Political Persuasion

[Scrapheap]

How would you describe your political beliefs ??

Personaly, Mine defy conventional labels. I could convince a Conservative that I'm a communist and a Liberal that I'm a fascist.

I take Bruce Lee's Jeet Kune Do aproach to political philosophy. Have no form as your form, have no method as your method.

[McGiver]

i just wanna be a gun toting redneck that plays the banjo on the porch of my cabin.

[duncvis]

My own - my political beliefs usually stem from anarchist principles, but with a healthy dose of pragmatism and working class ethics thrown in.

[Leto729]

I am moderate in My beliefs politically.

[odeon]

Me? I'm often more liberal than conservative, but I make up my own mind instead of using other people's labels. The results are sometimes weird.

[Eamonn]

i just wanna be a gun toting redneck that plays the banjo on the porch of my cabin.

If it's any comfort, i think you'd do the job quite well.

[McGiver]

i just wanna be a gun toting redneck that plays the banjo on the porch of my cabin.

If it's any comfort, i think you'd do the job quite well.

don't forget about my droopy eyed hound dog.

[Scrapheap]

i just wanna be a gun toting redneck that plays the banjo on the porch of my cabin.

You mean like Fuzzy Lumpkins ?? ?? ??


[attachment deleted by admin]

[ASpHole]

I started out as an Anarchist, however this has more or less been tempered into more or less Left leaning Libertarian beliefs.

[Scrapheap]

My own - my political beliefs usually stem from anarchist principles, but with a healthy dose of pragmatism and working class ethics thrown in.

Do you mean Libertarian when you say "anarchist" ?? or something else ??

[duncvis]

I mean Left libertarian as with ASpHole, i.e. social rather than economic. American Libertarians typically favour an extreme free market model - I'd rather see small scale cooperative ventures and an extension of free association and syndicates/umbrella groups of free operators creating economies of scale replacing the corporate led, people crushing model we have today. No need to squash individual freedom or innovation, while not riding roughshod over the environment, the workers, or a country's citizens for profit or competitive advantage, or in the name of dogma, as the IMF and the transnationals and their political puppets do today. In all social matters I prefer as little interference by the state as possible. A lot of other state functions regarding health, welfare etc could and should be handled on a collaborative level rather than being stripped away - in a syndicalist/cooperative model the pooling of resources should not be difficult to achieve and would be resented less than the existing taxation model I reckon. Thats the basics anyway. I've no illusions as to whether it is likely to happen but thats what I'd like to see happen.

[Teejay]

I'm moderately conservative I guess.

But others would say I am very conservative. I do agree with libetarians a lot on economic policies. But not on moral and social policies which I believe in what I say a 'big government' approach. Defending traditional values, fanatical on law and order.

The politican who would match me ideologically is Rudi Guilani. Although I oppose same sex marriage and believe divorce laws should be more strict.

[Scrapheap]

.......... I do agree with libetarians a lot on economic policies. But not on moral and social policies which I believe in what I say a 'big government' approach.........

You're confusing Libertarians with Liberals. Libertarians don't advocate a "big government" approach to social issues. Rather they believe on letting people make their own choices.

......and believe divorce laws should be more strict.

Why should divorce laws be more strict ?? If two people made a mistake by getting married and want out should'nt they be allowed to make that choice ?? What about a woman who's being abused ?? Why would you make it harder for her to escape being beaten ??

[Scrapheap]

I mean Left libertarian as with ASpHole, i.e. social rather than economic. American Libertarians typically favour an extreme free market model - I'd rather see small scale cooperative ventures and an extension of free association and syndicates/umbrella groups of free operators creating economies of scale replacing the corporate led, people crushing model we have today.

Although I agree with this philosophy, it's the actual implementation that I would have a problem with. Large Corporations aren't simply going to give up their power AND money just so we could have a more socialy equitible system. To dismantle large corporate structures would require a MASSIVE WORLDWIDE government agency with almost pure dictorial athority. That much power in on place will certianly be massively corrupt.

No need to squash individual freedom or innovation, while not riding roughshod over the environment, the workers, or a country's citizens for profit or competitive advantage, or in the name of dogma, as the IMF and the transnationals and their political puppets do today.

Again, in theory I would agree, but it's where these beliefs meet the real world that the laws of unintended consequences come into play.

In all social matters I prefer as little interference by the state as possible. A lot of other state functions regarding health, welfare etc could and should be handled on a collaborative level rather than being stripped away - in a syndicalist/cooperative model the pooling of resources should not be difficult to achieve and would be resented less than the existing taxation model I reckon.

The closest thing to that I've ever seen is health ASSURANCE programs where the money paid into the system is invested in low risk ventures. The profits from the investments are used to run the system, while the money the members pay in is accounted for and exists in a seperate "account". when a member pulls out of the system, they get most of what they paid into it. It sure beats health "Insurance" (or taxation in you case) where your money just goes down a black hole.

[Teejay]

You're confusing Libertarians with Liberals. Libertarians don't advocate a "big government" approach to social issues. Rather they believe on letting people make their own choices.

I believe in people making their own choices to an extent. Especially on things like economic matters, however when I come to social and moral issues I am traditionalist and believe the government has a role in defending traditional values. I am very much opposed to things like cultural relativism and environmentalism.

Why should divorce laws be more strict ?? If two people made a mistake by getting married and want out should'nt they be allowed to make that choice ?? What about a woman who's being abused ?? Why would you make it harder for her to escape being beaten ??

I do not believe in no fault divorce laws, divorces should only be granted if there is fault with the marriage (i.e a woman is being beaten by her husband). Also couples should go through compulsory counseling before marriage. Divorce is a serious social problem and it especially affects the childern involved.  I find it worrying half of all marriages end up in divorce.