Page 2 of 6 [ 88 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next


What is your overall political outlook?
Nihilist 6%  6%  [ 2 ]
Anarchist 3%  3%  [ 1 ]
Libertarian 15%  15%  [ 5 ]
Theocrat 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
Fascist 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
MAGA 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
Royalist 3%  3%  [ 1 ]
Reactionary 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
Conservative 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
Democrat 9%  9%  [ 3 ]
Liberal 21%  21%  [ 7 ]
Socialist 12%  12%  [ 4 ]
Communist 3%  3%  [ 1 ]
Apatheist 3%  3%  [ 1 ]
Other (specify in comment) 24%  24%  [ 8 ]
Total votes : 33

kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

01 Feb 2023, 1:35 pm

“Liberal” has a different meaning within a US context than most other places.

A “liberal” in Europe is probably more “towards the right” than a US liberal. Labour, in the UK, seems more “progressive” than the UK Liberal party.

Libertarians in the US tend to believe in “as least governmental interference as possible” and “the least tax imposed upon one as possible.” Rarely would they be classed as “liberals.”



Dengashinobi
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Dec 2022
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 598

01 Feb 2023, 1:48 pm

Radish wrote:
Honey69 wrote:
Funny there are no Libertarians here. They are very small in number, but usually dominate internet message boards.


What is the difference between Libertarians and Liberals? I may have clicked the wrong one.


Originally the term Liberalism ment what today in America call Libertarianism. In Europe we still call it Liberalism, or Classical Liberalism in order to differentiate it from Social or Modern Liberalism, which in America is called simply Liberalism. Modern Liberalism has it's roots in Classical Liberalism. Modern Liberals are the Democrats, Classical Liberals are the Republicans.



Mountain Goat
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 13 May 2019
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,202
Location: .

01 Feb 2023, 2:41 pm

Politically homeless.


_________________
.


Silence23
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 10 Dec 2022
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 255
Location: Germany

01 Feb 2023, 2:49 pm

My political outlook is that there isn't a real democracy in the world (though Switzerland is close). Politicians manipulate people, lie, trick and cheat to get elected, and then they simply do what they want. Things no voter asked them for, which increases the value of their stocks.

I think the people need to be protected more against the actions of politicians. E.g. by forcing politicians to beg to the citizens to accept the law they created in a referendum. We live in the information age, so it's not impossible to create such a new political system.

However, I'm tending towards libertarianism. So basically I don't accept a majority vote against my right to be left alone. None of your business what I do in my home (e.g. herbal garden or chemistry lab producing psychedelic molecules), as long as I don't harm the fundamental human rights of anyone, or damage their property. And I owe you and 8 billion other people nothing, unless I voluntarily signed a contract with you.



Last edited by Silence23 on 01 Feb 2023, 2:58 pm, edited 5 times in total.

Tim_Tex
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Jul 2004
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 45,472
Location: Houston, Texas

01 Feb 2023, 2:53 pm

Centrist


_________________
Who’s better at math than a robot? They’re made of math!

Now proficient in ChatGPT!


Jakki
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2019
Gender: Female
Posts: 10,120
Location: Outter Quadrant

01 Feb 2023, 2:59 pm

Think , I maybe an Antidisestablishmentarian .... :scratch:


_________________
Diagnosed hfa
Loves velcro,
Quote:
where ever you go ,there you are


MuddRM
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

Joined: 2 Sep 2021
Gender: Male
Posts: 437
Location: Beautiful(?) West Manchester Township, PA

01 Feb 2023, 3:03 pm

Nihilist.

This rock that we call earth is doomed. If you read the Book of Revelation in the Bible, you’ll see that most of the predictions have come true. I’m just waiting for the end.



TwilightPrincess
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Sep 2016
Age: 39
Gender: Female
Posts: 20,128
Location: Hell

01 Feb 2023, 4:23 pm

Socialist


_________________
“We must learn to reawaken and keep ourselves awake...by an infinite expectation of the dawn, which does not forsake us even in our soundest sleep.”
Walden


PenPen
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 2 Apr 2022
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 71

01 Feb 2023, 4:58 pm

Minder wrote:
How do you mean primordial? Since the oldest form of organization consists of informal bands that didn't have kings. Bands may have had a single leader (most likely an elder), but they'd be pragmatic about it and without title. Generally pretty egalitarian, since you can't put on airs when your whole society consists of a dozen or so people who are around you all the time.

Also, there are a lot of monarchs who proved unstable or incompetent, despite coming from good parents.

As for myself, I'm generally a liberal of some sort though I lean a bit more left than I used to.


If egalitarian hunter-gatherer societies generally transitioned into hierarchical ones, is the nature of man egalitarian, or is it hierarchical, but didn't express itself in the time of hunter-gatherers due to circumstance?

As for bad leaders, really it's about your risk tolerance. Aristotle said the best good government is a monarchy, the best bad government democracy. But I don't think presidents and prime ministers usually hold the public's respect, especially in the age of partisanship. The only presidents I think people would consider "Great" as presidents would be Abraham Lincoln and FDR, whose actions earned them the label of tyrant from others. Not much you can do in 4-8 years and divided governments. So I lean towards a small/medium government monarchy that has more responsibility and accountability than democracies.



Minder
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

Joined: 29 Feb 2016
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 219

01 Feb 2023, 5:44 pm

PenPen wrote:
Minder wrote:
How do you mean primordial? Since the oldest form of organization consists of informal bands that didn't have kings. Bands may have had a single leader (most likely an elder), but they'd be pragmatic about it and without title. Generally pretty egalitarian, since you can't put on airs when your whole society consists of a dozen or so people who are around you all the time.

Also, there are a lot of monarchs who proved unstable or incompetent, despite coming from good parents.

As for myself, I'm generally a liberal of some sort though I lean a bit more left than I used to.


If egalitarian hunter-gatherer societies generally transitioned into hierarchical ones, is the nature of man egalitarian, or is it hierarchical, but didn't express itself in the time of hunter-gatherers due to circumstance?


Since they transformed, I'd say that human nature can go either way. And for the record, I wouldn't assume democracies are necessarily egalitarian. The systems we form come from a complex interplay of environment, social circumstances, and the personalities of the people involved.

Put simply, if it's a system with humans in it, than it's natural for humans. Natural doesn't mean good or bad here, just means it's something that's within our nature to do.

PenPen wrote:
As for bad leaders, really it's about your risk tolerance. Aristotle said the best good government is a monarchy, the best bad government democracy. But I don't think presidents and prime ministers usually hold the public's respect, especially in the age of partisanship. The only presidents I think people would consider "Great" as presidents would be Abraham Lincoln and FDR, whose actions earned them the label of tyrant from others. Not much you can do in 4-8 years and divided governments. So I lean towards a small/medium government monarchy that has more responsibility and accountability than democracies.


Putting all your bets on a monarch being good sounds like a very bad idea to me. Though most monarchs have limits on their power, like parliaments or other nobles. I don't have a problem with constitutional monarchies.

Monarchs are simply people who inherit power. That doesn't strike me as deserving any particular respect. The only exceptions are the ones who start their own dynasties, in which case they're likely usurpers, warlords, or skilled politicians (or some combination of the above). I don't really understand why people feel the need to have some great leader they can look up to. I'd rather have a boring but competent administrator in charge.

Also, plenty of people under monarchies hate or disrespect their monarch. Sometimes to the point where they kill the monarch, as has happened plenty of times in history.



Princess Viola
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 14 Jan 2023
Age: 27
Posts: 270

01 Feb 2023, 6:25 pm

I'm a libertarian socialist.

If you're wondering 'how can you be libertarian and a socialist?', libertarianism as an ideology originated on the political left in the 1850s and it was really only in the mid-20th century that right-wingers in the United States coopted the term 'libertarian' to refer to their own ideology.

Same thing happened with anarchism (which left-libertarianism is often considered a synonym for), anarchism is a left-wing ideology that just had its terminology coopted by 'anarcho'-capitalists.

Really though what being a libertarian socialist for me means is that I agree with the anarchist position 9 times out of 10, I'm just not fully onboard with the complete abolishment of the state, at least in the current world we live in.



Honey69
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 29 Jan 2023
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,105
Location: Llareggub

01 Feb 2023, 6:42 pm

Dengashinobi wrote:
Originally the term Liberalism ment what today in America call Libertarianism. In Europe we still call it Liberalism, or Classical Liberalism in order to differentiate it from Social or Modern Liberalism, which in America is called simply Liberalism. Modern Liberalism has it's roots in Classical Liberalism. Modern Liberals are the Democrats, Classical Liberals are the Republicans.


In the United States, thanks largely to the highly successful efforts of Rupert Murdoch, the term "Conservative" has become a euphemism for a "sh***y Person." The term "Liberal" is hurled as an insult, by people who fancy themselves "Conservative", against people whom they deem insufficiently "sh***y." We don't really get any more nuanced than that.


_________________
May you be blessed by YHWH and his Asherah


Aspinator
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 934
Location: AspinatorLand

01 Feb 2023, 7:02 pm

I would be a socialist democrat. I feel government should be for the people and citizens should be the top priority. I also feel the draft should be re-instated. Our country (I speak for the United States - that's where I live) should include all people; it should be the civic responsibility of all citizens to serve and protect the country that provides them to flourish. Right now our military represents mostly those on the lower economic level; it should include all economic levels. Our congress (both the House and Senate) are mainly millionaires; this is not representative of ordinary Americans. Do you think the laws they pass would be for fellow millionaires or for the common man? I feel it would be safe to say that we live in a moneyocracy not a democracy



Minder
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

Joined: 29 Feb 2016
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 219

01 Feb 2023, 7:39 pm

Aspinator wrote:
I would be a socialist democrat. I feel government should be for the people and citizens should be the top priority. I also feel the draft should be re-instated. Our country (I speak for the United States - that's where I live) should include all people; it should be the civic responsibility of all citizens to serve and protect the country that provides them to flourish. Right now our military represents mostly those on the lower economic level; it should include all economic levels. Our congress (both the House and Senate) are mainly millionaires; this is not representative of ordinary Americans. Do you think the laws they pass would be for fellow millionaires or for the common man? I feel it would be safe to say that we live in a moneyocracy not a democracy


I'm against a military draft, but I do think there's something to be said for non-military national service requirements. Which is to say, when someone turns 18 or graduates high school, they're required to spend a year or two performing compensated charitable work. It could potentially provide job training as well as help people socialize with those outside their demographic.

There are some fairly big problems with this, unfortunately.

1) It creates the kind of situation that's very ripe for abuse, and it'd be difficult to weed out abusers
2) Rich families could probably pay doctors/lawyers/others to find excuses not to participate
3) It could be a serious burden for poor families who need everyone working.

But I think it's at least worth looking into.

A full military draft has a number of problems. For one, it would likely be expensive. I'm also not sure if our volunteer military needs or wants a bunch of conscripts. Finally, there are a lot of people with health problems (like myself) who'd be unable to serve.



DeathFlowerKing
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Sep 2022
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,228
Location: City of Roses

01 Feb 2023, 8:16 pm

Aspinator wrote:
I feel it would be safe to say that we live in a moneyocracy not a democracy


I think the correct term for that would be "plutocracy" (ruled by the wealthy). We're also technically an oligarchy masquerading as a democratic-republic.

Also given the dangerous stupidity, bizarre craziness, and outright incompetence of many of our current leaders on both the right and left I would also say that we live in an actual kakistocracy aswell.



AnonymousAnonymous
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 23 Nov 2006
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 69,878
Location: Portland, Oregon

01 Feb 2023, 9:15 pm

I'm a registered Democrat.


_________________
Silly NTs, I have Aspergers, and having Aspergers is gr-r-reat!