Who are we from a political perspective?

[Vecho]

Fellow INTP are we all liberals? Have you taken political compass or any other test to determine what's your alignment? Maybe did a self test on your self? I am social democrat what about you?

 

[Bird]

This just sounds like an argument waiting to happen.

 

[systembust]

I couldn't see myself aligning with any particular identification (socially or fiscally), and I'd suspect most INTPs would resist subscribing wholesale to any one ideology or perspective. Seems to me the notion of "who are WE" is toxic to our somewhat stubbornly individualistic orientation. Different parties make good points in different contexts; the whole system is corrupt from the core anyways imo (though I do follow politics more than most, just to see how things play out).

 

[Wahrheitsliebe]

I'd say there's quite a range, but that we nearly all continue to question ourselves, as we should.

I'm a "liberal", I guess, if one sums it up.

The aspects of the INTP personality that I think would lead us to be "liberal" in the social-values sense is the not-listening-to-authority part.

What would lead us to be "liberal" in the social-welfare sense is more sketchy, so I think this is where you'll find a lot of INTPs don't identify as liberal. They will be much more likely to think along the lines of, "people should work for themselves", and I think this comes from the introversion and being a "thinker" not a "feeler".

Plus, a certain amount of that makes sense: people should work for themselves. Personally, though, I don't see what's wrong with a safety net for people when so many forces are against the poor, and when providing for other people (to a point) helps ones' self.

That's just me, though, as I said, I think there will be a lot of disagreement. Herding cats....just doesn't work.

 

[snafupants]

This just soun ds like an argument waiting to happen.

what's your problem? you know what? you must be unpatriotic. go back to california you damn hippie, and take your falafel.

 

[Dimensional Transition]

Yeah... I think I'm left-wing... I value independence though, it's just that I find a lot of other things about the right-wing philosophy shit. You should care about your fellow human beings, and try to be not so much of a greedy dick. And for some reason right-wing politicians in my eyes often show racist and conservative tendencies. I am pro-making your own decisions and having the ability to choose what you want to do with your body, your lifestyle, etc. however.

I'm not a full-blown left-wing person, either though... But I agree with more left-wing ideas than right-wing ideas.

 

[snafupants]

well, i wouldnt feel right supporting the racist, anti-humanitarian, warmongering, fear fomenting, anti-intellectual political sect that is the republican party. i reluctantly vote for the least virulent candidate every four years, but usually feel dirty after doing so. i mean, it tells you something when over half of the senate and congress historically have been/currently are lawyers. talk is cheap.

 

[Agent Intellect]

There is some data on this in these threads:

Political Compass.
moral politics test.
Poll: Political Stance.

 

[Trebuchet]

I'm a progressive liberal. But I know there are some conservatives here as well.

Actually, I'm very political and can get all us vs. them about it, but I also consider that to be unworthy behavior. It has me very conflicted, because while disagreement is not a problem, I don't enjoy feeling enmity toward so many of my fellow citizens.

Snafu, I had been trying to figure out why someone would voluntarily miss voting, and you have provided me the answer. I never thought it would make someone feel dirty to vote, though I believe you. To me, those are the only knobs we have to twist if we want to change things (short of revolution, which is a last resort). I have only missed one vote in 25 years, and that was one of California's endless special elections when I had the flu.

It isn't just about the candidates. You can skip those items on the poll if you want. If only a few more people who think like me had voted (and they are out there, shirking), Prop 8 would not have passed, and California would be a fairer place. I would have celebrated with hippie falafels.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

what's your problem? you know what? you must be unpatriotic. go back to california you damn hippie, and take your falafel.

Perhaps it is because I'm loitering around.

Free markets FTW! Yes, I am a hard core right winger in the economic sense. In the civil liberties sense, I am hard core lefty. Ohh god! It's a libertarian!

 

[Aramea]

Perhaps it is because I'm loitering around.

Free markets FTW! Yes, I am a hard core right winger in the economic sense. In the civil liberties sense, I am hard core lefty. Ohh god! It's a libertarian!

I have some of this perspective in me, but I am not completely sold on the free market. I tend to think that it simply cannot exist in today's economy.

Unfortunately, even if I do think it best to come to grips with out of control spending, the current political party (Republican) that claims to want that tends to be wholly deficient in almost all aspects. When they had the reins for six years they made no effort to be fiscally thrifty. NONE. We are now suppose to listen to how "fiscally responsible" they are. Bullshit. They also seem to think it cool to be a complete dumbfuck with inconsistent arguments and airhead ideas. Top all that dubious intellect with non-stop fixation with abortion, creationism and birth control I can't support a Republican out of principle.

This is why I think that a number of INT's will lean left. It's where the smart people are. We all know we need to balance our checkbooks, but talking to a Republican about how stupid the fixation on old 90's culture war "values" government is is like getting an intravenous injection of stupid. The the unchained shit they come up with is absolutely amazing in its twisted logic.

As I write this I am well aware of what it is like to talk to climate true believers. Still, I would rather discuss the heating of the planet than discuss Adam and Steve being run out of Eden by a T-Rex.

 

[Dimensional Transition]

Unfortunately, even if I do think it best to come to grips with out of control spending, the current political party (Republican) that claims to want that tends to be wholly deficient in almost all aspects. When they had the reins for six years they made no effort to be fiscally thrifty. NONE. We are now suppose to listen to how "fiscally responsible" they are. Bullshit. They also seem to think it cool to be a complete dumbfuck with inconsistent arguments and airhead ideas. Top all that dubious intellect with non-stop fixation with abortion, creationism and birth control I can't support a Republican out of principle.

This is why I think that a number of INT's will lean left. It's where the smart people are. We all know we need to balance our checkbooks, but talking to a Republican about how stupid the fixation on old 90's culture war "values" government is is like getting an intravenous injection of stupid. The the unchained shit they come up with is absolutely amazing in its twisted logic.

You hit the nail on the head right there for me.

 

[Jesse]

I'm more left on moral issues and more right on economic issues.

Lucky in my country the parties are so similar that I don't feel much ill will towards either, though I still voted for the Greens last election. (Greens are the local left wing party)

 

[curiousbored]

I suppose I could be considered an anarchist. I don't believe I have any moral authority to impose(vote) rulers onto others (and wish I didn't have rulers imposed on me). I think too many people get caught in the Right v. Left thinking, I think humanity would be served by taking about 3 steps back and looking at the entire system and wondering if this is really the way we want society organized.

 

[Trebuchet]

I suppose I could be considered an anarchist. I don't believe I have any moral authority to impose(vote) rulers onto others (and wish I didn't have rulers imposed on me). I think too many people get caught in the Right v. Left thinking, I think humanity would be served by taking about 3 steps back and looking at the entire system and wondering if this is really the way we want society organized.

I'm certainly not an anarchist, but I am intrigued by your philosophical approach. It sounds like you've given some serious thought to the purpose and justification (or lack thereof) for the existence of government. I want to hear more of your thoughts, so here are some questions that I think are fun to ponder.

How should we distribute scarce resources?

How can people protect themselves from a "bad neighbor" like a company dumping toxic stuff nearby?

Is there a social contract? (Not asking what it is.)

What should be done if someone violates the social contract. Like, what if you found a burglar in your bedroom?

Bullshit. They also seem to think it cool to be a complete dumbfuck with inconsistent arguments and airhead ideas. Top all that dubious intellect with non-stop fixation with abortion, creationism and birth control I can't support a Republican out of principle....The unchained shit they come up with is absolutely amazing in its twisted logic.

Aramea, I also think this was a really well-aimed post. You and I probably vote the same way a lot.

Free markets FTW!

Proxy, I can't agree with you on this, but want to hear why you support free markets. I have yet to enjoy any real discourse on this topic. Everyone on the right that I've asked got ideological and started accusing me of things, which was not a very satisfying argument. But you argue well, so I'll ask you.

 

[Black Rose]

Has anyone visited Neuropolitics.org

I learn allot there about scientific non biased studies dealing with this topic.

Realy, its non biased.

 

[Agent Intellect]

Socially I'm a liberal/libertarian. I think people should be able to do whatever they want as long as it doesn't infringe the same freedoms of others. I'm all for complete sexual freedom, legalization of drugs, anti-censorship, and whatever alternative or eccentric lifestyles people can dream up.

Politically I'm about small government, for the most part. And by this I don't mean just cutting back on government power, but also distributing it to smaller regions. If it were up to me, the USA would just about be 50 independent countries. The more people there are under a single government, the more diluted each persons influence on how their government governs them. I explored some non-traditional ideas in this thread.

Economically I think there should be a buffer between consumers and businesses. Ideologically I would lean toward libertarianism on a number of issues, but in a practical sense I don't think the free market can hold the private sector sufficiently accountable. That doesn't necessarily mean I think the government should have this job by default, but I think there needs to be organized means of making sure businesses and corporations are held accountable outside just market demands.

 

[curiousbored]

I'm certainly not an anarchist, but I am intrigued by your philosophical approach. It sounds like you've given some serious thought to the purpose and justification (or lack thereof) for the existence of government. I want to hear more of your thoughts, so here are some questions that I think are fun to ponder.

How should we distribute scarce resources?

How can people protect themselves from a "bad neighbor" like a company dumping toxic stuff nearby?

Is there a social contract? (Not asking what it is.)

What should be done if someone violates the social contract. Like, what if you found a burglar in your bedroom?

Let me start out, by explaining in a very simple way, why I believe it is an issue of morality (I am a very amateur philosopher I hope this is clear). I have yet to hear a good argument that we are not in "control" or have "ownership" over our bodies. by typing a reply you are proving this fact. No one else can make a moral claim over someone elses body/mind, this is very evident to us when we use an example like slavery, we would all agree that it is evil. Just extend this principle to it's logical conclusion. No man has a right to force others to obey his laws/rulers, just as no man has a right to murder a man. If I were to take 40% of your income, I would be a thief. just because it's popular (vote), or because it's written on a 200+ year document (social contract) doesn't mean it's a valid claim on my liberty and property.

1. I don't know how to distribute scarce resources, if someone tells you they do, they are lying. "Distribute" immediately signals central control for me, resources are(should be) voluntarily exchanged for other valuable commodities and services through a medium of exchange (money), not distributed.

2. people can protect their life and property through force if it is threatened.

3. well if it truly is your property, then you can bring it court(private court), or it could be mediated, arbitrated. Don't forget the role of insurance (I work in insurance), people being careless about the well being of others will be penalized, this increases insurance costs (lead to cancellation if a common thing). It is NOT beneficial for companies to pursue a longer term policy of this, not saying it doesn't/won't happen. but there are market triggers which disincentive this behavior.

4.Social contract theory seems silly to me (I believe morals must be universal, other wise government/religion/corporation, can claim that they are "special" and therefore the rules don't apply) If a piece of paper signed by 39 people is morally binding, why can't me and 38 of my closed friends form a government and enforce our rule over the people in that particular geographic region?

I'll close with saying that 1-4 are best guess's, the correct answer is that you would create private mechanisms that would replace some of the roles of government. But let's not pretend that we elect some "expert" in the field and all the problems get solved. I would say to you, what is keeping these things from happening now? You think the only reason someone is not breaking into your house is because there is a cop shop 10 blocks away and because their are 2 patrol cars out? It's because people are generally good, lets not give the bad ones monopoly power to write/enforce laws.

and that was a big mess, please feel free to critique and ask further question.

 

[Don't mind me]

How should we distribute scarce resources?

With regards to consumer goods this is just the age-old catchphrase "supply and demand". When D>S => profits go up, which leads to more investment in this sector, which makes supply go up, and this process tends toward making S=D. Vice versa when S>D; less investment, less valuable resources wasted. Consumers communicate their values by showing how much they are willing to voluntarily pay for a product (demand).

When considering which capital goods to employ in the process of producing consumer goods, an entrepreneur would obviously seek to reduce his costs if the quality of the end-result is about the same. What does it mean if a capital good has a high price? It means that many investors think that they can produce highly valued products with it, vice versa if it's a low price. If investor A thinks that he can increase his total sales revenues by 10k ("society" "values" the goods that he can produce this highly) if he buys capgood A, he is willing to bid anything up to 10k to get it. If investor B, on the other hand, can only increase his revenues by 9k with it (products are valued less than A's), he can only bid up to 9k, meaning that A will get to use the scarce good, which is quite desirable since he will (presumably) employ it the best.

Also, profit/loss tends toward moving market shares from bad entrepreneurs to good ones, further bettering our usage of scarce resources.


Conversely, how does government allocate scarce resources? Typically, they finance their ventures with taxes, thereby removing the voluntary aspect of paying for a good. Since the persons financing the project didn't voluntarily get to choose whether or not they would patronize it, we don't know if this was their most valued use for their money (statistically, it probably wasn't.)

If gov't has a monopoly in a sector (as it tends to get, either by decree or by being able to out-compete competitors by paying for their costs with tax money, thereby externalizing their costs which enables them to offer a price lower than the "real cost"), then there can't be any prices for capital goods in this sector, since prices arise from exchange, and if only one party is involved, well, there sorta can't be any real exchange, and therefore no real prices, which means that monopolists can't accurately determine which capital goods would be best to employ to avoid using scarce producer goods that could have been used to produce more valued consumer goods (cost-minimization). Further, they can't know if the process is beneficial at all to society. To make a "profit", your expenses (the price of what you use in your production, that is, how highly "society values" your ingredients) must be lower than your revenues (how highly "society values" what you managed to produce by mixing your ingredients). If (income-expenses)>0, then you have successfully "produced value". Since monopolists don't have any measurement for the "expenses" part of the equation, they can't know if they are producing any value at all or just squandering wealth.

And, further, monopolizing a sector means that there are no competitors which means that you can't lose market shares to better entrepreneurs.




Most of the "natural" mechanisms seem to be broken when it comes to gov't. The only methods politicians can use that I can think of are their whim, vote-pandering and benefiting whichever special interest happens to pay the highest. Is this really a good mechanism to use for something as important as the allocation of scarce, valuable resources?







(On a side-note, it really bothers me that practically all modern politicians who champion [at least rhetorically] the free market do it just because regulations/taxes will "kill the jobs!". What happened to values and principles? I'm glad to see that curiousbored, at least, seems to have this down.)

 

[Abraxas]

If I had to categorize my political views, I'd be an anarcho-communist.

EDIT: Or a merito-anarchist.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

Proxy, I can't agree with you on this, but want to hear why you support free markets. I have yet to enjoy any real discourse on this topic. Everyone on the right that I've asked got ideological and started accusing me of things, which was not a very satisfying argument. But you argue well, so I'll ask you.

Personally, I support free markets both from a utilitarian stand point and from a negative liberty stand point. One should be free from being unjustly subjected to the actions of another person or groups of other people. In my mind, you can not have a true free markets without negative liberty. Negative liberty being synonymous with negative rights.

To discuss the underlying reasoning is somewhat difficult. I am not a teacher by profession and it is quite a complex topic. You may have read in that 'Economics and Philosophy All Verse Proxy' thread that I said I was going to explain microeconomics and the Austrian theory of macro but due to the complexity I simply don't have the time. Perhaps, in a month I will. The complexity revolves around two areas, the underlying theory and historical validation with political context. I think most of traffic on the net is caused by libertarians finding examples throughout history to solidify their position in debates.

I don't have it in me at this point in time so I recommend the following books:

'Man, Economy and State with Power and Markets' by Rothbard
'Theory of Money and Credit' by Mises
'An Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought' by Rothbard

 

[Grove]

A question I've had for a while; what do libertarians (at least those on this forum) think about the economic and ideological standpoints of the American Tea Party? For our international members, is there a party in your political landscape that is comparable to the Tea Party?

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

A question I've had for a while; what do libertarians (at least those on this forum) think about the economic and ideological standpoints of the American Tea Party? For our international members, is there a party in your political landscape that is comparable to the Tea Party?

I have no idea what the tea party stands for. Perhaps you could elaborate. In Australia most of the classical liberals and libertarians and clump in with conservatives in the Liberal Party. I think they now have a conservative leader or something.

 

[Grove]

Honestly, I don't know what the hallmarks of the philosophy are, aside from what I happen to catch on my local public radio station. I do know that as of late there are a lot of people, who two years ago would have called themselves conservatives or republicans, calling themselves libertarians. I'm not buying it. I'll do some research and try to post an explanation of the Tea Party philosophy.

For the time being I can only offer you this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement

 

[Iuanes]

Anarchists. (not really serious)

 

[Cavallier]

Economically I think there should be a buffer between consumers and businesses. Ideologically I would lean toward libertarianism on a number of issues, but in a practical sense I don't think the free market can hold the private sector sufficiently accountable. That doesn't necessarily mean I think the government should have this job by default, but I think there needs to be organized means of making sure businesses and corporations are held accountable outside just market demands.

I'm on the same page. I'm certain that if we allow the private sector complete independence to do what they want we'll end up in the same position the western world was in at the turn of the century including child labor and a complete loss of employee rights. However, I hardly trust my government to pave my driveway correctly much less regulate private sector business. There is an all or none sort of approach when it comes to government regulation. There is no real room for unique circumstances.

I have no idea what the tea party stands for. Perhaps you could elaborate. In Australia most of the classical liberals and libertarians and clump in with conservatives in the Liberal Party. I think they now have a conservative leader or something.

This is the difficulty in having a generalized political discussion. Most people in the U.S.A. would be thoroughly confused by the notion of a "Conservative Liberal"*. Last year (or earlier this year?) I was following politics in Sweden. It took me some time to figure out just what each party stood for even though we have political parties with the same names here. They stand for different things.

From my research I've decided that the Tea Party is basically just a loose affiliation of angry people. They don't appear to have a written set of principles like the Democrats and Republicans do. It seems some of them are angry for social reasons and some for economic reasons. A lot of them want smaller government. Many of them think we should go back to a gold standard. The most outspoken and publicly recognizable members of the Tea Party are often assumed to be just attempting to get attention (even by members of their own party) and they stir up fervor in order to get this attention. (Sarah Palin, Donald Trump)

*Which is part of the critical problems we are having right now in the U.S.A. The left and right wing parties have polarized to the point of having no room for a moderate position. If you vote Democrat you are voting for both social and economic liberalism. If you vote Republican you are voting for both social and economic conservativism. If you are socially liberal but economically conservative you are forced to give up on one of those stances if you want your vote to count for something. It's the same if you are socially liberal but economically conservative. There are some parties that represent these stances but they have very little backing. We are in all ways except name a two party system. It's insane to be forced to choose and it's becoming a social war.

 

[darude11]

I have just came with thread about this
I was thinking today about theory (that is explained in thread), that says:
Judging functions are these political... hmm... orientations? Or personalities? I am not really sure...
Anyway, it is just like this:
Te - Authocrat
Ti - Liberal
Fe - [not sure, but I think, that something like 'Antiegoist', which don't think about him, but instead about everybody else]
Fi - Submisive

Sooo... what do you think?

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

This is the difficulty in having a generalized political discussion. Most people in the U.S.A. would be thoroughly confused by the notion of a "Conservative Liberal"*. Last year (or earlier this year?) I was following politics in Sweden. It took me some time to figure out just what each party stood for even though we have political parties with the same names here. They stand for different things.

From my research I've decided that the Tea Party is basically just a loose affiliation of angry people. They don't appear to have a written set of principles like the Democrats and Republicans do. It seems some of them are angry for social reasons and some for economic reasons. A lot of them want smaller government. Many of them think we should go back to a gold standard. The most outspoken and publicly recognizable members of the Tea Party are often assumed to be just attempting to get attention (even by members of their own party) and they stir up fervor in order to get this attention. (Sarah Palin, Donald Trump)

I watched some lectures given by some tea party members and the people seemed quite astute. However, I saw clips of the interviewing of general person and well, the supporters that I saw were not so astute.

Ohh! The democratic liberal party here are hardcore minarchists.

*Which is part of the critical problems we are having right now in the U.S.A. The left and right wing parties have polarized to the point of having no room for a moderate position. If you vote Democrat you are voting for both social and economic liberalism. If you vote Republican you are voting for both social and economic conservativism. If you are socially liberal but economically conservative you are forced to give up on one of those stances if you want your vote to count for something. It's the same if you are socially liberal but economically conservative. There are some parties that represent these stances but they have very little backing. We are in all ways except name a two party system. It's insane to be forced to choose and it's becoming a social war.

I don't know what happened in this paragraph but someone changed the meaning of words sometime ago in the US. Historically speaking and the rest of the world a liberal is a proponent of relatively free markets and personal freedoms. Traditionally a conservative was a person who was a proponent of less economic and personal freedoms but now I think everywhere they supposedly propose relatively free markets and not so liberal personal freedoms.

Economic liberalism is in fact free markets and economic conservatism is in fact conserving the old economic order, what ever that maybe.

Perversion of language is the first step in any new political take over. All so Orwellian.

 

[Black Rose]

I have just came with thread about this
I was thinking today about theory (that is explained in thread), that says:
Judging functions are these political... hmm... orientations? Or personalities? I am not really sure...
Anyway, it is just like this:
Te - Authocrat
Ti - Liberal
Fe - [not sure, but I think, that something like 'Antiegoist', which don't think about him, but instead about everybody else]
Fi - Submisive

Sooo... what do you think?

Fi

Yes but if compromised to fight against injustice in the most peaceful alternative ways possible.

Some lines cannot be crossed.

 

[Cavallier]

I don't know what happened in this paragraph but someone changed the meaning of words sometime ago in the US. Historically speaking and the rest of the world a liberal is a proponent of relatively free markets and personal freedoms. Traditionally a conservative was a person who was a proponent of less economic and personal freedoms but now I think everywhere they supposedly propose relatively free markets and not so liberal personal freedoms.

Economic liberalism is in fact free markets and economic conservatism is in fact conserving the old economic order, what ever that maybe.

Perversion of language is the first step in any new political take over. All so Orwellian.

I got a little sidetracked but yes. That was basically my point as well. You put it much better than I did. How U.S. defines what is conservative and what is liberal seems to be very different to and often contrary to the rest of the planet.

This is one of those discussions that could easily get lost in semantics.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

I got a little sidetracked but yes. That was basically my point as well. You put it much better than I did. How U.S. defines what is conservative and what is liberal seems to be very different to and often contrary to the rest of the planet.

This is one of those discussions that could easily get lost in semantics.

It is terribly annoying when people attempt to change the definition of words in a debate or even want words to be ever so defined until you're in situation where they are literally asking 'what is what'? This is what makes debates about rights very convoluted. Some wanker always asks the definition of the words which are used to define a right. They fail to realises that words are only defined by other words.

When I was reading the complete works of socialism it became ever so clear that the theory of socialism was simply underpinned by semantic interpretations of reality. Dialectics is most definitely guilty of this. One when gets past the semantic discourse one is only left to realise that the ideas put forward are unintelligibly.

"War is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength" - Orwell

The only thing I can't stand more than the perversion of language is the perversion of history.

 

[Grove]

The only thing I can't stand more than the perversion of language is the perversion of history.

YouTube - ‪Glenn Beck History Lesson Part 1 of 5‬‏

Welcome to the machine.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

I tend to read books rather than watching over weight, alarmist, middle aged men on television. :P

 

[Grove]

I like you.

 

[Cavallier]

This is pretty helpful in relation to historical American politics and is actually pretty accurate. There's a link in there to the formation of the Democratic Party as well.

Now I know why they are called the GOP or Grand Old Party. I've always wondered about that.

Edit: I forgot to mention my political affiliations. Oops. I'm a Political Nihilist.

 

[Phoenix]

I tend to subscribe to the belief that no matter what party one votes for, the same atrocities will come to pass. Our (American) government is run by nothing but greedy businessmen and corrupt corporations.

While a president (or congressmen, or whathaveyou) may go into office meaning to change something; their meaning or purpose gets lost on the way. Lobbyists and 'soothsayers' (future speculators, large stock traders, whoever has the most $$$) draw an individual in power away from their ideals, and usually to a large pile of money. The maintenance of the status quo is the first priority of the Power Elite.

Our country is not run by politicians; therefore one's political standing is not of concern. The same feats will be accomplished no matter who is in office: Democrats and Republicans simply differ on their ways of "spinning" the same information/political choices.

 

[Particle]

Since there are multiple ways to describe political orientation, I'll define myself a few times. If I am limited to pick between conservative or liberal, I'd say conservative. If I'm limited to pick between democrat and republican, I'd say republican. Neither of these are wholly accurate, however, just the best of two available choices.

If I must define myself in terms of any party, I'm closer to libertarian than anything. I'm a firm believer in the whole "do whatever you please so long as you don't step on my right to do the same" thing. As a consequence, idealism "me" doesn't care if you possess nuclear weapons and use them to celebrate Independence Day if you can find a way to do so that doesn't infringe on anyone else's right not to be irradiated and their power knocked out (heh).

You obviously wouldn't find a way that isn't hurtful to use them in reality, but you get my point. That brings up the whole practicality vs. ideal problem. There are and will always be people who don't care what happens to others so long as they can benefit themselves, and that quality prevents a perfect libertarian society from ever being able to exist in the way it should, practically speaking.

There will always be a need for police and investigators as a consequence, laws governing ownership of property and scope of rights recognized but not created by the government, a system for dealing with those that violate such laws, etc.

Then there is the final problem of people being disingenuous or unreasonable in terms of what infringement means. This again stems from the greed angle. If someone doesn't want others to be able to smoke, they might claim that smoking, no matter where or how it's done, effects them because the smokers will die out of the labor force of industries they count on, the particulates remain in the atmosphere they breathe even if practically absent in reality, or some other such nonsense. There will always be room for bickering about control, rights, and freedom under any system of government.

 

[Hermetic Alchemist]

Since there are multiple ways to describe political orientation, I'll define myself a few times. If I am limited to pick between conservative or liberal, I'd say conservative. If I'm limited to pick between democrat and republican, I'd say republican. Neither of these are wholly accurate, however, just the best of two available choices.

If I must define myself in terms of any party, I'm closer to libertarian than anything. I'm a firm believer in the whole "do whatever you please so long as you don't step on my right to do the same" thing. As a consequence, idealism "me" doesn't care if you possess nuclear weapons and use them to celebrate Independence Day if you can find a way to do so that doesn't infringe on anyone else's right not to be irradiated and their power knocked out (heh).

You obviously wouldn't find a way that isn't hurtful to use them in reality, but you get my point. That brings up the whole practicality vs. ideal problem. There are and will always be people who don't care what happens to others so long as they can benefit themselves, and that quality prevents a perfect libertarian society from ever being able to exist in the way it should, practically speaking.

There will always be a need for police and investigators as a consequence, laws governing ownership of property and scope of rights recognized but not created by the government, a system for dealing with those that violate such laws, etc.

Then there is the final problem of people being disingenuous or unreasonable in terms of what infringement means. This again stems from the greed angle. If someone doesn't want others to be able to smoke, they might claim that smoking, no matter where or how it's done, effects them because the smokers will die out of the labor force of industries they count on, the particulates remain in the atmosphere they breathe even if practically absent in reality, or some other such nonsense. There will always be room for bickering about control, rights, and freedom under any system of government.

I'm pretty much with Particle on this one. As a very confused transAtlanticists (American father, English mother, brought up in the US till I was 8, moved to the UK for 20 years, then back in the US for the last 10) I am really hacked off by current US politics.

The original economic beliefs of the Tea Party (which seemed pretty libertarian) was somewhat appealing, although I do believe in a good welfare state, but one which is allied to stringent application of personal responsibility. ( i.e., don't abuse it by having another 6 children when you don't have a job.). However the current pack of Tea Partiers all seem to be wingnuts (religious and otherwise), who are all very keen on imposing their view of the world on me. Which I have a real problem with (INTP?!) to say the least.

The Democratic Party is at least not like the European socialists, but they still have a bunch of ideals that they'd like to impose upon me. So who the hell am I meant to vote for?

GRrrr.... this wasn't meant to be a rant.....

 

[scorpiomover]

I'm an independent.

I live in the UK. Here, a lot of people believe that a trustworthy politician is a dead politician.

I vote on policy, or occasionally I will vote for someone because they seem to be advocating sensible policies, and I believe they just might do something sensible and rational. I liked Obama during the American election because he said sensible and rational things. I liked Vince Cable because he said sensible and rational things. Right now, I'm pro-Conservative, because I agree with most of what they are saying. But that will change, and then I will change my voting accordingly.

As far as liberal versus conservative policy goes, I'm still nowhere.

I believe that the Free Market needs to be kept under control, or it will go off the rails. But I'm also a firm believer that "less is more" when it comes to government policy.

When it comes to social justice, I believe that the poor and oppressed must be helped, because they cannot see that they are able to get anywhere, and have a lot of stumbling blocks in their way. But I equally believe they must be encouraged and supported to do things for themselves, because you only develop confidence by actually doing things for yourself.

So I really find myself agreeing with both liberals and conservatives.

 

[WanderMind]

Im in the left libertarian area on the political compass.

I see that the government should take care of the poor and the weak. Also enhancing the equality should be one of the main tasks.
Individual freedom could go as far as it wont diminish other peoples freedom. So, huge companies should have more regulations and more transparency in their actions, than they have now. All this because i see that the freedom of unlimited wealth is equal to unlimited ability to make governments to follow their demands. So in the end, there would be new Julius Caesar-like figures who get so powerful that they will take their chances to grasp all the power for themselves.
Also nature should be concidered more important in all business regulations as we all live in a finite world, that is already suffering from human actions. So, the resources should be gathered more locally and transcontinental (fossil fuelbased-)transport should be taxed strongly. Consuming and living standards would ofcourse go down a bit, but i suppose it would be just good for all of us.

 

[Joz_helloworld]

Economically I'm most closely aligned with socialist. Politically I fit more closer to anarchism. I am ardently an athiest. I'm new to MBTI typing but think INTP is the best fit and tests seem to concur.

 

[Words]

The only thing I can't stand more than the perversion of language is the perversion of history.

Language is subjective in the sense that what defines language is mere agreement of "people." And since people are dynamic, Language is also dynamic. So, what does Proxy's "perversion" mean?

Perversion, in the context of my perception of the perception of the world through the internet and other forms of media and interaction, connotes "dishonesty." And dishonesty is riddled with "agenda." But seeing as language has a subjective nature(origin), how would one judge whether a person is "perverting" a language or simply has hir own honest definition?

Also, while it is true that language's use lies with communication, language(excluding mathematical language) was not built on a systematical and concise foundation. There are many errors and conflicting definitions within (spoken)language itself. Hence, it should be no surprise that language must be "tweaked" and made more efficient for communication.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

Language is subjective in the sense that what defines language is mere agreement of "people." And since people are dynamic, Language is also dynamic. So, what does Proxy's "perversion" mean?

Perversion, in the context of my perception of the perception of the world through the internet and other forms of media and interaction, connotes "dishonesty." And dishonesty is riddled with "agenda." But seeing as language has a subjective nature(origin), how would one judge whether a person is "perverting" a language or simply has hir own honest definition?

Also, while it is true that language's use lies with communication, language(excluding mathematical language) was not built on a systematical and concise foundation. There are many errors and conflicting definitions within (spoken)language itself. Hence, it should be no surprise that language must be "tweaked" and made more efficient for communication.

Tweaking language for more efficient communication is not what I have a problem with. I have problem with the wilful intent of changing the context and use of words in order to inhibit communication. I prime example of this would be the IPCC specifically defining climate change as being caused by humans. We all know for a fact that the climate changes and it could be due to a variety of reasons such as solar cycles or a change in the earth's orbit etc. Their of their definition of 'climate change' has merely been implemented to inhibit the opposition's ability to articulate itself. I believe this was a fundamental part of that book '1984' by Orwell.

The interventionists stole the name from the British liberals but not the French liberals. The classical liberals (British) stole the word libertarian from some French leftist movement or called themselves conservatives or neo-liberals/neo-classical-liberals. Conservatism was then taken back from the merchantilists. All very very confusing. What? Capitalism now stands for merchantilism in the eyes of the modern US classified liberals. This has occurred to such an extent that the modern US classified liberals know not what capitalism is. Though, the merchantilists are trying to persuade people that they're capitalists. Confusion is rife.

The perversion of language makes it very hard to communicate especially if you are a proponent of the sovereign self, private property, free market, free trade, freedom of expression, freedom of movement and freedom of association. Essentially a capitalist.

 

[Jelly Rev]

for the current time being I am a libertarian as many other ppl here seem to be. A right wing libertarian though, ron paul ftw.

I dont think libertarianism is the best answer to fix the world but its currently the best ideology out there to vote for, and the fact ron paul actually doesnt bend his policy to what he thinks ppl want, and his son also in congress has made a real bill to actually reduce govt spending, not the jokes of cuts we are seeing now.

The truly best answer for a perfect govt is not a democracy or republic, the best type of govt that can exist due to human nature is one set up like an american system but a significant amount of ppl are not voted in, they are randomly picked, its not anarchy but it does what anarchy does, to an extent. it keeps power from congregating into a group of ppl because of the randomness.
I actually have a whole govt system written up, for not about what is fair or equal but looks at human behavior to create a govt. Some ppl are voted in, some ppl are random and some groups are elitist academia who are more of a consel(like jedi consels lol)

what should the major role of govt be??? to keep people from controlling others, that is all. not utilitarianism, human nature disallows for the standard notion of utilitarianism. where does unhappiness stem from? loss of control of self...but the whole theory I have on that is a novels worth

Im mainly a libertarian bc of the amount of unnesscary laws being made. ppl dont think when they make these laws, they feel and its trash logic. govts will always suck the control from ppl its how govts work, till they are overthrown no matter the system, as long as the control gained is slow like a frog in a pot of hot water analogy.

as long as people feel they have been given a choice people will not overthrow the current system.

To be a liberal or a conservative as an intp seems nearly impossible btw, its like those ppl didnt ask why? and if you didnt ask why, u arent an intp anyways

 

[Jah]

I'll say, Anarchist:


YouTube - ‪Robert Anton Wilson on Anarchism‬‏

 

[Jordan~]

I need a term. Something like techno-anarchist or anarcho-transhumanist that also communicates a sort of 'acommercialist' attitude. Without making reference to a hive mind.

 

[Jah]

Then a term is the last thing you want.

 

[smithcommajohn]

In short... Libertarian.

I like the concepts of personal freedom and free markets, but it seems Statism is here to stay.

 

[Cheeseumpuffs]

Economically I'm most closely aligned with socialist. Politically I fit more closer to anarchism. I am ardently an athiest.

I'm in the same boat. Anarco-socialist and atheist........ fun stuff.

I feel like government's only role should be to protect the people, which is not what goes on. Especially economically. Capitalism creates the divide. I'm not arguing for straight up socialism/communism (yes, I know the difference) but there has to be some of that mercantilism and planned economy. The US Declaration of Independence states that "all men are created equal." Well why doesn't that still apply to America today?

This is where my point gets even more warped, because even though I just argued for a planned economy, I really think the government should have as little impact on our lives. Basic laws (theft, murder, etc.) and a police force to protect people, but other than that they shouldn't be allowed to do whatever they want.

My third point would be on foreign policy. I am an American so all of my views come from our retarded involvements in the Middle East. And all there is to say is I would have rather lived in pre-WWI isolationist America than in today's.

 

[darude11]

I think INTP's are Liberal or Anarchists (if it isn't the same )