Poll: Your political standing?

[JMeganSnow]

And your claims about leftists are just as overused and silly.

All *my* claims? I didn't say anything except that all leftists want state control over at least SOME aspect of the economy, which is both true and accurate. (Some might try to wiggle out of this by claiming that they don't want a "state" per se, but they wind up advocating some form of absolute democracy that amounts to the same thing. Either that or they're advocating a utopian fantasy where, somehow, everyone just magically behaves without a state, which is ridiculous.)

 

[Easykill]

I couldn't get through this thread: the more I've learnt about Anarchy and government in general, the less endurance for such terrible misinterpretations of them I've had.

I myself would probably go by Proudhon's idea of Federalism. Considering the fact no one will ever know what that is, and there are quite different meanings to Federalism, I'll simply call myself an Anarchist. Anarchy is better, in my opinion, but Proudhon's Federalism might be more stable. Actually, I'll specify it to Proudhon's Anarchy too,I mean, he founded the concept, but it's rather warped over time and finding someone to just point at and say "That" is so much easier than explaining everything myself.

 

[O maestre]

socialism or communism

although communism is something utopian at the present time, and socialism seems to be more acceptable, although alot more bureaucracy

if a man like Lenin existed then defiantly communism

why the extreme left? security, guarantee that everyone has a chance to prosper, no class system, and communism would only work if leaders are reminded that they are servants of the people

 

[Baby Tea]

There are no loans or charitable organizations or insurance companies? There are myriad options for emergencies should you run across one--that's what *health insurance* (the private kind) is for. And what are you and your dad going to do when the gov't decides on a whim that you don't fall into the proper "case group" to be eligible for care? If your health insurance company does something like that, you can sue them. If the gov't does, you're screwed.

Oh please, first off you're constantly paying for insurance. So you're paying for both when 'you don't need them'. Secondly, you have to get the right 'insurance package' otherwise, certain injury or illness claims could be just as easily thrown out. Third, if you run into a run of bad health luck, your insurance premiums and costs and go right up! After all, you're 'high risk'.

I'm not saying the system is perfect, but my experience with BOTH have shown me that having the government paying for it is a much better deal. I have tons of family and friends in the states who would rather have what I have here in Canada. Especially since a few of them HAD to take out loans in order to get the medical assistance they needed. And now they'll be paying for THAT for the next 6+ years PLUS interest. Yeah, no thanks.

 

[ygetoff]

GO SOCIALISM!

 

[a7r0p05]

This is a very weird poll. Last time I checked, capitalism was not a political system. Neither was anarchy, really.

Yeah, isn't capitalism more of a socioeconomic system?

 

[a7r0p05]

Where is Democracy, or Republic, or Triumvirate?

 

[KendayTheAbsolute]

all about kendayism!
don't ask

 

[fix-the-spade]

I see a distinct lack of democracy. It being the prevalent western political system and all...

 

[Fronken]

Not sure if its an official political standing, but im an anti-fascist anarchist.

I hate those who hate others because of stuff they have NO control over, for example:
Hating someone because they are black/white/asian/latino etc..
Hating someone for being disabled, there's not a single person on this earth who'd choose to become disabled, and it doesnt matter if they are disabled from birth or if they got hit by a car or whatever, they cant control it, so therefore there's no reason to talk bad about them (This especially hits close to home for me seeing as my best friend since birth was born with a muscle disease)

And about the anarchist thing, that im not quite sure of actually, im not all that much into politics, though i hate the fact that the government has controls over our bodies and our minds, and that they treat us like crap when it comes to money (thanks to the swedish government i have 0 income the next 4 months), the government treats our privacy and freedoms like their nothing, they control our lives, once again, there's a good example from the swedish government, they now have the right to intercept and read everything that is sent digitally, meaning they have the right to read your phone messages, your fax documents, why even this post the swedish government has the right to intercept and read through, then if they find something they dont like about it, they can charge me a fine or even arrest me.

EDIT: Sorry about this massive hunk of text, i got a bit carried away

 

[TheDean]

i picked Anachishm, but to be extremely precise i am a non-theist Anarcho-communist.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LtU3vUOa2sw

FOR THE MOTHER RUSSIA!!!!

lol@u

Full of fail

Full of win you mean!
And no, of course i have no loyalty to Russia. I have no loyalty to any country.

cool

Have fun with that.

Your lack of sincerity displeases me

 

[Dudemeister]

Communism of course.
Didn't you hear ?
It's a party.

 

[PedroSteckecilo]

There are no loans or charitable organizations or insurance companies? There are myriad options for emergencies should you run across one--that's what *health insurance* (the private kind) is for. And what are you and your dad going to do when the gov't decides on a whim that you don't fall into the proper "case group" to be eligible for care? If your health insurance company does something like that, you can sue them. If the gov't does, you're screwed.

Oh please, first off you're constantly paying for insurance. So you're paying for both when 'you don't need them'. Secondly, you have to get the right 'insurance package' otherwise, certain injury or illness claims could be just as easily thrown out. Third, if you run into a run of bad health luck, your insurance premiums and costs and go right up! After all, you're 'high risk'.

I'm not saying the system is perfect, but my experience with BOTH have shown me that having the government paying for it is a much better deal. I have tons of family and friends in the states who would rather have what I have here in Canada. Especially since a few of them HAD to take out loans in order to get the medical assistance they needed. And now they'll be paying for THAT for the next 6+ years PLUS interest. Yeah, no thanks.

Can I get a Hell Yeah for Socialized Medicine!

Our system has it's abuses too, however the advantage is that when you REALLY need it, you will be helped...eventually. Watching American Medical Drama's with their frequent Insurance issues makes me very glad to be Canadian.

 

[JMeganSnow]

Oh please, first off you're constantly paying for insurance. So you're paying for both when 'you don't need them'. Secondly, you have to get the right 'insurance package' otherwise, certain injury or illness claims could be just as easily thrown out. Third, if you run into a run of bad health luck, your insurance premiums and costs and go right up! After all, you're 'high risk'.

All of which you can control, so what's the problem?

I'd rather run my own life than cede to the gov't the right to boss me "for my own good". Nothing and no one will enable me to live forever or protect me against any possible disaster. That does not mean it's a good idea to court disaster by becoming the faceless property of the state.

Given the choice between "You'll be left alone to sink or swim in the best way you can figure out how to do it" and "we'll tie you hand and foot and lock you in a room, but don't worry, there are people there whose job it is to take care of you" I'll go with the former, esp. because I can quickly make up some weapons to protect me from the gormless twits who want to "take care of me".

What gives you the right to *demand* that I accept the second?

 

[Rankao]

a lot of these don't even compare. Its like comparing the quality a tomato to a pen.

Capitalism - Economic system.

Socialism - (Marx Version= Dictator, people assign jobs by the state, Realistic=Government has some
commercial items, also supplies necessities such as health care, education, poverty control )

Communism - (Marx Version= Everything is magically supplied and your job can be whatever you want that day. Realistic= Dictator, people assign jobs by the state)

Anarchism - No Leader, no Alpha male, likely a form of Marx Communism without leaders.

Despotism - (Never heard of this one) a despotism is a state where a single individual, the Despot, wields all the power and authority embodying the state and everyone else is a subsidiary person.

Monarchy - Royal rulers, serfs.

Liberalism - Individual purpose

Fascism - Another pretty word for totalitarian who love themselves... A lot.


Base on these simplistic definitions that I have come up with. (If you can think of a better one sentence definition please quote that one with a better definition in a reply. ) Only few of them are loosely comparable.

Instead of doing it with very broad and general different ideas you could go for 1) The Ideological parts of the stances or 2) Go for the economical/social parts of the stance.

Marx Communism Vs. Soviet Communism Vs. Modern Socialism Vs. Republic Vs. National Fascism Vs. Religious Fascism Vs. Monarchy

or you could do...

Social Darwinism vs. Socialism vs. Economic Communism vs. Eugenics Fascism

 

[Baby Tea]

All of which you can control, so what's the problem?

I'd rather run my own life than cede to the gov't the right to boss me "for my own good". Nothing and no one will enable me to live forever or protect me against any possible disaster. That does not mean it's a good idea to court disaster by becoming the faceless property of the state.

Given the choice between "You'll be left alone to sink or swim in the best way you can figure out how to do it" and "we'll tie you hand and foot and lock you in a room, but don't worry, there are people there whose job it is to take care of you" I'll go with the former, esp. because I can quickly make up some weapons to protect me from the gormless twits who want to "take care of me".

What gives you the right to *demand* that I accept the second?

Like I stated before: I never said the system was perfect. But not everyone makes a lot of money. Or much money at ALL. How many thousands and thousands of families live below the poverty line? How are they expected to pay for insurance?
Screw them if they can't?
Is THAT how a government cares for it's citizens?

I'm not demanding you accept that form of health care, but I WILL say that it seems you're very near-sighted when it comes to how it helps people. So many people, so much that I'd say the majority (In Canada, at the very least) have benefited from universal health care. IT has it's rough edges, to be sure. There could certainly be improvements made. But how many cancer, recovering ABI, and other such long term care patients would you turn away because they couldn't afford it or the insurance?

Beg your pardon, but I'd rather side with humanity then 'I want more money in my pocket'.

 

[JMeganSnow]

Like I stated before: I never said the system was perfect. But not everyone makes a lot of money. Or much money at ALL. How many thousands and thousands of families live below the poverty line? How are they expected to pay for insurance?

How do they get off expecting someone ELSE to do it if they WON'T?

Screw them if they can't?
Is THAT how a government cares for it's citizens?

It's the gov't's job to protect freedom, not "care for" anyone, and if politicians claim they "care for" me or anyone else they're either lying or nuts, take your pick.

I'm not demanding you accept that form of health care, but I WILL say that it seems you're very near-sighted when it comes to how it helps people.

Yes you are--because you're relying on me to pay for it, since YOU obviously CAN'T. If everyone who didn't like the system was allowed to opt out of it, the only people who'd volunteer for it would be the ones who wanted to get something for nothing--and there'd be nothing to give them as a result.

I'm not opposed to helping people provided those people take responsibility for helping themselves FIRST--if they can't quite cope and I have some extra, I'll cheerfully help out. I object to having my stuff taken against my will.

So many people, so much that I'd say the majority (In Canada, at the very least) have benefited from universal health care.

So what? Lots of people have benefited from slavery through the ages--none of these evil practices would exist if *someone* didn't "benefit".

IT has it's rough edges, to be sure. There could certainly be improvements made. But how many cancer, recovering ABI, and other such long term care patients would you turn away because they couldn't afford it or the insurance?

Beats me, and it doesn't matter. What were they planning to do if I wasn't here, pick their medical treatment off the tree where it grows? If you can't do it yourself and you have nothing to trade for it, what the hell were you planning to do? The fact that there are other people around doesn't absolve you of taking care of yourself.

Beg your pardon, but I'd rather side with humanity then 'I want more money in my pocket'.

And humanity consists of pointing a gun at the head of people who work hard and *do* provide for themselves and treating them like they're evil because they'd rather enjoy the fruits of their labor than throw it into the endless maw that it someone else's "need"?

 

[Jamash]

I lived in Poland I know what Socialism is, and all I can say is F%%% IT!(back in the late 80s)

But your profile says you were born in 1988.

Are you claiming that as a 1 year old baby living in Poland, you were able to understand the differences in political systems and correctly identify the failings of Polish Socialism?

At first I felt slighted at being labelled an idiot by you for wanting Socialism, but compared to such as genius super developed mind like yourself, I suppose were all idiots, and should be grateful to be in discussion with such a political prodigy as you.

 

[Hevoo]

I lived in Poland I know what Socialism is, and all I can say is F%%% IT!(back in the late 80s)

But your profile says you were born in 1988.

Are you claiming that as a 1 year old baby living in Poland, you were able to understand the differences in political systems and correctly identify the failings of Polish Socialism?

At first I felt slighted at being labelled an idiot by you for wanting Socialism, but compared to such as genius super developed mind like yourself, I suppose were all idiots, and should be grateful to be in discussion with such a political prodigy as you.

Father and Mother, 2nd hand experience. The stories they tell me are horrible.

 

[Hevoo]

i picked Anachishm, but to be extremely precise i am a non-theist Anarcho-communist.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LtU3vUOa2sw

FOR THE MOTHER RUSSIA!!!!

lol@u

Full of fail

Full of win you mean!
And no, of course i have no loyalty to Russia. I have no loyalty to any country.

cool

Have fun with that.

Your lack of sincerity displeases me

Your lack of faith to anyone but your self scares me.