What do you consider yourself to be?
Please use the most specific term you can.
Also, what party do you usually vote for? (please list country)
Please, don't start arguments about ideologies, just answer the questions. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.
Name:
Anonymous2009-07-04 15:37
I'm best described as a libertarian theocrat. People should be able to do whatever they damn well please as long as God doesn't say otherwise.
I usually vote for the Canadian Green party.
Name:
Anonymous2009-07-04 16:06
I'm Belgian and I'm a Japanese nationalist.
Sadly there are no Belgian-Japanese politicians currently, but if there ever is one, he'll get my vote, no matter what his ideology is.
Name:
Anonymous2009-07-04 16:07
I've always had a soft spot for Mussolini's brand of fascism but at heart I have to admit I am more of a hardcore maoist.
Name:
Anonymous2009-07-04 20:37
I usually find myself having trouble deciding between Democratic Socialism, Libertarian Socialism, and Anarcho-Syndicalism.
I usually vote for the Socialist Party USA, but last year I ended up voting for the Green Party because I liked the candidate better.
Name:
Anonymous2009-07-04 23:19
I would say Totalitarianism if i had an incorruptible government. The average person is just too stupid to decide what is best for a nation. When there is such a close competition between 2 faces of the same coin in an election, you know there is a problem with democracy. 1 unquestioned political party that is truly working for the good of the people would be perfect. Leaders would be selected based on their capability rather than how good a spin doctor they are, or because it's in the interest of certain businessmen to have a certain person in power.
Sadly this will never happen.
Name:
Alexander Pope2009-07-05 0:15
For forms of government
Let fools contest.
Whatever's best administered
Is best.
Name:
Virgil Leone2009-07-05 7:01
Original Constitutionalist. I don't vote unless the candidate is worth it. I didn't vote nationally but I voted locally. Voting based on party lines is an ignorant practice. Filling in Superman is always a good option, perhaps one day he'll get voted in.
Name:
Anonymous2009-07-05 10:41
>>8
um, there are a lot of constitutions in the world.
can you be more specific?
Technocracy (a form of government in which scientists and technical experts are in control).
Democracy is nice in theory but there's just too many stupid people out there. They shouldn't be allowed to vote for the have no clue (see USA).
Name:
Anonymous2009-07-05 15:25
Ultra liberal
Name:
Anonymous2009-07-06 23:28
Pacifist Anarchist, don't agree with the system but I don't believe there's any need to destroy it to prove the point.
I don't vote.
Name:
Virgil Leone2009-07-06 23:29
>>9
Well I'm an American but I believe a strong constitution is the foundation of a strong country. This is of course provided it is a good constitution which can adapt through amendments. No single constitution is right for every country.
People are stupid, so we should never let any person have absolute control. Democracy.
Name:
Anonymous2009-07-11 0:17
Libertarian totalitarianism
Basic philosophy in this state is that you can do whatever you want to do as long as it doesn't harm others and doesn't challenge the authority of the state.
There are no "victimless crimes".. drugs, prostitution, euthanasia, etc. are all legal.
No democracy; the leader is a dictator who has little right over the people as long as the government itself isn't directly threatened.
Name:
Anonymous2009-07-11 23:19
I'm an Oligarchical Collectivist. Which actually has a lot in common with what the poster above me said with his Libertarian totalitarianism. There are just a few differences.
Name:
Anonymous2009-07-12 0:55
>>17
I have to agree with you there, Emmanuel Goldstein is just a demagogue butthurt because he was kicked out of the party.
Name:
Anonymous2009-07-12 1:14
Jesus Christ. Does some idiot have to make the connection between 1984 everytime I mention Oligarchical Collectivism? You do realize that there are a lot of variations to it and it isn't a party that is impossible to bring about right? It could actually do a hell of a lot better than the current system we have in most nations. So really, this is a board for political discussion, not George Orwell novels.
Name:
Anonymous2009-07-12 2:03
>>19
Would you like to live in an oligarchial collectivism even if you are not part of the oligarchy?
Name:
Anonymous2009-07-12 3:18
Well it would not be hard to be part of the Oligarchy. People who were useful to the Party are part of the oligarchy. Pretty much any job was run by the government. So I could easily be Outer Party. Only the idiots and useless were proles. Now I would most likely never make it to Inner Party though. But unless you were literally scum you could make it into the Outer Party at least.
Name:
Anonymous2009-07-15 14:44
Fuedalist
I think that humanity is better off with Lords and Ladies. They had an incentive to care for their people (who dierectly fed them) and to manage resources better. Capitalism doesn't work because it creates the law of the Jungle -- every man for himself, and screw anyone who gets in the way. Communism puts beareucrats in charge, but they don't give a fuck because they don't live anywhere NEAR where they make decisions for.
Name:
Anonymous2009-07-16 4:53
>>22
But the nepots keep doing stupid shit like stifling technological progress to keep their peasants dumb so they feel good about themselves.
Name:
Anonymous2009-07-29 9:35
Ideologies are as meaningfull, as "The sweetest thing ever". You wouldn't want it all the time.
Unless you had a dynamic ideology. This is why all ideologies of the past failed. They stuck by their original thoughts and did not change with the times. So other ideologies took over. If you had an ideology that was dynamic and changed with the times it would be good, survive, and would not become stagnant and bore people. Oligarchical Collectivism and Libertarian Authoritiarianism ( which are practically the same) would survive and become great ideologies that are dynamic and would change with the times. They would not become old and stagnate like others in the past.
Name:
Anonymous2009-07-30 3:01
>>25
What if the oligarchial collectivists decide to become stalinists?
Name:
Anonymous2009-07-30 6:34
I consider myself to be a Liberal. I think everyone should be entitled to their choices and should live their lives by their OWN CHOICES AND ACTIONS, rather than going by the book/pro-life style. I think the government should be leaving the people's social life alone and should be working towards bettering the economy and using the money to help its citizens.
I do not, however, believe in bailouts. I think they're pretty terrible.
Because Stalinism has nothing to do with Oligarchical Collectivism. Stalinism is a failed ideology that should not be emulated because it will only lead to further failure. Just like Nazism or any form of WN is a failed and inferior ideology.
Name:
Anonymous2009-07-30 15:22
>>28
That's not going to stop them from turning the system into a Stalinism if it suits them. You haven't thought this through, or even looked at history for that matter.
Name:
Anonymous2009-07-30 17:40
I'm basically a skeptic. All answers are wrong. We're fucked. Best to just get along with the folks where you live. What they think, I should pretend to think. Makes life easier and me more popular.
That is a contradiction of terms. If you are a skeptic then you consider all options as possible. You do not assume that all answers are false because they could very well be correct. A skeptic has no strong opinions on things. They think about things and consider each and every option. You are contradicting yourself. Learn more about skepticism and political theory before you make such corrupted logic.
Name:
Anonymous2009-07-30 18:00
>>33
There's a difference between Academic Skepticism and Pyrrhonian Skepticism. Lrn2philosophy.
Name:
Anonymous2009-07-30 18:03
>>33
>also thinks a single sentence, written conversationally=logic
God, your post is just so wrong on so many levels. You don't know what skeptic means, you don't know what logic means, you're a damn mess, son.
Name:
Anonymous2009-07-30 19:20
You guys are idiots. You are skeptics because it is "radical" and "edgy". You have no idea what skepticism is. Academic Skepticism is a crock of shit. Pyrrhonian Skepticism is the only type of skepticism that makes any sense. They consider all and everything possible. Not you pseudo-intellectual fucks with your intellectual circlejerk.
Name:
Anonymous2009-08-02 11:29
>>33 >>34 >>35 >>36
Wow, is it still 1855? Haven't any of you ignorant uneducated niggers heard of Wittgenstein? Modern analytic philosophy reveals that pyrrhonism's logical justification requires the acceptance of academic skepticism since one must first realise that nothing is absolutely certain in order to deduce that due to the limitations of the mind we must assume some things are certain in order to function thereby leading to pyrrhonic skepticism.