What ideology do you most agree with?

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.

>>158
impostor

>>159
So why don't they negotiate with the US and try to get them to lift the embargo?
Now?  That's a whole fucking paper.
Because socialism leads to excessive power centralisation and excessive power centralisation leads to corruption.
Um... excessive power leads to corruption.  And it happens for all the "isms".  Quite the pickle; Absolute power corrupts, absolutely, applies not only to individuals but to any organization, and as any system or organization grows and its functions become less centralized and more comprehensive, it grows corrupt.  That's why we all keep settling into oligarchies.  And our rulers keep getting better and better at fooling us into thinking we live in free societies.  It's a fucking joke.
And Cuban children do not drink sewage.  Shame on you for spreading that kind of bullshit.
And I didn't say it was a nice government.  It's just no worse that the shit we call governments.

>>162
>excessive power leads to corruption
And socialism is a system that leads to excessive power centralisation...

As you look further into the processes behind why "power corrupts" and what causes organisational inefficiency and corruption it becomes increasingly obvious why socialism is not a good method of achieving your precious equality or anything desirable. A single system is essentially an independant hierarchy and because humans are limited in intelligence you need several rungs on the ladder because a human mind can only efficiently supervise a limited number of subordinate components or communicate effectively with it's superior, if the system becomes more complex or it grows in size you need more rungs and with each rung the distance between the king and the pawns increases, communications have to pass through more layers before they are registered and by that time they have usually been altered (for better or for worse), over-simplified or ignored altogether. Bear in mind we are talking about 10000s of spreadsheets, TPS reports, checks, balances, memos, e-mails and shit a day at this point.

The free market isn't a success as some argue because it utilises greed to motivate people, although this is an important factor (for better or for worse), it's more of a success because it is so flexible. You can have 1000s of autonomous units or one giant all consuming multi-national megacorporation depending on the nature of the economic activity, you even have kinds of democracy like building societies or the act of "voting with your wallet" in general. With a socialist system you must have a hierarchy at all times or the state (or people's republic or commune or worker's council or whatever you rename it) essentially has no control over the system and furthermore consumers don't really have much of a choice even if there is some kind of system of representation because of the size of the bureaucracy and the spin and corruption civil servants can get away with.

tl;dr: Corporations sometimes resemble bloated state bureaucracies but at least they are not mandatory.

Please, both socialism and free market shit leads to corruption.
The only way to really combat corruption is to create a sense of community in the society at large. If you have that it doesn't matter if you have free market or socialism. There has to be group pressure from society that people must work and contribute.
This is however impossible in multicultural countries.

>>164
But socialism leads to more corruption as I just proved, faggot.

>>165
Well yeah, free market at least gives people a chance to overturn corrupt assholes. I'd say a corrupt socialist state is worse than a corrupt free market state, but a clean socialist state is better than a clean free market state.

>>166
hmm well you just said both socialism and the free market lead to corruption so I guess that settles it. Though arguably an ideal system would not eliminate the possibility of nationalising certain services as long as there are free market alternatives available.

Forum: Troll Fox News. You up for it?

the only ideology i truly agree with is humanism

Chinese nationalism.  Gweilos will submit to our superiority!

>>169
YOUR A CUNT!½!!!!

Social-conservative, market-liberal.

>>169
Humanism is a great ideal, but it must be tempered with the knowledge that though rationality and mutual respect are the pinnacles of mortal ethics, there are those in the world who would fight against them for personal gain. I guess you could say that I'm a militant humanist. Fuck the haters - ALL of them.

>>171
^* YOU'RE A CUNT!½!!!!

http://www.wsu.edu/%7Ebrians/errors/your.html

>>170
ok, uh yeah I'll have kung pao chicken and egg rice please, oh and a coke

>>173
>fuck anyone who disagrees with me
Congrats on fucking up humanism and turning into yet another extremist partisan ideology.

>>176
Hear hear.

conservative liberal
liberal in terms of economy
conservative in area of family and society

>>178
I'd prefer it if you were conservative in terms of economy and liberal in areas of family and society.

>>179
I'd prefer it if you'd prefer not to tell others what they should believe.

>>178
Why not be both conservative in terms of economy and family/society?

Me personally I couldn't have it any other way. No more Federal Reserve (central bank) and no more planning of the economy, the currency should be backed by precious metals (e.g. gold and silver), free market, etc. all that jazz.

Family and society too. I mean it's up to the people to regulate themselves in their personal behavior. But I do believe that there should be things out there that promote such individual regulation.

>>180
I'd prefer it if you wouldn't whine like a little bitch whenever someone so much as states an opinion that conflicts with yours.

>>181
Because Humanity would stagnate.

I want to do whatever I want and it still be legal, without actually knowing the law, as it would subconsciously unfluence me toward fucked in the ass.

Also one-person-per-planet sounds fun, if not for the speed of light being awfully small.

>>184
So you want to be a barbarian hermit?  Seriously though, I see what you're getting at, and I think it may be possible to aspire to a system that would afford such freedom.

>>185 "One cannot live in society and be free from society" -- Vladimir Ulyanov

>>186
Exactly!  Participation must be voluntary.

>>183
Actually quite the opposite. I would call the current economic condition to be far from prosperous. In fact it's quite stagnant.

I wouldn't force society and family to be conservative, that goes against the idea of a free society. I would like it to be promoted, but nobody should be forced to live in such a way if they don't wish to.

>>188
   I said humanity would stagnate.  Do you equate the economic condition with humanity?  Do you believe that the two current major economic philosophies are mutually exclusive, and/or that a new philosophy will not be conceived?
And by the way, though there's no telling how the left would have screwed it up, one can't deny that the right has been at the reigns for quite a while, and that they led us into this swamp.


Then depending on what you mean by "promoted", I respect your understanding of conservatism.  In matters of society, family, and morality, I view myself as being conservative in the extreme.

>>189 you're talking about American politics, right? Who exactly do you consider to be "the left", then? I can only hope that not Democrats, which are centre-right by objective standards.

Leftists (CPUSA, Green Party) virtually never held any power.

>>189
I said humanity would stagnate.

OK. What reasons do you believe would make it stagnate?

Do you equate the economic condition with humanity?

No. That's just one facet of it.

Do you believe that the two current major economic philosophies are mutually exclusive, and/or that a new philosophy will not be conceived?

Are you speaking of the Keynesian and Austrian school of economic philosophies? Well, Keynesian philosophy is what is put into practice now. To me, it hasn't exactly shown itself to be a good philosophy when put into such practice. As for a new philosophy being conceived, I cannot say. Although if one does form I would be willing to have a serious look into it.

And by the way, though there's no telling how the left would have screwed it up, one can't deny that the right has been at the reigns for quite a while, and that they led us into this swamp.

Well the thing is there's really not much difference between the left or right or Republicans and Democrats. They're both big spenders and they're both for bigger government.

I say the whole left/right, Republican/Democrat name blaming game is completely pointless. It really draws people away from the overall bigger picture.

Then depending on what you mean by "promoted", I respect your understanding of conservatism.  In matters of society, family, and morality, I view myself as being conservative in the extreme.

Well, I'm not exactly sure myself how it should be promoted. I certainly wouldn't want the public to be saturated with it, that's for sure. That is something I think the people should ultimately decide for themselves. But if people promote, I wouldn't object to it.

You're not an intellectual for thinking you don't have enough freedom in an egalitarian 1st world democracy. You're a spoiled brat.

>>192
If I could have convinced more slaves that they were slaves, I would have freed thousands more.
-Harriet Tubman

>>191
Why do I believe humanity would stagnate?
Left=Liberal=Progressive vs. Right=Conservative=Regressive
It's just the nature of the beast.  I wrote this in a thread a while ago:
Conservatives want things to stay as they are, or move backwards.  Liberals want to move things forward.  Conservatives believe that the things that we have known for a long time are the most important things, because they are what make us what we are, so they endeavor to preserve them.  Liberals believe that the new things we have learned are the most important, because it is often a failure to understand these things that causes most of the direct suffering, so they endeavor to implement them.
But there are many bad old ideas that conservatives cling to.  And there are many bad new ideas that liberals cleave to.
Each wishes only to prevent suffering.
Liberals are more willing to sacrifice certain behaviors in the interests of cooperation and progress.
Conservatives believe that the sacrifice of some of these behaviors is a bad idea that will change us for the worse. Sometimes they are correct.
The liberals are the people to thank for progress.  But they're also the ones to blame when fundamentals are abandoned and chaos ensues.  The liberals are the brain, and the courage.  The conservatives are the backbone, and the spirit.

An environment that is politically, economically, intellectually, spiritually, and socially conservative, and they're adherents do tend to bunch together, is not capable of conceiving, nurturing, and implementing new ideas as quickly as a liberal environment.  Anywhere near as quickly.  So slowly that I think the use of the wore stagnate is fair.  I'm reminded of the old conservative complaints about liberal intellectuals and liberalism in Universities.  It's not that they are smarter per se, but there is a much greater tendency among liberals to experiment and take risks.
     Regarding "economics", I am not referring to Keynesian/Austrian "schools" or any of the other purely speculative nonsense that people continue to create to prop up a system with fundamental flaws.  No amount of witchcraft will ever be able to support a large society based primarily on how it distributes it's resources.  I do have a plan, but this is already getting tl.
Well the thing is there's really not much difference between the left or right or Republicans and Democrats. They're both big spenders and they're both for bigger government.
In practice, I agree.
And there has only ever been one ethical way to promote a philosophy: Lead by example.

>>193
Freed from what? I can do anything I want. Though I suppose this is largely because I am willing to put in the effort to earn what I want.

I guess you lazy proles should either shut the fuck up or kill yourselves.

>>195
Sounds like you should spend some of that big money you earn on anger therapy.  I wonder why you're so angry?  Perhaps it's because you can't really do anything you want, and deep down inside you know that you're a slave.

>>194
>my team is better than yours hurfdederpdederp

Liberal = favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
Conservative = cautiously moderate or purposefully low

There is nothing in the definition of conservative that says they resist change, just that they are more rational since they are cautious and moderate which is a good thing in politics because you can't just play around with people's lives, decisions have to be made carefully.

>>196
Angry? No. This is how I usually talk.

>>194 Left-wingers go after egalitarianism, Right-wingers go after individualism.

Just because American right-wing is reactionary doesn't mean all right-wing ideologies and organizations are.

Reactionaries (right-wing by your distinction) could choose to undermine a new libertarian regime.
Revolutionaries (left-wing by your distinction) could choose to choose to establish a feudal caste system after seeing how far egalitarianism got the society.

>>199
Paradoxical, ain't it.