What Is Your Political Philosophy?

Airy fairy notions abound, but incontrovertible reality attests to all advanced nations being democratic and practicing regulated capitalism with a strong social welfare component.

There are variations on that paradigm and none is perfect, but it is, demonstrably, the best model humankind has devised.

Realists are not duped by whatever gossamer musings ideologues may conjure - whether some fanciful egalitarian utopia or a fictitious pipe dream of rabid social darwinism.

Imaginary worlds are inexhaustible, but that is only because the real one and insubstantial human flights of fancy accommodate them.

What undeniably works best is what has been shown to work best.



.

 

So you're a conservative. You should have just said that.

 

No, that's a term that has been misappropriated and misapplied. The fact that I prefer the system of governance of all advanced nations - the democratic ones with regulated capitalism and a strong social welfare component - provides far more clarity than a label subject to misinterpretation.

 

I am a Globalist as I announced in my introduction post. I desire more government regulation in various areas, mainly education, firearms, natural/alternative medicine, food production, living standards, media, public speech and health care.

My greatest concern is terrorism, especially of the "homegrown" variety. My view of terrorism is the definition can and should encompass any individual or group purposely creating public unrest. This means Anonymous is a terrorist organization to me but so is "Prison Planet/InfoWars". Both generate fear in segments of the population, stirring distrust of government officials and agencies.

My main values are Accountability, Security, Sustainability, Technology, Consciousness, Reason, Interdependence.

 

I am a Social Democrat not affiliating with any American political party. My username is a bit misleading (apologies about that), since my views have evolved considerably since I registered for this forum a couple months ago.

Basic summary:

Economics: I am economically left wing, but not to the extent of full socialism. I support making the welfare state universal, having a steeply progressive tax rate, and regulating corporations so that the average person has an actual chance of making their way up in society. All of this would be in the framework of a capitalist economy.

Social Issues: Simply, I oppose punishing an individual for their own decisions. I'm fairly libertarian in this area.

Foreign Policy: I support non-interventionism and diplomacy as an alternative to warfare. I oppose tariffs and support free trade in general. Our military budget should be cut in half and our military monopoly should be reduced.

As far as individual issues, you'll see that soon enough.

 

The honest truth is our political beliefs mean nothing we are the republic of the United States not a democracy our federal government isn't supposed to do anything but follow our constitution it is all they should think about as our founding fathers intended. And every state is supposed to be their own individual democracy ruled by the republics common laws. I've heard people say that it's out of date and the fact is it's our currents system that is out of date. Democracies have been around way before we were and they always turn to tyranny or socialism. This is why our founding fathers chose a republic, because republics are the only ones capable of standing the test of time, but we are failing them and the many that died for the advanced government the constitution initially put in place. Our founding fathers intended for each of us to be soveriegn in nature and only subject to the state that we are in. The federal government shouldn't have anything to do with our daily lives. The founding fathers knew that big government Ment oppression of the people with things such as direct taxes, debt, public police and, contracts we unknowingly sign at birth. And with information suppression and the bending/hiding true realities that politicians make a living on twisting peoples minds and making us think we are the greatest democracy. My recent research shows we are far from great but rather used to be the great republic and that was taken from us with out us knowing. Fake money, direct taxes, policed states, federal control over an individual, and many other things in our country is unconstitutional and it's time the people wake up and put things how they belong. I'm not anti- gov just pro-constitution

 

Whence cometh this myth prevalent amongst american conservatives that the United States of America is not a democracy? What confused youtube video, or radio talkshow host is responsible for this madness? Democracy literally means "rule by the people". Are you telling me the US isn't ruled by the people, albeit indirectly via representatives? Republic, for you information, pretty much means any non-monarchial government.

 

I am not in favor with the terrorists you call founding fathers. Their ideas are obsolete and the document they wrote is likewise. What the United States needs is a new document ensuring certain liberties but making sure to declare others as irresponsible.

 

This definition of "libertarianism" describes my political philosophy in addition to the word "individualist," although it still seems that the word "libertarian" may have been hijacked beyond redemption by the right.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/05/laurence-m-vance/i-am-a-libertarian/

 

A Torah Based Messianic Theocracy

https://sites.google.com/a/thekings...the-protestant-scripturalist-church-s-beliefs

 

Define progressive. By progressive what you mean is you don't like religious ideas.

You are a Buddhist. Individual autonomy is inherently impossible as a human being. You don't choose to be born; your parents force you to be here. You don't choose to be a citizen of a certain country, your parents force you. You don't choose to speak a certain language; etc. You don't choose you educational curriculum, etc.

By rights you sneak in privilege and franchise and this equivocate on a primary concept you are working with. Stabilizing the economy? LOL! You people are the ones who gave birth to the corrupt modern banking system and to Capitalism with the Renaissance and Darwin, and you want a stable economy. That is just precious.

But genders are not equal. Civilization is built on the accomplishments of men not women.

http://drakeshelton.com/2014/02/11/...acy-acknowledged-the-lesbian-spirit-rejected/

So, you want the money of accomplished white people to go to unaccomplished black people that hate them. Got it.

 

Is this really the case or is it because you know your money will be going to help people that hate you?

No you don't. My ancestors already mastered poverty with southern slavery while giving the blacks a favorable standard of living among white western nations as I have proved in exhaustive detail:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dh10NiKwUI0

But you republicans in your insane jealousy had to destroy an institution blessed by God in the bible Gen. 24:35.

You don;t know your American History. Economic inequality was answered by Jefferson's Agrarian Republic led by the Gentleman Planter.

You are aiding the Genocide of the original WASP population.

http://drakeshelton.com/2014/05/09/...xican-invasion-predicted-in-the-19th-century/

http://drakeshelton.com/2014/05/05/stop-the-genocide-of-the-southern-white-protestant-bible-belt/

Amnesty is all about Counter Reformation.

 

So then pedophilia is allowed in your system. Got it.

 

BS. You enlightenmenters are just as philosophical as the christians. Southern slavery worked fantastic as I have proved:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dh10NiKwUI0

but you think slavery is evil don't you?

Ridiculous. Muslims do not keep the torah and western nations did not believe in pathological lying, i mean gender equality until the last century. Were they all shariah based? Nope!

Hilarious. Gender equality has no basis in fact whatsoever.

http://drakeshelton.com/2014/02/11/...acy-acknowledged-the-lesbian-spirit-rejected/

- - - Updated - - -

Define liberal without adhering strictly to the anthropology of Buddhism or the traditional Catholic monastery.

 

If you believe in non-compulsion then you cannot have children, make them citizens, teach them your language or choose an educational curriculum for them.

 

So then a declaration of independence is ruled out?

How do you define justice?

How do you define liberty and if it is for your posterity how is that liberty? Sounds like compulsion to me.

 

That would the part where it affects others in a negative way. Sexually abusing a child is not considered affecting others in a negative way in your system? That's interesting.

 

Is that what they have in Israel?

 

I'm a conservative liberal. For americans who don;t understand the idea that there is conservative liberalism I suggest you read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_liberalism

 

Im a libertarians not the anarchist type the moderate type. did consider my self a conservative and I still hold strong fiscal conservative small government and strict constitutional views like a conservative, but their social views was just to much for me

Im for legalization of Pot, and even though I disagree with Gays and the way they are going about trying to legalize gay marriage with there gestapo tactics. I'm for allowing them to do so. actually if you want the truth I feel the government should get out of the business of marriage altogether just have both Gay and Straight sign a contract of civil union and let the religious institutes argue what is a marriage

Im for legalization of abortion up to 12 weeks after that I conceder the unborn after 12 weeks to be human enough to be considered human there for granted all the rights and protections as any other human. Now I know you are going to say that goes against the libertarian views, but I say different it is right in line with a libertarian views it just depends when the libertarian decides when the unborn is human

I side with a very small and limited power federal government I believe it should be stripped of most of its power and control it should be limited to national defense and foreign relations and a few other powers but not many
government on a state and local level are better situated and suited to provide the needs of it citizenry then a large out of control centralized government

 

What are 'Gestapo tactics'? Do they arrest people in the middle of the night and send them to Concentration camps without trial or are you referring to their use of torture?

 

you are getting the SS confused with the Gestapo

'Gestapo tactics' s a synonym to convey forcing conformity through threats and intimidation

 

All national level politicians are corrupt to one degree or another and a national level (U.S. politician) is anyone who's a U.S. Representative or Senator or state governor or any mayor of any major U.S. city of at least several million people. Most other politicians are also corrupt, but the people in the above positions can do major damage to a region . . . and frequently do.

Considering that all national level politicians are corrupt it's pretty much fruitless to use corruption as a yardstick for choosing between the different scum -- assuming that we are not talking about off the wall corruption so staggeringly obvious that the man or woman has become a living stereotype, that is. So what should be the criteria for choosing between these people? Select the most competent politicians, period and the ones who seem more interested in doing some useful work than in lining their own pockets or in doing absolutely anything in order to stay in office and in power. Granted the second criteria is as rare as ethics or integrity in a Mainstream Media journalist or pundit, but there's nothing inherently impossible in that happening.

Party? What about party? Wellllllllll . . . truth to tell, as long as he or she is not a forking out and out mindless socialist or Marxist then there's nothing fatally wrong in voting for a Democratic Party politician up to and including for the presidency and ditto for the Republicans, assuming that he or she is not a Westboro Baptist Church type of utter fanatic. Oh . . . and do your best to stay away from out and out warmonger types Left or Right . . . but then again how do you know in advance that the G.W. Bush or Barack Obama you are examining for -- say -- the presidency are both total warmongers -- if of slightly different bents? So I'll give voters a pass on that one. Just do the best you can.

Anyway that's my political philosophy for selecting upper level candidates for various higher offices. It's not much but then neither are most higher level candidates and that's because by accident more so than by design our system only allows for (mostly) the most egocentric, aggressive, inherently non-intellectual (especially if they are an attorney and nowadays they are almost ALL attorneys) male or female rump-holes to make meaningful runs at higher office because those are the types best suited for surviving the EVIL political process itself and are also the types who are almost eager to spit on anything resembling ethics, honor, or integrity.

Um . . . have I mentioned that I am a cynic's cynic when it comes to politics, politicians, and the political system? But perhaps you managed to get the barest hint of that from the nature of my response, yes?

 

I am not confused at all. the Gestapo were the geheime Staats Polizei , ie the secret state police force akin to Parts of the FBI in the USA.

A more apt analogy with nazi germany would be the Sturm Abteilung or 'Brown shirts'

When have you been beaten up by gay people? I know lots of Gay people who have been beaten up by straights demanding their conformity

 

The objective reality is that slavery resulted in widespread human misery and, in the US alone, the deaths of 600,000 Americans and the collapse of much of the South's infrastructure. Whether you have proved to yourself that record indicates that slavery was "fantastic", most would differ.

All humans are fallible, and it follows that their social constructs are as well, but some have proved to be better than others.

You can deny the empirical evidence that western, democratic nations that regulate capitalism and embrace a strong social welfare commitment have achieved the highest quality of life on earth, but you have failed to offer a superior paradigm.

You may exclude women from the proposition that "All Men are created equal" - or those of other races or ethnicities, for that matter - but it is an admirable aspiration for most, and democratic self-governance defines it as the societal principle that it is. It works for people.

Advanced societies transcend slavery and gender discrimination. That's the reality.

What makes pragmatism such a successful philosophy is that what demonstrably works best is what is also morally superior.

The advanced nations that set the standard do well as they strive to do good.

If you can honestly name a single country anywhere on earth that qualifies as an alternative that others should emulate, just name it.



.