [QUOTE]

Arns manufacturers? Hostile powers from outside the conflict zone tha want to see a war bleed on? Politicians in democracies who want a vote winner? Any vested interest? The list is endless.

Move to Switzerland - IF you can afford it.

One party states are, by definition, totalitarianist states.

Communism ignores all ideas outside the scope of the One Party. So do Fascist and majority democracy governments (of the one party that's in power). Democracy certainly ignores the wishes of the minority.

OzzyKP · May 13, 2003, 22:19

Of course good communists don't support continued class stuggle. They wants to exterminate all the upper class and be done with the class struggle forever.

Az · May 14, 2003, 09:32

The proper word is "eliminate", Ozzy.

Quote:

Who believes in perpetuating conflict? I believe in as equal a society as is possible, but I do not believe that society should be on the terms of any one group but that all groups should have a say. Unlike a communist I recognise the reality of diversity, and even celebrate it.

It's not about the "terms of any one group" is about the lack of "groups" whatsoever. "equal a society as possible" is not at the end of "All groups should have their say". Also, how would the "have their say" reach an actual decision? will it be a majoritarian one? ( please, don't say "compromise"

, we've seen how well it works in contemporary society. )

Quote:

I think the entire idea of being able to create one, conformist cultural entity with perfect operational knowledge where all differences are erased is bogus, even genuinely evil, and the reason why Communist states tend towards totalitarianism.

Why so? a person when born is a clean slate. If everyone would study in similar schools, they would all learn the same things. Those things would be based on personal freedom, and the socialist constitution.

Quote:

Social groups that are not part of the dominant one are to be subdued and brought into the party line.

What do you mean by social groups? do you mean cultures? social classes?

Quote:

Communism is a disturbingly right-wing ideology in its attitude to women, to homosexuals, to cultural sub-groups, all of whose ideas are ignored, all of whom are percecuted and turned subservient.

How is communism naturally right wing? oh and cultural subgroups? If they're not playing by the rules, and creating different social normas, then call me authoritarian, I say "**** them".

OzzyKP · May 14, 2003, 10:13

"Why so? a person when born is a clean slate. If everyone would study in similar schools, they would all learn the same things. Those things would be based on personal freedom, and the socialist constitution."

What if the students don't want to study in the same schools and learn the same things?

Az · May 14, 2003, 10:20

Quote:

What if the students don't want to study in the same schools and learn the same things?

It depends on the age. Primary, school education is mandatory. Just like today.

Urban Ranger · May 14, 2003, 10:27

Quote:

Originally posted by Azazel
what is our goal? to expand, expand, expand. Always, and forever.

You're a borg

Az · May 14, 2003, 10:30

But it's true, Urban. We would benefit a lot from expanding into space, in the long run. We must do it. and you know it.

Urban Ranger · May 14, 2003, 10:37

I mean the "forever" part.

Urban Ranger · May 14, 2003, 10:39

Quote:

Originally posted by Cruddy
Communism ignores all ideas outside the scope of the One Party. So do Fascist and majority democracy governments (of the one party that's in power). Democracy certainly ignores the wishes of the minority.

Communism is predominantly an economics model, not a political model.

Az · May 14, 2003, 10:55

UR: Well, we'll have to do if forever.

I mean, why not?

Cruddy · May 14, 2003, 11:19

Quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

Communism is predominantly an economics model, not a political model.

I wouldn't say so - more of a political belief ("ism") that can be misrepresented as an economic model. You checked the reading material I recommended on "...Heroes"? You'll find some (well, lots then) of words on what Communism is like from the receiving end.

Ned · May 14, 2003, 11:47

Quote:

Originally posted by OzzyKP
Of course good communists don't support continued class stuggle. They wants to exterminate all the upper class and be done with the class struggle forever.

It still bugs me that marxists of any stripe continue to view politics in terms of "class" stuggle when those concepts came out of a time of rigid class structures, when one really could not move from one class to another. A lot of people came to the United States because of that. We were the land of equal opportunity. A land that rejected nobility and class structures.

Our society allows the poorest to become rich and powerful, and still the rhetoric of class warfar is applied to the United States! The Marxist objective in the US is to eliminate the rich through taxation and socialism. In the end the US will be reduced to a poverty, equally shared, like we see in all communist countries of history. This is crazy. The reason it is crazy is that there is nothing unfair about being rich and/or powerful if everyone has an equal opportunity to become rich and powerful. Further, we all can see the benefits of our current society. It works.

To the extent we can, we should look for ways of enhancing equal opportunity and we should reject class warfar ideology. We need to smoothe the path to wealth, not eliminate it.

Az · May 14, 2003, 12:03

Quote:

In the end the US will be reduced to a poverty, equally shared, like we see in all communist countries of history.

you know, Ned, you keeping repeating stuff doesn't make it true.

I actually lived in the SU, while you were spoon-fed anti communist propoganda.