-
Would you like to discuss your political convictions? I’d like to hear some viewpoints. I’ll probably disagree with a few, but I’d like to hear them. Where do you stand on the issues? Would you care to go into detail about why you stand where you stand?
-
Er, name an issue, makes things easier.
Generally speaking, I’m very much laissez-faire when it comes to personal morality – gay marriage, religion, drug use, abortion: as little government intervention as possible. A free market system is fine, as long as it comes with some social corrections. Not as much redistribution of wealth as making sure all citizens get the same chances in life: education especially should be heavily invested in.
Government intervention in other areas is needed as well, though care should be taking such intervention does not become overbearing. I do not believe the market will magically solve everything – some relatively minor public spending can do wonders to solve societal ails… On the other hand, too much public spending can cause ails as well.
On the European scale, I’m hovering between liberal democrat and social democrat, with a touch of other views thrown in.
-
-
Re:
Reminds me of Thomas Paine. We definitely share a lot of beliefs. I think you covered everything. Do your international policies (war, poverty, ect) also reflect the belief that government should have as little intervention as possible? -
-
Mmm, sounds like I need to read some Thomas Paine then.
I’m not sure about international policies – though I’m definitely not a stereotypical liberal there. I think international law in itself is meaningless as long as there’s no one to enforce it – power comes from the barrel of a gun, you know – so it’s rather pointless to blame nation states for not holding themselves to such laws. They have the responsibility to act in the best interest of their citizens, but nothing further than that.
On the other hand, a democracy should respect the rights of man, and I think a more considerate approach pays off better in the long run. Just look at current events.
Wars are inevitable I suppose, and sometimes necessary. However, they should be kept as short as possible (as the Chinese classics have it, no empire can survive winning for too long). So pursuing a too aggressive foreign policy is probably detrimental to the state in the long run.
As for poverty, it is definitely a complicated situation. The Earth probably won’t support Western standards of living for all 6 billion people, so that requires some pretty drastic steps… In any case, trade and commerce are probably a good first step. EU farm subsidies should be reduced drastically, for starters…
So, yeah, as little as possible – but heavily where needed. Not too much, not too little.
-
-
-
General believer in freedom
I believe in a free market, but also in a (generally) unregulated state in terms of so called ‘moral’ issues for example gay rights, divorce, freedom of speech etc.
The regulation I strongly believe in, however, is in terms of physical/sexual assaults. I don’t think that it’s a ‘free’ society if killers/rapists etc can walk free.
My feelings towards the free market come from times when the free market was very unregulated (OK, seen through museums). The companies that were (and still are) successful cared for their workforce, providing schools and hospitals. Therefore, I think that companies should be allowed freedom to provide such schemes for the workforce. -
Libertarian by Choice
I believe in a free market, limited government, individual freedom and personal responsibility.
Have you noticed how far the U.S. has drifted away from those founding points?
If you haven’t, take time to read Ayn Rand… Compare the moments she depicts in ‘Atlas Shrugged’ to what is really happening today (not just in the U.S., but on a global scale).
Personally, I believe the U.S. is long over-due for a good abolishment and that this so-called “Democracy” is definitely going to fail. We have forgotten the meaning of the word, it seems.And Pozo, I agree very much with your touch on business practices in history. Kudos.
-
In response to the two posts above this one...
On the other hand, some of the companies that were successful back then were successful by exploiting the natives of some out-of-the-way African colony. Yay free market.Or they saved money by exploiting their own workers: low wages, child labour, long hours… Sure, some factory owners dabbled in charity, but that only increased their power: you don’t want to work today? Bye healthcare (limited as it was), bye education for your children.
The thing about government involvement in those areas is that it reduces corporate leverage, making humans into less of a plaything and allowing them to be less dependent on their wages and bosses.
The companies that did those things might have been more successful, but were overall living conditions better? Were people more free because the government didn’t care about them?
If you’d like another argument, 19th century working and living conditions spawned communism – an extreme on the other end of the scale. I think it does prove people didn’t really like the system they lived in.
-
-
Communism
Communism took over in places where (royalty led) government was already strong. Places like Russia.
Not all places with royalty had communism (in the UK there was a royal family, ‘big’ (for those days) businesses, a strong class system yet althouth it ‘gave way’ it gave way to socialism/light conservatism with a royal family) not to communism.
Absolute monarchy gave way to communism, not businesses. Absolute monarchy is wrong because it doesn’t involve elections. I don’t mind monarchy (although it is quite a waste of tax payers money), but I do mind absolute monarchy.
The difference can be seen in the UK system of government (where although I dislike the Prime minister at least he’s been elected) and the Saudi style of government. In one there’s a monarchy, but it doesn’t make too much of a difference. In another there’s a powerful, unelected royalty which makes decisions that are not good for the people.People should work. It’s good for the economy, and it’s good for their own sense of wealth. In places where there isn’t relative poverty this either becomes false, the place has absolute (which is wrong. in the ideal world there would be no absolute poverty eg children starving) poverty or both.
-
-
Ah, it’s not that it took over; it’s that it was created and sparked organised labour movements. This in turn led to political pressure to improve conditions for the working class – communist revolutions were successful in places where the government was not responsive enough to workers’ demands. (As you mentioned, Russia). A kind of darwinian democracy, you might call it.
I don’t think the strength of government has much to do with it. A communist revolution was attempted in Germany. It was even successful for a while, controlling a number of cities, but it was eventually squashed. Germany could hardly have been accused of not having a strong government in those days – popular support matters more than anything, I think.
Absolute monarchy is a form of government, capitalism a way of organising the economy. Communism encompasses both aspects. Capitalism did rise under absolute monarchies, and businesses have had considerable power even in countries under an absolute monarch (I’m thinking mainly of the East India Companies here – the Dutch one even had armies of its own).
Again, companies were more free back then, but did that create better living conditions? There was absolute poverty back in the 19th century, and I think you can ascribe at least part of that to the lack of public social infrastructure.
Yes, people should work. (Question: if you think that’s true in all cases, shouldn’t we prevent rich people from sitting on their money and doing nothing?). However, this does not mean they should be left stranded when they can’t find said work. I’m not saying they should be funded unconditionally either, mind…
This also does not address the question of public health & education. You could raise a good number of reasons of why they should be (at least partly) public and not entirely left to companies to organise, but that’s wholly different topic – if you wish though, we could go there.
-
-
People have certain beliefs in all societies. There is a BNP in Britain, but although that is a bad thing, it’s scarier that there was a Nazi party in 1930’s Germany as they came to the party.
Socialism has been (and is) a form of government in the west.
Yes, there was absolute poverty. Especially amongst people who didn’t work. There was also charity. Charities aren’t part of the state, yet they did some of the jobs of the state. They educated the poor, gave healthcare for ‘invalids’ and helped giving money to the poor.
Yes we should expect the rich to work, and if they have high enough inheritances to survive without working they should still be expected to work for charity. Managing and running companies classifies as work. Work for charity classifies not only as work but also as charity. -
-
Yes, but these beliefs are a reaction to their environment. Communism did not appear out of the blue, nor did facism, nor any other political faction. That communism and socialism were so strong back can be attributed to the conditions the working class found themselves in, I think..
Yes, socialism has been a form of government, but it also comes with a way of organising the economy. (if you’re referring to social democracy, that’s a different pair of shoes).
There was absolute poverty even among those who worked. And those who didn’t work probably didn’t do this out of their own will. I do not trust charities with government work – as a supplement, yes, the main providers, no. To be cynical, all they did was keep the people just fed enough that they didn’t revolt. Yes, they did alleviate some short-term needs, but the social work and infrastructure needed to remove the reason people had to rely on charity required government intervention.
Why should they be expected to work? Also, how would you go about enforcing this?
-
-
-
-
-
More of a question than a statement!
in response to “general believer in freedom”You said if a killer or rapist can walk free…
what is everyones view on capital punishment…I am from the UK and in my opinion its the one policy I would amend before all others…
I think the politically correct nonsense we are fed is a display of a weak government who is afraid to act..
so as I said above…what are your views?
James -
-
Too Risky
In the ideal world I’d believe in it, but this isn’t an ideal world and even nowadays people get arrested for murder and put into prison when they haven’t done it. Therefore, it might mean innocent people die and I don’t believe in it for that reason.
If there was any way of knowing someone was a mass murderer for certain I’d agree with it. Only for murder, though. For sexual assault, I believe it would be ok for physical punishments (like castration) but not death.
I think our government isn’t ‘weak’. I think it creates rules where it shouldn’t and doesn’t think about the real crimes that exist in society (and would be condemned by most societies) -
It’s not a good punishment – ideally, the judicial system should prevent people from committing other crimes, and preferably cause sufficient change in their thinking that they can once again contribute to society, or at the very least to regret their actions.
Now, I’m not naive and know that that’s not an option in some (or even most) cases. However, incarceration and other forms of punishment still prevent the perpetrator from causing trouble while he’s in prison.
There’s also the ethical aspect of a government killing its own citizens, and the lack of cost/effectiveness of the death penalty in a modern system (with all its procedures and relative humaneness).
That said, I’m not altogether closed-off to other forms of corporal punishment, as long as they’re responsibly handled..
-
No
The goal is to save life, not destroy it. What message are we sending when we justify murder? Strength lies in reason.
-
-
All good comments
I can agree with points of all who answered my question…I pose you the next question…why is it reasonable for the family of a murdered person to continue giving tax money which could in SOME (minute) part be funding the living expenses of a killer?
If it was an ideal system and hypothetically it could have 100% accuracy in judgement…would that make it more acceptable as a punishment for taking life in cold blood…I think so
????
-
-
Why is it reasonable for me to keep paying taxes when a minute part of that may be going to, say, biological weapons development, or anything else I don’t agree with?
Regardless of what the government does, you are expected to pay taxes – unfair as that may be.
In return, you get a say in how that money is spend (or on who decides how it is spend) via elections. That might be sufficient reason – I don’t really think there’s a ‘right’ answer to your question…However accurate, it will still be costly to prove the killer’s guilt and to exhaust all appeals…
-
-
I am strongly anti-war
I do not support our troops
The president should be impeached
Gay Marriage should be legal everywhere
Marijuana and other psychedelic drugs should be legalized
Guns should be obliterated
Public nudity should be 100% legal
Church and state should be once and for all separated
I could go on.
| |||||||
Adding your reply:
Incredible Fairy
Aug 7 2:28 PM 2005
Reply