How Would You Describe Your Political Philosophy?
- Thread starter Waitone
- Start date
- Status
Control Group
Member
I have to admit I'm not entirely certain what you mean, so if my response is way off-point, I apologize. Feel free to correct me, too, of course.
Ignoring for the moment how one legally defines "children" (since any clear line will always lead to cases that are patently ridiculous), and going with the more intuitive and ambiguous idea that children are people who are not capable of effectively taking responsibility for their own lives, I see no problem with children being reared by a community.
If nothing else, a family is a small sort of community, so it would be a bit silly of me to object to it.
But the key is that, from my point of view, children don't have any rights. I realize this sounds more than a bit out there, so let me elaborate. In my mind, rights and responsibilities go hand-in-hand; you can't have one without the other. If I've got a right to life, then I also have the responsibility for it. That is, no one else is going to provide me with food, shelter, clothing, etc., I have to arrange those for myself. If I've got a right to own a gun, I've got the responsibility of using it correctly.
Since it's not fair to give a child adult responsibilities, it's not legitimate to give a child adult rights. Parents (or guardians, or whomever is providing for the child) have an absolute duty to provide for the child appropriately, and take on the responsibilities the child can't.
Now the problem, of course (which I think is what you're getting at), is the idea of the community deciding what "appropriately" actually means, and how much society can dictate what's good or bad parenting. On one end, you've got situations of sexual molestation or outright murder, and on the other end, you've got parents deciding to spank their children. The only answer is that community (collective) standards have to apply.
Yes, this is a collectivist point of view. I'd note that it's the collective working to protect a future individual (the child), though. Which doesn't make it not collectivism, but I've yet to find a pure ideal which is universally applicable. This may make me intellectually inconsistent - obviously, I don't believe it does, but I'm not exactly objective.
Control Group
Member
So, dvines, what would constitute doing something, in your view? Are you trying to say that anyone who isn't actively taking up arms against his oppressor is just engaged in navel-gazing and finger-pointing? Or do you just have to be politically active? Run for office? Write your reps? Donate money to a cause?
Of course, you don't know that anyone here isn't doing any of the above, up to and including armed resistance, so criticizing them for not doing it is a little strange. No one even asked what people were doing, and no one has answered it, so you've got precisely zero information on what people are actually doing.
Unless you just assume that if one's got the time to post on THR, one isn't active enough.
Which is a funny sort of stance to take in a post on THR. But rather than calling "hypocrite" and ignoring you, I'll point out that most people spend their time doing more than one thing. It's possible that people might be fighting the good fight, and still have time to post on THR. They probably also have time to eat, and sleep, and maybe even talk to their significant others every now and again.
I seem to recall a certain group of gents back in the late 18th century spending a lot of time writing each other letters and discussing politics. There might even have been a couple people "pointing the finger" at the British government. Maybe even complaining about the way things were. Lucky for the British government that anyone who spends some time laying blame and complaining obviously isn't actually doing anything, or they might have lost their American colonies.
(To everyone who isn't dvines: I apologize, but there are times I can't help feeding the trolls)
Of course, you don't know that anyone here isn't doing any of the above, up to and including armed resistance, so criticizing them for not doing it is a little strange. No one even asked what people were doing, and no one has answered it, so you've got precisely zero information on what people are actually doing.
Unless you just assume that if one's got the time to post on THR, one isn't active enough.
Which is a funny sort of stance to take in a post on THR. But rather than calling "hypocrite" and ignoring you, I'll point out that most people spend their time doing more than one thing. It's possible that people might be fighting the good fight, and still have time to post on THR. They probably also have time to eat, and sleep, and maybe even talk to their significant others every now and again.
I seem to recall a certain group of gents back in the late 18th century spending a lot of time writing each other letters and discussing politics. There might even have been a couple people "pointing the finger" at the British government. Maybe even complaining about the way things were. Lucky for the British government that anyone who spends some time laying blame and complaining obviously isn't actually doing anything, or they might have lost their American colonies.
(To everyone who isn't dvines: I apologize, but there are times I can't help feeding the trolls)
I lean toward strict constructionism with qualifiers. I know that sounds weasly, but think about it. The FF could not have anticipated all the technological advances that have given rise to legal quandaries. The rise of the corporate culture and influence for example, and its intertwining with career politicians. They thought of public service as just that, do your duty and return home to your occupation or business. That concept alone would have kept government growth to a minimum.
The ‘federalization’ of education, health and welfare, product liability….all these are questionable areas for federal involvement IMO. OTOH, the single greatest strength of this country lies in the unity of the states and our (heretofore) common language and values. Without some binding force, we become balkanized thereby opening ourselves up to imposed controls……..
The bottom line is that fed .gov has become too big, too powerful and has too much of our money. They are not accountable to us in any realistic sense and I don’t know how you turn that around. A government reflects the culture of the people it ‘governs’. Over time, we have allowed our culture to become diluted and unfocused as we have lost the values handed to us by the FF.
The ‘federalization’ of education, health and welfare, product liability….all these are questionable areas for federal involvement IMO. OTOH, the single greatest strength of this country lies in the unity of the states and our (heretofore) common language and values. Without some binding force, we become balkanized thereby opening ourselves up to imposed controls……..
The bottom line is that fed .gov has become too big, too powerful and has too much of our money. They are not accountable to us in any realistic sense and I don’t know how you turn that around. A government reflects the culture of the people it ‘governs’. Over time, we have allowed our culture to become diluted and unfocused as we have lost the values handed to us by the FF.
308win
Member
Unless you have a mouse in your pocket use the we word cautiously thank you.
Thought I might contribute.
Socially liberal, reasonably fiscally conservative, not at all authoritarian. Strongly in favour of independent politicians, and far less authoritarian behaviour on the part of political parties. Labour recently tried to impose an all-women party shortlist on a safe Welsh Labour seat. The male incumbent ran as an independent and won. This cheered me no end.
These days it seems easier to provide a list of things going on in the world of politics that I disagree with. Tends to make me think that too much goes on in the world of politics, and some should just plain slow down and see just how things don't work instead of replacing them before they get a chance to not work.
Firearms position - odd one. Most people here (UK) seem to think I am some sort of dangerous nut. Not sure what people here (THR) think. I tend to think that the strongest argument against firearms prohibition (in the absence of a 2A-alike) is the one about whether or not the govt trusts it's populace.
Socially liberal, reasonably fiscally conservative, not at all authoritarian. Strongly in favour of independent politicians, and far less authoritarian behaviour on the part of political parties. Labour recently tried to impose an all-women party shortlist on a safe Welsh Labour seat. The male incumbent ran as an independent and won. This cheered me no end.
These days it seems easier to provide a list of things going on in the world of politics that I disagree with. Tends to make me think that too much goes on in the world of politics, and some should just plain slow down and see just how things don't work instead of replacing them before they get a chance to not work.
Firearms position - odd one. Most people here (UK) seem to think I am some sort of dangerous nut. Not sure what people here (THR) think. I tend to think that the strongest argument against firearms prohibition (in the absence of a 2A-alike) is the one about whether or not the govt trusts it's populace.
RealGun
Member
You followed me perfectly. Good job. I guess my point would be that some philosophical concession to the collective may be in our best interest, more as a family or a business than as a private and independent individual.
I think young hot dogs see things differently than those with a family experience. It shows in their politics.
stonewall34
Member
1. Political philosophy: I am Jeffersonian in my political beliefs, in other words I believe the least amount of government is what works best.
2. 2nd Amendment: I believe that in order to properly pursue life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness you have to be able to defend them if necessary.
"The most dangerous words in the English language are "there ought to be a law"!!!
Stonewall34
2. 2nd Amendment: I believe that in order to properly pursue life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness you have to be able to defend them if necessary.
"The most dangerous words in the English language are "there ought to be a law"!!!
Stonewall34
Byron Quick
Moderator In Memoriam
Rational anarchist. I sadly acknowledge that many people have a pathological need for government. I try to live perfectly in an imperfect world.
Control Group
Member
Agreed. Man is, by nature, a social animal, and I don't think there's any point in denying it. My self-proclaimed stance of total individualism is, admittedly, much informed by the current context. Since we've swung so far towards collectivism, it's perfectly safe for me to be a counter-extremist...if we as a country were in more of a stereotypical "wild west" state, I'm sure my position would be more moderate. But it's easy to see what happens when one side is extremist and the other is moderate (gun control being the perfect example), so I take up what I see as the opposing position to the dominant mindset.
Of course, part of that is just me being contrarian.
Guilty as charged. At 27, unmarried and childless, I think it's perfectly fair to say my perspective and opinions are subject to change with nine months' notice. In my own defense, I didn't succumb to a mid-late teens bleeding-heart, save-the-world mentality; I've refined my politics since high school, but the rough outlines have been essentially the same since I was fourteen or so.
On the other hand, I have to think that suddenly taking on responsibility for another person's whole life would have a...significant, shall we say, impact on one's outlook.
At least I hope it does, or all my worrying about whether I can raise a kid right has been a waste of time.
1. Jeffersonian Constitutionalist
2. I grew up around guns. Nobody I knew ever abused the responsibility and nobody got hurt, so I recognize guns for what they are; inanimate objects that are to be treated with sober and constant attention as they are quite dangerous in the hands of a fool.
2. I grew up around guns. Nobody I knew ever abused the responsibility and nobody got hurt, so I recognize guns for what they are; inanimate objects that are to be treated with sober and constant attention as they are quite dangerous in the hands of a fool.
bjbarron
Member
The Real Hawkeye
member
I am a libertarian who considers the preservation of traditions and traditional institutions (e.g., the family) to be essential for the preservation of liberty under the rule of law, which sort of makes me a conservative libertarian. I am a believer in the tendency of power to corrupt, and therefore favor a strict adherence to the plain meaning and original intent of the Constitution. I believe in decentralization of government power, preferring local control over state, state over federal. Local communities, as far as possible, should be allowed to govern themselves, and set their own standards, and have their laws reflect those standards without federal interference. I am a believer in states rights, in accordance with the Tenth Amendment of the US Constitution. Personally opposed to abortion, but favor a hands off policy on this issue by the Federal Government, which means that I believe Row V. Wade was wrong and needs to be reversed in a future decision, as being bad law (i.e., not in accord with the Constitution). I believe that no fault divorce has contributed much to the destruction of our society, since it, in effect, outlawed actual marriage (and therefore healthy family life) which once meant a legally binding commitment, requiring the proof of fault before the government would recognize a right to dissolve it, permitting legal remarriage. I could go on, but that's a start.
rock jock
Member
1. Conservative, strict Constitutionalist. I believe local communities have the right and authority to regulate certain behaviors not addressed by the Constitution.
2. Original Intent.
2. Original Intent.
The Real Hawkeye
member
I'm sure this was meant to say that the poster was very right wing/conservative, but actually this common saying is misleading and destructive to a correct understanding of right wing politics/conservatism. Genghis Kahn is better described as a tyrant, which means that he is a far from a conservative as can be had. There has never been a right wing/conservative tyrant, since right wing/conservative means that you believe in strictly limited government in accordance with the rule of law and the preservation of the people's traditions as against government encroachment, i.e., the opposite of tyranny. I wish, therefore, that people would stop saying that they are to the right of Ghenhis Kahn, meaning to imply that they are very right wing and/or conservative.
coylh
Member
Rule #1. Be Nice To Other People(TM). Most of the world's problems (political, economic, social) would instantly vanish if everyone was simply nice to other people.
Sindawe
Member
Anarcho-capitalist Like Byron Quick, I realize that some folks just HAVE to have a Boss over them to tell them how things are done and where they fit in the world.
Sindawe- as an 'anarcho-capitalist', how do you balance the human tendency to engage in coercion and deception for profit with everyone's desire for honest and fair dealing? Is it left to each individual's ethical practices? Is there, for example, a small claims court in your world view?
I'm not challenging or taking you to task, only looking for more information. I do, however, have a problem with the libertarian philosophy to some extent, as they do not seem to acknowledge the concept of 'fabric of society'....not as as altruistic idea but a very real component of humans living together. We are more complex than simple 'quid-pro-quo' creatures.
I'm not challenging or taking you to task, only looking for more information. I do, however, have a problem with the libertarian philosophy to some extent, as they do not seem to acknowledge the concept of 'fabric of society'....not as as altruistic idea but a very real component of humans living together. We are more complex than simple 'quid-pro-quo' creatures.
The Real Hawkeye
member
RileyMC, you are confusing libertarianism with anarchism. The Founding Fathers adhered to a variety of libertarianism, and they surely believed in government. Read the Declaration of Independence to get an idea of what role they thought government served. Government's purpose is to secure the blessings of liberty and to protect rights. Government, in their conception, is not something out there, but it is you and me at all its levels. We are not all legislators, but we all have a part is selecting them, and they make the laws using the authority we temporarily loaned them. We are not all chief executives, but we all have a part in selecting one of us to serve in that capacity for a time. The chief executive is simply borrowing our executive authority, and so on. Government is just another word for us and our inherent authority over our environments. If we all acted as individuals in all things, there would be a state of nature, but that would only last until a group established some form of tyranny over the rest of us. That is why (and is in fact the only reason) government is necessary, i.e., to prevent tyranny, and tyranny would ALWAYS be the end result of anarchy. It is the nature of man. When government stops being the solution to tyranny, and starts being the cause of it, the Declaration tells us that it needs to be scrapped and replaced with a new government which correctly serves the only legitimate role of government, i.e., to PREVENT tyranny, and defend liberty, individual and state's rights.
Igloodude
Member
1 - roughly libertarian
2 - I had very little exposure to guns growing up (I shot a .22 rifle a couple times, my parents were politically conservative but not particularly gun-ish) and a bit more once I got into the Navy. While in the Navy my wife (former police dispatcher) got me into target shooting, which quickly led to CCW as well.
2 - I had very little exposure to guns growing up (I shot a .22 rifle a couple times, my parents were politically conservative but not particularly gun-ish) and a bit more once I got into the Navy. While in the Navy my wife (former police dispatcher) got me into target shooting, which quickly led to CCW as well.
1) Mostly libertarian.
To elaborate:
As a first principle of government/lawmaking, I would go with the NIV principle / "Everyone should be free to do what they like as long as they are not harming others or restricting their freedoms" / some similar definition.
But I believe there is a need for government (and hence taxes to pay for it),
a) to protect/enforce the above principles.
Also, I believe there are such things as "family", "community", "nation", and "humanity", and tradition, and that they are worth something and worth preserving (not that that is incompatible with being a libertarian, but some libertarians/anarchists seem too willing to throw them all away).
Also, I believe that when people come together in large numbers in small spaces, there is a need for some rules and regulations to prevent chaos and keep society functioning. So I think it is also reasonable to have laws and regulations that help society to function properly, even if they don't strictly fit the previously defined principles. (Traffic regulations are a good example. If everyone drives on whichever side of the road they feel like, it may not be a violation of the NIV principle, but it sure as heck will make things difficult for people).
And I also think it is reasonable to the government to fund or help fund things like education and health care (just not mandate the use of government-controlled facilities), provided taxes aren't too high, and it actually works.
So, I guess that makes me a left-wing statist, at least by the standards of those round here
2) Origins of my opinions on firearms:
Various pieces of history, recent world events, and a general altering of political opinions as a result of entering the real world, etc, suddenly came together in the realization unarmed civilians are vulnerable to persecution at the hands of mobs/governments/invaders, and as there will be no time opportunity to arm when the SHTF, people need to be armed (and have the right to be armed) beforehand.
I'd also note that when I was very much younger, I did actually have a very "libertarian" outlook, as regards the role of government, just laws, taxes, and even RKBA for self defence, before it got "educated" out of me. (Although in this case, the RKBA I was most interested in was open-carry of swords, driven in part by a rather romanticised image of medieval life).
To elaborate:
As a first principle of government/lawmaking, I would go with the NIV principle / "Everyone should be free to do what they like as long as they are not harming others or restricting their freedoms" / some similar definition.
But I believe there is a need for government (and hence taxes to pay for it),
a) to protect/enforce the above principles.
Also, I believe there are such things as "family", "community", "nation", and "humanity", and tradition, and that they are worth something and worth preserving (not that that is incompatible with being a libertarian, but some libertarians/anarchists seem too willing to throw them all away).
Also, I believe that when people come together in large numbers in small spaces, there is a need for some rules and regulations to prevent chaos and keep society functioning. So I think it is also reasonable to have laws and regulations that help society to function properly, even if they don't strictly fit the previously defined principles. (Traffic regulations are a good example. If everyone drives on whichever side of the road they feel like, it may not be a violation of the NIV principle, but it sure as heck will make things difficult for people).
And I also think it is reasonable to the government to fund or help fund things like education and health care (just not mandate the use of government-controlled facilities), provided taxes aren't too high, and it actually works.
So, I guess that makes me a left-wing statist, at least by the standards of those round here
2) Origins of my opinions on firearms:
Various pieces of history, recent world events, and a general altering of political opinions as a result of entering the real world, etc, suddenly came together in the realization unarmed civilians are vulnerable to persecution at the hands of mobs/governments/invaders, and as there will be no time opportunity to arm when the SHTF, people need to be armed (and have the right to be armed) beforehand.
I'd also note that when I was very much younger, I did actually have a very "libertarian" outlook, as regards the role of government, just laws, taxes, and even RKBA for self defence, before it got "educated" out of me. (Although in this case, the RKBA I was most interested in was open-carry of swords
, driven in part by a rather romanticised image of medieval life).Dan from MI
Member
I'm generally a limited government conservative.
Fiscally arch-conservative.
Socially libertarian for the most part, although I am staunchly pro-life and oppose abortion on "use of force against another person" grounds.
Fiscally arch-conservative.
Socially libertarian for the most part, although I am staunchly pro-life and oppose abortion on "use of force against another person" grounds.
- Status
