Intps and politics as a whole

[grammyofdavid]

• • What do INTPs think about politics-----world wide and USA? Liberal----consrvative? Power through money group----ONE WORLD GOV"T etc.? Social programs----gov't involvement --more gov't ---less? Socialism ---communism---republic---monrachy?

 

[Jordan~]

We seem to have very varying political views - ranging from libertarianism to communism to oligarchy. Mostly, we seem to support civil freedoms.

 

[Carinthian]

North West for the win. xD. (political compass)

 

[saffyangelis]

I don't really have a lot of faith in politics, as all it really seems like here is vote for the party that isn't in power at the moment 'cos they're the ones not making the mistakes. All that really happens is that everyone makes promises to fix everything, and then those promises are never carried out, and nothing ever changes.

I don't really tend to pay all that much attention to it anyway, but an INTJ friend of mine knows a lot about it, and she's conservative here, but everyone else around me votes either labour (because they're the ones that give teachers the best wages, and my mum and a lot of her friends are teachers) or Lib. dem. because they haven't been in power for ages, and so they haven't made any mistakes in a while.

 

[Ermine]

I'm personally on the libertarian side of things, though I don't identify with the party. The main INTP constant is that of civil freedom. Everything else varies from person to person and from country to country.

 

[Kidege]

I'm a leftie. Anything else we'd have to debate.

 

[didyouknow]

In Australia the two main parties are the Nationals/Liberals (right-wing, focus on economy) and the other is the Labor party (started up for middle-class rights) who are more supportive of their people (better education, hospitals etc).

Personally, I vote for Labor unless the person is a complete idiot, in which case I vote for women's lib. or the greens.

 

[Gorgrim]

liberal

 

[Barachai]

Very libertarian... Freedom, yes. I fear the concentration of rights in those who are entirely capable of possessing a monopoly of power.
At any rate, INTP's do like to be left alone... and don't really desire to interfere in other's business.

 

[echoplex]

I think we tend to all be pretty aware the politics is, in many ways at least, the art of lying. I think the ability to see past the political realities of a situation and see the real reality is something at which we're typically adept.

 

[Artifice Orisit]

I still vote for the creation of a semi-benevolent AI to rule the world.

The future is coming and it cannot be stopped.
*Some random person commits suicide*

...Touché

 

[Anthile]

I still vote for enlightened absolutism with an AI as Benevolent Dictator.
If we will able to establish such a system, I'll have hope for humanity.

 

[Barachai]

It's fun to think of the structure of christianity, with regards to benevolent dictatorship... the way in which it is organized is particularly interesting...
I could explain, but I'm tired and don't really wanna type it out...

 

[truthseeker72]

I'm an INTP libertarian.

This is a Libertartian's view of the proper role of government:

1) ensure national security (obviously, this task belongs to the feds);

2) create and administer a justice system that redresses criminal and civil wrongs; (e.g.,protect individuals from force and fraud, enforce private contracts, compensate for negligence)

3) protect its citizen's freedoms in general.

All other governmental functions (e.g, the forced redistribution of wealth, educating our youth, running the world's largest Ponzi scheme, social security, need to be reevaulated.

Please understand that libertarians are not anarchists; we simply adhere to the credo: "The government that governs least, governs best."

 

[Da Blob]

It is a shame that Politics and Government are so intertwined as concepts. A rather prominent politician once explained to me that politics was the business of Pandering one's candidate to one Special Interest group at a time. Such prostitutes and liars should not have such an important role in our government...

I'm an Independent who votes for the lesser of two evils...

 

[QSR]

Think of the guy Obama portrays himself as, and you'll understand my point of view pretty well. I don't necessarily agree with a lot of the political things he does (and he does them a lot--including this AIG fake outrage we had this week), but the stuff he's said he wants to address in his books is pretty close to what I agree with.

There's a reason why Obama had such a big groundswell behind him, and it's that he was able to articulate the positions that a lot of people who study politics very closely happen to agree with. He represents the Latté liberals, and that's probably what best describes me, although not much of a bleeding heart or anti-globalist. I'm mostly anti-war and pro-environment, along with supporting good social safety nets. I think INTPs in general have a good objective view of politics, even if a lot of us have been skewed by some bad information (you know who you are.)

 

[grammyofdavid]

Very interesting----and all saying pretty much the same thing----independance is INTPs middle name. I know my late husband was an ENTP and son is INTP. They both thought small gov't ----little interferance in their lives---do not tax their productivity---do not make to be in a union or any thing else----do not take my freedoms and give them to someone else----in otherwords----DO NOT TELL ME WHAT TO DO! Both did think that these rules were small freedom takers: seat belt laws, helmet laws, no smoking laws, gun ban laws,child seat laws, drinking laws, etcs. Issues like abortion I like depends on what believes you were raised with. I think, that most INTPs understnad that poltics is about following the money---not what really works for man kind.

 

[didyouknow]

Actually, I disagree. The way that capitalism and 'small government' works is based on the principle that a 'high tide raises all ships'. However, some people aren't even in the water. I prefer things to be in the middle, right wing does not allow for disabled and disadvantaged people to survive (and that's my family) but left wing does not allow for enough freedom.

EDIT: Anna Bligh won the elections. Wohoo for first female state premier! *dances*

 

[Ghost1986]

Please understand that libertarians are not anarchists; we simply adhere to the credo: "The government that governs least, governs best."

anarchists=no government (dip shits)

libertarians= small government (pain in butt but doable.)

i personally feel safer with a larger government. i trust state/province and federal before i trust county and city officials.

 

[Reverse Transcriptase]

anarchists=no government (dip shits)

That's mean

Professor Bernardo de laz Paz has some wonderful quotes about 'rational anarchy'. They're not meant to persuade you; I'm just quoting them for enjoyment:

"A rational anarchist believes that concepts such as 'state' and 'society' and 'government' have no existence save as physically exemplified in the acts of self-responsible individuals," Prof says. In other words, all choices are made by individuals and no individual can shift or share responsibility for his own choices.

"I accept any rules you think you need for yourself. I will continue to live by my own."

"I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free, because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything that I do."

 

[Ermine]

anarchists=no government (dip shits)

libertarians= small government (pain in butt but doable.)

i personally feel safer with a larger government. i trust state/province and federal before i trust county and city officials.

Why can you trust national/state officials more?

 

[chintz]

I'm a liberal.

 

[truthseeker72]

I'm a liberal.

Therein lies the essence of American liberalism: distrust corporations, the military, and organized religion, but believe in the benevolence and wisdom of state and federal government officials.

 

[Ghost1986]

Why can you trust national/state officials more?

personal experience. the corruption from city and county has more impact on my life than the corruption from state and federal. i have not (yet) pissed off state and federal, where as i often piss off city and county. i also prefer to be screwed over by a large faceless organization that cant be easily defeated as opposed to a small organization which is easier to take out. and finally, the more personal it is, the less i like it.

 

[Ermine]

So, you trust state/federal officials because they don't know you and you don't know them? Sorry, but it reminds me of the immature toddler philosophy "I can't see you so you can't see me". That sounds more like a reason to not trust them. Sure you may have a negative reputation with local officials, but when an organization has a face, it can be possible to defeat and/or change. With an enormous faceless organization, it's nearly impossible to overcome unless you get the whole state or country to back you up. That's a reason to fear and mistrust national/state officials more than the local officials. It's much worse being screwed over by an organization you can barely begin to target.

 

[Inappropriate Behavior]

So, you trust state/federal officials because they don't know you and you don't know them? Sorry, but it reminds me of the immature toddler philosophy "I can't see you so you can't see me". That sounds more like a reason to not trust them. Sure you may have a negative reputation with local officials, but when an organization has a face, it can be possible to defeat and/or change. With an enormous faceless organization, it's nearly impossible to overcome unless you get the whole state or country to back you up. That's a reason to fear and mistrust national/state officials more than the local officials. It's much worse being screwed over by an organization you can barely begin to target.

Militia member?

I find it a lot easier to equally distrust everything.

 

[spockguy]

I'm a Minarchist, slowly leaning towards Anarcho-Capitalist. To give credence to a system which forces my money from me at gun point to protect their own self-interest, as well as those of corporations (through lobbyist) is absurd to me. A free market, competition between private industries whom take full responsibility for their actions will always be more effective than government. We all know that a monopoly is never a good thing, so why is government an exception?

 

[QSR]

Wait a second... we elect the government officials. They are held accountable to somebody and something. That's not the case for all of the other groups you've mentioned that Liberals distrust. It's a very important and significant factor that we have free and fair elections in this country.

 

[grammyofdavid]

Food for thought----Thomas Jefferson said" a gov't big enough to give you everything you want---is strong enough to take everything you have."

 

[Inappropriate Behavior]

Food for thought----Thomas Jefferson said" a gov't big enough to give you everything you want---is strong enough to take everything you have."

Actually, it doesn't have to be that big to take it all away. Who has the biggest badest guns usually determines what gets taken away.

 

[Ermine]

Wait a second... we elect the government officials. They are held accountable to somebody and something. That's not the case for all of the other groups you've mentioned that Liberals distrust. It's a very important and significant factor that we have free and fair elections in this country.

Even then, they can't be trusted entirely, especially in the case of senators. There are so many reasons for a person to be elected - lesser of the evils, no one else volunteers, they're likable, among other things. They may be elected by the people, but they are not too subject to the populace's approval or disapproval. All they have to do is persuade government committees and boards and other voting bodies. They are only truly accountable to their constituents, which may or may not have been elected recently.

 

[RobertJ]

I don't really consider myself democrat, conservative, right or left etc... I try to look at things from as unconditioned a perspective inasmuch as I can, and the more ideologies and labels I adopt to define myself the more limited I am in my analysis of anything. I imagine some would call me libertarian or maybe even anarchist.
I like what George Carlin said,
"Personally when it comes to rights, I think one of two things is true. Either we have unlimited rights, or we have no rights at all. Personally I lean towards unlimited rights, I feel for instance I have the right to do anything I please. BUT, if I do something you don't like, then you have the right to kill me."

 

[QSR]

that's funny Robert

 

[Concojones]

Seeing so many interesting opinions is exhilarating. Glad to be on this forum :-)

I'm all for personal freedom, as argued for by e.g. Truthseeker72. Gov't is a necessary evil - 'evil' in that it discourages personal initiative (which is usually an attempt to improve one's happiness), 'necessary' in that some individual attempts come at too high a cost for society as a whole (e.g. climate change).

A good gov't should strive to make itself redundant (smaller). In reality, the opposite happens: an ever-expanding gov't (encouraged by the short-sighted masses), up to a point where people have had enough (revolution), whereafter the cycle starts over again. The ideal gov't is a fragile equilibrium!

 

[truthseeker72]

Well, much of the federal government's impact is created by unelected officials. Nobody elects the life-tenured justices of the Supreme Court, who have made several enormously important (and disastrous) rulings in recent decades. The countless Federal agencies (FDA, EPA, CIA, etc. etc), consist entirely of unelected bureaucrats who enjoy virtually free reign to enact and enforce regulations that impact all Americans. While the president has the power to appoint people to these positions, not even political pundits can guess who a new president will choose to appoint. How many Americans can name the heads of all of the above-listed agencies?

Even most laws that Congress pass escape real scrutiny. Hell, even the senators themselves don't often read the proposed legislation in its entirety (being so filled with pork and special-interest kickbacks).

In short, the massive expansion of the federal government over the past century has led to a proportionate reduction in the accoutability of our leaders. The average voter simply can't keep track of it all.

 

[Inappropriate Behavior]

In short, the massive expansion of the federal government over the past century has led to a proportionate reduction in the accoutability of our leaders. The average voter simply can't keep track of it all.

On this we agree.

I don't see it as feasable to elect the heads of those agencies but I'm not convinced they should be scrapped either. The FDA and EPA are ineffective and useless in their present forms and if it is up to politicians to change that around, those agencies will continue to be largely ineffective. That is where the problem lies, in the way the elected leaders are allowed to conduct themselves. Especially Congress. The fact that we allow them to attach things to bills (usually things that have absolutely nothing to do with the bill itself) just boggles my mind.

 

[Concojones]

In short, the massive expansion of the federal government over the past century has led to a proportionate reduction in the accountability of our leaders. The average voter simply can't keep track of it all.

I especially like that last sentence. The system has become very complex (in my country 1 in 3 workers is employed by the gov't). This complexity comes at a great cost: democratic systems worldwide have been losing more & more support of their populations. This can't go on forever.

I advocate the Roman '12-tables law'
(i.e. simple rules that are obvious to everyone )
An elected president to keep us happy short-term
An independent body that confronts that president with what should be done to be still OK in the long term

 

[grammyofdavid]

What do you all think about FEMA, the Patriot Act and lost of small freedoms like wearing or not wearing a seatbelt to hvaing the gov't watch over your evey move?

 

[Reverse Transcriptase]

What do you all think about FEMA, the Patriot Act and lost of small freedoms like wearing or not wearing a seatbelt to hvaing the gov't watch over your evey move?

I think it's justification for a revolution!

 

[truthseeker72]

Not only do "nanny-state" laws erode our freedoms, they're incredibly condescending. Why would far-away bureaucrats know what's best for us?

 

[grammyofdavid]

yes, I think, there are fighting words, but I am afraid we have waited to long! Too many people in power with all the wealth thus all the power -----world wide. I think, the world will end up communism with China as a key figure. Napolean said China is a sleeping gaint ---let them sleep----but china is now awake-----wide awake!

 

[Inappropriate Behavior]

FEMA? Why is that on the list. The agency was effective until it got bundled into the Homeland Security boondoggle.

As for the (anti) Patriot Act or the nanny laws as truthseeker calls them, revolution ain't such a bad idea. I used to endorse a full fledged anti-incumbent stance. Anyone in office getting thrown out in favor of someone new, but it is the non-elected beurocrats that run so much of the machine and the machine needs to be trashed.

 

[grammyofdavid]

FGema is on the list, because it is not always what it appears to me.

 

[grammyofdavid]

Fema------ friday nite I can not type

 

[Inappropriate Behavior]

Those rumored internment camps?

 

[grammyofdavid]

No --Not the camps------I just know from personal experience that FEMA is not always what they appear to be. I live in rural Kansas and a few years ago we had a really bad ice storm and a small town of Greenssburg was destroyed by a twister in that same year-----Fema was not the knight in shinning armor everyone thinks it is! Also Fema has change the flood plains at least in Kansas ---probably the whole country----in rural SW Kansas where it never rains---is forced into buying flood insurance though ----guess who---FEMA! I know for a fact for I attended the meeting. If you do not buy this insurance they can foreclose on you flood or not. We are not going to flood in SW Kansas no water ----no rivers ---no lakes --- no creeks ---no steams---no ponds ---no water period! Yet we are in FEMA"S new flood plain----why ---for the gov't to generate money and gain more control of the tax payer. Ask yourself -----why?

 

[Inappropriate Behavior]

When did this happen that they made you buy insurance.

FEMA now is an ineffective agency. It was very effective in the 90s when it was independent and had qualified leadership. At least it was pretty good during disater times. I don't know if O has appointed anyone to head it or not. I know "heckuva job Brownie" and Jerkoff ran it into the toilet.

 

[lindsayo09]

ugh i have a college political class and the teacher hates me beccause i hate politices and she is all about it i mean for real we know whay is goin on....and she gets mad at me for speaking against her hahahahaha!!!!

 

[grammyofdavid]

We have had to attend meetings about this FEMA insurance and flood plain in Kansas ---just this month. Check it out.