What are your political views?

[peener weener]

progressivist socialist, by your definitions

[Makaze]

Strong socialist and libertarian leanings.

Strongly opposed to the political game for its dishonest nature.

[Ownagepuffs]

Conservative Republican. I'm often met with a lot of surprise at this fact because I'm African American. However, the GOP has become a hub of idiocy, so I rather not put it out there in public.

Being progressive is good, being progressive to the point where we have to be sensitive to the needs of everything that breathes is not.

[jiodi]

I feel like "Progressive" should really be put in a league of its own. You can have conservative values or liberal values and still believe in progress haha.

[Phoenix Wright]

i feel the problem with progressivism is that the definition is very broad and inviting, but in practice, at least in the united states, most people aren't actually progressives. everyone seems to believe in change, that it is good, necessary, wise, but when change happens, or when change is attempted, many people resent it. we don't want modern nuclear reactors built because they're scary, unsafe, and expensive. we don't want to legalize drugs because drugs are dangerous, and more people would start to use them, endangering more lives in the process. we don't want to rebuild our infrastructure because it would take far too much time and far too much money. we don't want to change our political structure because that would give rise to more, worse problems. these changes are too fast and too soon; we've got to wait, people say. i think it's all baloney. especially with the examples above.

with change, of course, the question a progressive always asks is, if not now, when? (or at least a progressive like me.)

also, i think something that's missing from this list is authoritarianism. i personally have a few authoritarian beliefs.

Edited July 8, 2014 by Phoenix Wright

[jiodi]

lol authoritarian beliefs? Examples plox

[Phoenix Wright]

i'd have to sit and think about every one of them, but a big example in my head is the military. a disciplined military needs an authoritarian structure in order to work, in my opinion. you can't have lower-ranking soldiers and officers acting willy-nilly just because that's what they want to do. it will fall apart from the ground up.

with society as a whole, i probably don't hold any truly authoritarian beliefs, but anyway i think it's necessary for people to realize the importance of leadership and why things work when you have a powerful, unbending leader. occupy wall street had no guidance, no leader, no clear goals, and therefore was a complete failure. things could have very well been different if they had a leader.

[Dark Sage]

yeah but people will tell you that having a leader would defeat the point and that the purpose is purely to raise awareness.

if you ask me though, that smacks purely of excuse making.

[Zeithri]

My color is black and I'm an Anarchist.

I want to believe in the Good of the people to do right and justly in order for progress and to not harm others.

To accept all and everyone and not divide.

Unfortunately, I know that it's just wishful thinking but, I can't trust any politicians. I just can't.

So on the political spectrum, I end up somewhere the bottom left on the green which I think was liberalism and social freedom.

Not entirely sure. But I do value personal freedom a lot.

[Rapier]

We should transcend the need for money not because 'money is evil' but because we can achieve a state where we no longer need it, hence why I used 'transcend'. There isn't too much wrong with it now and it his a purpose and a place, but we have a future and we should try to make it the best we can.

You do realize that this is very, very utopic, right? We do need some kind of currency to exchange for goods and for business. There is no such a thing as free lunch, and there never will be as long as humans have needs and expenses to be taken care of. Heck, even a socialist state is bound to money in some sort of "state capitalism".

Just a commentary, I don't want to incite a debate here.

I'd say I'm socially a tad conservative (I hold no love for religion, though, and I will criticize the bullshit that some right-wing people do if I think it is the right thing) and economically I am completely liberal and pro laissez-faire. A libcon, if you will. I am very skeptical toward ideologies and -isms because they tend to bind people to dogmas which may not be justified by themselves.

[Bishop Rodan]

Democratic socialist. I am pro "big government" in the sense that I support a strong social welfare state and substantial government intervention to achieve a fairer, more just society, while at the same time I also support strong protections for individual rights.

[Lord Raven]

You do realize that this is very, very utopic, right? We do need some kind of currency to exchange for goods and for business. There is no such a thing as free lunch, and there never will be as long as humans have needs and expenses to be taken care of. Heck, even a socialist state is bound to money in some sort of "state capitalism".

Just a commentary, I don't want to incite a debate here.

Yeah in my ideal utopia, those are my political views. No money, just a huge community working together and working to their strengths for preservation.

Realistically I believe in what Bishop Rodan says, if only because I believe people are victims or benefactors of circumstances

[Nicolas]

I'm form country which know that socialism can't work well.

My views about economic are similar to Adam Smith's (noeclassic economy). However I think government should do something give some support to beginning company and should prevent monopoly or even oligopoly (of course not every monopoly or oligopoly is bad but we should limit them to minimum).

About mores and things like that; government should respect tradition and history nation.

I think the welfare state is something really bad and it kills enterprise. I also hate over everything postmodernism (it's cancer).

Edited November 10, 2014 by Nicolas

[Rapier]

I'm form country which know that socialism can't work well.

Not to mention it was refuted by many renowned intellectuals. We've tried it, like, 5 times and they still don't learn. Or maybe they don't want to learn, since it is beneficial for the State to have as much control over people's lives as possible, which is something that socialism allows, because it doesn't only try to fix social problems, but it also creates more social problems to be fixed.

It is only popular around the caviar left-wing and poor country politicians (Brazil's case, aka my country), as misery gives the State a reason to become larger in order to save the people from said problem.

Yeah in my ideal utopia, those are my political views. No money, just a huge community working together and working to their strengths for preservation.

Realistically I believe in what Bishop Rodan says, if only because I believe people are victims or benefactors of circumstances

What is the point of being utopic? We know it is not applicable in reality, therefore it is only useful for fantasy and romance books.

The danger in a "huge community working together and working to their strengths for preservation, without money" comes from the fact that it will become much like an ant/bee "society". Each person will have their own designed roles; their own designated orders for what they will produce, how much they will produce, for who they will produce; the State will have a totalitarian authority to take that which is yours in the name of "social justice" etc.

In short, 1984, by George Orwell.

Edited November 10, 2014 by Rapier

[eclipse]

The danger in a "huge community working together and working to their strengths for preservation, without money" comes from the fact that it will become much like an ant/bee "society". Each person will have their own designed roles; their own designated orders for what they will produce, how much they will produce, for who they will produce; the State will have a totalitarian authority to take that which is yours in the name of "social justice" etc.

In short, 1984, by George Orwell.

How in the world did you get to that conclusion?

[Phoenix Wright]

Not to mention it was refuted by many renowned intellectuals. We've tried it, like, 5 times and they still don't learn. Or maybe they don't want to learn, since it is beneficial for the State to have as much control over people's lives as possible, which is something that socialism allows, because it doesn't only try to fix social problems, but it also creates more social problems to be fixed.

It is only popular around the caviar left-wing and poor country politicians (Brazil's case, aka my country), as misery gives the State a reason to become larger in order to save the people from said problem.

...like? every popular economic system has been refuted by some group of "renowned intellectuals." also, socialist models have been successful in practice before (and currently, like germany). creates more how? what new ones are introduced that laissez-faire capitalism doesn't have?

in addition to extreme exploitation, the fundamental flaw of hands-off capitalism is that monopolies are inevitable--and with the introduction of monopolies, progress is halted. this is the antithesis of capitalism's goal. the fact that there still remain advocates of laissez-faire capitalism is completely beyond me.

Edited November 10, 2014 by Phoenix Wright

[Rapier]

How in the world did you get to that conclusion?

To meet the needs of an entire society through a colectivized production policy, we'd need a huge regulationary government. This is elementary. =_=

socialist models have been successful in practice before (and currently, like germany). creates more how? what new ones are introduced that laissez-faire capitalism doesn't have?

History shows empirical evidence pointing otherwise, but I will take it that you are referring to social democracies, because this is the only option which makes sense. None of the scandinavian countries would've managed to instaure wellfare state policies without first having a strong economy to build it upon, because these policies are too expensive to implant without a solid base. Norway's wellfare policies depend highly on their oil, for example, whereas Sweden enjoys their high competitive market policies as a mean to fund their wellfare policies.

Laissez-faire models are much less expensive and more practical than wellfare state models, because the former generates riches while the latter spends these riches, thus there is a clear dependence between wellfare state and a competitive economy market that funds it. There is also a clear relation between high economical development and laissez-faire, as this ranking shows. Therefore, laissez-faire models are superior to wellfare state models.

in addition to extreme exploitation, the fundamental flaw of hands-off capitalism is that monopolies are inevitable--and with the introduction of monopolies, progress is halted. this is the antithesis of capitalism's goal. the fact that there still remain advocates of laissez-faire capitalism is completely beyond me.

Capitalism has its problems, that much is true. But socialist and wellfare models have more problems than laissez-faire models. Nothing more protectionist, monopolist and cartelizing as a state capitalism based economy. For example, in Brazil we have highly cartelized internet and phone services because the government's regulatory agency imposes a lot of market restrictions, making it harder for other companies to come and compete with our "national giants" which spoil the people indiscriminately with expensive services and low efficiency. This would not happen in a competitive market model.

[eclipse]

To meet the needs of an entire society through a colectivized production policy, we'd need a huge regulationary government. This is elementary. =_=

Less conclusion, more methodology. I'm looking for the logic behind this assumption, and I'm still not sure how you came to this conclusion.

[Rapier]

Less conclusion, more methodology. I'm looking for the logic behind this assumption, and I'm still not sure how you came to this conclusion.

We are speaking about a fictional society where everyone's needs are fulfilled by a colective production policy with the absence of money, are we not? Very well. This means either: a) a feudal-like society where we exchange, say, meat for cheese, in an individual and voluntary level, or b) a centralized society where the State administrates what goes for who, in which quantity, and how much we must produce, and how we will produce, in order to satisfy everyone's needs "efficiently". The first option leads to economical regress, the second option leads to a socialist dystopy. Pick the route.

A real life example can be found in the Kibutz, if you are interested (and my explanation skills suck, go me).

This also sparks ethical questions. If your rights demands that someone works to satisfy your needs, is this not an indirect slavery? We can not have the right for shoes because this implies a shoemaker has the duty to provide you with shoes, for example. Not to mention this is a compulsory deal imposed upon both parties.

Edited November 11, 2014 by Rapier

[Lord Raven]

What is the point of being utopic? We know it is not applicable in reality, therefore it is only useful for fantasy and romance books.

Okay what the fuck? I was just saying that my ideal society is that, I stated my political views in application to reality right afterwards. Why in the hell did you focus on that then call me a dreamer?

b) a centralized society where the State administrates what goes for who, in which quantity, and how much we must produce, and how we will produce, in order to satisfy everyone's needs "efficiently". The first option leads to economical regress, the second option leads to a socialist dystopy. Pick the route.

I'd pick this route. Again, in an ideal society, you have the state administering this fairly, but the quantity is there and plays to strengths, education, and interest. There is a reason it is just ideal and not a reality. I also believe a dictatorship is the ideal form of government, so long as the dictator is fair and just, but alas such a thing does not happen.

I firmly believe the pursuit of wealth, possessions, and greed is what causes many of our society issues, and I believe in society where those factors are eliminated. However, that's impossible, so the best we can do is reduce their influence over necessities like healthcare and things to that extent, hence I believe my realistic views are more applicable.

Edited November 11, 2014 by Lord Raven

[eclipse]

We are speaking about a fictional society where everyone's needs are fulfilled by a colective production policy with the absence of money, are we not? Very well. This means either: a) a feudal-like society where we exchange, say, meat for cheese, in an individual and voluntary level, or b) a centralized society where the State administrates what goes for who, in which quantity, and how much we must produce, and how we will produce, in order to satisfy everyone's needs "efficiently". The first option leads to economical regress, the second option leads to a socialist dystopy. Pick the route.

Hmmmm. . .what if there was a society where the government provided enough such that someone had their basic needs fulfilled (food, shelter, medical care, etc.), but luxuries required said person to get off their rear and earn it? Services can be bartered (such as, "help build these houses to get what you want").

This also sparks ethical questions. If your rights demands that someone works to satisfy your needs, is this not an indirect slavery? We can not have the right for shoes because this implies a shoemaker has the duty to provide you with shoes, for example. Not to mention this is a compulsory deal imposed upon both parties.

What if someone WANTS to produce shoes? Or wants to make a shirt one day and a pair of pants the next?

Granted, ideal societies are just that, because human nature is bound to interfere with cooperation at some point. This is why I haven't answered the topic - too many variables in my mind for me to commit to an answer.

[Dark Sage]

...like? every popular economic system has been refuted by some group of "renowned intellectuals." also, socialist models have been successful in practice before (and currently, like germany). creates more how? what new ones are introduced that laissez-faire capitalism doesn't have?

in addition to extreme exploitation, the fundamental flaw of hands-off capitalism is that monopolies are inevitable--and with the introduction of monopolies, progress is halted. this is the antithesis of capitalism's goal. the fact that there still remain advocates of laissez-faire capitalism is completely beyond me.

@bolded: correct me if I'm wrong but don't the countries you're referring to (like Germany) still have a capitalistic economic model? I thought the socialist policies mainly were simply grafted onto it and were successful because of this fact.

not that i'm disagreeing that hands-off capitalism is bad, even though I'm in support of capitalism in general. The situation we're in has proved that there needs to be some government regulation, certainly more than we have now. To me a successful capitalism is not only a free market but also a fair market and in order for the latter to happen, there needs to be some sort of check or balance to prevent businesses from going out of control with monopolies for example.

my opinions are probably wrong though.

Edited November 11, 2014 by Black Frost

[dondon151]

rapier doesn't know what he's talking about. he cites data from the website of a conservative thinktank to support his assertion that laissez-faire models correlate to high economic development, even though the data also support the assertion that welfare state models correlate to high economic development. the ranking orders countries by measurements of economic freedom, suggesting nothing about their degree of economic development - i'm not even sure how he came to his conclusion.

socialism works when taken in modest quantities; obviously it doesn't work when applied to everything.

Edited November 11, 2014 by dondon151

[Phoenix Wright]

rapier, you're still being vague. (what empirical evidence? in what ways are more problems created? your example isn't one that notes a new problem, but rather a separate problem stemming from the same tree--ie, market control.)

also yes, i'm talking more about what dondon mentioned, "modest quantities," not a pure socialist model. sorry that wasn't clear. i'm a capitalist, but laissez-faire capitalism is simply not the way to go.

rapier, you're also undermining the importance government can have in the market. since the government markets are inherently not-for-profit, taking risks is far more likely to happen (especially with r&d). major innovations (can be) created in the public sector and perfected in the private sector. (eg, space travel. not that this is anywhere near "perfection," but in the united states private companies with launch-capabilities couldn't exist until reagen's era.) both the public and private markets have their utility.

[Nicolas]

socialism works when taken in modest quantities; obviously it doesn't work when applied to everything.

What are you mean? Socialism is theory how whole country and society should work. Or there is socialism or there is no socialism.

socialism in it's current West-European context stands for a political ideology that a state should care for its citizenry and try to maintain at least a certain level of quality of life for all, as well as improve living standards in general. The reason for this can be because it is considered 'good' or because empiric evidence says it improves living conditions (and that is considered good). All welfare states are to a degree socialist. Socialistic policy often uses financial law to try and curb the excesses of free market economy for more stability.

I didn't read it at first time... In many countries socialism was and is definitely bad thing (now in France). And about trying and curbing the excesses of free market economy: there are few instruments which always stabilize market (they are slow) and many which might stabilize or destabilize market. Intervention of government in economy not always is good.

I advise every socialism enthusiast to see the Laffer curve.