Your political views

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

First of all, can we agree that the best government is the least government?

 

Right now we mostly have massive, intrusive governments that even go so far as to enter the business world using the vehicle of crown corporations.  This is not right.  A proper government operates with a deft touch to get work done, not with some tax-blowing bludgeon.

 

Massive governments have led to the idea of 'entitlements' on the part of the tax-payers.  This is identical with the idea of 'patronage' in the Roman Empire.  Every pleb who wants to get anywhere has to have a patron who will exercise 'pull' to get him to a better position.

[AkemiAzula 280]

Too many people have voting power. Most leople dont vote or vote based on some whim. Heck even back in straya i knew ppl so not bothered theyd rather be fined. We all know voting for one moron or another wont make no difference innit.

[mrsmartman 200]

Governments should provide an adequate level of service but not excessive. They should maintain a balance budget by charging an appropriate level of tax.

 

As for the government responsibility to carry out affirmative action, I recommend the book "Justice" from Michael Sandel. However, it is very difficult to determine the appropriate level of help to be offered to the disadvantaged people to maintain a fair society with social mobility. The definition of "fair" is rather controversial.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Fair like would, could and should are words that should only be used in some meta-science like philosophy.

[mrsmartman 200]

Yes many economists look at issues in an empirical way, focus on analyzing result of a policy.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Just remember that policies are formulated by politicians.  "Politics is the art of the possible." -- Bismark.

[FrenchThom 27]

I am a strong progressivist , and so a proud liberal . Although I'm still a capitalist , I firmly believe in the central importance of the intervention of the state .

[Sabretooth78 808]

"The government is best which governs least."

 

I would probably be in the stark minority in a room if I were to say the US needs another Calvin Coolidge (or better yet, another Thomas Jefferson), so I'll aim for some middle ground and say we need another Eisenhower.  Preferably with a little less mucking around in Iran (we're still reaping the rewards on that one).

 

I believe that the major political parties (at least in the US) are nothing more than minimally differing wings of the same politicians' union.  That's all they are - politician's unions whose sole purpose is keeping their members (and back room power deals) in power.  They like to vilify labor unions (and for some good reasons as most of them have lost their way over time - another topic for another day), so I would like to call a spade a spade and turn it against them.

 

Since saying there's a political spectrum outside of the D-R paradigm (and implying that it's an analogous breadth to the visual spectrum as compared entire electromagnetic spectrum) will confuse most Americans, I'll summarize my beliefs in terms of the only jargon they understand:  Conservative on fiscal issues and liberal on social issues.  A platform which neither major party in the US represents - both big spenders and only a difference on a few key social wedge issues (that the opposing side always ends up conceding to; for right or wrong).  They both love war, they both love the useless war on drugs, printing money, corporate welfare, etc.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

"A little revolution is good once in a while" --  Thomas Jefferson.

[hamsterTK 93]

Since saying there's a political spectrum outside of the D-R paradigm (and implying that it's an analogous breadth to the visual spectrum as compared entire electromagnetic spectrum) will confuse most Americans, I'll summarize my beliefs in terms of the only jargon they understand:  Conservative on fiscal issues and liberal on social issues.  A platform which neither major party in the US represents - both big spenders and only a difference on a few key social wedge issues (that the opposing side always ends up conceding to; for right or wrong).  They both love war, they both love the useless war on drugs, printing money, corporate welfare, etc.

 

 

???

 

A mildly libertarian populist? You'll find that is an age-old undercurrent in American politics, actually.

 

I am a strong progressivist , and so a proud liberal . Although I'm still a capitalist , I firmly believe in the central importance of the intervention of the state .

 

 

bro-fist

[Durfsurn 539]

 

I took some quiz to give me a stand. Looks like I stand similar to Ghandi:

 

[Haljackey 17,398]

Vote compass is back for the 2015 Canadian federal election.

I consider myself centrist, so I generally agree where I am placed on that graph. Even though the closest party is the Liberals, my faith in them has been shaken since they voted for bill C-51.

 

 

Give the test a try here https://votecompass.cbc.ca/

[matias93 7,535]

Those graphs are interesting, but they don't show all the needed information. For example, the parties' distribution in Canada shows the median voter is not in the middle of the graph, but most probably in the liberal-left quadrant. So, the LPC backing of the C-51 could be explained as coalitional behaviour with the CPC (I'm not much in tune with canadian politics, but it seems that that is the case), because that is the only way to govern coalitionally in a parlamentary system. In the long term, that could render the LPC a rightist party (at least functionally).

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

The discussion of this item is actually in Current Events (Canadian Politics thread).  I just posted my opinion over there and don't think there is any point in repeating it here.

The problem is that the Trendy Pee and the gLiberals are duking it out in Quebec and hoping Ontario will ride along while ignoring the Maritimes and the West.  I think it would be quite hilarious if the Greens took a nice big slice out of B.C.

Anyway, it is far too early in the game for anyone to be settled on who should replace the Harperman.

  Edited August 30, 2015 by A Nonny Moose  
fix typo

[Skimbo 304]

Canadas political orientation is quite interresting. I like progressive left parties, my country lacks thoose. Well, not technically, but by now I lost trust in all of them. As so many others did. The number of voters continues to decrease. I can understand thoose "who got something better to do than vote", whatever you vote over here: they all do just crap and waste tax money. And we already got the 2nd highest tax ratio in europ.

 

 

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Canadas political orientation is quite interresting. I like progressive left parties, my country lacks thoose. Well, not technically, but by now I lost trust in all of them. As so many others did. The number of voters continues to decrease. I can understand thoose "who got something better to do than vote", whatever you vote over here: they all do just crap and waste tax money. And we already got the 2nd highest tax ratio in europ.

 

 

Interesting that a citizen of an EU country would say that.  Along the brown, brown, Danube, eh?

[Skimbo 304]

Those "brown" things in the river ain't that many either.We got 2 fat parties sitting in the middle of the spectrum, one of them calling itself "socialist" while fishing for voters in the right wing spectrum. (Well, they ONCE where socialist, but decades ago) Then we got some far left and right wing stuff which cannot really be taken for serious either.

The right wing brownish stuff recently lost one of it's 2 parties. And I would be glad if the other one wold disappear as well.

[matias93 7,535]

Those "brown" things in the river ain't that many either.We got 2 fat parties sitting in the middle of the spectrum, one of them calling itself "socialist" while fishing for voters in the right wing spectrum. (Well, they ONCE where socialist, but decades ago) Then we got some far left and right wing stuff which cannot really be taken for serious either.

The right wing brownish stuff recently lost one of it's 2 parties. And I would be glad if the other one wold disappear as well.

At least you can make small parties to enter the parliament... here in Chile, legislative elections use two-member closed lists ('binominal system'), and it results in the two bigger coalitions (center-left and far-right) to grab almost every seat in the congress (less than 5% of congresspeople aren't from those coalitions since the system exists)

Now that system has ended, but the negotiations to do it included ridiculous levels of gerrymandering, so it won't be strange to get a very simmilar legislature in 2018.

  Edited September 2, 2015 by matias93  

[AkemiAzula 280]

Did the test again and was slightly lefter and more authoritarian than Ghandi, I was just south of the auth/lib line (mildly liberal) and quite deeply left on the economical line.

I always think I am authoritarian left like Stalin but probably the nature of the particular questions and the fact we are discussing realistic present day sociopolitics etc...

 

I imagine myself my alter ego (my avatar) as being hard left controlled economy and hard authoritarian, but the problem with the political compass is it considers the present state not an ideal state, and so one has to be realistic.

My politics are not applicable to such societies as ours, and have always been suited to galactic empires or historic ages and as regards the present world I am cynical so for instance while I recognise the environment's health is important I also couldn't give a quarter farthing for this world's future at least in its present paradigm of capitalism.

I joined the Labour party hoping Corbyn will win

[TekindusT 3,809]

... one of them calling itself "socialist" while fishing for voters in the right wing spectrum. (Well, they ONCE where socialist, but decades ago)

That's something that happened to all Central and Western European "Socialist" parties during the last 40 years. 

[matias93 7,535]

... one of them calling itself "socialist" while fishing for voters in the right wing spectrum. (Well, they ONCE where socialist, but decades ago)

That's something that happened to all Central and Western European "Socialist" parties during the last 40 years. 

That's something that happened to all socialdemocratic and labourist parties in the world, and almost every socialist party too. The collapse of the welfare state in the early 1980s caused it.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

My local vote compass site puts me firmly in the progressive left field, but close to the origin (centre). 

It is starting to look like the October 19th vote will elect a centre socialist party (New Democratic Party - née Canadian Commonwealth Federation) minority government with a Conservative Party of Canada (née Reform Party of Canada) in second place as official opposition with the Liberal Party of Canada (spit out on the wall and hatched at the time of Confederation) in third place with the balance of power.  This will be good for all Canadians unless the budget doesn't pass in which case we get to have a new federal election.

[Fantozzi 4,068]

I feel tired and angry. Couldn't be reason a political view? According to Max Horkheimer not. According to him if reason turns poltical it gets instrumentalizied.

So I end up with Zen: to do politics with reason you must do no politics.

Won't satisfy, I think.

 

[Edit: so for myself, I missed the button 'lost']

  Edited September 11, 2015 by fantozzi  

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

This week, CBC aired half-hour interviews with each of the three front-running party leaders.  I've changed my mind about the Trendy Pee.  They clearly are out to lunch.  They want to pull out of the middle east and diminish the Senate by letting it atrophy.  While I am not a war hawk by any means, I believe that the present crusade against heretical Islamic extremists must be continued or we'll have them all over us.  I am pro-Senate.  Mr. Mulcair hasn't thought his position through.  If the Senate can't make a quorum, no legislation can ever be approved and signed into law.  What needs to happen is a reform of the Senate to make it apolitical.  The Senate is supposed to be the Chamber of Sober Second Thought.  You can't have this when you have party whips.

While I am not much in favour of some of the policies of the gLiberal Party, I am beginning to lean in their direction simply because it is time for a change, and the Trendy Pee is too much change and in the wrong direction.  Mr. Trudeau has already kicked the "Liberal" Senators out of his caucus, which suits me and he is favour of disassembling ISIS.  The gLiberals have in-depth support from members who have been in the federal government while the Trendy Pee has not.  Provincial politics in Quebec, even at the cabinet level, is not a qualifier, Mr. Mulcair.  Far too parochial.

As for Mr. Harper, I snap my fingers under his nose.

[matias93 7,535]

So, I did the test, and fits quite well with my expectations...

 

[Whte_rbt 1,431]

Here's my results

Economic Left/Right: -6.63

Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.87

 

 

I haven't read through this whole forum yet but has the Heritage Check System been discussed? Seems to me like a possible way forward...

[matias93 7,535]

Here's my results

Economic Left/Right: -6.63

Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.87

 

 

I haven't read through this whole forum yet but has the Heritage Check System been discussed? Seems to me like a possible way forward...

A beautiful and implausible system, not only because of the nearly impossible implementation (statu quo holders defend themselves, of course), but also because of its own factibility problems.

Fiat money exists for a cause: in many occasions, money is needed to be invested before a productive activity could be initiated, and if money is bounded to real, instantaneous production, any spending that is not only for surviving is basically impossible, following basic market laws (in the hypotetic case of perfect competition, gains and costs are marginal).

A variation, used in some socialist economies, was to force a fixed rate of fiat money, so investment was possible. In any case, that implies a completely centralized economy, with suspended markets and so.

IMHO, I prefer marginal improvements inside a market-driven economy, such as strict anti-trust regulations and a strong State investment plan to compete with private enterprises and force them to provide necessary goods and services that wouldn't be made in a free market.

  Edited September 22, 2015 by matias93  

[Whte_rbt 1,431]

I hear what you're saying. I just have this awful feeling that social progress won't happen until it's "Economically Viable". The fact that we've started down the long road to Von-Neumann level machinery (large or small scale) means that eventually the current system based on the scarcity of certain elements and materials will be thrown completely out the window. Under the current system, the first person or organization that cracks replication tech will have the world by the short-n-curlies.

I know the standard response here is "Oh, but that won't happen for centuries! We don't need to worry about it.", but this seems tragically short sighted when you consider how far we came in the last 50 years alone. Let's face it, tablet computers went from science fiction to science fact in 20 years flat, NASA's got a rudimentary "impulse" drive working and the 3D printer is that first stab at replication technology. The pace of progress is going to increase for a while yet.

[Sabretooth78 808]

Looks like I'm in a similar position as several others here and about where I would have expected it.  I did have trouble with a few of the questions, however, since I'm not quite sure what the intent was.  For instance, for "A significant advantage of a one-party state is that it avoids all the arguments that delay progress in a democratic political system," I said "disagree" from the standpoint that we (in the US) effectively have a one-party state WITH the delay process.  I doubt that was the intent of the question, but there were a few like that where I felt the question itself incorporated a kind of bias.  Perhaps I should have just ignored those questions.

(-1.75, -3.44)

[raynev1 1,887]

U.S. politics sucks , It seems to me if you are not a corporation , you are screwed . Judicial system the same , the one with the fattest pockets wins .

Just my opinion from experiences around the block .