What Is Your Political Philosophy?

Yes, we accept the caveat that "Men" is used in the context of "Person" today but realize that when the US was founded many of those that supported the Declaration of Independence really did believe that "Inalienable Rights" only existed for WASP Males and to no one else. The Southern Slave States provide a glaring example as well as the violations of the Inalienable Rights of every demograhic group except "WASP Males" at some point in American history. No demographic group except WASP Males has been excluded from discrimination and oppression in the United States. Name any demographic group except WASP Males and I can provide documentation that they were discriminated against and oppressed in the United States historically.

Religion is an issue of personal philosophy basically unrelated to potical philososphy (except in a theorcracy). Religion or personal philosophical beliefs we have relate to how we live as a person and not how society is governed. The problem is when individuals attempt to impose their personal beliefs upon others through a political process that violates the political philosophy of the nation.

 

Hmm… is it okay if I provide you with a glaring modern example of where WASP male are discriminated against in this country?

It's a little off-topic, but if you like, I'll provide it to you.

 

My beliefs on politics are identical to my philosophy.... I am convinced that the principle of "universal salvation" does have its application to job creation, health care, literacy levels and some form of social safety net......but..... I do believe that the private sector could theoretically do far more toward assisting the poor than it does at this time.

Local currencies like the Ithaca Hour and CalgaryDollars.ca could play a huge role in taking volunteerism from being about thirty percent of the North American economy up to perhaps forty or fifty percent of GDP!!??

 

Yes, if you can provide statistical (not anecdotal) evidence of historic discrimination against WASP Males in the United States then you can either PM me or post it here.

For example there are anecdotal cases where anti-WASP male discrimination has occurred because if "Affirmative Action" but statistically anti-WASP male discrimination does not exist in the United States. The 7th Cavalry was slaughtered by Native-Americans but that is anecdotal because statistically it was the Native-Americans that were being slaughtered and oppressed at the time.

So sure, feel free to send me actual evidence of anti-WASP male oppression ever existing in the United States but don't send me anedotal BS that doesn't reflect it. There are always exceptions to everything and anecdotal cases unsupported by statistical evidence are really meaningless.

 

The part underlined isn't really a "political philosophy" but instead is related to issues.

So what is a "political philosophy" of "universal salvation" is the question I'm compelled to ask because that seems to be what is implied.

Politcal philosophy relates to the foundation of government and not that which government actually does after it's formed.

For example my political philosophy is expressed eloquently in our Declaration of Independence where it estabishes that "all person have inalienable Rights, the purpose of government is to protect those rights, and the powers of government originates with the powers of the people based upon the people exercising their Inalienable Rights."

It doesn't specifically address "issues" such as economic issues directly but does provide an overriding criteria that would certainly affect all issues of government. It imposes a limitation because the People cannot delegate a "power" to government that they don't have based upon their individual Inalienable Rights nor can government act without first being delegated a "power" by the People.

So the concept of a political philosophy based upon "universal salvation" intriques me because I don't have a clue as to what that implies.

 

Anarcho-Communist

 

I was right with you until the end. I didn't quite understand what you meant by this: "I say this because there are many people who will throw the baby out with the bathwater (rejecting the spirit and intent of our founding fathers) simply because these people are so violently opposed to any concept that has a foundation in Christianity." In the philosophy outlined by this, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." There is no mention of Christianity or any religion for that matter. It's deliberately left out, because how a person pursues "happiness" may have nothing at all to do with religion.

 

http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Anarcho-communist

As a card carrying "Libertarian" I actually object to even the reference to "libertarianism" related to the term Anarcho-Communist because it denies the Inalienable Right of Property of the Person established by the labor of the person. By analogy the misuse of the term "libertarian" by Tea Party Republicans like Rand Paul is just as offensive to me as an actual Libertarian.

Of course for those that believe the government can come along and take away the personal property of the person for whatever reason the term "Anarcho-Communist" is certainly appropriate but I don't believe that many people really believe the government should be allowed to do this.

 

It is often interesting because John Locke used religion (Christianity) as a foundation for his arguments for the "natural rights" of the person but he pulled that foundation out of context because the Bible does not advocate the Inalienable Rights of the Person and, in many cases, is juxtaposed to a belief in them. For example based upon the Bible a woman is not equal to a man and must submit to either the will of her father or her husband as an "inferior" person. The Bible did not oppose slavery either and Biblical passages were used to rationalize slavery for centuries.

There are extemist "Republicans" today that are calling for the repeal of spousal rape laws believing that the woman has an obligation to submit to the sexual demands of the husband against her will. There is certainly no consideration that all people are created equal and having certain inalienable rights in a belief that subjugates a woman to her husbands demands.

 

I believe it is more about Brothers of the Hood of Man, being (relatively) equal under our form of Nurture as contrasted to our existence in Nature as loyal subjects of the Animal Kingdom.

 

actual libertarian? ha ha ha

A rather unfortunate objection because the original use of the term "libertarian" was in reference to libertarian socialism, american conservatives have simply recently co-opted the term as a propaganda device. And since "property rights" themselves are at the center of any repressive system and thus the polar opposite of liberty it is also ridiculous from a logical standpoint.

How can one exist within a state of liberty if I am not free to walk on a certain patch of land because somebody else "owns" it?

Ludicrous, Orwellian hypocrisy at it's finest..

 

I must say, that I agree with your, and anarchists', analysis. It's indeed a very unfree system. But I don't care about the moral dimension of it. Convince me that anarchism would work in practice, with the end being the welbeing of all, and I'll be anarchist. To me it's obvious that whichever system which choose, there's going to come cons as well as pros with it. But some cons are more tolerable than others, and the benefits differ. Have you considered that while property rights might be inherently unfree, they could be justified because of the system they enable which work towards the welbeing of all by enabling a free market? That's how I see it.

 

If property rights actually worked for the well being of all it would be justified, but since they only work for the well being of a small segment of society at the expense of the rest of the world there is no valid justification to be found there.

Capitalism imposes external costs on society, market distribution does not take those costs into account so they are in effect a tax imposed by a non governmental entity without any representation or say in the matter at all. How is that justifiable in any way? To the contrary it is a clear violation of fiduciary duty.

 

No. They do not only work for that small segment. The distribution of benefit from this system may be unevenly divided, but it's better for everyone on average.

Capitalism can't impose anything: it's not an entity. Capitalism is people. I assume what you're talking about is externalities (affect on a third party, from an exchange between two other parties), which are indeed a problem. Those can be solved by tweaking the capitalist system.

 

Excellent question to prompt us to think .

 

Good thoughts....with ya on infrastructure and law enforcement.....not so much with ya "culture"? not sure how a government, or anyone for that matter, "invests" in culture. But on second thought, culture is invested in such as record labels and music. Not by government however. But on 3rd thought, I guess government does "invest" in the culture of "multiculturalism" so I stand self corrected!

Don't think government's role should be to "curb the excesses". You're in good company though. Plato thought that if a person earns 4x the ave wealth that it should be confiscated.

Insuring a level playing field, I agree, should be a condition; but the best way for government to do that is to stay out "of the business", so to speak.

"That investment should incentivize business to profit from working toward shared goals, like clean air, safe living, good health, education, communication. "
You lost me there, Fitzy.

I know one thing the government can do. Stop ripping us off by printing money.

 

I believe government should be eliminated in its entirety and at ALL levels. Anarchy today, anarchy tomorrow, anarchy forever. I don't need somebody to organize me like a steer at a feed lot. Crash the coin of the realm. I don't even want a military painting a target on my back and I certainly don't want its 'protection'.

 

I should also add that my political philosophy is informed by the morality of the Christian gospel message as articulated by Pope Francis, consistent with the ethical heritage of the US.

A democratic government of, by, and for the People is only an instrument for the People to express their moral values as a People towards the People.


.

 

I believe we could be securing the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity, if only, we had enough morals to bear true witness to the excellent job our Founding Fathers did at the convention with our federal Constitution.

 

I am of an independent sound and sober mentality.

 

im a Meritocratist - I generally believe in small govt and believe success as an individual should be limited to what effort you personally make to better yourself

On the other hand I believe that in dire circumstances that the govt should step in and help people out - ex. if someone's in 100s of 1000s of medical debt because they had a kid with cerebral palsy, I believe the govt should lend them a hand

This is why it's hard to find a party to fit in - the far left believes that if a person who's never made any effort in life to better themselves still deserves a "raise" just because those "evil corporations" supposedly made things hard for them - then OTOH some on the far right/libertarian platform think that if a married couple has a kid with severe medical issues who needs 100s of 1000s of dollars to support, that it's somehow "their fault" just for "not working hard enough"

I'm more of a political realisist/pragmatist than some hardcore ideologue, but that's just me

 

My political philosophy lately is to drop out of society, I give up. I live as remote as possible in an off grid home miles from my nearest neighbor and go to town once a month at most.

 

And yet you're on a message board on the internet. hmm.......

 

Something I wonder about too.

- - - Updated - - -

Something I wonder about too.