Politics

    • Re: Politics

      I don't know. You tell me:

      Pro-Choice
      Pro-Gun Regulation
      Pro-Euthanasia
      Pro-Medical Marijuana
      Pro-Marijuana Taxation
      Pro-Death Penalty
      Drinking age should be 18
      Anti-War
      Proponent of Fair Trade
      Pro-LGBT Rights
      Pro-Legalization of Prostitution
      Anti-Abstinence

      Economically, I'm not sure. I'm for capitalism tentatively, I need to do more political research. Someone please tell me where all this puts me, I would really like to put something real in my political viewpoints box on Facebook. :p
      [CENTER]
      [CENTER]The only angels we need invoke are those of our better nature; reason, honesty and love.
      The only demons we need fear are those that lurk inside every human mind; ignorance, hatred, greed, and faith.
      [/CENTER]

      [/CENTER]

    • Re: Politics

      I guess I would say almost entirely liberal in principal.

      In practice...I dunno, think we should be alot tougher on crime but if liberal principals were adopted by many I think the underlying factors involved in crime would be removed.

      ---------- Post added at 06:21 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:18 AM ----------

      Christopher wrote:

      :runaround:

      Libertarianism ftw.

      Yeah, libertarians essentially (and don't quote me on this I'm far from being an expert) believe in total personal freedom, state intervention and the power of the state is their greatest enemy.

    • Re: Politics

      Christopher wrote:

      :runaround:

      Libertarianism ftw.


      You don't sound like a Libterian necessarily just far left.

      I'm a fiscal conservative, big government, state capitalism (GO CHINA!), anti-mobocracy, and social freedom (refuse to use Libertarian even in description) kind of guy. In sum: an authoritarian who wants strict monetary control and immense personal social freedoms.
      Without sensibility no object would be given to us, without understanding no object would be thought. Thoughts without content are empty, intuitions without concepts are blind. ~Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason
      [CENTER]The greatest thing you'll ever learn
      Is just to Love
      And be Loved in return
      [/CENTER]

    • Re: Politics

      Esmo wrote:

      Contradiction, no?


      Not in the least. You see, I'm against Democracy. It is a terrible, inefficienct, and easily corrupted system of governance. Strong central authority is necessary for the proper functioning of government and the ignorant masses who can't be trusted to run their own lives let alone the lives of millions of others shouldn't be allowed to muck up the system. What is popular is very rarely what is the appropriate course of action. If you look at any Democracy you'll find very few people vote for anything substantial such as policy or process issues but instead vote for candidates due to how charismatic, good looking, religious, and other-trivialities they may be. Truly, the closer to a Direct Democracy a nation is the less able it is to govern itself.

      Limited political freedom does not, however, in any such way mean limited personal freedoms. I'm all for giving large degrees of social freedoms while denying political freedom. Karl Marx had said, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need," and I agree with such a sentiment. I wouldn't trust a medical Doctor to fix my car nor a mechanic to diagnose me. I don't feel those who are qualified to decide what is best for the majority of people should do so just because they have a selfish desire to have a say in the world, this selfishness is exactly why they deserve to be denied entrance into politics. As someone going into politics I do so not because I want to create special interests, or cater to special interests, it is because I want to do what is best for the people of my nation. Those without such opinions, those who seek to impose their ignorance upon others should be barred.

      What are personal freedoms? They are the freedoms to go where you choose, to choose your own career, to educate yourself _(and a free one too)_, to medical care (should also be free)_, and to enjoy a life so long as it does not impose on the welfare of others. I feel that a developed nation can easily create a planned society that is far happier than an unregulated society and when you look at how the United States marks up against the other modern nations such sentiments are proven. There is a healthy medium that needs to be achieved between freedom and control, too free breeds anarchy, too controlled breeds stagnant oppression. The moderate ground of controlled freedoms is the best way to go.
      Without sensibility no object would be given to us, without understanding no object would be thought. Thoughts without content are empty, intuitions without concepts are blind. ~Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason
      [CENTER]The greatest thing you'll ever learn
      Is just to Love
      And be Loved in return
      [/CENTER]

    • Re: Politics

      Esmo wrote:

      DeaExMachina wrote:

      In sum: an authoritarian who wants strict monetary control and immense personal social freedoms.


      Contradiction, no?


      I was just about to post that!

      DeaExMachina wrote:

      In sum: an authoritarian who wants strict monetary control and immense personal social freedoms.


      DeaExMachina wrote:

      You see, I'm against Democracy. It is a terrible, inefficienct, and easily corrupted system of governance.


      Lol'd.

      You seem to be placing too much faith in the judgement of those in control. As the Oracle in the Matrix trilogy once said, "What do all men with power want? More power!" What's to ensure that the "immense personal freedoms" will actually stick around?

      Humans are inherently greedy and power-hungry, and more than capable of corrupting any system of government. You might say that all governments are inherently corrupt.

      If "the masses" can't be trusted to run a nation, I don't see how one can then turn around and place their trust in the rule of a few powerful figures who can do "whatever is necessary" to maintain their own definition of a stable society.

    • Re: Politics

      It comes from creating a system of government that puts those in power who are more likely to do what is necessary. For instance, I don't dislike the process of voting and spreading power, what I dislike is the process of voting and spreading power to those who have no ability to make decisions. I support voting have a stronger requirement, such as educational attainment (yes, I know that a degree doesn't mean someone is necessarily intelligent or a critical thinker but those with degrees are proportionately more intelligent and more critical thinking than those without).

      It is my belief that by creating a societal structure where politics has a requirement and it is a requirement that anyone of any monetary or societal status can achieve and that requirement is set to ensure a greater ability of knowledge and efficiency in governance that you will have a government more apt too deal with corruption. Not all governments become corrupt, though all governments deal with corruption. China is a prime example, say what you will about their issues and I will admit they have a lot of social issues they can, should, and I'm sure in the future will improve on, but in terms of fighting corruption no government is as good at cleaning house.

      Democracy is easily corrupted. The more requirements in place to prevent that corruption the better and opening the floodgate to the mobs is not the way to stem corruption.

      On the note that humans are inherently corrupt and greedy, you're wrong. It is a learned trait. History shows it is a learned trait (a very Western trait, part of why I despise Western idealism so much). Biologically speaking we have proven the brain is built to punish inequality and reward equality. Your statement and your beliefs are incorrect in every context, your selfishness exists only because the environment has taught you to go against human nature.
      Without sensibility no object would be given to us, without understanding no object would be thought. Thoughts without content are empty, intuitions without concepts are blind. ~Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason
      [CENTER]The greatest thing you'll ever learn
      Is just to Love
      And be Loved in return
      [/CENTER]

    • Re: Politics

      DeaExMachina wrote:

      Democracy is easily corrupted. The more requirements in place to prevent that corruption the better and opening the floodgate to the mobs is not the way to stem corruption.


      Can't really disagree. There are alot of problems with our current system, because it is driven by greed, and rewards greed. Capitalism actually disgusts me, it is a system that rewards exploitation, corruption (as you said), selfishness and avarice. Not sure your solution is entirely agreeable, though

      DeaExMachina wrote:

      On the note that humans are inherently corrupt and greedy, you're wrong. It is a learned trait. History shows it is a learned trait (a very Western trait, part of why I despise Western idealism so much). Biologically speaking we have proven the brain is built to punish inequality and reward equality. Your statement and your beliefs are incorrect in every context, your selfishness exists only because the environment has taught you to go against human nature.



      Not all humans by any means, but the ones that seek out power, the natural leader types, are obsessed by it. The very nature of a leader, making decision that will affect many people, is the power. The people that are drawn to these positions are the ones that are all to willing to become corrupted and greedy.
      Shared power, a system of checks and balances, is the only way to proceed. Beauracracy sometimes feels like it's close to folding under it's own weight but it's definitely a necessity.

    • Re: Politics

      DeaExMachina wrote:

      the ignorant masses who can't be trusted to run their own lives let alone the lives of millions of others shouldn't be allowed to muck up the system.

      Who deems the masses to be 'ignorant' and 'untrustworthy'? They're not going to give themselves that label, so I imagine it would be the élite who take power. Isn't that conveniant?

      DeaExMachina wrote:

      What is popular is very rarely what is the appropriate course of action. If you look at any Democracy you'll find very few people vote for anything substantial such as policy or process issues but instead vote for candidates due to how charismatic, good looking, religious, and other-trivialities they may be. Truly, the closer to a Direct Democracy a nation is the less able it is to govern itself.

      What do you mean by 'govern itself'?

      DeaExMachina wrote:

      As someone going into politics I do so not because I want to create special interests, or cater to special interests, it is because I want to do what is best for the people of my nation. Those without such opinions, those who seek to impose their ignorance upon others should be barred.

      At the end of the day, no one can categorically prove that their opinions are the right ones. That's how democracy came about, so that at least there could be some degree of agreement between conflicting parties who could not make headway over each other. What's the authority endowed upon yourself to deem what opinions are right and what opinions are ignorant that should be 'barred'?

      DeaExMachina wrote:

      What are personal freedoms? They are the freedoms to go where you choose, to choose your own career, to educate yourself _(and a free one too)_, to medical care (should also be free)_, and to enjoy a life so long as it does not impose on the welfare of others. I feel that a developed nation can easily create a planned society that is far happier than an unregulated society and when you look at how the United States marks up against the other modern nations such sentiments are proven. There is a healthy medium that needs to be achieved between freedom and control, too free breeds anarchy, too controlled breeds stagnant oppression. The moderate ground of controlled freedoms is the best way to go.

      But without democracy, how do you ensure that leaders will take interest in the voices and needs of the people in order to provide this 'controlled freedom'? Who chooses the dictator?

      DeaExMachina wrote:

      It comes from creating a system of government that puts those in power who are more likely to do what is necessary. For instance, I don't dislike the process of voting and spreading power, what I dislike is the process of voting and spreading power to those who have no ability to make decisions. I support voting have a stronger requirement, such as educational attainment (yes, I know that a degree doesn't mean someone is necessarily intelligent or a critical thinker but those with degrees are proportionately more intelligent and more critical thinking than those without).

      It is my belief that by creating a societal structure where politics has a requirement and it is a requirement that anyone of any monetary or societal status can achieve and that requirement is set to ensure a greater ability of knowledge and efficiency in governance that you will have a government more apt too deal with corruption.

      What do you know of the history of British politics? Because from what I know, I can tell you that you're sadly misguided. Limiting power and the franchise to an élite only fosters the oppression of the lower classes, not to mention a lot of corruption.
      [CENTER]


      [RIGHT]Ta-ta
      [/RIGHT]
      [/CENTER]