• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

What political ideology do you identify? And why?

Danton said:
Isms, in my opinion, are not good. A person should not believe in an ism; he should believe in himself.





Ok, it's from Ferris Bueller, you caught me. That doesn't make it any less true.
Click to expand...

True, and if everyone was decent and didn't need a BIG babysitter that would suffice. But *sigh* that would never happen. :nope:
 
The OP asks an open question then proceeds to list the values we are supposed to agree with. Is this supposed to be the second part of the question:
greatest level of individual liberty, while still protecting human rights, social standards, and economic entrepreneurship?
What political structure incubates a status quo that is relatively free of bureaucratic, corporate, and socialistic corruption?
What political form leads to the most economic prosperity, technological development, and cultural progression?

What ideals should be included in this ideal political philosophy?

What political ideology is to be considered the inheritor of the noninterventionist ideals regarding the movement where reason was advocated as the primary source and legitimacy for authority?
What political ideology is to be regarded as the successor of the liberal ideals of the Age of Enlightenment?

The focus of this thread is to identify political ideals that preserve, protect and defend individual liberty and economic freedom and recognize the hindrances to those basic human rights. It is to distinguish political principles that maximize individual liberties and those that jeopardize the right to life, liberty, and happiness.

In a society shaped by industrial, technological, and scientific advancements - what political philosophy do you consider to be the proper and true extension of classical liberalism?
Click to expand...

Or are you saying your underlying premise is we should all value the same things here?
 
beeksc1 said:
The focus of this thread is to identify political ideals that preserve, protect and defend individual liberty and economic freedom and recognize the hindrances to those basic human rights. It is to distinguish political principles that maximize individual liberties and those that jeopardize the right to life, liberty, and happiness.
Click to expand...


To me, the greatest threats to an individual's right to life, liberty, and happiness are those people so interested in their own life, liberty, and happiness that they're content to allow others to fall through the cracks rather shoulder the burden of cooperation. What an individual with means deems as an over-large government with an over-extended its reach, an individual without means might describe that same government as merely "robust".

Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. once said "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins." While it's somewhat ironic to quote the man given some of his Machiavellian leanings, that quote in particular is extensible in a number of ways. For one, it simultaneously defines the boundaries of both an individual's freedoms and his restrictions. While we may well have the right to life, liberty, and happiness, to pursue these at the expense of others should be subject to intense scrutiny.

The ideal of the greatest good for the greatest number of people is a good one, but it's somewhat incompatible, I think, with the idea that the ends justify the means. Honor and integrity are important to any "advanced" society, and while a principal of "no man left behind" isn't realistic, it's at least worth getting as close to the ideal as is possible. Because of these views, I think that an enforced government policy enlightened self-interest is best. Unless an ideology provides for the best interests of all individuals, it is merely a statement of intent for the haves to jettison the have-nots before they pull them under.
 
Last edited:
Dancing David said:
Maybe Social Libertarianist.
Click to expand...

Sounds very similar to Libertarian Socialism. And sometimes I do refer to Libertarian Socialism as Social Libertarianism.

aggle-rithm said:
Naturally, I became a Republican and have been one ever since.

I believe that the state should operate under rule of law, and those laws should protect the rights of all individuals regardless of how the majority feels about those individuals. The lawmaking process should be flexible enough so that any unintended consequences of new laws can be rectified quickly.

However, I also have a strong personal abhorance to abortion, although I would never stand in a woman's way if she wanted to have one. I also reject the idea that people who have a lot of money are evil and must be punished and/or must be forced to subsidize the lives of the less fortunate.

As far as fiscal issues go...I still think the Reagan tax cuts were a great idea, since they resulted in a net increase in tax revenues. However, the tax cuts that have been enacted since then haven't had the same effect, and I think we are now in the area of diminishing returns.
Click to expand...

Rule of Law is a good principle. No one is above the law; but, we must have just laws.

I feel very similar to your views on abortion.

I disagree with your stance on graduate taxation. Remember that we live in a society and a society implies we are all in this mess together. When you are knocked down, are not you glad when someone standing extends an arm to help you up. You are looking at the issue backward.

Danton said:
Isms, in my opinion, are not good. A person should not believe in an ism; he should believe in himself.
Click to expand...

I mostly agree.

As Marley and Tosh say,
We sick an' tired of your ism-schism game.
Click to expand...

And we all should believe in ourself.

BaaBaa said:
Monanarchist
Click to expand...

That political ideology tends to minimize individual liberty. No-go.

Skeptic Ginger said:
Or are you saying your underlying premise is we should all value the same things here?
Click to expand...

Well, I think that maximizing individual liberty and preserving economic freedom are common values that most intelligent people agree upon.

Cynic said:
To me, the greatest threats to an individual's right to life, liberty, and happiness are those people so interested in their own life, liberty, and happiness that they're content to allow others to fall through the cracks rather shoulder the burden of cooperation.
Click to expand...

With all do respect, I do not see what your trying to get at.
 
beeksc1 said:
I partially agree. I agree adhering to classical Marxism leads to totalitarian regimes. I agree that adhering to strict anarchy leads to chaos. The political ideology that I sympathize with is an integral philosophy drawing from libertarian approaches, socialistic values, and egalitarian structures.
Click to expand...

Just joking in my previous post. Seriously, I think that Marxism with liberty was never given a chance. The 2 times it could have worked; Alexander Dubcek's Prague Spring in 1968 and Salvador Allende in Chile, ended by aggression by one and the other cold war powers. The USSR in Czechoslovakia and the USA in Chile. I guess we'll never know.

Several posters have declared a preference for libertarian socialism. Maybe that can be my choice too.
 
Last edited:
-We have had relative success with use of the British Common Law model and I see no reason not to include that in an ideal society.
-A change in the legal definition of marriage would be favorable in my opinion and should be changed to:
"A contract made in due form of law, by which two free adults reciprocally engage to live with each other during their joint lives, in the union which ought to exist between two adults."
-The Constitution and Amendments of the US seemed to be useful and generally agreeable, though some portions of the Constitution may need revising to deal with population growth.
-I feel the economic system is the area where most people differ and that would certainly be up for debate, but I believe that if we can manage to use the scientific method to land a man on the moon, then surely we can apply it to economics and find the system which works best.

That's about all I can think of right now. Any detractors?
 
Cynic said:
To me, the greatest threats to an individual's right to life, liberty, and happiness are those people so interested in their own life, liberty, and happiness that they're content to allow others to fall through the cracks rather shoulder the burden of cooperation.
Click to expand...

beeksc1 said:
With all due respect, I do not see what you're trying to get at.
Click to expand...


I'm referring to people who feel that "every man for himself" is a solid moral basis for a civilized society, even if they wouldn't phrase it that way.
 
The True Scotsman said:
OK, I get to be the king the first day and I mandate, with my absolute power, that I get to be king everyday from this day forward. :p
Click to expand...
I never said it was an ABSOLUTE monanarchy...tuesdays, it's Dave, wednesday it it's Jessica, thursday it's Sherri and...ummm....friday, I'm in love*

*I got nothin'....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom