What are your social, economic, and politic views.

Post Reply New Topic

What do you see? Socially are you more for freedom or for strict laws? Economically are you more for free enterprise where our countries industries are run by rich people, or more for public owned industry with leaders who aren't absolute? Politically are you more for a democracy, a republic, a technocracy, a theocracy, a controlled non violent anarchy, or something else/

Socially I'm for Biblical morality with forgiveness and not so harsh punishments.

Economically, I want it easier for people to get jobs and more difficult for managers to be tyrants in the workplace. There should be no rich, and all necessities should be freely provided.

Politically, I want our government to be like Israel in the book of Judges, before they demanded a king. Apart from God Himself, no ruler should be trusted with absolute authority, or even as much as the president, congress, or unjust judges such as those who by inaction murdered Terri Schivo.

Power to the Plebeians!

Hmmm.... I will likely disagree with you on most things.

Socially, I am for abolishing most laws that have nothing to do with harming another individual. For the ones where harming an individual comes into play more thought should be given but still, a principle of less intervention holds.

Economically, I am for free enterprise where our countries industries are run by entrepreneurs, some of whom hopefully become successful and rich.

Politically, I am for a republic that is exceptionally weak in power.

I'd say economically I'm center left. I support public-run healthcare, energy, transportation, and education. I'm strictly anti-corporation. Instead I think smaller private businesses that are forced into competition better benefit the consumer.

Socially I'd say I'm close to centrist...I'm conservative on some things and liberal on others. I think some criminals should get tougher sentences, I don't think people who defend themselves should get in trouble, and I want the government to actually do something about illegal immigration. But at the same time I'm pro-choice, pro gay marriage and polygamy.

A Cyanide-ruled nation is a happy nation

I am social democrat, with libertarian leanings. I perfer the government to be a technocracy (rule by the skilled). I'm pro-life on humanistic grounds, but I am for stem cell research. I am anti-corporate and I perfer the economy to be highly regulated and run by co-ops and small businesses. And I am for healthy national DEFENSES

Usually when people say that want Biblical morality they mean some odd ethic where hard work and violence are glorified and anyone who wants to have sex or enjoy themselves are seen as perverts and degenerates. No Thanks. Down with violence, up with peace, love, dope.

Now maybe I'm rashly generalizing, so I won't make that assumption about what you think "Biblical Morality" consists in. But I don't think I'd be for it, because I believe that humans have had better ideas about government in the last 4000-2000 years since the book of Judges and the rest of the Bible has been written. I'm not going to subcribe to iron age science, and I'm not going to subscribe to iron/bronze age political theory.



There should be no rich? Anyone heard of Robert Nozick? Let's say we redistribute weath, so that everyone has an equal amount of property and cash. We'd still have to buy stuff right, and maybe we would like to, of our free choice, pay someone to do stuff we like. Right, we'd still freely want to buy bread, that someone would sell us, and maybe you, or me, or lots of people want to freely give money to Lebroun James to watch him play basketball. Well, what is going to happen? Ignoring the bread-seller, Lebroun James would become fantastically weathly if enough people wanted to pay to watch him play.

So here's the question, why is it wrong for the masses to freely give their money to Lebroun James? It might be stupid, but why should we use government force to stop it?


All necessities should be freely provided? Well, necessities still cost something to produce, so maybe not freely provided. Maybe no sales tax on food and maybe some government subsidies for food to keep prices down.

Health care is something everyone should get a share of. It actually should be socialized. Why doesn't it apply to the free market argument I gave above? Because the healthcare industry has us all by the balls. They have our lives in their hands as a bargining chip. We aren't rationally giving our money. They can charge us whatever, but when they're saving our lives we are forced to pay whatever they want. That's not a fair negotation.




I like the part about no ruler should be trusted with absolute authority, but come on. Terri Schivo? There are lots of fully functioning humans here and that are coming in future generations to take up the not expanding resources of our planet. Unless we're going to start colonizing space soon, we can let the brain dead ones go.

But morality isn't a political theory, it is a moral theory, and given that the person speaking is Christian, I would imagine that any position of morality more valuable and higher than that which is biblical is a false statement. I just think that any attempt for biblical morality will result in fascism and oppression rather than any noble end. Unless he means some means of causing it to naturally occur, a position that seems rather difficult to swallow.

I would argue against much of that. Most of our food isn't a necessity. The necessity of a person is closer gruel and cheap vegetables, not the condiments, and seasonings, and large quantities of meat that we are all accustomed to. Because everyone wants more than necessary, I am not sure that free necessities is so much wise as some allowance for the poor.
Partially right, partially not. The healthcare industry will only have undue bargaining power in cases of emergency care, not in other areas as in other areas it will be more similar to any other market because we get to shop around. Really though, we currently do not give money rationally because of distortions in healthcare which make additional services seem cheaper than their real cost. I really think that the problem is that healthcare isn't as healthy of a market as it could be, not that it needs to be socialized.

Bah, she wasn't costing that much, the real concern I have is one of choices. The real question is one of morality, whose morality should have absolute dominance and why? If people choose action through some means or another then there is less problem, that is the solution of a liberal(I don't really necessarily mean American left wing) society. I like the part of no absolute authority in rulership as well, but if there is no absolute authority in rulership then a society such as ours will likely fail to have a biblical morality, as the truly Christian members of society who promote biblical morality are not many.

Well, he did say that "socially" he would be for Biblical morality. There are lots of social recommendations in the NewTestament and lots of legal code in the Old testament. So I took him as meaning he wanted those enacted. It certainly has some things to say about the relation of God to the state in Judges and Kings. Looks like some amount of political theory to me.



Thats fine. I won't disagree. Healthcare being a sick market is exactly the problem. If we can fix it without socialization, I'm for it. I'm just pessimistic about the possibility of real change unless the government takes it all over. But I don't really trust the government either, so I guess I'm just plain pessimistic.




We haven't exactly clarified what a "Biblical morality" is. I've given a couple of interpretations, and I don't want either one. So I don't see why the US failing to have a "Biblical morality" is that big of a deal.

I'm a libertarian. I believe in minimal government. The government only exists to do what we, as citizens, can't. That means, I think we should abolish welfare and government handouts. The responsibility to take care of the poor and disabled is for the people--not the government. I'm for free enterprise. Very minimal government regulation concerning trade.

I think all drugs should be legal. People should be allowed to screw up their lives if they choose to do so. The same rules that apply to alcohol should apply to all drugs. Don't operate machinery under the influence. There will still be laws, but there just won't be so damn many! The government has no right to tell me what I can and can't do with my body. I'm for personal responsibility. Responsibility is what makes us humans.

Oh, I know that there is some legal code there, but he said morality, he already stated that implementation would be different, but stated that the values would be the same. Morality is more like meta-political theory than political theory though.

Oh, it certainly is! Healthcare is really twisted because of over regulation and because people don't directly pay for it. If they directly paid for it and if it weren't badly regulated then it would be a lot better. Frankly, I would just stick with being pessimistic. Politicians are there to remind people that trade-offs do not exist, health care will demand that we make some trade-offs, therefore fixing the problem will likely fail. Socialization can do good things, I will not deny that, but still, there are some major problems with how things are set up that cannot be ignored.


No, we haven't, do we have to have it very clear though? We all know that it entails laws punishing people based upon what that book calls for. I think that an attempt would be dangerous, then again I don't trust government and don't want to give it power to do much. The big deal exists if you think that a lack of it is destroying the moral fabric of the US. It is a matter of morality, and if you merely try to look at it using a secular utilitarian perspective or even any secular perspective then you won't really get the problem.

Almost right.

Cognitive ability is what makes us human, and if some people lack the cognition to avoid getting themselves killed, they probably don't count as human. They certainly won't for long.

Socially, I'm for a humanist approach for those that deserve to be treated nicely, though at the same time, mature adults need to support and flourish themselves under normal circumstances instead of draining taxes needlessly. State healthcare, the cost distributed by taxes.
Nationalised education as well, ensuring that everyone is guaranteed top-class education to their level. However, people should be able to have private healthcare or education if they desire so. If it's done properly, it'll work well.
As for social intervention, action should be taken if people are being abused or trapped in poverty. Other action may be taken, depending on the circumstances. If people are being treated unfairly by companies or the government, then that may render action. Other problems should be solved as well, and there should be thorough plans.
Relative justice, with uncompromising punishments. Bring back capital punishment as well.

Economically, there should be lots of freedom, but a safety net and regulations to ensure that companies stick to fair play in the market arena. The government shoul cooperate with corporations to solve problems.

Politically, a democratic federation of states which can decide all laws that do not contradict the constitution, and state powers for each constituency. The federal overgovernment should be allowed to take control in emergencies, and controls the federal police, the armed forces, and distributes tax to each state. The overgovernment has many other roles, and of course internationally represents the states as one nation. It should be a strong political force which takes decisive action when it is needed.

Retail chains should be limited in size by having a progessively larger outlet tax on them, the more stores, the higher the tax goes.

All social service costs should be billed back to employers, if their help qualifies for a government benefits like food stamps, rental assistance or anything else, bill the employer plus the government overhead cost and watch how fast places pay a living wage and have medical coverage

schooling past the 8th grade should no longer be so called free, if people want to go to high school, i mean really want to go, let them get student loans just like people do for college and have them apply to get in, crap grades sorry stupid, go get a job

government employee unions should be outlawed

all taxes should be replaced by sales taxes

army barracks for people so called down on their luck, than watch how fast they get lucky and find a job

work permits issued by local police stations to stop the illegal immigrent problem and massive fines for people who get caught employing them. the bigger the company, the bigger the massive fine.
want a job, go down to the police station and prove you are legal and when the cops hand deliver the permit to the employer, the employer is off the hook if the cops dropped the ball and issued an illegal a work permit. They have the resources to check people out, Bob's Sunoco doesn't.

drop the age of consent to 13, if people can't teach their kids any better and keep an eye on them, who cares.

Oh, and to add to that, a progressive taxation system which taxes relative to earnings. Max rate of 40%. All mainstream state education is free of charge, including university, though there are measures in place to ensure that only the people who are likely to succeed get into state universities.

There lies the problem with FREE, how can anyone figure out if somebody is going to put their education to use ? We currently have lots of people that pay for it and don't make good use of it and woman who go to college looking for a meal ticket and never enter the labor force.

I worked with a guy who had all sorts of advanced degree's and after like 20 years of college was driving a truck.

you haven't caught on about taxes, raise the rate and people don't pull money out of investments and reinvest in new things. If reagan hadn't lower the tax rates, money would have never left old rust belt industries and been invested in todays technoligy, the Bill Gate's type people would have never been able to get the funding needed from the financial markets to start their businesses and grow them.

The thing is, people with huge salaries can stand 40% tax rates, don't forget that they owe so much to their countries. As for financial investments, there should be plenty left for that. Just do the taxation sensibly.

One reason for that sort of overqualified work you mentioned is the huge university fees and the lack of work experience of some university students.

There needs to be a program to ensure that everyone can get a job.