What is your political stance?
30 posts
• Page 3 of 3 • 1, 2, 3
by JimmyChopblock » Tue Feb 17, 2009 4:19 am
yeah, what the fuck do all of those titles mean? I'm so tired of this bullshit from everyone. "I'm a diagonal monlist. YEAH WELL I'M AN OBTUSE TRIANGLE RIGHTIST!" what the fucking fuck do you belive in, god damnit?
- JimmyChopblock
- Posts: 162
- Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 9:10 pm
by Reppy <3 » Mon Jun 08, 2009 11:27 pm
While I don't exactly agree with pigeon-holing myself into a specific niche, I would have to say socially: liberal and fiscally: libertarian ( I do believe in free market and competition) However, I don't like this idea of simplicity at all. People change their views every single day. There is no definitive right and wrong, just different situations to mold us. We are eternally human above anything else. I choose existentialism before any political stance.
<33 Reppy
<33 Reppy
-
Reppy <3 - Posts: 17
- Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 7:42 pm
- Location: Massachusetts
by iller » Tue Jun 09, 2009 1:49 am
I'm independent / 3rd party. And the only thing I hate more than a 2-party only system, is the almost constant 1-party Limbo state this country's been in since basically Eisenhower (I'm not a huge history buff though so I could be a few decades off 
)
)-
iller - Posts: 163
- Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 5:14 am
by MaskedJackal » Sun Aug 30, 2009 2:00 am
I'm not sure what I am. I've always considered myself a Republican, but after doing some reading on the Constitution Party (similar to Libertarian, I think), I've found myself agreeing with them quite a bit.
It would take ages to explain all of my beliefs, so I'll just leave it at that.
It would take ages to explain all of my beliefs, so I'll just leave it at that.
◕ ‿ ◕-
MaskedJackal - Posts: 274
- Joined: Sun Aug 30, 2009 1:32 am
by Stormcaller3801 » Sun Aug 30, 2009 4:39 am
My political stance? Well I have several versions.
The broadest and most involved is this: I think that government by morality is a bad idea. It's far too easy to come up with laws that say X is against the law, and justify the loss of freedom because you shouldn't do X anyways. This gets particularly true when you start dealing with religion, when you start creating laws for everyone based on what you believe. I think far too many people think they know what's best for everyone else, without being able to justify it beyond simply that 'it just is.' I think we need to establish boundaries and have those boundaries establish in bright clear lines to what degree government can go past them. I think we need to accept the fact that entropy exists in all things, including laws and systems of government, and realize that in over two hundred years' time, we have created a convoluted and dystopian array of rules that may have more bearing on how things were decades or centuries ago than they do to how things are now. I think that in those instances where mankind is not ruled by impulses and instincts, self-interest prevails. And that includes convincing other people that something is in their self interest when it's really in your own.
I think that we need to set aside emotion and idealistic concepts of how things used to be, or how they ought to be. Instead I think we need a system of laws that will promote orderly functioning within society and prevent the excesses of humankind from doing more harm to itself than necessary. I think we need to respect peoples' right to live the way they want, even if we think that way is wrong, unless doing so is going to harm a third party. I think we need to be honest and forthright when creating contracts for goods or services, including those provided by governments, and understand that to mean that if we expect certain services we must be willing to pay for them- and some of those things will require a decision by the group as opposed to a decision by an individual. I think we need to realize the difference between harm and annoyance, and understand that government should only intervene in the case of the former- the latter should be tolerated up until such a time as it becomes the former. I think anyone who wishes harm to any other individual based on race, creed, color, religion, gender, sexual preference, origin or family tree should be considered dangerous, and in the event that incitement can be found to exist between these wishes and the actions of another, the individuals who have incited the act should be equally culpable for it.
I think abortion should be legal, because I think a woman is a person and a fetus is not. I think that once born that changes. I think there's a significant difference between an unwanted pregnancy and one that's desired, and the law should reflect this in terms of criminal legislation. I think that we should be prepared to intervene on the behalf of children, the elderly, and any others who are incapable of determining harm to oneself in day to day life, and we should intervene only to the degree that we should make sure no harm comes to them. I think government jobs should come with government payrolls and government pensions, and no outside sources of income should be allowed once you hold power above a certain threshold. I think lobbying should be illegal save in the most basic form- the ability of constituents to communicate with their representatives via correspondence or in person at public events.
I think a lot more than the above, but I also think it's late. So allow me to offer the tl;dr super-pithy edition:
My political stance is that I'm on the side of the people who argue their points calmly, rationally, and at a reasonable volume.
The broadest and most involved is this: I think that government by morality is a bad idea. It's far too easy to come up with laws that say X is against the law, and justify the loss of freedom because you shouldn't do X anyways. This gets particularly true when you start dealing with religion, when you start creating laws for everyone based on what you believe. I think far too many people think they know what's best for everyone else, without being able to justify it beyond simply that 'it just is.' I think we need to establish boundaries and have those boundaries establish in bright clear lines to what degree government can go past them. I think we need to accept the fact that entropy exists in all things, including laws and systems of government, and realize that in over two hundred years' time, we have created a convoluted and dystopian array of rules that may have more bearing on how things were decades or centuries ago than they do to how things are now. I think that in those instances where mankind is not ruled by impulses and instincts, self-interest prevails. And that includes convincing other people that something is in their self interest when it's really in your own.
I think that we need to set aside emotion and idealistic concepts of how things used to be, or how they ought to be. Instead I think we need a system of laws that will promote orderly functioning within society and prevent the excesses of humankind from doing more harm to itself than necessary. I think we need to respect peoples' right to live the way they want, even if we think that way is wrong, unless doing so is going to harm a third party. I think we need to be honest and forthright when creating contracts for goods or services, including those provided by governments, and understand that to mean that if we expect certain services we must be willing to pay for them- and some of those things will require a decision by the group as opposed to a decision by an individual. I think we need to realize the difference between harm and annoyance, and understand that government should only intervene in the case of the former- the latter should be tolerated up until such a time as it becomes the former. I think anyone who wishes harm to any other individual based on race, creed, color, religion, gender, sexual preference, origin or family tree should be considered dangerous, and in the event that incitement can be found to exist between these wishes and the actions of another, the individuals who have incited the act should be equally culpable for it.
I think abortion should be legal, because I think a woman is a person and a fetus is not. I think that once born that changes. I think there's a significant difference between an unwanted pregnancy and one that's desired, and the law should reflect this in terms of criminal legislation. I think that we should be prepared to intervene on the behalf of children, the elderly, and any others who are incapable of determining harm to oneself in day to day life, and we should intervene only to the degree that we should make sure no harm comes to them. I think government jobs should come with government payrolls and government pensions, and no outside sources of income should be allowed once you hold power above a certain threshold. I think lobbying should be illegal save in the most basic form- the ability of constituents to communicate with their representatives via correspondence or in person at public events.
I think a lot more than the above, but I also think it's late. So allow me to offer the tl;dr super-pithy edition:
My political stance is that I'm on the side of the people who argue their points calmly, rationally, and at a reasonable volume.
- Stormcaller3801
- Posts: 496
- Joined: Wed Jun 17, 2009 3:38 am
by JamesRaynor » Sun Jan 17, 2010 10:03 am
Liberal in theory, though in general I tend to disagree with both other liberals and conservatives equally.
- JamesRaynor
- Posts: 4
- Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2010 8:47 am
30 posts
• Page 3 of 3 • 1, 2, 3
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests