Your party

[HLGStrider]

Just out of curiousity and not to start arguments I thought I'd do a little survey...

This is basically just for Americans since I don't know other countries political parties, but if you want to guess the one that comes closest to your party, go ahead.

[Rangerdave]

I expanded your poll to include my party of choice.
(can you guess which one?)
Thanks

RD

[HLGStrider]

I'm guessing Libertarian... but only because I like them better... I don't have very much knowledge about the Reform party... Was that Ross Perot's party? I vaguely remember wanting to vote for him because he had funny ears, but I was only seven or so at the time so I didn't... Needless to say.

I actually like the Libertarian outlook in a lot of ways... just they are a tad bit amoral at times... Still they are logical.

[Gloer]

and it told me that I am a centrist.

Since I have no idea what Democratic party stands for and even less what Republicans stand for I think libertarians are the only choice left.

I am so glad I am not american. Here in Finland we have only cenrist parties.

Here it is: The Worlds Smallest Political Quiz

http://www.self-gov.org/quiz.html

[HLGStrider]

What do the Centrists believe?
I don't think Libertarian was a very good guess considering what I know of most politics in that region...
You might've been closer with the Democrats... Especially knowing your stand on Abortion.

Anyway, I thought I'd give you a little explanation for my Amoral statement, RD... to be brief I was thinking of what I know on their stand on Pornography and Drugs... all that. The reaction I have to both those issues is all gut and conscience, however, and I find the libertarian arguments to be good... though I am not willing to go as far as to agree with them.

I am highly Austrian in my economics, and I believe the libertarian party is as well.

[HLGStrider]

Any other comments? We've had 33 views and only 4 votes.. most disappointing... doesn't make me any less curious.

[Mindy_O_Lluin]

Do you want the party we most believe in and relate to? Or the one we most likely vote for. I don't see the Green party in there, so I need to know before I vote.

[HLGStrider]

Green party would, to me, be other. I didn't include it because I felt that if I did I'd have to include Bucanan's party too, and for the life of me, I couldn't remember its name.

The one you'd vote for, I suppose. I hope you'd vote for the party you believe in.

[DGoeij]

Since I'm living in a country with a very different government system, it's very hard to know for certain which party I would vote for now. In the recent elections I voted for the bigger, left wing party, which expresses the most concern about 'green' issues.
But it could have easily been another party, since we have a lot more and a lot more similar party's as in the UK or the US.

[Mindy_O_Lluin]

I'll have to qualify mine since I am going to end up being grouped in with Buchanan's party, when I'm totally opposite. Anyone on the ballot below president who has 'Green party' next to their name I will vote for.
For President, lets just say, I vote for the lesser of two evils.

[HLGStrider]

The idea of grouping you with a totally opposite party is the idea of an other. It just means a non listed. That's why I told you to post below what it was, so we know what it was. No one is going to assume or believe you voted for Buchanan if you said you voted for Other because you were a Green.

[Mindy_O_Lluin]

No problem.

[Ciryaher]

Ralph Nader was the Green Party candidate for the 2000 Election.

I added Socialist and Communist because they are both interesting and have some points.

I, myself, tend to lean towards some Republican views...anti-abortion, anti gun-control, and old candidates *hehehe* but I prefer the Socialist Republic system of economic government. The more of these corporate scandals I see that destroy peoples' lives...it just cries out for some serious action.

[HLGStrider]

If you want corruption, Go Communism :rolleyes:

Enron was not caused by any market failure but by a much too regulated market . It collapsed because people in control made bad descisions within this controlled environment and shouldn't have been in control anyway.

Actually, Ken Lay, the big guy in Enron, is a member of an anti-Capitalist group.

I'm fine with arresting people who have commited fraud, but don't go strapping market controls that will ruin things for everyone. Communism is a big lie and socialism is idealism gone wrong. Give me a free market any day.

One of my favorite subjects is economics.

[Gloer]

Originally posted by HLGStrider
What do the Centrists believe?


According to the poll I took - it is found here:

http://www.self-gov.org/quiz.html

" Centrist
Centrists favor selective government intervention and emphasize practical solutions to current problems. They tend to keep an open mind on new issues. Many centrists feel that government serves as a check on excessive liberty. "


The extreme corners of the political coordinates made of X =personal liberties and Y = economic liberalism are:

"Libertarian
Libertarians are self-governors in both personal and economic matters. They believe government's only purpose is to protect people from coercion and violence. They value individual responsibility, and tolerate economic and social diversity.

Left-Liberal
Left-Liberals prefer self-government in personal matters and central decision-making on economics. They want government to serve the disadvantaged in the name of fairness. Leftists tolerate social diversity, but work for economic equality.

Conservative
Right-conservatives prefer self-government on economic issues, but want official standards in personal matters. They want the government to defend the community from threats to its moral fiber.

Authoritarian
Authoritarians want government to advance society and individuals through expert central planning. They often doubt whether self-government is practical. Left-authoritarians are also called socialists, while fascists are right-authoritarians. "

[HLGStrider]

Geez... I always thought I was a Republican... according to your poll RD is not alone. Elgee the Libertarian... Of course, abortion issues weren't on the poll, and I have no idea where Libertarians stand on that, but I take the Republican stand... that might make the difference.

[Courtney]

I don't vote. (or am not going to) I think most politicians liers, and even if they aren't there really isn't much that they can do... Also, I don't want that much responsibility to be in my hands. But I hate it when people who don't vote complain about who is elected. I won't do that.

[HLGStrider]

I'm almost the exact opposite... I'd like to be a senator someday. I think it would be hard to remain pure when power is calling, but I'd like to see if I could do it... just like I'd like to see if I could win the lottery without spending or losing it all within a year...

[Gamil Zirak]

I took the quiz and was right-conservative. I align myself with the republican part as well and even listen to Rush Limbaugh (I'm also a subsriber to his magazine). One of my favorite classes was Economics as well Elgee. A sad note though is that it wasn't a required course to graduate from the college I went to unless you were getting a business related degree (i.e. accounting, marketing, management, etc.). A lot of people didn't get economic theory in high school (or at least the correct one) and if you don't get it in college you're out of luck.

[Ciryaher]

Ahh, HLG, well I hope you realize that Britain and the US are partially Socialist, and the governments of Scandinavia are Socialist (I'm not sure what sort of legislation they have...maybe a republic?).

Communism isn't fundamentally corrupt, humans are fundamentally corrupt, as is capitalism.


According to a poll at www.selectsmart.com, my top 18 political philosophies are:
#1 National Socialist
#2 Social Democratic
#3 Liberal Socialist
#4 Soviet "Communist"
#5 Anarcho-Communist
#6 Fascist
#7 Marxist
#8 American "Liberal"
#9 Liberal Nationalist
#10 Left-wing Neoliberal (Clinton)
#11 Revolutionary Conservative/Monarchist (far right)
#12 Social-Liberal
#13 Christian Democratic
#14 Christian Socialist
#15 American "Conservative"
#16 Right-wing Neoliberal (Thatcher)
#17 Burkean (liberal) Conservative
#18 Liberal

[HLGStrider]

I'm aware of that. Socialism is an economic policy and as such I wouldn't call it directly evil, but I would work to vote against it in any way I can. It is a dangerous idea, and it doesn't make any sense to take away from the haves who have been working to give to the have nots who haven't been.
Productivity is inspired by rewards which happens more under capitalism than socialism. Socialism isn't going to get you anywhere.

It's a dream.

[HLGStrider]

Cir, I thought I might elaborate.

What I mean about socialism being idealism gone wrong is that it is based on faulty economic principles and normally used to promote some sort of Utopian ideal with more concern for emotions than common sense.

Economics is not a moral issue. It is simply a science, like any other science. There are certain rules the economic system follows just like an ecosystem or a biological system. These are rules such as supply and demand, the laws governing inflation... etc. There is more than one school of economic thought, and I admit that I haven't read much that is flattering towards the Keynesian or other leftist views. I am mostly from the Austrian School. My favorite economic book was by Thomas Sowell... but I'm not sure if I can remember the name. Okay, I looked it up and it was called simply "Basic Economics" (Bangs her head against the desk for forgetting that title.). It has a bright green cover and since it was at my library it probably is in yours (It's a new book, about 2001). I don't quite agree with Sowell's take on charities, but that was about my only problem. Where was I?

Anyway, despite the obvious rules of don't lie, cheet, or steel economics is simply a matter of striving to get something better. Socialism is the idea of the government running the markets and controling things to make things "fair". Unfortunately it is impossible to do something this big and when a man can't direct his own life he becomes lazy and lets other people do his work for him. If one is getting paid for doing a decent job and knows their boss will fire them if they don't and promote him (possibly) if they do, one naturally works harder. If one is in a system such as Socialism or Communism one is given a job and told to do it and not necessarily paid with more than what one needs to live. There are few rewards for working harder. If one invents something under capitalism one gets the reward of selling it. Under socialism nobody invents something because to make money off of something you need to be able to sell things and there is no reward (some people do invent things, but normally socialism goes against itself and gives them rewards... the difference being that the rewards come from the government instead of the consumer.).

This is far too broad a subject to tackle, but I find that there are a lot of misconceptions about free markets and people really aren't very educated in this way.

I wrote an essay about my idea of what government should do... I'm going to try and get it up (It won an essay contest, but then my computer crashed and I lost my copy of it, so unless I can get it from the website of the contest place I won't be able to post it...).

[Ciryaher]

Socialism isn't like Communism. Only certain industries are government controlled (like many in Britain and Scandinavia), there are government programs for health and education (like in the US, Canada, and Britain). Certain types of socialism are only for the purpose of ensuring a minimum quality of life for all citizens. In the ideal (and not unfeasable) socialist republic, a governent of elected officials (like the US) would raise the bottom of the social ladder so that the impovershed and unemployed would have jobs, health care, and housing.

[Gamil Zirak]

Actually, socialism is where everyone is equal. You don't get paid for your job and everything is free. So, if you're a lawyer or working at McDonalds everything cost (nothing) the same. You are limited on the number of things you can have (i.e. two loaves of bread a month and such). The problem with this utopia is human nature. Why do I want to be a lawyer or a doctor when I can work at McDonalds (or Burger King if that's your cup of tea) and still have the same stuff I would as a doctor/lawyer?

[HLGStrider]

Socialism isn't like Communism

No, actually, according to Karl Marx Socialism is the step before Communism and after Capitalism... the bridge so to speak. Socialism is where the government takes things in and forces people to comply to the rules because even Marx knew no one was going to go into communism without kicking and screaming (though he blamed it on greed when the reason is common sense.). The idea was the Proletariat would rise up and kick the Capitalist surpressors down, forcing everyone into socialism. After awhile everyone would realize that socialism is heaven on earth and then they could move into comunism where the government wouldn't have to force them anymore...

Correct me if I'm wrong. It's been awhile since I've had a leftist refresher course... :rolleyes: ;)

Marx developed a theory of different economic systems sliding into one anothr, sort of an evolutionary thing. However, he wasn't much of an economist, just an angry man with a lot of ideas that in his life time did little more than get him into trouble and after his lifetime have ruined a lot of good economies.

Socialism comes in stages, I suppose. For instance, there is the stage that most of the countries you listed are in at the moment. However, in all forms, socialism leads to a loss of liberty. Liberty, economic or otherwise, is not something that the government has a right to give or take. The government is just a necessary evil we use to protect ourselves (I say necessary evil, but really government does have it's place. It's just that it tends to spread out so much from there that it often quickly becomes an evil). The government has no right to tell me what I should believe, say, or think. Why should it have a right to own businesses?

And government owned enterprises are often shoddily run, for that matter.

The Canadians and Austriallians have socialized health care which has long long long waiting lines. My own state is seriously considering socialized health care. It doesn't lead towards much advancement... there was a great article on that in the Ideas on Liberty for this month... wish I could type it up...


In the ideal (and not unfeasable) socialist republic, a governent of elected officials (like the US) would raise the bottom of the social ladder so that the impovershed and unemployed would have jobs, health care, and housing.

The bottom of the social ladder is higher in the United States than anywhere else. Why? Because we've been anything but socialist. We have allowed people to work their way up. It is only with the massive welfare state that this has changed (I like to blame it all on FDR because he was about the worst, but it was happening long before him...).

People have a primary responsibility to take care of themselves and their family. It is not the governments responsibilities. If people can't take care of themselves, I am very in favor of private charities... your move, Cir.

[Ciryaher]

This argument is moot, because what I believe in is impossible due to human corruption. There is no point or foundation for argument for the sole reason that humanity is incapable of abiding by a socialist system.

And as for us being anything BUT socialist, what do you call welfare, medicare, medicaid, social security, public schools, and college assistance?

[Gamil Zirak]

Originally posted by Ciryaher
And as for us being anything BUT socialist, what do you call welfare, medicare, medicaid, social security, public schools, and college assistance?
A waste of tax payer money and the entire basis of the liberal movement.

[Ciryaher]

I certainly don't consider public schools a waste of money. I go to one. Without them, at least half of the population (rough estimate) wouldn't be able to be educated due to the high cost of private schooling.

As for social security, you pay for it yourself, so I don't see anything wrong with it, and medicare/medicaid provide health care for the poor and elderly.

Do you consider the health and education of the less fortunate to be a waste of tax dollars? I don't see how charities and private donations could support the massive amounts of people that would need these services, were they to be cut off from federal funding.

[HLGStrider]

All of those things which you listed are fairly new, coming after our base. They are the welfare state I said was stopping growth (though growth has been aided by the rapid development of Tech things... which was partly caused by wars.).

I am not a public schooler and I find that the system doesn't work too well. I am not for a total abolishment for public schools, but they certainly have a monopoly which is unfair to private schools. AKA why pay money to the private school when you can get a public free... hence the private schools get less business which forces them to charge more per student because they are getting less... etc... I know that in the past not everyone could afford private schools but the public makes them less and less accessible.

The idea of welfare makes me ill. It is an adults responsibility to take care of himself. If you look in the paper you see plenty of want adds. Half the time there is no reason why these people can't work. It's a real mess...

Social security has taken the place of people storing up for their own retirement (somethijng any smar person does). Besides it is lopsided and doomed for failure. You are not paying for your own stuff you are paying for the generation before your's stuff... and the generation after you.

The government is usurping our personal responsibility and so doing so is usurping our personal freedoms.

[Ciryaher]

Have you ever *gone* to public school? I have gone to nothing but public schools, and each of them (by some strange coincidence, perhaps) happened to be one of the best overall schools in the state, as far as test scores and graduation rates go.

Public schools have a monopoly? That's like saying personal computers have a monopoly on the computing industry. Private schools can offer more highly specified courses, to be sure, but so can a public school. Of course not all of them have the ability to offer advanced classes, but that leaves no room for your stereotyping.

You seem to think that people live off of *just* welfare, but that isn't true. To qualify for welfare, a person has to have a job and has to fall short of a minimum yearly income. Some jobs just don't provide enough money for a man or woman to support their family, and that is where welfare supplements the job income.

Social security is a good idea for a backup, because you never know when you or a loved one is going to end up in the hospital. Treatment for cancers or other age-related ailments tend to rapidly drain a person's well-planned retirement. The social security money that you earned by working will be greatly appreciated.

HLG, do you have an income that is non home-related and on which you pay taxes?

[Gamil Zirak]

I went to a public school, a very fine public school to boot. The thing is, not every public school is good. So when you happen to live in the school district of a crappy school, you can't do anything about it (unless you home school or go to private school) except send your kids there. That sounds like a monopoly to me. Saying computers have a monopoly on the computer industry is not a good comparison. If the government made almost ever computer out there and it was free (you pay for it indirectly in taxes), would you pay a lot to get one when you could get one for free. That's the school system comparison.

Social Security is wrong when it is not used for its intended purpose. The government lumps everything into one fund and pays out of there. Social Security is not set up in its own fund and it is only used to pay social security checks. That's why it will go under. The bloated government can't get it's hand out of the cookie jar. I have a paycheck that has taxes taken out. I make $40,000 a year and I pay $2,700 in SS taxes, $500 in Medicare taxes, and $6,000 in federal income taxes. That doesn't include the $1,500 I pay in property taxes and the umpteen thousand dollars I pay in state sales tax. I'm fortunate enough to be in the next to smallest tax rate bracket, unlike some people who pay a higher percentage of their income to the cookie stealers. To qualify for welfare you have to have a job? That's news to me. I know that the poverty line is $20,000 a year. I've lived off of that before just fine and never once asked for a hand out from the government.

On to SS. If you think you can live off of the check from that, you are sadly mistaken. Even without a mortgage payment the 4 or 5 hundred dollars a month you get isn't enough. It's our responsibility, not the governments, to ensure that we are taken care of when we are older. If you screwed up with your financials, you better have been really nice to your kids our you will be working at a quickie mart to make ends meat.

[Ciryaher]

In the state of New Mexico, if your public school is not meeting minimum educational requirements, you can go to any other school (in the area) that you want. The school system in which you live also has to provide transportation to the different school, as well.

Did I say that you could live off of an SS check? Unless demons inhabited my mind and I typed that unawares, you are inferring far too much. I stated "The social security money that you earned by working will be greatly appreciated" which means that the money will help, however negligible the amount may seem.

[Gamil Zirak]

I did read too much into the social security, but I just don't see why it's the governments responsibility to provide it for us. They take money from us so they can pay it back to us. They make a lot of interest off of it that most of us will never see. The trick is you get your SS check when you are 65 (or 60 if you want it early but get less money) and when you die your spouse gets it. So, if you die without a spouse you can't will the money that you paid in to anyone else. Also, once your spouce dies the same is true. It's not a win win situation.

On the schools, we don't have that rule in Texas. It sounds like a good one to have, but it's not country wide. You can send your kid to another school disctrict, but you have to pay $1,000 (that's what it was 5 years ago anyway) a semester and they don't provide transportation. The schools don't really have an insentive to do better, but competition would make them better. If you want to keep your kids in the school (i.e. keep the money in the school), then you need a better school.

[HLGStrider]

Never been public schooled.
Don't make a taxable income (I'm 17 and do babysitting).

However, I am not blind. I am glad you have a good public school, but most public schools aren't that great, at least not where I am. That's one of the reasons I'm not in them.

I said I wasn't in favor of outlawing them, and Gamil is right about the social security fiasco.

It is not the governments job to take from one person to give to another.

The idea was originally a limited government that A. Kept the peace. B. Protected us from foreign invasion. and C. Provided a secure environment for normal human relations.