Poll
Question: What best describes your political position?
Libertarianism - 17 (63%)
Socialism - 2 (7.4%)
Totalitarianism - 1 (3.7%)
Paleoconservatism - 0 (0%)
Direct Democracy - 1 (3.7%)
Tribalism - 1 (3.7%)
Feudallism - 0 (0%)
Other - 5 (18.5%)
Total Voters: 27

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7
  Print  
Author Topic: Politics: Where do you stand?  (Read 5202 times)
avagdu
Ranter Level 5
*****

Karma: 78
Posts: 1483


Son Of Liberty


View Profile
« on: March 20, 2008, 06:52:11 PM »

I'm interested in knowing this information for a follow up post.  Please research the terms before replying..
Logged

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

| agorism.info | r4nger5blog.tk | individualism & sovereignty
exeq
Ranter Level 2
**

Karma: 2
Posts: 75


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: March 21, 2008, 04:54:01 PM »

Well, I don't necessarily say that I follow one branch of a pollitical party than the other. I would say the closet one I come to is a liberal democrat, But I do share some views with some of the underdog parties.
Logged
avagdu
Ranter Level 5
*****

Karma: 78
Posts: 1483


Son Of Liberty


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: March 21, 2008, 04:57:39 PM »

I had a feeling I was going to get a lot of 'Other's, but part of my reasoning was to have people read the definitions of each and ideally choose what is closest to their beliefs.  Not to say that 'Other' is a bad answer though as long as it's the most accurate for you.
Logged

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

| agorism.info | r4nger5blog.tk | individualism & sovereignty
mation
Ranter Level 2
**

Karma: 2
Posts: 52


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: March 21, 2008, 07:29:15 PM »

I, for the most part, support libertarian views and the majority of the US Libertarian party's platform.  There's a stubborn streak of anarchism in the mix too which I feel complements libertarianism.
Logged
avagdu
Ranter Level 5
*****

Karma: 78
Posts: 1483


Son Of Liberty


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: March 21, 2008, 07:35:19 PM »

Yea I was debating on whether or not to put in anarchism or anarcho-primitivism or anarcho-capitalism because I was afraid people would vote for it not knowing much about it. But yes, anarchism and libertarianism overlap in many ways.  Not surprisingly I voted for libertarianism.

Now who voted for totalitarianism...  Cheesy

I know there are Socialists on this board.. come out and vote eh?
« Last Edit: March 21, 2008, 07:38:40 PM by avagdu » Logged

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

| agorism.info | r4nger5blog.tk | individualism & sovereignty
Psychedelic
Ranter Level 2
**

Karma: 4
Posts: 43



View Profile
« Reply #5 on: March 21, 2008, 08:08:50 PM »

The tribe is the thing I can relate to the most. Democrat or Repuciblican doesnt work. It's the same in my country(red against blue).

People are a tribal animals. Period. Thaths why gangs work.
Logged
Loopster
Ranter Level 5
*****

Karma: 51
Posts: 1002


Son Of Liberty


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: March 22, 2008, 03:32:19 PM »

People ARE tribal animals but they are trying to evolve. That is why they created the so called "nations of laws." The cultures that are still tribal in mentality are the ones the other half of the world is trying to "bring Democracy" to. Thats why there is such great conflict everywhere. Should we be doing that? Of course not, but everything we might do, (including our own extinction) is part of evolution.

That is why there is such confusion everywhere. Its the tribal mentality Vs. the new world mentality.
Logged

~"If the American people were allowed to know the details of the bank bailout, there would be rioting in the streets..."

-Henry "Hank" Paulson, November '08
exeq
Ranter Level 2
**

Karma: 2
Posts: 75


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: March 24, 2008, 04:23:05 PM »

I had a feeling I was going to get a lot of 'Other's, but part of my reasoning was to have people read the definitions of each and ideally choose what is closest to their beliefs.  Not to say that 'Other' is a bad answer though as long as it's the most accurate for you.
I also have different veiws than most of what ever i orginally put. Mix of Anarchy, Donkeys, elephants, greens.
Logged
Valekhai
Ranter Level 3
***

Karma: 8
Posts: 203



View Profile
« Reply #8 on: March 24, 2008, 05:00:36 PM »

I'm hard to pigeonhole.  Grew up fairly right wing, in high school communism sounded good, was a theoretical anarchist in college, then was fairly liberal, now I'm kinda right-leaning libertarian.
Logged

"Until you find something to fight for, you settle for something to fight against."

"Criminals thrive on the indulgence of society's understanding."

"You can see why Che ducked out right after the revolution. It’s a lot easier to blow up trains than to make them run on time."
V
Ranter Level 4
****

Karma: 41
Posts: 440


In view, a humble vaudevillian veteran..........


View Profile WWW
« Reply #9 on: March 24, 2008, 05:49:12 PM »

You dont have a space for Intellectual Facism - LOL!
Logged

Those who sacrifice freedom for security will lose both and deserve neither - Benjamin Franklin

Check out: www.standovermedia.tk
fire_missionary
Ranter Level 3
***

Karma: 32
Posts: 182


Flamethrower for the masses.


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: March 24, 2008, 05:58:12 PM »

Trying to think of how to place myself is a difficult task indeed.
Logic is my foremost factor, or at least I try hard to make it be.

What will work, and how well will it work, and is it better for most?

I suppose that would be my creed, if I were to name one, although I shy away from doing so.

Logic and Politics rarely if ever go hand in hand, as we may have seen.

I remembered what I call myself when referring to political views while writing this:
I am a Logical Realist.
Logged

Spreading the Flame
"A contradiction cannot exist in reality. Not in part, nor in whole." - Zeddicus Zu'l Zorander
Xwaste
Ranter Level 2
**

Karma: 3
Posts: 47


View Profile WWW
« Reply #11 on: March 26, 2008, 08:32:56 AM »

I am torn.  And probably have quite an indefensible illogical ideology.

In the wikipedia entry for Libertarian this quote sums me up pretty well
Quote
Rights theorists, which include noted deontologists, assert that all persons are the absolute owners of their lives, and should be free to do whatever they wish with their own bodies or property, provided they do not infringe on the rights of another to engage in that same freedom

I apply that to my private home life though.  On a national scale I believe that as money is a man made concept the state should adapt it and manipulate it in everyway possible to provide every person with a basic standard of living.  Housing should be free, healthcare and utilities free.  This makes me quite the socialist I am aware which I guess make me conflict with the libertarian view to the right to free enterprise.

My rationale is that people should be FREE and not enslaved to jobs and conventions that make the expression of that freedom so much harder.  If I knew that by donating 40 hours labour a week to a state run utility to provide a service to the rest of the community will also ensure me a property I can maintain how I like, all the basic (good) foodstuffs and power and water and some money to buy luxuries then I can enjoy my free time as much as possible that seems better to me than spending the same time stuck in a job I hate simply for the money to pay rent and food and bills and leaves me the same amount of free time but little ability to spend it productively because I can't afford the tools of my hobby's, are always worried about bills as well as the desires of my children for stuff I cant afford etc.

I know my views are absurdly idealistic.  In realistic terms I would prefer a botched libertarian government than a botched socialist one because all the real world socialist examples have turned out to be quite totalitarian in practice.

But when it comes to having ideals I guess I think you should be idealistic.  You aim high and try to imagine how great society could really be.  To me the big stepping stone in having our societies advance is money.  We really treat money like a natural force and believe that a persons worth determines how much the have and earn.  I think this is utter bullshit, money and the ownership of property are artificial constructs and should be adapted and changed to suit the needs of all people.  To be truly free in a libertarian society is still to be rich but I would rather a society designed where all can be free from the concerns of money.  If I cant have a government that actually provides for all the people then I would rather have none.

So Socialist or Libertarian or just plain stupid?
Logged

avagdu
Ranter Level 5
*****

Karma: 78
Posts: 1483


Son Of Liberty


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: March 26, 2008, 02:11:40 PM »

Quote
But when it comes to having ideals I guess I think you should be idealistic.  You aim high and try to imagine how great society could really be.  To me the big stepping stone in having our societies advance is money.  We really treat money like a natural force and believe that a persons worth determines how much the have and earn.  I think this is utter bullshit, money and the ownership of property are artificial constructs and should be adapted and changed to suit the needs of all people.  To be truly free in a libertarian society is still to be rich but I would rather a society designed where all can be free from the concerns of money.  If I cant have a government that actually provides for all the people then I would rather have none.

So Socialist or Libertarian or just plain stupid?

Socialism and Libertarianism are at ideological opposite ends of each other. But in one respect they are similar.  True adherents are steadfast and unwavering in their convictions. They differ in what they think is the right solution to a problem. Socialists say the state, Libertarians say the free market.  But I don't have the time to go into the details at this time.

Keep in mind that without taxes people would have a lot more money in their pocket.  And with a free market companies would have lower overhead to be able to sell their goods at a lower price. A truly free market would likely entail an end to fiat currency and an end to the inflation of the money supply therefore all currency would be worth more as well. And finally, a truly free market means that yard sales, thrift stores, flea markets, and giveaways would be much more common place.  There would also be more diverse and niche items and services available to suit individual needs.
« Last Edit: March 26, 2008, 07:03:34 PM by avagdu » Logged

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

| agorism.info | r4nger5blog.tk | individualism & sovereignty
Xwaste
Ranter Level 2
**

Karma: 3
Posts: 47


View Profile WWW
« Reply #13 on: March 26, 2008, 07:46:51 PM »


Keep in mind that without taxes people would have a lot more money in their pocket.  And with a free market companies would have lower overhead to be able to sell their goods at a lower price. A truly free market would likely entail an end to fiat currency and an end to the inflation of the money supply therefore all currency would be worth more as well. And finally, a truly free market means that yard sales, thrift stores, flea markets, and giveaways would be much more common place.  There would also be more diverse and niche items and services available to suit individual needs.

Does this truly happen in practice though?  We have been told forever that a free market economy will regulate itself and competition and improved efficiency will keep prices down.  This is the justification for all the privitisation that has been happening in Australia and elsewhere in the world on the energy, water, banking and telecommunications industries especially.  It sounds good in theory but in reality what motivation do companies with an already large market share ever have to reduce the end price of a product to consumers?  If they increase their efficiency and reduce costs they keep the price at the same level to increase their margin.  They spend huge amounts of money on advertising to brand themselves so that they can maintain high prices and higher margins.  Coke is the most expensive soft drink here by far and yet is still the market leader.  There is little motivation in a free market economy for corporations to compete solely on price and every motivation for them to exploit their market position for greater profits.  Prices very rarely go down in any sector, and if the taxation burden is reduced or erased companies would only pass on a fraction of that savings to the consumer and the from my limited knowledge of economics the increase money supply would have inflationary pressure not the other way round.

I don't want anyone telling me what I can or can't do with my spare time but when it comes to the economy we need some radical thinking because the current concepts of money and property mean that especially in the most free society citizens are at competition with each other for a limited resource rather than working in cooperation with each other.  Whilst there is competition there will always be winners and losers.

Logged

avagdu
Ranter Level 5
*****

Karma: 78
Posts: 1483


Son Of Liberty


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: March 26, 2008, 11:19:03 PM »

First of all, to my knowledge there is no truly free market economy on earth today.  It's questionable as to whether there ever has been.  But I would point to a country like Singapore as one fairly good example according to what I've heard.  Also, in general what is billed as "privatization" these days is really a government assisted monopoly given to a private company.

Quote
This is the justification for all the privitisation that has been happening in Australia and elsewhere in the world on the energy, water, banking and telecommunications industries especially.

You realize that the alternative is that all those are owned by the State, with little or more likely no choice regarding service. And that service would most likely be paid for in taxes that everyone would have to pay for, including those who do not use the service and those who are opposed to it.  See above regarding privatization.

Quote
It sounds good in theory but in reality what motivation do companies with an already large market share ever have to reduce the end price of a product to consumers?

Competition.  And the ever expanding democratization of technology.

Quote
They spend huge amounts of money on advertising to brand themselves so that they can maintain high prices and higher margins.

True, but you'll notice that is usually the established brands that spend most of their time doing this.  But does Coke really need to advertise at this point? It's rather asinine.  I have debated whether the abolishment of the corporation (a legal fiction facilitated by the government) would be required in order to have a truly free market.

Quote
Coke is the most expensive soft drink here by far and yet is still the market leader.

Soft drinks here in the US are among the most cheap products available.  Even cheaper than water in some cases.

Quote
Prices very rarely go down in any sector

Cell phones and computers are industries that have become radically cheaper to the point that they are basically expendable.

Quote
if the taxation burden is reduced or erased companies would only pass on a fraction of that savings to the consumer and the from my limited knowledge of economics the increase money supply would have inflationary pressure

Taxation takes money from everyone's pocket.  Businesses have to pass the cost of taxes on to you through higher prices or a reduced quality product or service.  With the money I had taken out every month from taxes last year I could have made 2/3s of my rent or both my insurance payments, food and whatever gear I wanted to buy.  But the greatest problem with taxes as I said earlier is that generally everyone pays regardless of whether they use the service or whether they are opposed to it.

Hope this answers your questions, I can expound on it more if you wish.









Logged

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

| agorism.info | r4nger5blog.tk | individualism & sovereignty
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7
  Print  
 
Jump to: