Poll: YOUR political affiliation!

[Dentedgod]

I say that I'm a liberal but I'm not exactly.

- Deficit spending should not even be legal. For any reason.

-I think our taxes should be done completely different.
a) a flat income tax at 20% regardless of personal income and NO LOOPHOLES (this includes stock options, bonuses, interest, I mean ALL INCOME)
b) a flat sales tax at 20% with NO LOOPHOLES
c) a flat tax on ALL businesses doing business in this country (regardless of where in the world they are located) of 10% of all profit.
d) any form of inheritance should be taxed 20%-50%. This would force people to earn their own money and not just be born rich. No, I really don't care that you earned it for your kids, they need to get their asses out there and work like the rest of us.

- the government should encourage people to do things through programs like rebates on things that are good for the country (eg. solar panels or small scale hydro power for your home or business). The buyer should never be restricted to where he can buy from though.

-I believe that anything that does not hurt anyone else should be legal.
a) Including the right to legally terminate your own life for any reason after a reasonable period of counseling.
b) Including legalizing, regulating and taxing ALL drugs.

- I'm pro-choice. Not that I don't think it doesn't have some heavy moral implications, I just don't think that I (or anyone else) have the right to make that decision for someone. While I respect the pro-life ideals, I think that the people who are against abortions need to realize that means that they are pro-coat-hanger-in-an-ally-abortions because that is what will happen if abortion is criminalized.

- I support the right to bear arms and I own guns (quite a lot of them). With that said, I completely support a background check before getting a gun license and a mandatory waiting period.

- I completely support socialized medicine. Not the Obama plan but actual, full and truly socialized free health-care for anyone in this country, paid by our taxes. Health insurance should not be for profit, EVER. At no point should profit factor into who gets what treatment or medicine.


- I don't support welfare in its current form. I think that the government should find you a job if it has to AND get some education, and NOT just give you money. I don't care if that job is shaking a tree and sweeping up the leaves or powerwashing sidewalks, you should have to work at least 40hours like the rest of us AND take classes. If that means my taxes have to pick up the tab for your kid's daycare, I'm ok with that.

- I think education, all the way up to masters degrees and/or doctorates should be paid for by the government on a scale based off your grades. A=100%, B=75%, C=40%, D=0%

There's more but its already probably a TLDNR post.

 

[AnarchistAbe]

Where was independent on this poll? I vote for the guy I agree with the most. Dont really side with either

 

[Nomad]

Where was independent on this poll? I vote for the guy I agree with the most. Dont really side with either

I think what most people are missing is that this poll doesn't have anything to do with elections. It has to do with where your political values lie. Note that the options presented are not political parties, but rather ideologies (with the exception of republican/democrat, but I suspect that was put there mostly to make things easier for americans).

I also think it's important to point out that you don't have to agree with everything in an ideology to sympathize with it. You're free to mix it up as much as you want, noone's going to stop you. The only thing the labels are there for is letting people know what kind of general outlook you have on broad issues. Saying you're a liberal does not tie you to a specific opinion about, for example, abortions, but rather gives people a general idea of what you think about civil rights.

And judging from your username and avatar, I would say you should've answered "anarchist". In fact, I find it odd that you speak about voting considering what you're calling yourself. After all, anarchism makes a clear statement about not supporting the state and its political institution.

-I believe that anything that does not hurt anyone else should be legal.
a) Including the right to legally terminate your own life for any reason after a reasonable period of counseling.
b) Including legalizing, regulating and taxing ALL drugs.

[...]

- I completely support socialized medicine. Not the Obama plan but actual, full and truly socialized free health-care for anyone in this country, paid by our taxes. Health insurance should not be for profit, EVER. At no point should profit factor into who gets what treatment or medicine.

While I agree with the government healthcare and some other points you made, I have to question this part... I bolded the parts of your post that contradict eachother.

If healthcare is paid for by taxes, and drugs are legalized, then the taxpayers will invariably be indirectly hurt by the drug-addicts. Because they will most likely, at some point, require medical attention in some form as a result of their drug abuse, which will cut into the healthcare funds that could be used for improving the quality of general healthcare for the populace. So if healthcare is government sponsored, and anything that doesn't hurt others should be legal, then drugs are not a part of that category. Because it takes funds away from non-drugrelated health issues.

I realize the taxation might make up for a small part of this, but likely not all of it. And add to that the damage some drug addicts are likely to cause society in forms of vandalism, assault and various other crimes. What's your solution to that dilemma?

Finally , I'll say you sound like a social liberal to me, in case you were having trouble classifying your ideals.

 

[Ancientgamer]

You're using an outdated political scale.

 

[Rotating Bread]

I find it odd that socialist, communist and anarchist are grouped together in this poll. Thats quite a spectrum, from the moderate social democratic tradition popuar in europe all the way to the extream left wing.

I would call myself a Social democrat. I believe in the welfare state, particularly state run health care. I'm just thankful that I live in a country where state run health care is almost universally accepted and supported.

The old classifications of left and right are breaking down though (at least in Britain). Sadly nobody believes in grand ideology any more, people want merely managers of government.

 

[KnowYourOnion]

I'm an anti-democratic communist (think Cuba) because I honestly don't think the average person (note the AVERAGE in that sentence) should have any say in how something as complex as a country should be run.

 

[Lord George]

I'm a liberal Fascist.

 

[Nomad]

I find it odd that socialist, communist and anarchist are grouped together in this poll. Thats quite a spectrum, from the moderate social democratic tradition popuar in europe all the way to the extream left wing.

I agree to some extent, there should've been an option for democratic socialism as well. But the grouping together of communism and anarchism is sound, since they both strive towards the same ultimate goal.

I'm an anti-democratic communist (think Cuba) because I honestly don't think the average person (note the AVERAGE in that sentence) should have any say in how something as complex as a country should be run.

One of the primary premises of communism is the idea that all men are equal. That clashes quite a bit with your statement about the capacity of the average person. Another central premise of communism is the idea of direct democracy, where the people have a direct influence in the goings-on of their region. Saying you're anti-democratic and that regular people need governors in order for society to function puts you closer to Real Socialism/State Socialism than it does to Communism.

Remember, regardless of what the so-called "communist states" say they are, they're not really communist. I can go around claiming I'm an elephant all I want, it doesn't make me grow a trunk. A communist state is a logical impossibility, since communism is by definition a stateless society. Ergo, Cuba is not a communist society.

i like Swedens/Finland/Norway's system of mixing Socialism and Capitalism.

So do I. Too bad the rest of the Scandinavian populace doesn't anymore. Social democracy and the Swedish Model died in Sweden in 1986, and the rest of Scandinavia is following suit.

 

[AnarchistAbe]

Where was independent on this poll? I vote for the guy I agree with the most. Dont really side with either

And judging from your username and avatar, I would say you should've answered "anarchist". In fact, I find it odd that you speak about voting considering what you're calling yourself. After all, anarchism makes a clear statement about not supporting the state and its political institution.

No, I'm smart enough to realize that Anarchy could never work. I just LOVE the idea. No politicians, no stupid laws/regulations, no taxes!!! However, as it is with socialism, introduce the human element and...POOF! It all goes up in smoke.

I voted non-left anarchist, but I, realistically, lean more towards liberitarian (due to their ideals on government involvement in daily life). I side more like a republican in most other things.

 

[Nautical Honors Society]

Im a leftist social libertarian, but that wasn't up there so i chose socialist

 

[COR 2000]

I'm a liberal american, but not entirely a big fan of the Democratic nor Republican parties. I'm also impartial towards Capitalism and Communism. They're both goods in some aspects and they both suck in others. For example: Capitalism works economically, while Communism works socially(somewhat).

Edit:

You shall find me supporting leftwing ideas more, but i liek Swedens/Finland/Norway's system of mixing Socialism and Capitalism.

Likewise, my friend, likewise.

 

[That_Which_Isnt]

Where was independent on this poll? I vote for the guy I agree with the most. Dont really side with either

And judging from your username and avatar, I would say you should've answered "anarchist". In fact, I find it odd that you speak about voting considering what you're calling yourself. After all, anarchism makes a clear statement about not supporting the state and its political institution.

No, I'm smart enough to realize that Anarchy could never work. I just LOVE the idea. No politicians, no stupid laws/regulations, no taxes!!! However, as it is with socialism, introduce the human element and...POOF! It all goes up in smoke.

I voted non-left anarchist, but I, realistically, lean more towards liberitarian (due to their ideals on government involvement in daily life). I side more like a republican in most other things.

I believe that's a direct ad hominem attack on those who are Anarchist. Just to enlighten you, Anarchy has already worked, check some Native American societies, glance at the Spanish Revolution, look at the past 50k years before the State was even heard of.

 

[Nomad]

No, I'm smart enough to realize that Anarchy could never work. I just LOVE the idea. No politicians, no stupid laws/regulations, no taxes!!! However, as it is with socialism, introduce the human element and...POOF! It all goes up in smoke.

That's actually an interesting point of debate. There are two major contesting schools of thought on that subject. There's the Hobbesian school, that has lately gained a strong foothold among the intellectual middle class, that says human nature is egotistical and geared towards fulfilling her own desires. Which is the school you apparently adhere to.

But then there's the Rousseau school of thought, that admits to humanity's egotism being a fact, but makes the claim that the egotism we perceive is a product of - not the cause of - society as we know it. Rousseau teaches that the natural state of humanity is one of cooperation rather than conflict, and gathers support for this theory from the animal kingdom and pack mentality, as well as universal moral structures. Our society is ingrained with egotism not because it is human nature, but because at some point in time, someone decided his right to a certain object was greater than everyone else's. That ended the natural state of cooperation and fueled an unnatural state of competition in order to secure for oneself the assets that naturally belong to everyone and noone equally.

The later school, Rousseau's theory, is the one that forms the basis for the communist and anarchist ideas. They take different approaches to achieve the same goal - to abolish the parasitical structure of society and re-establish the natural cooperation and equality we have been robbed of. By abolishing the shackles of society, we will also abolish greed and egotism and restore human nature to its rightful state. After all... Without private ownership, why would you compete with others for resources that are already both yours and theirs? Without competition, why would you resort to conflict?

Anarchism is not an impossible ideal, or at least has not been proven so. And it cannot be proven so until it has been fully and correctly implemented in a community. Che Guevara once said; "To build communism it is necessary, simultaneous with the new material foundations, to build the new man and woman".

 

[AnarchistAbe]

I believe that's a direct ad hominem attack on those who are Anarchist. Just to enlighten you, Anarchy has already worked, check some Native American societies, glance at the Spanish Revolution, look at the past 50k years before the State was even heard of.

I have never heard of a successful example of anarchism, because PURE anarchism (which I was referring to) requires no authority of any kind. This would include leaders, figureheads, and (if we want to get technical) gods.

Name me one example of a society with none of the above, and I will declare my defeat. However, keep in mind that I was referring to PURE ANARCHISM, not watered down or tainted at all. I can not argue against anything short of that, because I believe that it is possibble.

 

[That_Which_Isnt]

No, I'm smart enough to realize that Anarchy could never work. I just LOVE the idea. No politicians, no stupid laws/regulations, no taxes!!! However, as it is with socialism, introduce the human element and...POOF! It all goes up in smoke.

That's actually an interesting point of debate. There are two major contesting schools of thought on that subject. There's the Hobbesian school, that has lately gained a strong foothold among the intellectual middle class, that says human nature is egotistical and geared towards fulfilling her own desires. Which is the school you apparently adhere to.

But then there's the Rousseau school of thought, that admits to humanity's egotism being a fact, but makes the claim that the egotism we perceive is a product of - not the cause of - society as we know it. Rousseau teaches that the natural state of humanity is one of cooperation rather than conflict, and gathers support for this theory from the animal kingdom and pack mentality, as well as universal moral structures. Our society is ingrained with egotism not because it is human nature, but because at some point in time, someone decided his right to a certain object was greater than everyone else's. That ended the natural state of cooperation and fueled an unnatural state of competition in order to secure for oneself the assets that naturally belong to everyone and noone equally.

The later school, Rousseau's theory, is the one that forms the basis for the communist and anarchist ideas. They take different approaches to achieve the same goal - to abolish the parasitical structure of society and re-establish the natural cooperation and equality we have been robbed of. By abolishing the shackles of society, we will also abolish greed and egotism and restore human nature to its rightful state. After all... Without private ownership, why would you compete with others for resources that are already both yours and theirs? Without competition, why would you resort to conflict?

Anarchism is not an impossible ideal, or at least has not been proven so. And it cannot be proven so until it has been fully and correctly implemented in a community. Che Guevara once said; "To build communism it is necessary, simultaneous with the new material foundations, to build the new man and woman".

Actually egoism is a huge argument FOR Anarchy, read Max Stirner's The Ego and His Own
But yes people are not naturally anything, feral children, kids abandoned in the middle of the forests and left with no outside contact, should represent humanity in its "natural" form. They wind up mentally retarded, humans need a social context in order to develop. The social context influences how humans develop obviously.

I believe that's a direct ad hominem attack on those who are Anarchist. Just to enlighten you, Anarchy has already worked, check some Native American societies, glance at the Spanish Revolution, look at the past 50k years before the State was even heard of.

I have never heard of a successful example of anarchism, because PURE anarchism (which I was referring to) requires no authority of any kind. This would include leaders, figureheads, and (if we want to get technical) gods.

Name me one example of a society with none of the above, and I will declare my defeat. However, keep in mind that I was referring to PURE ANARCHISM, not watered down or tainted at all. I can not argue against anything short of that, because I believe that it is possibble.

Spanish Revolution, certain Native American Indian tribes, past 50k years.

 

[TheRundownRabbit]

110% American Conservative, P.S. Regan was the best president ever!

And Im proud to be a hardcore Conservative...damn proud of it

 

[Nomad]

Actually egoism is a huge argument FOR Anarchy, read Max Stirner's The Ego and His Own
But yes people are not naturally anything, feral children, kids abandoned in the middle of the forests and left with no outside contact, should represent humanity in its "natural" form. They wind up mentally retarded, humans need a social context in order to develop. The social context influences how humans develop obviously.

While I haven't read the text, I have read texts about the text. And first of all, I think we need to clear up the differences between egoism and egotism, since that looks like it's going to be a future schism between our arguments. Egoism is the belief that the purpose of your actions is to further your own agenda. Egotism is a brutal disregard for the thoughts and desires of others. While the difference may seem neglible at a glance, it does make the difference between cooperation and conflict. An egoistic person can still use his peers to further his own interest. An egotist renounces any thought of cooperation by virtue of his own superiority. He has no peers.

To return to the example of Hobbes vs Rousseau, Hobbes argues man is egotistical by nature ("the war of all against all", Leviathan) while Rousseau could potentially agree with the egoistical nature of man. This is because egotism invariably leads to conflict by virtue of brutal disregard to other people, while egoism allows one to cooperate and partake in society for one's own gains.

Now that that's taken care of...
What you mention is known as "egoist anarchism", and doesn't really represent the anarchist branch as a whole, just as little as communism represents socialism as a whole. Egoist anarchism pretty much discards the idea of equal cooperation, since the group will invariably possess some form of authority over you as an individual. At some point you will be required to place the group's interests above your own, which negates the whole premise. Much in the same way, egoist anarchism also supports the idea of private ownership - an idea that other anarchist ideologies generally reject since it is an expression of stately order. Egoist anarchism teaches that everyone has the supreme right to what they can wrestle from their peers, and that the weaker individuals by nature have pretty much no right to anything at all, since they are unable to secure the assets for themselves. Therefore egoist anarchism represents a logical fallacy, since its absence of state only brings about a new social order.

That's the general idea I have of it, anyway. But maybe I've missed something. Feel free to enlighten me, I'm always looking to expand my knowledge of ideologies.

In closing, I will state that I disagree with your idea of abandoned children representing human nature and suffering from mental retardation. First of all, that which you name mental retardation is simply an absence of social skills, which they naturally have had no particular use for in an isolated environment. And you yourself make the supreme argument as to why they cannot accurately be said to represent human nature - because they have not been given the proper tools to develop "naturally". They have been placed in an unnatural context from birth, and therefore will obviously develop in a way that is not typical for man. Human nature can only be observed and rightfully judged in an equal, social environment. Therefore hunter/gatherer-societies are a much better example of human nature than abandoned children.

 

[Jaythulhu]

moderate leftie and civil libertarian. People like myself don't really have a voice in Australia any more, not since the Democrat party was annihilated last election.

 

[Downfall89]

Central, I guess. I agree with some things Conservatives say, and some things Liberals say. But I don't agree with anything Communists say; it does not seem practical. Unless human nature was nonexistent, of course.

The same can be said for 'True Capitalism' Which is why we must find the middle ground.

Agreed, buddy. Luckily for us in Australia we aren't an 'Outright Capitalism'.