Political Idealogy

Im somewhere in the middle, but thats becuase im either extreme right or extreme left. Im a socialist, since i dont think poeple should suffer and die from economic situations often outside their control, or even if they just screw up really bad. i dont think that the people who do make so mcuh money really deserve to hoard it (it doesnt benefit anyone including them, and their contributions to the company are not that much more than anybody else’s many times) the situation varies, but in the end i think that the benefits providing by a partially socilaized country outweigh any negative aspects.
When it comes to issues such as morality and security issues, im normally right wing bordering on Fascist. War is almost always justified (situational, of course), pro-life, anti-gay marriage, saftey over liberty, etc… The reasons vary, but in general i think we should uphold traditional values and dissaude people from the modern trends of individualism and greed.

If i hated Jewish people, i would be classified as a Nazi 8) (remember, he hated communists, not socialists, he was a socialist) Join the Yarric Youth Groups! :D

I have beliefs of a communist and a republican, but id say im more of a communist! :-?

I’m very conservative, not to mention anti-Communist, anti-Socialist (practically the same thing, really), anti-“Liberal” and anti-nazi/fascist. Communist’s beliefs, such as socialized medicine, and forbidding people to keep their own money, are unacceptable to me, and since those beliefs are shared by “Liberals”, and Nazis too, I am opposed to them also. By the way, I put “Liberal” in quotes because the term Liberal suggests someone in favor of greater freedoms; this is exactly what a self proclaimed “Liberal” is opposed to.

Free Middle…Juris Naturlis

I am so leftist, I might as well be a commie. :P

I am a Rightist (Republican) because I am conservative. If I earn money, I want to keep as much as possible.

And if this is truely what being conservative is about then it means this sides actions are not based on what is morally right, but what is economical. However, it is often the conservatives who use the moral bully pulpit to attack their opponents on these grounds. One of the fundamental principles of gov’t especially in the States is that it is designed by the people to serve the common good. If you reduce it to merely dollars and cents then you can’t also ask it to be a moral authority on issues like abortion and what not.

Communist’s beliefs, such as socialized medicine, and forbidding people to keep their own money, are unacceptable to me, and since those beliefs are shared by “Liberals”,

And I think the biggest failing of the far right is it’s persistant effort to blur the distinction between socialism, communism, and liberalism. This is unfair because the left could argue there is no distinction between conservatives and fascists. In fact they often do. Historically, speaking you cannot talk about Communism without putting it in the context of the Bolshevik revolution. So it is more accurate to say that all forms of communism today are Russian Marxism. Socialism is an outcrop of Marxism, but in fact its objectives are very different from Communism. Some of the most virulent anti-communist protests ever made where by Socialists like Karl Kautsky who felt Bolshevism gave Marxism a bad name which would seem to have been vindicated by history. Remember the book ‘Animal Farm’ by Orwell was basically a socialist indictment of the Communist system. Liberalism is distinct from all three in that it is generally a progressive and populist movement, but at the same time some of the causes championed by Liberalism include universal sufferage and the expansion of democracy. You aren’t in favor of restricting voting rights are you? If conservatives had gotten their way the common person would never have gotten the right to vote.

The reasons vary, but in general i think we should uphold traditional values and dissaude people from the modern trends of individualism and greed.

For what reason? Have traditional values been good or bad and what are they? In fact over the past 200 years tradition has been the common reason to restrict voting rights, but does that make it just. The main problem I see here is the US proclaims itself as a nation of justice and because of this we cannot give lip service to liberty, we must defend it.

I am a Rightist (Republican) because I am conservative. If I earn money, I want to keep as much as possible.

And if this is truely what being conservative is about then it means this sides actions are not based on what is morally right, but what is economical. However, it is often the conservatives who use the moral bully pulpit to attack their opponents on these grounds. One of the fundamental principles of gov’t especially in the States is that it is designed by the people to serve the common good. If you reduce it to merely dollars and cents then you can’t also ask it to be a moral authority on issues like abortion and what not.

Actually, the thing that most distinguishes a conservative from a “liberal,” is that conservatives believe that the government should have as little power as is necessary to protect the people. This does not mean huge welfare programs, massive social institutions, and ungodly high taxes. Also, as far as I’ve seen, it is the “liberals” that take the moral high ground, as in “you don’t want to pay higher taxes because you’re greedy,” or “well of course we need an enormous welfare state! You don’t want old people to die, do you?” Apparently, these people are incapable of seeing that the common folk are perfectly capable of taking care of themselves, and do not need any help from papa government. And another thing: I don’t think the government should be a moral authority on abortion, homosexual marriage, etc. What makes the people we put up there any more capable of deciding what is right and what is wrong, than us? The decision on all those current controversial topics should be left to the state governments: as it was said in the tenth amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.” As far as I can tell, this means that government has only the powers which are given it in the constitution, and all other powers are given to the states. It wouldn’t hurt these “liberals” to read the constitution once in a while. Preferably without dark glasses on.

Oh, and as to the voting right; obviously there must be some limitations to it. You wouldn’t want 14 year-olds voting, would you? Of course not; you, like the majority of the people, agree that there must be some restrictions on who can vote. The only disagreement is on what those restrictions should be. Personally, I think that when the voting comes to taxes, only people who actually pay taxes should be able to vote, as they are the only ones who will be affected by the vote. On matters that concern everyone, everyone (above a certain age, I think 18 to be appropriate) should be able to vote.

Now i assume that this form is referring to ideology from an economic-theory perspective rather than social-ideals one?

@Wargaming_nut:

Communist’s beliefs, such as socialized medicine, and forbidding people to keep their own money, are unacceptable to me, and since those beliefs are shared by “Liberals”, and Nazis too, I am opposed to them also.

This makes no sense to me.
If a communist/liberal/nazi believes in socialized medicine then you do too? If they believed that paedophilia was wrong would you then be in favor of it?
Or do you just think that sociallized medicine is wrong, and so then, therefore liberals, nazis and communists are as well?
And what do you think is wrong with sociallized medicine? Do you actually know anything about it?

It’s the second one, CC; I’m opposed to socialized medicine, etc., and so I’m opposed to Socialism, Communism, Nazism, etc.

And what do you think is wrong with sociallized medicine? Do you actually know anything about it?

I know that it involves taking one person’s money, and giving it to another person, to pay medical bills. This is wrong. If person A wants to give his money to person B, then that is his business. But the government cannot forcibly take person A’s money to give it to person B (and, while they’re at it, persons C, D, and E too). Remember this: the government cannot give anything to one person without taking it away from someone else.

@Wargaming_nut:

It’s the second one, CC; I’m opposed to socialized medicine, etc., and so I’m opposed to Socialism, Communism, Nazism, etc.

And what do you think is wrong with sociallized medicine? Do you actually know anything about it?

I know that it involves taking one person’s money, and giving it to another person, to pay medical bills. This is wrong. If person A wants to give his money to person B, then that is his business. But the government cannot forcibly take person A’s money to give it to person B (and, while they’re at it, persons C, D, and E too). Remember this: the government cannot give anything to one person without taking it away from someone else.

This is VERY shortsighted, and nearly inaccurate.
The fact is that EVERYONE needs medical attention at some point. The less likely they are to seek it early, the more trouble they get into later, and the more expensive their care becomes.
So you are a 35 year old single mother. Your child develops a cough and a fever, but you can not afford to take your child to the ER. You delay your child’s treatment. SURPRISE! Your child’s epiglottitis worsens and she dies a couple of hours later as her airway narrows and closes.
You are a 65 year old veteran who’s pension keeps you alive in your single bedroom appartment. It is too expensive to see your family doctor to keep your diabetes in check, so it gets a little out of control, you get retinopathy (blinded), neuropathy (loss of sensation in your extremities) and gangrene requiring your foot to be amputated. Of course that doesn’t matter because the chest pain you’ve ignored as you could not afford the hospital bill turns into a massive infarct killing you.
Example 1) this is a very significant outcome as an important measure for our society is PYLLs (potential years of life lost) (we will, of course, ignore the value of the child’s life or her mother’s psyche as why should society care about those things?). This is millions of dollars of lost productivity with many thousands of dollars of tax revenues lost over the long term.
Example 2) obviously this does not appear as important an issue as the guy is “old” he already has a nasty disease, and it would cost a sociallized society a lot of money to keep him alive. Still does society not “owe” him anything? Never mind the “vet” line, how about the fact that he’s worked most of his life, contributing to society by working, putting money into the system, paying taxes, etc. What if he is STILL the sole breadwinner for a family? Then who’s burden is it? Obviously his family should pull together, but . . . .
Consider a third example. 18 year old man walking down the street, trips over a piece of sidewalk into the path of an oncoming car who runs him over. The owner of the car is uninsured as it was a couple of days ago to renew and he hasn’t had time to, plus he has more debts than assets so there is no use suing him. Now the 18 y/o man has extensive injuries - many of them disabling on their own without medical attention. He is not insured because of how unlikely this kind of thing is to happen.
The funny thing is that despite Americans’ wails about the horrors of sociallized medicine, a third of the populace is uninsured, and the system STILL costs 50% more than a system where the medicine is sociallized.

And another thing: I don’t think the government should be a moral authority on abortion, homosexual marriage, etc. What makes the people we put up there any more capable of deciding what is right and what is wrong, than us? The decision on all those current controversial topics should be left to the state governments:

But if gov’t itself is fundamentally unable to address these moral issues what makes the state gov’ts more able? Let us not forget that one of the duties of gov’t is to legislate morality.

Actually, the thing that most distinguishes a conservative from a “liberal,” is that conservatives believe that the government should have as little power as is necessary to protect the people. This does not mean huge welfare programs, massive social institutions, and ungodly high taxes.

That is a very simplistic and overly favorable view don’t you think. The last few conservative presidents have increased gov’t spending as have the liberal ones. Nixon, Reagan, BushI and BushII have increased defense spending by ungodly amounts. They have also increased foreign aid as well. So I don’t see the benefit of switching one evil for another. And if we assume gov’t is going to inherently grow and act as an leviathan should we not prefer the one that acts on the principle of the greatest good for the greatest number?

It wouldn’t hurt these “liberals” to read the constitution once in a while. Preferably without dark glasses on.

Actually liberalism in America can most directly be traced back to Jefferson who was very pro-states rights which I tend to be more in favor of the Federalist perspective. You also have misinterpreted the 10th Amendment commonly known as the elastic clause. The elastic clause is historically intrepreted by courts to mean that all powers not mentioned to be federal are given to the states. For example, the Constitution doesn’t make murder or robbery illegal but because of this clause it doesn’t need to as the states have the power to do so. Also, the Bill of rights does not detail how gov’t works ie federal versus state only what the individuals rights against the gov’t are.

Oh, and as to the voting right; obviously there must be some limitations to it

Yes but historically it was conservatives that fought against universal suffrage, black sufferage, and female sufferage. They even fought against the common man gaining the right to vote.

I know that it involves taking one person’s money, and giving it to another person, to pay medical bills. This is wrong. If person A wants to give his money to person B, then that is his business. But the government cannot forcibly take person A’s money to give it to person B (and, while they’re at it, persons C, D, and E too). Remember this: the government cannot give anything to one person without taking it away from someone else.

What are you talking about gov’t redistributes wealth all the time. I live in Iowa yet my tax dollars go to supporting a navy which does not directly benefit me in anyway. However, on to the health care debate the assumption here is that gov’t wastes money therefore cannot be trusted to provide health care to the citizenry at a reasonable cost, however, it is not mentioned that 1)this is happening already anyway, and 2)the insurance industry which provides care operates on profit motive which in theory gov’t doesn’t which should allow them to undercut them. Also, HMOs and others are as susceptable to fraud, waste and mismanagement as gov’t is.

Health care should be taken care of by the employer. When you begin a full time job and have it for ten years, the company should be required to pay for health care for the rest of your life and for all dependents.

This is totally unenforceable, what do you do when a company goes under? It sounds to me like you are still going to have people relying on gov’t for health care services. Also what about the problem of double coverage, eventually dependents grow up to be workers and there for gain their own economic resources yet a company their father worked for 40 years ago still pays their health care costs. Doesn’t make a lot of sense, does it?

Pro-life, there are places called adoption agencies…Also, their is nothing wrong with capital punishment if it is approved by the jury.

So you’re Pro life, but not all the time. Obviously your pro-life convictions aren’t that strong are they.

Have a three month unemployment program for physically and mentally fit people. If they can’t find a job, apparently they aren’t trying hard enough.

I believe that currently it is 5 or 6 months so what greater good is served by reducing it an arbitrary amount you’ve decided upon.

The mentally and physically unfit can go to charities for money. The government should not force, but rather encourage the giving of donations

One could argue this isn’t best for them in that it encourages a dependency cycle. Current treatment of the mentally ill and handicapped encourages them to get help and jobs so they can feel normal by being a productive member of society. So essentially, you want to encourage a program that will set them back 50 years, great!

Small national government, responsible for protection, diplomacy, and making national laws.

Yes this always sounds good, but read the fine print you end up substituting federal gov’t for large state gov’t. Isn’t that just substituting one evil for another.

@Desertfox:

4. Have a three month unemployment program for physically and mentally fit people. If they can’t find a job, apparently they aren’t trying hard enough.
9. Gay marriage is wrong. However, homosexually may be done with in the confines of ones home.

Not trying hard enough when unemployed: If you read newer economic theories, with imperfect flow of information, then unemployed (and long term unemployment) will happen. I don’t see why you then can say “not trying hard enough”. I have seen people try hard, and not get a job, because they were “over-qualified” for one half of the jobs, and had “not enough experience” for the other half.

I never did understand the whole “over-qualified” reason for not hiring someone. I know it happens, but you would think you would want someone who is too good for the job, he would be amazing at it.
Anyway, on the topic of unemployment, if you had nationalized industries the government could correct it much more efficiently by expanding those industries and creating new jobs. Im quite sure Britian did this after world war 2, when they nationalized the coal, railroad, and steel industry, and it worked quite well (although steel was recently re-privatized, the fools :x ). With a reduced unemployment rate, the costs of supporting the unemployed for longer amounts of time would be easily managable, so you would not need to cut them off at a specific time.

I never did understand the whole “over-qualified” reason for not hiring someone.

The thinking behind this is that 1)you will cost too much as most employers pay more for experience, and when they can get 20 year olds to do the same job why pay more? 2)You will take your experience and qualifications and get a better job. Employers don’t like to hire overqualified applicants who are likely to turn around and use their job as a springboard to another job.

on the topic of unemployment, if you had nationalized industries the government could correct it much more efficiently by expanding those industries and creating new jobs. Im quite sure Britian did this after world war 2, when they nationalized the coal, railroad, and steel industry, and it worked quite well (although steel was recently re-privatized, the fools

The problem here is that this assumes heavy industry is vital to national welfare, and the contrary may be true. In many industrialized countries there has been a trend away from these industries. Further, outsourcing say Steel isn’t bad as it can be done cheaper in developing nations which keeps inflation at home artifically low. So nationalizing non-essential or non optimal industries only retards your economy in the long run.