What Is Your Political Philosophy?

Please explain to everyone the details of your beliefs and personal tastes in the Political realm.

Perhaps a Mod could make this a sticky....that it is easy to review and gains attention?

 

For myself....I believe Government should be as limited as possible and should be tasked with three fundamental areas of purpose:

Protection of the citizenry from external threats.
Maintaining economic stability.
Creating a limited/minimal social safety net.

My philosophy was once quite fitting in the Conservative lean, and closely matched that of Republican ideals.
As the definition of conservatism has evolved into it's current incarnation and away from my social understanding of fairness and compassionate conservatism, I am no longer considered a Republican by the new standards. I do not fit into a category currently used in our political atmosphere, as I am uncomfortable with Liberal/ Democrat tendencies, dislike much of the Libertarian philosophy, and feel the Republican party is now disfunctional and rather cruel.

 

I'm a Republican, I really can't say I'm a true Conservative because I think more like a Centrist. I see things I like from both Conservatives and Liberals, although I lean much farther to the Right than to the Left.

I do feel we need a health care plan that will cover all Americans. I just think Obama care is not it. It's to expensive when Obama assured us it would be cheaper and it forced everyone to buy into it. Right now we cover almost everyone, but the way we are doing it waste money and doesn't use the cheaper alternates, which we could use to cover those not covered now.

We need to help the poor. But Liberals feel we need to supply their every need when this country is broke. We don't do the things we need to do to get these people on their feet and off of welfare. We have taken most of the incentives away that would make them want to better themselves.

II think government does have a place in our society. We can't depend on private business to do it all or most of it. Profit always comes first with them. But government has to be limited because they make to many mistakes and government is to expensive. Unlike many Conservatives, I feel there are times when business needs a helping hand. Especially when it concerns the welfare, or the security of the country.

I believe there is still a place for unions in this country, but the attitude of unions and union members must change. They must work hand in hand to assure the welfare of the company and the employees. That might mean giving back, instead of taking when times are bad. But management needs to give too if that is what they are asking from the employees.

I'm for raising taxes on the very rich. They aren't investing their money and are paying some of the lowest rates since the 1940's. It can help in paying down debt. We need to take away some of their deductions to make it fairer. I am all for taking off the limit paid into Social Security. If you draw a wage, a portion goes into S.S. That portion could go down over a set amount, but not go away.

I'm against taxing business more. America now has the highest corporate tax in the industrial world. We need to cut them and many of the regulations that prevent companies from moving here, expanding, or starting up a new business.

I am against making 12 million illegals living here citizens. That only encourages millions more to sneak in. Amnesty is the answer. Allow them to live here, pay taxes, vote in local elections, work any job they qualify for, give them freedom to travel back and forth across the border to see family and friends. With Amnesty, they would have to sign up for it and we would know who is here. If other illegals are caught and their name is not on the list, they get deported. The border has to also be secured. Both sides can take credit for bringing illegals out of the closet.

There is a lot more, but these are the big ones.

 

I am what they used to call a Rockefeller Republican, which is a variation on a New Deal Democrat.

Government has an important role in a complex capitalist society. It is the entity the invests in the things that private industry either can't or won't invest in. Things like infrastructure, law enforcement, culture, eductation, basic research, advanced (but not yet financially viable) technology. Government's role in business is to curb the excesses, insure a level playing field, and create incentives for business to profit by making sure that the largest number of people can enjoy a comfortable and secure life from the fruits of their labor. That investment should incentivize business to profit from working toward shared goals, like clean air, safe living, good health, education, communication.

 

I don't really have a philosophy as such. I usually vote for the person(s) I believe will do what they promise (which is not easy when dealing with politicians) and not try to tax me to death. I have a congressman who drove up to my area from the capital just to try to help me out with a local problem. Him I voted for. As for the rest, you just have to study the individuals and make the best choice you can. Voting party lines does no good. There are bad ones in every bunch.
Enjoy!

 

Another big one. Unlike Liberals, I don't believe in late term abortion, or that abortion should be used as a form of birth control. But unlike Conservatives, I do believe there are a few good reasons to have abortions.

 

Fiscal conservatism, small government, welfare for those truly in need and not a profession. Letting people do as they please until they begin to affect others in a negative way. Tight control of our government spending. Enforcement of our laws. Severe punishment for criminals who refuse to follow the same laws as the rest of us.

 

Libertarian conservative. The best government is one that serves the people not rule over them. I think government should focus on security and leave the rest to the 350 million Americans who are specialists in their own respective fields. I believe in access to the basics, but the government should not run schools, housing, food, or healthcare. Vouchers solve the access problem without government control and they are the only acceptable means of redistribution in my book because control still resides with the people. I believe government should regulate the commons and its own property. Everything else regulated can be handled by lawyers.

 

Im a leftist social democrat progressive.

I want to see the world organised along the lines of the scandinavian or the Nordic model.

This means;

A universalist welfare state aimed specifically at enhancing individual autonomy, promoting social mobility and ensuring the universal provision of basic human rights, as well as for stabilizing the economy.

The Nordic model is distinguished from other types of welfare states by its emphasis on maximizing labor force participation, promoting gender equality, egalitarian and extensive benefit levels, the large magnitude of wealth redistribution, and liberal use of expansionary fiscal policy.

There is a reason that the scandinavian nations beat every other country on a whole range of categories, and this is it. This model is the future of all mankind, and in my mind your various minimalist conservative models represents the continued degradation of mankind and will fail like it has always failed..

 

Conservatives believe in maximizing labor force participation, much like Roosevelt did. But today's Liberals don't think it's right to make those on welfare work for their benefits.

 

The very definition of Liberal.

 

I'm a pragmatist, and not an ideological "true believer", so I promote what has, demonstrably, worked best for people. The highest quality of life has been achieved in technologically-advanced, socially-progressive, capitalist nations, so that is the model to which I heartily ascribe.

On the other hand, the small and impotent Federal Government of Somalia stands as the consummate example for government minimalists, just as Islamic theocracies under sharia law are the ideal for those who rage against gender equality in marriage.

Such case studies provide far, far more reliable data than airy-fairy notions with no real-world precedents.

 

Actually thats not true.

But in any case the Nordic model is much more comprehensive and sophisticated than just being about poor people working for benefits, you will find article from the economist very interesting indeed.

http://www.economist.com/news/leade...-could-learn-nordic-countries-next-supermodel

- - - Updated - - -

You will find article from the economist very interesting indeed.

http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21571136-politicians-both-right-and-left-could-learn-nordic-countries-next-supermodel

 

I believe in leave me the hell alone. I'll gladly pay for infrastructure and services I use, but I don't need the government acting as a HOA, telling me where I can and cannot smoke (I say this as someone who has smoked 6 or 7 cigarettes this month), telling me what I can and cannot smoke, accusing me of being a terrorist because I want to fly, recording my movements both physically (Portland takes pictures and keeps records of car locations) and electronically (NSA), and well the list continues. There is a legitimate reason for government, and legitimate services provided by government (healthcare should be one), but lets face it we all likely break laws daily without even knowing it.

 

Somalia has very leftist tendencies, in fact all of the poorest nations on earth do. Meanwhile, the freest nations economically grow the fastest, and all of the top nations were at one time or another either very free economically, or they are mostly free now. Brazil is the only big government success you have, lets see how long it lasts though and if Chile cannot catch up and then outpace them. Come back to this argument in 20 years?

Meanwhile Hong Kong is still growing faster then China.

http://www.heritage.org/index/heatmap

Botswana, Africa's freest economy is also its fastest growing. Big coincidence right?

 

1st Somalia isn't a government it is a thugocracy. Comparing that to libertarianism is at best disengenuous and at worst an outright lie.

2nd It is axiomatic that freedom and government are by their very natures antithetical. Some freedoms should be limited, the freedom to committ robbery, rape, and murder to name but three. Therefore, because of the evil that inhabits men's and women's hearts, some government is necessary. The argument, since men first began to gather into groups larger than the clan, has been about exactly which freedoms ought to be in some way limited and to what extent.

3rd government will always want more power and the only way to gain that power is to limit more and more freedoms.

 

If sparsely-populated Botswana is the model you believe first-world nations should emulate, that's fine. Maybe you should first pressurize Norway into adopting your paradigm before you push others to follow your recommendation.

Botswana's National Health Policy that incorporates socioeconomic determinants of health such as poverty and lifestyle such that the economically disadvantaged populations have access to quality health care is certainly admirable but advanced nations have already addressed that problem.


.

 

I believe in the non aggression principle and maximizing individual liberty, which basically makes me a libertarian. When looking at any issue, I ask myself first: how is this violating someone else's liberty? And how is it the public interest? For most issues, these two questions are sufficient for me to figure out any issue.

 

I'm against all things Republican, because they're always on the wrong side of an issue, and the GOP only supports the wealthiest of the wealthy...not me.

 

The purpose of government is to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.

That's my political philosophy.

 

People describe me as Libertarian. I'm not exactly sure what the textbook definition of that means, but I strongly support the Constitution, I am a strong economic conservative, but I am a liberty-loving social liberal. I don't really care what people do as long as it doesn't have a negative impact on me personally. So, if people want to become alcoholics, or drug addicts, live in a slum, cover their bodies with tattoos, have same sex marriage, etc., I don't care one bit. But I don't want any of my tax money to be used to pay for any of it or any of the fallout from it! In other words, everybody should have the right to succeed or fail, and nobody else should be made to pay for the decisions that other people make.

 

I believe that it is immoral to meet people with violence for engaging in peaceful activities. I also believe that associations should be voluntary, which is really just a logical extension of the previous principle.

Two very simple concepts which when adhered to make a person an "extremist" oddly enough.

 

I am an American Nationalist, but if I were to describe my views with labels, I'd say I'm a Centrist-Populist.

That is to say, the idea of "progressive" politics rings to me, but what is 'progressive'. Progressive to me, means moving forward on a path that works. Multiculturalism has proven not to work, so I'm not a multiculturalist. Instead I recognize the individual value of individual nations and the people living in it.

Equally, if we're going to have a minority class, we need to have a strong majority class. The majority leads and it secures rights for all. When the majority lacks rights, even political rights it leads to the weakening of all classes. Minority rebellions, in non-essential cases(such as our liberal beliefs have allowed) has made for these "racial tensions" to grow out of control.

Just as the Government should be centralized, I believe in a unified Nation. And it can only be unified under the ideal that we're all Americans and that the Fatherland is our common ground.

Some of my ideas for the economy are similar to another poster, who advocated for raising taxes on the "very rich" but at the same time, we need to cut our corporate tax rate I argue in half. We also need to reevaluate NAFTA as a matter of macroeconomic black holes and we need to be somewhat protectionist.

So as not to alert our allies, I believe in trades where we make out 50/50 on both sides. But our trade deficit largely comes from China, as well as undeveloped countries where we lose these trades. America should not be in the business of being a welfare state to other countries.

THAT, much more so than general welfare has been hurting the American Economy.

In addition, I don't believe in taxing the people, whether it be in 'rough' economic times or not. The more a Government uses in income, the less the people themselves have. I believe the prosperity of a nation has always lied within the strength of our private sector.

And it's not the uber rich that make the private sector flow, but it's the middle class. So I wish to invoke Bush's promise: Read my Lips, no new taxes.

Period, Middle America can't afford them in 2013. The top-50 percentile pays more than half the taxes. Enough is enough.

Of course that means significantly lowering the debt and lowering government expenses, and creating a true Debt Ceiling that we cannot borrow beyond. As a government, we have an ethical responsibility to control the purse meaningfully.

By significantly reducing government, and governmental need for income, the economy can fluctuate which is our biggest goal. Not merely to stop stagnation or to curb inflation. We need an 'ebb and flow' economy. All economies prospered in times when money moved.

In terms of foreign policy, I have one thing to the entire M.E: You're on your own. By all accounts, if we weren't in the M.E we wouldn't be in this mess. 9/11 wouldn't have happened(More on 9/11 later as it relates to what our policy should be). In addition, the blackmailing, the foreign politicking, etc. This is so utterly unacceptable.

I don't believe in Dual Nationality, and neither should we. I believe that the minorities here should pledge their unyielding and uncompromising support for the American Homeland, thick and thin. If they want to support the endeavors of their brethren, then they can(and should) support their home countries at HOME.
If a minority cannot, for any reason become a Nationalized American Citizen and cannot pass a test(which should be significant and ask only significant questions) then we'll deport them. Simple.

9/11? Caused by Saudi Arabic "nationals" hijacking the planes.
Times Square? Caused by terrorists?
Underwear bomber? Foreigner boarding a plane
Boston Marathon? Foreign National on a Visa.

Is anyone getting the hint here? This isn't a left or right thing, my fellow Americans. This is for our country and freaking common sense.

At the same time, we have to be sure(especially with tourism already suffering) that we reform our security in ways and methods to allow for easier access. A lot of this is in fact profiling. We profile criminals and pedophiles and felons. Why can't we profile 2 million people out of 300 million Americans? Doesn't that make all the more sense to profile them?

There's a difference between a Bengali immigrant from the lower Asian areas and say a Palestinian(despite the plight that they're suffering and the empathy I have for it). Now, not that profiling is the ideal solution, there are/should be others. But I admit to not knowing what they are.

But I believe our security should be centralized, it should be focused. Our immigration policy needs to return to 1960's mentality of Pro-Europe. The lesser Asian/native American/African immigrants are simply inferior, they don't produce economically or anything at all. These immigrants do not make "the American Dream".

Are there some examples? Sure, of course. Do these exemplary examples constitute a change in policy or even better yet, redirecting our eyes away from the truth? No. The simple matter is, these are poor immigrants coming from poor islands with little to no human capital(neither in monetary resources nor in intelligence)

And it's not like we can infuse these immigrants with human capital, after all we do a terrible job educating our own children!

Oh, and on that last topic: Education. I'll use pictures to demonstrate what I feel about Education.



http://pennwood1986.com/hsphoto.jpg (I invoke the personal example of my H.S I soo wish I could show you the inside. Alas, I didn't take pictures of it, suffice to say there wasn't fond memories).

Public School IS a Prison. I remember as a kid in elementary, we'd go outside for recess. "Outside"? More like a gated yard.

Everyone of course knows of the crammed classes too.

So, what about a Private School?

My own personal experiences being in one can confirm pretty much everything that's said online. Smaller classes, the IEP's focalize on a child's actual educational needs and I got more out of there then I did in public schooling.

It's similar to College, where you can select a major and actually *gasp* LEARN things according to what you want to learn/need to learn.



Simply put, I want to publically fund these institutions. I want to have our education be elite, the tops of the world. In Asia, they take education so seriously that it's life or death. That's how we should treat it. By enhancing our human capital to the utmost, we can recover from the crisis, no we can create an even stronger nation than ever before.

 

A housemaid state. Takes care of you, but in contrast to nanny state lets you stay up at night and treats you with respect. Government is a service to the citizens, not the other way around.

Various online tests usualy put me as a libertarian-leaning centrist.

But this is all a gross simplification, my opinions are all over the political spectrum.

 

My Statement in regards to 'Debating' in general:

I see debating Politics as a game. To me it's not life or death. I dont carry hard feelings toward those of the other stripe but merely joust often using humor to diffuse the conversation while making my points.

But I do take the things of God seriously, as they are not temporal as is any situation in this life but are eternal, and I steer clear of 'Debate' as opposed to discussion and reasoning in that area since for some it instills hard feelings and anger.