Where do you fall on the political spectrum?

[Cryozombie]

I lean twords Individualist Anarchism, (note: Anarchism is not ANARCHY, tho they are close) although I realize that as far as systems go that like Anarchy, it probably cannot work, since I believe that rejection of any one groups rule would eventually splinter into Warlord systems like you see in places like Rowanda... but the IDEA is appealing to me... that said I would say I am fairly independent of political parties, and think they should be abolished so the people can make free choices instead of only ever really having 2 options, and its usually the one mommy or daddy raised them to have, instead of using their head to choose.

But as far as the idea of I.A. goes I like the idea that your self interests should not be regulated, and agree with the ideas that I.A. set forth that say we don't need to overthrow the government, just not give it the power it wants.
​

 

[Carol]

hahaha I love you!

Love ya back my non-liberal brotha' !!

Pity we're such rarities here.

 

[rutherford]

Strongly in favor of personal privacy and the protection of a person's control of their life and property. Pro-Gun, Pro-Gay Rights, Pro-Choice, and support the decriminalization of victimless crimes.

Strongly in favor of regulated commercial entities and the commerce between them. Pro-environmental protection and workers rights. I believe the environmental and social impact of goods and services should directly impact their price.

Strongly in favor of a guaranteed minimum standard of living through public health care, living wages, full employment, affordable housing, and affordable high-quality food. I'm also in favor of public education that is focused on the needs and desires of an individual.


So, yeah. I know they're ideals. But I don't believe they're unrealistic.

 

[JBrainard]

And I have to answer your question with a question: "What do you mean by socializaed?" IT would be like asking a conservative "What do you believe should be conservatived?"

Sorry if my question worded in a way that was hard to understand. Actually, you answered it yourself by giving the examples of prisons, hospitals, schools, highways, health care, public records, sewers, and building inspectors. All of these things could be individually socialized without creating what would be considered a "socialist" society.

Without getting too far into the political theory right now I believe that government should serve as the expression of the collective will of the people. Not the collective will of the rich and the corporations. Not a post office, a cop and a general, but those things which the population believes are important. The current blind, mindless religious fanaticism about The Sacred Market (LAAA!) is just that. Blind, mindless and fanatic.

Government is particularly important where public good is at odds with corporate interest. Take lead in the air. There is no doubt whatsoever, none, not a bit, zero, that mercury and lead in the air are terrible for public health. The last thirty years of strict lead and mercury abatement have been a darned near unmixed blessing. But the oil and coal companies don't like them. Now they are pushing hard to put lead back in gasoline and have had the EPA say that mercury isn't toxic. I believe that in cases like this actual human lives are important and that our *shudder* collective will should be imposed to protect them.

Government is also the right tool for the job when something has to be there today, tomorrow and next year. Firms come and go. When profit margins hit a certain magical point they leave. Prisons, hospitals, schools, highways, health care, public records, sewers, building inspectors, and more need to be there. They need to be predictable and consistent. They need to operate even when you can't squeeze "adequate" profits from them. And they need to serve the public good even when it's at odds with unlimited extraction of cash from the sheep. That's the sort of thing that government is better at.

One of the worst possible situations is what we have now. A partnership between corporate interests and government authority means that the government is turned into a tool for extracting money from people, feeding it to corporate interests and enforcing their desires rather than our needs upon us through the coercive power of the State. If the State and the Boardroom are in opposition to each other on matters of public interest there will be friction, but there is a chance for people to live. If they are united we are screwed without even the common courtesy of a reach around.

I completely agree with you. Unfortunately, for this to work, the government has to truely give a rat's *** about the people. I just don't see that happening any time soon

 

[bushidomartialarts]

I lean twords Individualist Anarchism, (note: Anarchism is not ANARCHY, tho they are close) although I realize that as far as systems go that like Anarchy, it probably cannot work, since I believe that rejection of any one groups rule would eventually splinter into Warlord systems like you see in places like Rowanda... but the IDEA is appealing to me... that said I would say I am fairly independent of political parties, and think they should be abolished so the people can make free choices instead of only ever really having 2 options, and its usually the one mommy or daddy raised them to have, instead of using their head to choose.

But as far as the idea of I.A. goes I like the idea that your self interests should not be regulated, and agree with the ideas that I.A. set forth that say we don't need to overthrow the government, just not give it the power it wants.
​

Hey, Cryo -- you ever read Heinlein's The Moon is a Harsh Mistress? A good model of an Anarchist society and how it might actually be made to function. I think it makes some rather optimistic assumptions about human nature, but you'd probably find it interesting if you haven't already.

 

[zDom]

There was this really cool Internet thing where you could answer a list of questions and it would plot your political views on a X-Y chart with a 0,0 center,

then show you where historical figures were located.

Conservative/Liberal was one axis... I can't quite remember the other...

something like, totalitarian/individualist or something along those lines.


Anyway, I ended up being VERY near the center.

Wish I had either the results or the link to the questionairre around somewhere ...

Sign me up for the Extreme Centrist Party (and the party should have BEER — a nice, hearty dark beer, not that watery lager stuff )

 

[CoryKS]

There was this really cool Internet thing where you could answer a list of questions and it would plot your political views on a X-Y chart with a 0,0 center,

then show you where historical figures were located.

Conservative/Liberal was one axis... I can't quite remember the other...

something like, totalitarian/individualist or something along those lines.


Anyway, I ended up being VERY near the center.

Wish I had either the results or the link to the questionairre around somewhere ...

Sign me up for the Extreme Centrist Party (and the party should have BEER — a nice, hearty dark beer, not that watery lager stuff )

Is this the one? The World's Smallest Political Quiz

 

[Carol]

I'm an EXTREME CENTRIST!!

Sign me up for the Extreme Centrist Party (and the party should have BEER — a nice, hearty dark beer, not that watery lager stuff )

You're in, my friend. And yeah, this party should have beer. A hearty dark beer sounds like a FINE idea. I don't normally drink much but hell, even I could go for a brew like that. :cheers:

 

[theletch1]

Fairly conservative on most things. As with the big L little L crowd here you'll notice I used a small "c". As it stands now Liberal and Conservative are pretty much interchangable with Democrat and Republican and I find myself very much at odds with almost everyone in the current regime.

 

[tellner]

The old "left/right" thing comes from the seating arrangements in the British Parliament. As a one-dimensional measure of politics it is about as useful as, well, buggies versus saddle horses.

You're right about the government giving a rat's ***. The only way to do that is to make it once again responsible to us rather than the best Congress that money can buy. That is what the hard work of democracy (small "d") is about. Unfortunately, arrayed against it are the powerful and the incomprehensibly rich. And Roosevelts, Teddy or Franklin, are in short supply these days.

There have been other versions which attempt to look at things with a little more sophistication. One two-dimensional version appeared in the UTNE Reader years ago and got some legs. Personal liberty/social control was one axis. Economic deregulation/government regulation of the economy was another. It's been turned into a number of Internet quizzes.

The problem with the current version is

 

[MBuzzy]

Independant...

IMHO parties are what cripple the political system. Or at a minimum....the parties that we have.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Independant...

IMHO parties are what cripple the political system. Or at a minimum....the parties that we have.

Actually George Washington said pretty much the same thing.

 

[MBuzzy]

It really bothers me that those who are elected to represent the "people" have their views influenced solely by their party and those who give them money. The people have lost all say in our political system. We get to elect the lesser of two evils so that their party can have control and get their way.

 

[Don Roley]

I consider myself 100% Independent. I am different on every single issue. I don't really lean any way at all.

Have you considered that maybe you should think about your core beliefs and see if they contradict some of your views?

I am serious. Some people seem to comparmentalize their different views on issues. Some people seem very keen on being left along to do what they want, but feel that the government needs to tell other people what to do. It is amusing to see people take one side here in regards to things like regulating martial arts and then take another tack on something like smoking.

I looked at my views about ten years ago. I had to change a lot of what I thought I believed in when I found that a lot of my beliefs centered around not letting others do anything to me I didn't want, but others I held did not have that some consideration for others.

 

[Andrew Green]

A conservative liberal libertarian

 

[Andy Moynihan]

I founded the Extreme Middle.

 

[Cryozombie]

I looked at my views about ten years ago. I had to change a lot of what I thought I believed in when I found that a lot of my beliefs centered around not letting others do anything to me I didn't want, but others I held did not have that some consideration for others.

Ya know Don, this is a good point, and I feel this applies to me on a few issues... but I havn't found a good way to reconcile things I think we need, with things I know we want... so I'm torn on a few issues.

 

[Don Roley]

Ya know Don, this is a good point, and I feel this applies to me on a few issues... but I havn't found a good way to reconcile things I think we need, with things I know we want... so I'm torn on a few issues.

I know the feeling. But one of the things that really seems to drive people nuts is when two different outlooks are not built on the same principles and come in conflict with each other. Rather than look at the problem, their emotions rise up and things get....heated. Try asking someone (like a kid) if they don't want something done to them, why are they doing it to others. You can almost see the thought process as they try to escape the need to answer. If you take the time to really look over your base beliefs and try to build on them, I do think it saves some grief in the long run.

 

[Mark L]

Libertarian. Ditch the nanny state with the exception of police, fire dept., military and the federal reserve (I'm sure there's another core essential out there I'm forgetting, but you get the picture). And unless you hurt someone else - it should be legal (whatever "it" may be). You want to screw yourself up, go to it.

It's all about personal responsibility.

Well stated. Let the federal government secure and protect the country and, with the states and municipalities, afford citizens the opportunity (distinct from the means) to pursue life, liberty, etc...

 

[dragonswordkata]

Very Liberal. I don't trust big government but there is some accountability to the populus, I distrust big corperations more since thier sole alegence is to the holy $$$.