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.

Pragmatism. I find most ideologies to be flawed, although I also lean towards both progressivism and libertarianism.

>>78
The only oxymoron is thinking corporate tyrannies are in any way 'libertarian'. In any case, libertarian socialism is an anti-state idea. Educate yourself on what words actually mean.

>>81

libertarianism and progressivism are more opposite than fire and ice.. you cannot be both... progressivism is a political machine birthed in 1918 with its roots in Eugenics. It also extolls the virtues of a strong State that oppresses its people in the name of "social justice"... libertarianism is the belief in the constitution and declaration of independence alone... wanting the state to stay 99% out of our lives.  You are either a troll or among the most intellectually inept cliched puppets that have turned the United State of America from the greatest nation on Earth into the putrid smoldering pile of socialist diarrhea  it has become.

>>83
Why don't you go run off and read the fucking wikipedia article on Libertarianism before you spout this dumb bullshit.

>>84

Wikipedia is a mouthpiece for which there is no regulations or standard of fact...  Why don't you know what you're saying beyond what you read on the internet before you allow your mouth to run off and regurgitate the ill-informed dribble that spouts from the "intellectuals" of the internet.. "intellectuals" mind you who lack the testicular fortitude to stand up to their claims in reality because in reality they are laughable.

>>85
Yeah, it's true: Wikipedia has a safety mechanism to prevent article editing by any computer that's ever visited mises.org.

No, wait, you're just fucking delusional.

>>85
"Libertarianism is the belief in the constitution and the declaration of indepedence alone" hahahahaha seriously you are the most ignorant motherfucker I have read today.

It originated in fucking Europe, dude, as a covert euphemism for ANARCHISM.

I don't believe in ideology, I am pragmatic and logical, I accept my limitations and that I will never discover a one size fit all rule book that solves all the world's problems all the time, every time.

>>88
Is there an appreciation of good and evil in your pragmatic and logical ideology, and do you believe that it's possible that someone could write a one size fits all rule book that could solve many of the worlds problems?

I am an Anarcho-Communist. Actually, a Cyber-Anarcho-Communist.

I don't believe in the monetary system and I'm fine with immediate action.

>>89
I appreciate good and evil when other factors are taken into account such as the specific definition of good and evil and our fallible nature in determining what actions are good and evil.

It is possible that someone could come up with a perfect utopia but it's very unlikely and ironically you are even less likely to stumble across it if you are some kind of fruity head in the clouds idealist since this is an irrational method of looking for answers like >>90 here. A pragmatic plural practical approach yields more facts and more valid proven theories to work with.

>>91
Thank you. I suggest that the pragmatic plural practical approach is an excellent environment for fostering communities of ideas, information ecologies if you will, that produce not only more valid theories to work with, but also the occasional true innovator, who is often initially seen as a stumbling, fruity, head in the clouds idealist. 
Take >>90   I have absolutely no idea what he means by a Cyber-Anarcho-Communist, but I find the jargon compelling.  The cyber element, addressing the profound impact of communication technologies on post industrial societies, is rational.  And anarcho-communist?  Initially they seem contradictory.  Individuality vs. collectivism.  But is this not the root of political discord?  If it was possible to reconcile the two positions to the satisfaction of most, would this not be the answer?  And would it not then be fairly called Cyber-Anarcho-Communism?  I believe there is a theoretical model of just such a system.  But again, I have no idea what >>90 meant.

>>92
Anarcho-communism is not contradictory. Holy hell, Republican Catalonia were Libertarian Communists. I wish more people knew what they were talking about.

>>93
Never said it was.  I said "Initially they seem contradictory."  And rather than wishing that "more people knew what they were talking about." how about you spend a little more time clearly explaining what you're talking about.  Then you might get your wish.

>>94
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=anarcho-communism

>>95
Like anyone here wastes time researching most of the jargon, double talk and nonsense that gets posted.  Grow up.

>>96
Except it's not jargon, double talk, or nonsense and you would know that if you had even an ounce of education in political history.

>>92
Thank you? wut.

If the approach is plural that entails including those who are apparently crackpots in the "community of ideas", doesn't it? If good ideas don't get accepted instantly it's only because of natural limitations, it takes time for a person to rigorously examine something and understand why they are good ideas and they don't have the time/motivation to examine every single idea every crackpot injects into the ecology.

>>90 covers only a few factors, liberty, equality and the implications of IT are important and ideally we are better off with more of them but it isn't practical to declare this to be a revelation and that everything must be polarised to maximise them. Anarcho-communism would never work because essentially everything must be done heterarchically (democratically) restricting the use of hierarchy and autonomy when it might be more efficient, even if it doesn't go to extremes and just emphasises heterarchy it is still holding a bias which unnecessarily reduces the efficiency of organisations.

Factors like economic freedom, order and hierarchical power structures are often demonised by various groups critical of their excessive levels in their society, but this does not mean that they are an inherant evil and a society free from them would be a utopia. In fact they are often essential to create the conditions where equality and liberty can exist in the first place.

>>97
No?  What it is is yet another one of the thousands and potentially infinite number of hyphenated political pipe dreams that happen to be in fashion with a certain crowd right now.  And if you had an ounce of perspective...
My political education is limited to a poly sci survey course a long time ago, so forgive me if I've forgotten your pet utopia.  I'm sure it was listed when we did those crazy 19th century anarchists, running around with their little bombs.  Was it chapter 6?
Twit.

>>98
Thank you? wut.
I find it pragmatic and logical to express approval of intelligence.


If the approach is plural that entails including those who are apparently crackpots in the "community of ideas", doesn't it? If good ideas don't get accepted instantly it's only because of natural limitations, it takes time for a person to rigorously examine something and understand why they are good ideas and they don't have the time/motivation to examine every single idea every crackpot injects into the ecology.

of course.

Please share your reaction to this:  I believe it may be possible to build a society that has three major levels.  Private:  The citizen who holds land enough for his survival, and eventual comfort, and  full internet access.(And only electricity for this)
Public: Organic societies made up of Private Citizens from villages to city states, bound together by mutual benefit.
Civil Servant:  An organization that serves a few noble goals.  The maintenance of the internet, scientific research(currently, the two most crucial areas are physics, and genetics, 'cause we need to get off of this world and get more land, and stop dying of old age)and self sustenance.

>>99
What is the Paris Commune? What is the First International? The First American Red Scare? The Industrial Workers of the World? What is Catalonia?

>>101
COMMIES!

Marxist/Transhumanist

>>100
The conditions in this society are a bit vague, the power structure, state of the economy, the political culture and how each of these levels are supported remains undefined. The term "organic societies" is ill defined, I'm imagining some kind of cross between a building society and a local government.

>>101
Paris Commune!
Some militants declare themselves rulers of Paris during a 2 month power vacuum between Prussian troops leaving and French national guards returning, they failed to gain the support of the general population and were all killed.
Mission failed.

First International!
Wealthy pseudo-intellectuals develop a deluded perspective of the world and attempt to start a global revolution, after being rejected by actual worker's unions with real aims it degraded into infighting and fell apart.
Mission failed.

The First American Red Scare!
A bunch of hicks get hysterical over the soviet russia, a few strikes and 2 anarchist bombers, anarchists/communists/fascists/socialists join the bandwagon and claim a revolution is taking place from their armchairs.
Nothing happens.

The Industrial Workers of the World!
Dwindled into insignificance as the 20s progressed due to their pointless obsession with marxist ideology.
Mission failed.

Free Catalan Republic!
Neglected to make use of Barcelona's resources for the war effort or properly unite with the republicans so they could focus on forcing people into collective farms and make a few token reforms.
Mission failed.

Canadian here.

I've always voted for the Conservative Party. Unlike its American counterpart, it doesn't fuck things up.

No state can contain the beast. Kill everyone! Murder everyone you know! You got to get in there and keep fucking until everyone is all dead! Only He/she who stands atop the pile of bodies at the end is fit to rule the world.

>>106
Delusional 14 year old detected.

>>107
YHBT detected.

>>108
Go quote "fight club" and pretend this makes you cool and edgy, faggot.

>>106
Agreed

I believe in something along the lines of "Christian Democracy".

>>111
Nonsense. The invocation of religion in politics abets theocracy.

>>112
And the sleep of reason begets monsters.

What do you think should be done?  If there were a law saying only atheists were allowed to run for political office, do you think this would fix the problem or make it worse?  Would you be for it or against it?

>>113

Nice strawman.

>>114
Then elaborate.  You say "the invocation of religion in politics abets theocracy."

Okay, are you saying there should be rules to keep it out?  If so, what rules are you proposing?  If not, what do you recommend?

>>115

I did not make that comment. I just liked your subtle use of a strawman argument to make your point.

>>113
>>115
I said it, and there is a "rule to keep it out" in my country.  It's called the First Amendment.  You might say it's our highest law.  And though I don't believe that only allowing atheists to run for public office(this too would be a clear violation of the first amendment), I'm personally sure that they couldn't do any worse.  Face facts:  the kind of theism that contemporary mainstream christianity represents quite nicely, along with most of the other ideas on theism and religions that are practiced today were finally identified by mainstream Philosophy as the dangerous fictions they are in the middle of the 19th century. 
What I recommend is simple.  An end to the kind of hypocrisy that these "faiths" only serve to facilitate.  As people have proved themselves incapable of producing an effective system that addresses the interests of "conservatives" and "liberals" alike, I say we split them up.  If you want to be free to do what you want;  if you want to be self reliant, and cling to an ideology that prizes integrity and personal responsibility above all else, then so be it.  Here's a piece of land, and the information you need to survive on it.  Don't call us, we'll call you.  If, on the other hand, you are willing to make sacrifices for a "greater good"; if you want to be part of a collective that has a "noble purpose", and the sacrifices you make provide the kind of comfort, security, and progress you desire then shut the fuck up and do as you're told.  Lead, follow, or get out of the way, hypocrites.

>>106
>>108
>>110
Same person.
>>117
Stop side-stepping the question. What would you do to force groups you don't like from being represented by the government?

>>118
I'm not side-stepping shit.  All group identities must be subject to the government, or independent of the government.  The government's primary purpose is the founding of societies who do not wish to be subject to the government.

>>119
Um, well, maybe in North Korea it would end there but in a democracy people also get their views represented by the government and there are often constitutional countermeasures against a tyranny of the majority.