Doesn't that mean you throw a massive tantrum when forced to choose? Because I remember the Bendu doing just that. Or is your metaphor referring not to the Antler guy, but the Bendu Order?
Your Political Beliefs
- Thread starter 7 Gold Eye Heals the Wise
- Start date
Doesn't that mean you throw a massive tantrum when forced to choose? Because I remember the Bendu doing just that. Or is your metaphor referring not to the Antler guy, but the Bendu Order?
D
Deleted member 1
Guest
To me that's a great example of "consistency is a hobgoblin of small minds". From a certain, bloody-minded point of view, that's amazingly consistent. It's also a deficient kind of philosophical thought at every level.
It could be argued to be inconsistent as well, or arbitrary in its consistency. Since the fetus/child/lump of cells/baby/etc never asked to be put into the situation, to be thrown into existence, they are not the ones who caused this situation, nor do they have any blame. So in summary that they were not the initiators so logically should not be considered to be violating NAP. If one wanted to argue, they could say that the unborn has an NAP violation rendered on to them due to being brought into the world as an unwanted offspring.
Though, I don't really give the NAP any stock, I prefer the saner principles it is founded on.
D
Deleted member 1
Guest
You're certainly correct, Sir, but it just seems to stem, to me, from a kind of excessively rigid thinking.
I agree on that issue, and a deeper clarification on that point is on the tip of my tongue, but have mindfog, and headache which make it hard to think straight. And also have to go grab dinner. Want to give you a better reply, but cannot.
I was trying to throw in an ANCAP meme, links wouldnt work.
prinCZess
Warrior, Writer, Performer, Perv
Gonna make this more on particulars than general statements because...Because. Probably US-centric, though.
Abortion is an area of conflicting rights between the child and the mother. Personal value judgements and valuations come into play. Until such time as technology allows for fetal development outside of the womb, access to abortion should be allowed--and roundabout methods of banning it via onerous restrictions and the like are dishonorable. That said, the US is perhaps the least restrictive of other western European and related countries, and they are not overly-restrictive.
Too much power has been vested in the Executive Branch. The 'Imperial Presidency' has gradually expanded its power and I believe (open to argument) something of too-restrictive rules on Congressional action (tossing the requirement for a standing filibuster, or more recent items like restricting any filibuster on Pres. nominations) have made the Presidency into too much of an "I win" button for the parties...Oh, and nobody seems to use the War Powers Act like they should.
The Drug War has been prosecuted in the wrong manner, with the wrong proscriptions, and to large extent on the wrong target. Decriminalization and rehabilitation should be the model for opiods and other related 'hard' drugs, and marijuana should be fully legalized.
While we're at it on semi-related note, lets roll the drinking age back to 18. Age of majority should mean something.
The US Health supplying and insurance scheme is a logjammed cluster that, in multiple ways, makes it a bloated, inefficient, and ineffective system. That said, Veterans Affairs and Indian Health Service (and Medicare/Medicaid, really) demonstrate some of the more egregious problems with a centralized solution. I would hesitantly still look for something akin to the UK's NHS as a model, but there should probably be some particulars tinkered with--and there's an argument to be made a comparable system isn't feasible because of the vast tracts of low-population land in the US--I understand the NHS already has some degree of issues and funding disparities accounting for Scotland because of this, and that seems like it would definitely get worse when instead of 'Scotland' it's 'Wyoming, Dakotas, Oklahoma, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Utah, Alaska, etc.'
The War on Terror has largely been a detriment to US interests. Personal freedoms have been lost or restricted, dangerous precedents set, and thousands of lives lost or maimed for little gain. I believe the US has a role in the international world and order--specifically countering and counterbalancing dictatorial regimes and encouraging a general world culture of blue jeans and rock'n'roll, but we've drastically overextended ourselves in recent years--and allowed some allies to skate by without criticism (Germany prominent, merely for just how much of a shitshow the Bundeswehr has been for ~2 decades) when it was justly deserved. We also have something of a responsibility now that we HAVE broken certain things (Afghanistan, Iraq) to at least present them with a situation not doomed-to-collapse...I don't know if that's possible, though.
Immigration has become a vote-getting issue rather than one guided in any way by pragmatism or even principle. Our system needs a massive overhaul, loosened to make incoming immigration quicker and illegal immigration more difficult. Continuing to allow the US farm sector to exploit illegal workers for their own profit (and our access to cheap vegetables) is an immoral and unjust action.
The above said, I'm skeptical-to-hostile to 'Real ID' schemes for the potential civil rights dangers they pose.
Gun laws in the US are in much the same boat. In a perfect world there are expanded checks and measures that could be instituted to help keep them out of the hands of criminals. Of course, I would also like to see such accompanied by a dramatic expansion of what is available to civilians--and in that respect I probably qualify as an extremist. I would like to see the MRAPs and other surplus gear auctioned off to PDs also going to private citizens, and ditto for surplus automatic firearms, jet aircraft, or navy warships and tanks.
The state should have an accepted monopoly on force. The people should retain a capacity to threaten the enforcement of that monopoly, and serve as another check against foreign incursion.
Many others, but those seem like big ones to hit. Generally felt more at-home in the Democrat party for a decade or so, but recent zaniness has been slowly pushing me away into the realm of third-party vote-throwing-away.
It makes me curious/interested about ranked voting, but I haven't looked into it much.
Abortion is an area of conflicting rights between the child and the mother. Personal value judgements and valuations come into play. Until such time as technology allows for fetal development outside of the womb, access to abortion should be allowed--and roundabout methods of banning it via onerous restrictions and the like are dishonorable. That said, the US is perhaps the least restrictive of other western European and related countries, and they are not overly-restrictive.
Too much power has been vested in the Executive Branch. The 'Imperial Presidency' has gradually expanded its power and I believe (open to argument) something of too-restrictive rules on Congressional action (tossing the requirement for a standing filibuster, or more recent items like restricting any filibuster on Pres. nominations) have made the Presidency into too much of an "I win" button for the parties...Oh, and nobody seems to use the War Powers Act like they should.
The Drug War has been prosecuted in the wrong manner, with the wrong proscriptions, and to large extent on the wrong target. Decriminalization and rehabilitation should be the model for opiods and other related 'hard' drugs, and marijuana should be fully legalized.
While we're at it on semi-related note, lets roll the drinking age back to 18. Age of majority should mean something.
The US Health supplying and insurance scheme is a logjammed cluster that, in multiple ways, makes it a bloated, inefficient, and ineffective system. That said, Veterans Affairs and Indian Health Service (and Medicare/Medicaid, really) demonstrate some of the more egregious problems with a centralized solution. I would hesitantly still look for something akin to the UK's NHS as a model, but there should probably be some particulars tinkered with--and there's an argument to be made a comparable system isn't feasible because of the vast tracts of low-population land in the US--I understand the NHS already has some degree of issues and funding disparities accounting for Scotland because of this, and that seems like it would definitely get worse when instead of 'Scotland' it's 'Wyoming, Dakotas, Oklahoma, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Utah, Alaska, etc.'
The War on Terror has largely been a detriment to US interests. Personal freedoms have been lost or restricted, dangerous precedents set, and thousands of lives lost or maimed for little gain. I believe the US has a role in the international world and order--specifically countering and counterbalancing dictatorial regimes and encouraging a general world culture of blue jeans and rock'n'roll, but we've drastically overextended ourselves in recent years--and allowed some allies to skate by without criticism (Germany prominent, merely for just how much of a shitshow the Bundeswehr has been for ~2 decades) when it was justly deserved. We also have something of a responsibility now that we HAVE broken certain things (Afghanistan, Iraq) to at least present them with a situation not doomed-to-collapse...I don't know if that's possible, though.
Immigration has become a vote-getting issue rather than one guided in any way by pragmatism or even principle. Our system needs a massive overhaul, loosened to make incoming immigration quicker and illegal immigration more difficult. Continuing to allow the US farm sector to exploit illegal workers for their own profit (and our access to cheap vegetables) is an immoral and unjust action.
The above said, I'm skeptical-to-hostile to 'Real ID' schemes for the potential civil rights dangers they pose.
Gun laws in the US are in much the same boat. In a perfect world there are expanded checks and measures that could be instituted to help keep them out of the hands of criminals. Of course, I would also like to see such accompanied by a dramatic expansion of what is available to civilians--and in that respect I probably qualify as an extremist. I would like to see the MRAPs and other surplus gear auctioned off to PDs also going to private citizens, and ditto for surplus automatic firearms, jet aircraft, or navy warships and tanks.
The state should have an accepted monopoly on force. The people should retain a capacity to threaten the enforcement of that monopoly, and serve as another check against foreign incursion.
Many others, but those seem like big ones to hit. Generally felt more at-home in the Democrat party for a decade or so, but recent zaniness has been slowly pushing me away into the realm of third-party vote-throwing-away.
It makes me curious/interested about ranked voting, but I haven't looked into it much.
Last edited:
You could have made a recreational nukes joke, or one about gay couples defending their marijuana patches with guns...or wait do we believe that one too? Or a Telvanni reference could work too.
I am a hawk when it comes to fiscal responsibility, and foreign affairs. Its where my heart and passion lies. On social issues, I tend libertarian, as I am very much of the idea of "less government is best."
Generally less government is better, there should be more society, rather than government. Everyone from the lowest to the highest members of society should be involved and working together for the common good.
Unhappy Anchovy
Well-known member
Well, I've talked about this before on other sites, but it should make a reasonable first post here...
I usually don't like to identify, but labels like 'centrist', 'distributist', and 'Christian socialist' all feel relatively comfortable to me. I tend to vote centre-left in real life, usually for the Australian Labor Party, though arguably I'm more of a DLP person in terms of values. A friend once suggested 'conservative Marxist' as a label for me and I can see some truth in that.
But to expand a bit, I'm quite cynical about human nature and think people tend to seek their own interests, and this includes politicians. There's a lot of truth in public choice theory, so you have to think about the particular incentives that direct people in power. This also makes be quite skeptical of giving a lot of power or a large mandate to a reformer. It might sometimes be necessary, but you should be careful and try to maintain practices and institutions that hold leaders to account. Or to put it in more traditionally Australian terms, pollies are bastards. All of them. Do not trust political leaders. However, they are a necessary evil in order to get things done. As such I like time-tested checks and balances, and tend to be skeptical of any big agenda to reorganise society along better lines.
I recognise that local communities can be abusive or dangerous, and sometimes that can only be prevented by a powerful centralised authority; but I also recognise that centralised authorities themselves are frequently abusive. I think a favour some sort of federal structure, maybe weighted towards localism, but it's a matter of finding the correct balance, and I don't want to be dogmatic about this. Ultimately the important thing is what works.
I think a political community has a duty of care towards all of its members, and a lesser duty of care to people outside of it. This means that I support institutions designed to provide that care, such as universal health care or a welfare state. That said there are limits to this support - in general I think it's better for care to be provided through local communities, rather than through the central government. So I'd prefer for centralised support to be a backstop.
In terms of foreign policy, a community should consider the welfare of surrounding communities, and in general try to act for the good of the world. However, within that framework I do think individuals have a greater initial responsibility to their own community: I expect people to look after their family, town, state, nation, etc., and then the world. The world does have a claim, though, and you should absolutely try to make the world a better place. In most cases I think it's possible to support policies that benefit both your own country and others.
Culture is important. I don't mean that in an exclusivist sense, but I think that most successful nations have a strong shared identity, which is usually built on shared practices or traditions. There's always room for debate and evolution in what those practices are, but even so, they always matter. When I think about things like education, giving people a sense of how they're connected to their fellows is useful, in addition to skills and knowledge and so on. People are not interchangeable economic units: most people need a sense of themselves within a shared cultural narrative, a sense of who they are as a people. This not mean that everyone should be exactly the same - cultural homogeneity is not needed - but some common elements are important over time. You can think of this as something like multicultural rooms in the same shared house. As part of this overall project I'd emphasise the importance of things like libraries, or art, theater, local festivals, and so on.
Science and technology are also important; I suppose I'm something of a 'bright green' environmentalist. I'm pro-nuclear: we had a good way to cut emissions decades and decades ago, but we didn't do it. In general I want to be flexible about specific technologies or policies and adopt a pragmatic approach, rather than one driven by ideology. I do think we need more action on climate change, though this is an issue that has to be handled internationally, rather than piecemeal.
I probably have more ideas, but whatever, you can ask me if you're curious.
I usually don't like to identify, but labels like 'centrist', 'distributist', and 'Christian socialist' all feel relatively comfortable to me. I tend to vote centre-left in real life, usually for the Australian Labor Party, though arguably I'm more of a DLP person in terms of values. A friend once suggested 'conservative Marxist' as a label for me and I can see some truth in that.
But to expand a bit, I'm quite cynical about human nature and think people tend to seek their own interests, and this includes politicians. There's a lot of truth in public choice theory, so you have to think about the particular incentives that direct people in power. This also makes be quite skeptical of giving a lot of power or a large mandate to a reformer. It might sometimes be necessary, but you should be careful and try to maintain practices and institutions that hold leaders to account. Or to put it in more traditionally Australian terms, pollies are bastards. All of them. Do not trust political leaders. However, they are a necessary evil in order to get things done. As such I like time-tested checks and balances, and tend to be skeptical of any big agenda to reorganise society along better lines.
I recognise that local communities can be abusive or dangerous, and sometimes that can only be prevented by a powerful centralised authority; but I also recognise that centralised authorities themselves are frequently abusive. I think a favour some sort of federal structure, maybe weighted towards localism, but it's a matter of finding the correct balance, and I don't want to be dogmatic about this. Ultimately the important thing is what works.
I think a political community has a duty of care towards all of its members, and a lesser duty of care to people outside of it. This means that I support institutions designed to provide that care, such as universal health care or a welfare state. That said there are limits to this support - in general I think it's better for care to be provided through local communities, rather than through the central government. So I'd prefer for centralised support to be a backstop.
In terms of foreign policy, a community should consider the welfare of surrounding communities, and in general try to act for the good of the world. However, within that framework I do think individuals have a greater initial responsibility to their own community: I expect people to look after their family, town, state, nation, etc., and then the world. The world does have a claim, though, and you should absolutely try to make the world a better place. In most cases I think it's possible to support policies that benefit both your own country and others.
Culture is important. I don't mean that in an exclusivist sense, but I think that most successful nations have a strong shared identity, which is usually built on shared practices or traditions. There's always room for debate and evolution in what those practices are, but even so, they always matter. When I think about things like education, giving people a sense of how they're connected to their fellows is useful, in addition to skills and knowledge and so on. People are not interchangeable economic units: most people need a sense of themselves within a shared cultural narrative, a sense of who they are as a people. This not mean that everyone should be exactly the same - cultural homogeneity is not needed - but some common elements are important over time. You can think of this as something like multicultural rooms in the same shared house. As part of this overall project I'd emphasise the importance of things like libraries, or art, theater, local festivals, and so on.
Science and technology are also important; I suppose I'm something of a 'bright green' environmentalist. I'm pro-nuclear: we had a good way to cut emissions decades and decades ago, but we didn't do it. In general I want to be flexible about specific technologies or policies and adopt a pragmatic approach, rather than one driven by ideology. I do think we need more action on climate change, though this is an issue that has to be handled internationally, rather than piecemeal.
I probably have more ideas, but whatever, you can ask me if you're curious.
D
Deleted member 1
Guest
I must say, Unhappy Anchovy, you actually fit in perfectly. I think there is something of an even mix between free-market and more cultural conservatives here, and as the manager that's a wonderful thing to see developing. It shows we will have a healthy diversity of views.
Quickdraw101
Beware My Power-Green Lantern's Light
Generally I'm more on the conservative side of politics, but it also depends on the topic. When it comes to the constitution, immigration, the military, fiscally, and socially, I'm conservative. When it comes to abortion, it entirely depends for me. I'm supportive of it when giving birth would threaten both the parent and child or in cases of rape and incest. I'm firmly affirmative action and against sending our troops on foreign missions across the globe unless absolutely necessary. Also a firm supporter of capitalism.
When it comes to my liberal side, I'm a supporter of LGBT rights, simply because I don't see why they shouldn't get married and have a family. I'm also a firm believer in climate change, I just don't believe all the doomsday BS many people peddle. I also fully support legalization of recreational marijuana, not only because of the revenue it can create for the state and federal government, but also because of the positive effects it has.
Anything else you have ask specifically about.
When it comes to my liberal side, I'm a supporter of LGBT rights, simply because I don't see why they shouldn't get married and have a family. I'm also a firm believer in climate change, I just don't believe all the doomsday BS many people peddle. I also fully support legalization of recreational marijuana, not only because of the revenue it can create for the state and federal government, but also because of the positive effects it has.
Anything else you have ask specifically about.
So, Zoe where would you say I actually fit in this milieu. I am not sure if I am actually a cultural conservative, or the sort of disenfranchised chaff that has been ejected from liberalism?
Distributism is definitely a, squirly phrase. The person who introduced it to me, the Distributist YouTube channel, has notably never made a video about distributism itself directly, and it has become something of a running joke in his own videos that he hasn't and likely wouldn't for a while, noting that there was a brief explosion of work on the topic a 100 years ago, and not a whole lot since then.
Distributism is not a single clear doctrine, like liberalism, Liberarianism, or Communism. Its basic thought structures may in fact preclude such: its core idea, that things should be "distributed", speak to a sense, at least implicitly, that true one size fits all solutions simply might not really exist.
So far, its seemed to almost serve as a catch all for anyone who's apposed to one size fits all solutions, and a universal true path. While also generally rejecting Post-modernism subjectivity ideas, and insisting on there being universal truths.
Lots of conflicting impulses, which distributism mostly seeks to recognize and balance out and moderate.
So maybe radical centrism? Except not Nazi radical centrism.
Unhappy Anchovy
Well-known member
I believe its most influential form historically was the Chesterbelloc's, though that version is a bit too trenchantly Catholic and too mired in medieval nostalgia.
As I would describe it, distributism holds that socialism and capitalism are two sides of the same coin, and that what they represent is the concentration of wealth. In socialism the government owns everything and decides who gets what; in capitalism the capitalists own everything and decide who gets what. Both represent the transfer of property away from ordinary people and towards huge centralised organisations, and in the end the organisation has all the power. So an individual's life becomes dependent on the organisation. It doesn't matter whether your life is dominated by the state or by the company you work for: the result is the same, which is you not having any power to decide how to live.
According to distributism, the best response to this is to instead try to distribute property widely. Rather than a mega-rich state or a mega-rich company which then looks after lots of people, every individual household should own enough to get by. An early distributist slogan was "three acres and a cow" - the idea being that every household would own that much.
If you're familiar with Catholic social thought, distributism has similarities to the idea of subsidiarity. Subsidiarity says that basically everything that needs doing should be done on the smallest or most local level that can practically do it, so you can see the strong localist trend.
For what it's worth, while I'm highly sympathetic to distributism, I think a major problem it has is that in a modern economy the competitive advantage you get from centralisation is so massive that distributed communities can't really compete. So your options are to give up distributism, or be outcompeted and destroyed by the people who did centralise. In that light I think Chesterton's and Belloc's suggestions are not practical today, and indeed weren't practical even in the 1910s. (Scott Alexander reviews Chesterton and points out that he seems to think that "roll back the Industrial Revolution" is an option, but... well, it really isn't.) So I'm also sympathetic to H. G. Wells' socialist response to Chesterton and the distributists.
As with most things in politics, it all comes down to balance. Get too enthusiastic about distributism and you fail: centralisation is too powerful. But centralise too much and the liberty of the common man and woman vanishes entirely, as does any power for them to order their lives as they choose. How do you build a state strong enough to protect individuals and families, but not so strong that it destroys them? And having built that state, how do you make sure that it even does its job, rather than ends up full of people fighting silly status games and competing for power and nepotically seeking advantage?
I prefer every man a king personally.
As do I. I do admire Long, even if he was pretty damn corrupt, and unlike other corrupt politicians at least he cut the common man in on it.
D
Deleted member 1
Guest
I am something of a chesterbelloc Orthodox Distributivist—I would say it is about having a capitalist economy that serves morality instead of a capitalist economy that serves itself. But we should move this to the thread for it now, I suppose.
Unhappy Anchovy
Well-known member
You like Huey Long?
I like that this puts you in the same camp as a bunch of socialists.
