What are your political beliefs?

[Sally]

I'm an Ultra Conservative.

And I do not feel like arguing with you people, so that's as far as I'm gonna go.

The polls tell it all. I stated that AVEN is very Left in atmosphere and many scream loudly NO ITZ NOT!!!!!!!!!!

So you want to maintain that it's left even though other AVENites say no, they're conservative? That makes no sense whatsoever.

However, you just can't expect conservatives to make sense. -_-

[Jordan]

So you want to maintain that it's left even though other AVENites say no, they're conservative? That makes no sense whatsoever.

However, you just can't expect conservatives to make sense. -_-

No the AVENites say there clearly is no political bias here.

[Eddie7]

Who says that?

There are obviously more liberals than conservatives here, but I've never seen anyone say otherwise.

[iff]

Who says that?

There are obviously more liberals than conservatives here, but I've never seen anyone say otherwise.

what surprises me is that not more people voted that they were moderate/pramatist. alot of people are deluded in thjinking they represent the middle ground

[Haunter]

I'm indifferent. I actually don't see the point in politics. In fact I can hardly think of anything more boring and useless to do in life than get involved with politics. I mean, come on - there are so many other things better than placing borders and dividing our planet... I think it may be related to my misanthropy ...

That's quite a political statement for someone who's indifferent.

Yeah, it's called a paradox. There are a lot of them around. :P

I think the problem is that some people define "politics" as a bunch of men in suits who try to run the government.

Not necessarily men in suits. In Easter Orient some of them were long robes (or whatever they're called).

Others see it as something that involves every aspect of our lives:

And this "something" is decided by whom? Usually by the bunch of men from above. Or supernatural forces, if you believe in such things.

our human rights,

Yeah right ...

our responsibilities,

Why should I have responsibilities? Did I ask to brought onto this world? Let the one(s) who created me be responsible.

the environment,

What? Does the environment take care of me in any way?

ethics,

That's more in the area of philosophy, sociology etc.

the economy,

Another stupid human invention. There's plenty of goods for everybody, we really don't need value-endowed printed paper.

health,

Oh, don't even get me started with this one... <_<

our jobs and schools,

Strugles and more strugle on the road towards death...

our access to resources,

That shouldn't be so difficult. Organisms have a remarkable ability to make use of what they have and adapt to the environment.

equality...

Oh yeah, we need equality while everything around us is unequal... -_-

The people who fall into the first category are the people who find politics boring.

Well let's just put it this way: few good things come out of politics. One of them are political LOL pictures ...

[Eddie7]

See, now I always thought I was cynical because I am political.

[Næt.]

le.

the environment,

What? Does the environment take care of me in any way?

Well...

Yes O_o

[psyote]

Lolbertarian here

[Eddie7]

You what now?

[psyote]

Libertarian. And I agree with everything you said in your earlier post about why Libertarianism should absolutely not be paired with ultra conservatism.

[Næt.]

And Liberalism isn't the same as Socialism O_o

I'm going to make a better poll...later.

[Sally]

Libertarian. And I agree with everything you said in your earlier post about why Libertarianism should absolutely not be paired with ultra conservatism.

Yes, we must absolve the libertarians from what the ultra conservatives say and do. The libertarians are blameless on any issue because they simply advocate hands-off in everything.

Just stand aside -- that's their position. Unless they need something, in which case they must simply wrest it out of someone else's control, and then go back to standing aside. -_-

[Eddie7]

Yes, we must absolve the libertarians from what the ultra conservatives say and do. The libertarians are blameless on any issue because they simply advocate hands-off in everything.

Just stand aside -- that's their position. Unless they need something, in which case they must simply wrest it out of someone else's control, and then go back to standing aside. -_-

Only the hardcore libertarians support remaining hands-off of everything. I support the idea of a government, it just needs to be as small as reasonably possible. Defence, a legal system and emergency social help is all it is really required for though.

Makes far more sense than pretending that government is the ultimate solution is every problem, when usually the opposite is true.

[Næt.]

And those three should be as seperate from each other as is possible.

[Eddie7]

Indeed. All branches of authority should be as far from each other as possible.

That's one part that in theory the US has right at least.

[Sally]

Makes far more sense than pretending that government is the ultimate solution is every problem, when usually the opposite is true.

I know a lot of liberals/progressives/socialists and none of them think that the government is the solution to every problem. That's a cliche that's used a lot by anti- or small-government believers, along with the "government is the source of all evil" cliche. Neither is true. Government is very good for things that need economy of scale in provision of needed services (courts, defense of the country, social and health services). It's bad when used to push political/religious attitudes at home and territorial wars away from home.

If more people would wake up to the fact that they ARE government, in the sense that they elect governments, and thus owe responsibility to themselves and their fellow citizens to at least keep an eye on governmental matters, they wouldn't feel so alienated. But it's easier to just say, "Government (i.e., those people over there) is bad, and less government is better, so let's cut government". Another cliche: "I'm not political." Yes you are, if you care at all what happens to you and to your family and friends. Politics = relationships between people living in a society.

End of rant.

[Eddie7]

I know a lot of liberals/progressives/socialists and none of them think that the government is the solution to every problem. That's a cliche that's used a lot by anti- or small-government believers, along with the "government is the source of all evil" cliche. Neither is true.

It wasn't so much a slight at liberals in general, just people do tend to think state intervention is the answer to everything. There seems to be plenty of those on the right at this point too.

Government is very good for things that need economy of scale in provision of needed services (courts, defense of the country, social and health services).

Agreed up to health care.

It's bad when used to push political/religious attitudes at home and territorial wars away from home.

Also agreed.

If more people would wake up to the fact that they ARE government, in the sense that they elect governments, and thus owe responsibility to themselves and their fellow citizens to at least keep an eye on governmental matters, they wouldn't feel so alienated. But it's easier to just say, "Government (i.e., those people over there) is bad, and less government is better, so let's cut government".

I'm all for people holding their governments to account and being a part of the system, but it's easy to see how people do become alienated. If I were in the US, I wouldn't be represented by a single politician at state level as I'm not a Republican, Democrat or agree with Bernie Sanders. I don't really want to turn this into another debate about multi-party systems, and the UK is far from representative as a wonderful democracy either. There is no system that won't lead to alienation from at least some, and libertarians who just want government to leave them alone are likely to be the first that are lost.

Another cliche: "I'm not political." Yes you are, if you care at all what happens to you and to your family and friends. Politics = relationships between people living in a society.

Agreed again. Anyone who "isn't political" is an idiot.

[Næt.]

If more people would wake up to the fact that they ARE government, in the sense that they elect governments, and thus owe responsibility to themselves and their fellow citizens to at least keep an eye on governmental matters, they wouldn't feel so alienated. But it's easier to just say, "Government (i.e., those people over there) is bad, and less government is better, so let's cut government".

I'm all for people holding their governments to account and being a part of the system, but it's easy to see how people do become alienated. If I were in the US, I wouldn't be represented by a single politician at state level as I'm not a Republican, Democrat or agree with Bernie Sanders. I don't really want to turn this into another debate about multi-party systems, and the UK is far from representative as a wonderful democracy either. There is no system that won't lead to alienation from at least some, and libertarians who just want government to leave them alone are likely to be the first that are lost.

I think this is where the 'liek OMG teh erf's overpopplated!' has it's merits. Populations are too big for each person to be represented at a national level. In the UK there are ~65o MPs but ~6o,ooo,ooo people.

Oh by the way, me and Katja are working on a new politics poll.

If anyone wants to help just chime. Or PM. Whatever suits you.

[drnick]

Rather than comparing with conservatism, it's very interesting to consider the similarities between libetarianism (usually thought of as on the far right) and anarchism (usually thought of on the far left).

Both argue that centralised government is inherently repressive, but disagree as to what sort of society should be in its place - some types of anarchism believe democracy would occur through natural co-operation once the alienating control of capitalist government was removed, while libertarians are more likely to support capitalism. But there is common ground between them.

Then again, there's a very unpleasant strain of fascist thinking (social Darwinism) which can seen as somehow anarchistic - basically the idea that people should be left to their own devices and the strong will always win and exploit the weak (based on a view of human nature that suggests people will always compete, rather than co-operate). On the other hand anarcho-syndicalism (basically the notion of rebuilding society locally through organised labour) links into the idea of workers councils (soviets) which crosses over with Leninism.

[Næt.]

Anarchist ideas permeate many other ideologies and vice versa. There's no single 'anarchist' label just like there's no single 'communist' label, like you said.

Yes, you get some nutters (for lack of a better word) like Stirner who are all 'ooh survival of the fittest blah blah blah only the strong survive etc etc' but you also get people like Kropotkin and Bookchin, diametrically opposed to that particular school of thought.

I've also used 'libertarian' as synonymous with 'anarchist', by the way.

[drnick]

Hm, I'm not sure you can use libertarian and anarchist as synonyms, if for no other reason than they simply aren't normally used that way, correctly or not. Even if there are intellectual cross-overs. I would tend to define anarchism as being primarily anti-capitalist in nature, and so naturally close to certain forms of non-communist Marxism. Whereas libertarianism tends to be pro-capitalist and is linked to more mainstream neo-liberal economics (and crazy people with guns besieged by the FBI). But these are more associations than actual definitions.

What I do know is that the anarchists were the coolest faction in the Spanish Civil War (with the possible exception of the POUM, which George Orwell joined).

[Næt.]

I've always associated 'libertarian' with Noam Chomksy, Henry Thoreau etc.

[drnick]

I've always associated 'libertarian' with Noam Chomksy, Henry Thoreau etc.

That's a good point. I guess I'm just an old-school leftist who somehow thinks that anarchism is a good thing but libertarianism isn't (because it makes me think of Pat Buchanan).

[Næt.]

Isn't he that US Evangelist?

Or did he present Art Attack

[drnick]

Isn't he that US Evangelist?

Or did he present Art Attack

Actually I don't think he's a libertarian at all, he was just the first name I came up with. He was an advisor to Nixon in the 70s, is very right wing, and stood as an third party presidential candidate in 2004 - I thought it was for a libertarian type party, but a quick bit of wikipedia-ing reveals it was the reform party, which was founded by Ross Perot.

I think I've forgotten the point of this discussion.

[ThePieMaker]

I'm a moderate liberal at this time. Socially I'm more liberal than I am economically. Economics wise I'm pretty moderate and policy wise I'm just a little to the left. It's just the social matters that make me as liberal as I am. I love politics though. I've considered going into them myself, but I think I'm a bit too nice for it.

[Eddie7]

I've always associated 'libertarian' with Noam Chomksy, Henry Thoreau etc.

That's a good point. I guess I'm just an old-school leftist who somehow thinks that anarchism is a good thing but libertarianism isn't (because it makes me think of Pat Buchanan).

The fun part of this is that I'm largely the same. When I use libertarian, I'm largely using what would could also be referred to as classical liberalism. I don't really associate libertarianism with the right at all, although there are obviously some on the "right" who share such beliefs. It just seems to be the logical term given liberalism has been co-opted by the statists and economic regulators.

[jewel_box554]

I have beliefs that don't fit neatly into any category. I chose strong liberal though. I'm kind of stuck between socialism and anarchy. Socialism as in no religion and anti-capitalism and government-regulated economy, but anarchy because I hate all politicians and I'm somewhat of a misanthrope.

[red_brick_dream]

Marriage is about caring for "naturally born young"? Um... *looks at engagement ring* .....yeah....

Basically, there are no viable secular arguments for banning either abortion or same-sex marriage. These things harm no one and are only controversial because they are contradictory to certain religious beliefs.

Its "legal purpose," not its all-around purpose. Romney is a Mormon and probably strongly pro-marriage.

Romney pisses me off. But I must defend this position, though in a different way - the state has no business regulating marriage to begin with. So I would ban heterosexual marriage as well as a legal institution and leave it to churches and communities (I'm an atheist), as a ban on homosexual marriage infringes on the freedom of religious institutions to accept and perform such marriages.

I have beliefs that don't fit neatly into any category. I chose strong liberal though. I'm kind of stuck between socialism and anarchy. Socialism as in no religion and anti-capitalism and government-regulated economy, but anarchy because I hate all politicians and I'm somewhat of a misanthrope.

Some people would call that "doublethink." Socialism and anarchy are like shit and strawberry shortcake.

[UglymanCometh]

Moderate Conservative here...