What Political Ideology Are You?

[JoshtheWolf]

Since I'm surprised no one's done this yet, I'm making a thread on what political ideology you are.

I personally follow Communism, based on the Soviet Union model. I'm also Socialist, though.

[Chiron Jackal]

Since I'm surprised no one's done this yet, I'm making a thread on what political ideology you are.

I personally follow Communism, based on the Soviet Union model. I'm also Socialist, though.

There isn't exactly a set ideology that fits me too well. I take bits from all ends of the political world, including both Communism and Fascism, which tends to scare both the Communists and the Fascists. :D

[Vendetta]

Idealistically I learn more towards anarchist. But not, you know, the bomb throwing variety. Realistically though, I favour tryanny; it's the only way some of you jackholes will do what I want.

[Chriz]

If I could imagine a perfect utopian society, it would be very libertarian (that somehow managed to work).

[Wolf-Bone]

I'm a political atheist. Every political religion, er, "IDEOLOGY" essentially demands I submit to some form or other of orthodoxy that invariably makes me a servant and someone else a master. The fact that there's as many as there are sort of gives away what it really comes down to, which is invariably one person/group's sense of entitlement to power over others. I think if people genuinely wanted to treat politics as a tool for bettering the human race instead of a justification to line their own pockets/ballot boxes, we'd progressively have less factioning as parties dialogued and took from one another what commonly works and likewise discarded what doesn't instead of more as apologists from long-discredited models continue to grasp at straws.

There's really nothing new to what I'm saying here. It's more or less what George Orwell was on about when he wrote Nineteen Eighty-Four (three states with three ideologies that may as well be the same because they all believe in power for power's sake). But it goes back even farther than that, all the way to Plato who (paraphrasing) said that democracy is really just the interlude between oligarchy and tyranny.

Now myself, I'm a little more Orwellian than Platonian since, obviously I'm a hell of a lot more British than ancient Greek in my thinking. But that's more a difference of understanding than ideology. You can see tyrants as high-functioning sociopaths who lust for power and self-preservation the way a healthy teenager lusts for sex, or you can see them as prisoners of their own inability to reason and self-govern. But either view is inherently oppositional to the ideology any tyrant, in any time, whether it be Orwell's, Plato's or ours would publicly espouse and probably believe in sincerely - at least in their outermost conscience.

At the end of the day, I care more about the fundamental difference between truth and untruth and seek the best path to discerning between the two than to be the perfect embodiment of any "ism". I'll read up on any and every ideology, and take from all of them what works, the common truths. I then promptly discard the ideology itself because all that's left after that is a person/people saying "we deserve more power over your life than you", and that's every ideology's common untruth.

[Vendetta]

I'm a political atheist. Every political religion, er, "IDEOLOGY" essentially demands I submit to some form or other of orthodoxy that invariably makes me a servant and someone else a master. The fact that there's as many as there are sort of gives away what it really comes down to, which is invariably one person/group's sense of entitlement to power over others. I think if people genuinely wanted to treat politics as a tool for bettering the human race instead of a justification to line their own pockets/ballot boxes, we'd progressively have less factioning as parties dialogued and took from one another what commonly works and likewise discarded what doesn't instead of more as apologists from long-discredited models continue to grasp at straws.

There's really nothing new to what I'm saying here. It's more or less what George Orwell was on about when he wrote Nineteen Eighty-Four (three states with three ideologies that may as well be the same because they all believe in power for power's sake). But it goes back even farther than that, all the way to Plato who (paraphrasing) said that democracy is really just the interlude between oligarchy and tyranny.

Now myself, I'm a little more Orwellian than Platonian since, obviously I'm a hell of a lot more British than ancient Greek in my thinking. But that's more a difference of understanding than ideology. You can see tyrants as high-functioning sociopaths who lust for power and self-preservation the way a healthy teenager lusts for sex, or you can see them as prisoners of their own inability to reason and self-govern. But either view is inherently oppositional to the ideology any tyrant, in any time, whether it be Orwell's, Plato's or ours would publicly espouse and probably believe in sincerely - at least in their outermost conscience.

At the end of the day, I care more about the fundamental difference between truth and untruth and seek the best path to discerning between the two than to be the perfect embodiment of any "ism". I'll read up on any and every ideology, and take from all of them what works, the common truths. I then promptly discard the ideology itself because all that's left after that is a person/people saying "we deserve more power over your life than you", and that's every ideology's common untruth.
Actually you'd be wrong, as anarchism DOES in fact describe exactly what you're talking about.

I'm still not convinced it'd work, but I honestly would like to see it in practice.

[Chriz]

Actually you'd be wrong, as anarchism DOES in fact describe exactly what you're talking about.

I'm still not convinced it'd work, but I honestly would like to see it in practice.

Same with libertarianism.

What I'd really like is for us to take a hint from the Internet and try to develop some kind of distributed, peer-to-peer system, where the only central organization relates to the structure of the system itself (in the manner of ICANN, perhaps), but not the use of it. Granted, that's almost how the US was created, but the framers didn't go far enough in insuring it stayed that way.

[Tux]

One in which people don’t exist, because if people exist there would be bitching; I hate bitching.

[MetaKittie]

One in which people don’t exist, because if people exist there would be bitching; I hate bitching.

I whole-heartedly agree with you on that.

I'd say I'm all for democracy! Meaning someone else does the work while I go "NO DON'T TOUCH THAT BUTTON!"

AKA, I'm lazy.

[Vendetta]

One in which people don’t exist, because if people exist there would be bitching; I hate bitching.
But not people who bitch about people bitching? :D

[Zombie]

Libertarian-republicanism. I want the government to STFU, while I make money. :D
I totally agree that the government that governs least, governs best.:D

NOT a fan of Barry O. :mad:

Can someone explain how you can spend your way out of debt? Please? :confused:

-Z

[Chiron Jackal]

Can someone explain how you can spend your way out of debt? Please? :confused:

You spend it on something which will in turn produce money greater to or equal to the sum of the debt and the amount spent to correct it.

Pretty simple concept actually.

[Binkx]

I just stopped caring about politics all together and became completely apathetic to the whole ordeal. It is too much hassle to keep up with the constant changes in the government and who is doing what and who said what. What is going into effect, no wait it's not now. BLARG! I'm poor as it is so nothing really effects me much.

[Chiron Jackal]

I'm poor as it is so nothing really effects me much.
Common misconception; politics affect the poor just like everyone else. It can change how easy it is for you to stop being poor, your ability to afford medical procedures, and aid if you're entirely too poor to change your financial status on your own.

[Chriz]

Pretty simple concept actually.

Also thoroughly debunked, but hey, that's never been a problem before.

The federal government claims to have a .7 expense factor, which means it costs them 70¢ to "stimulate" a dollar out of the economy. They claim this despite how, in retrospect, they have always functioned at at least at a factor of 1.5.

[Chiron Jackal]

Also thoroughly debunked, but hey, that's never been a problem before.

It's saved multiple businesses.

That the government is fully fucking stupid doesn't mean the concept of building yourself out of debt is faulty.

[Chriz]

It's saved multiple businesses.

Businesses have an incentive to invest wisely. Government, not so much.

[Wolf-Bone]

The problem with the economy is that it has more in common with a ponzi scheme than an actual model of production of, well, anything except more debt, more money to pay towards that debt and more money to pay towards the debt created by creating said money to pay off said debt. You can't base an economy on nothing, it's common sense!

[Chriz]

The problem with the economy is that it has more in common with a ponzi scheme than an actual model of production of, well, anything except more debt, more money to pay towards that debt and more money to pay towards the debt created by creating said money to pay off said debt.

I'm not going to try to defend a debt-based economy, but comparing it to a ponzi scheme would only be accurate if it was basically a monopoly, or a small collection of large monopolies.

Ponzi schemes are fine if there are so many of them that you can always try to get in on one at the ground floor. It's when that level of access becomes closed off -- as it does with a large conglomerate or a federal government -- that it becomes destructive to the system overall.

[Wolf-Bone]

Well, I'm not the only one who compares it to a ponzi scheme, and some of those other people are sorta paid to know what they're talking about. At the heart of it (and why ponzi schemes are most certainly not fine) is that little-to-nothing of any real value is actually produced. It's not even that it's debt-based, it's that it's nothing-based.

This is something an ideology can't solve. This is something only pragmatic action guided by a strong grasp of reality can. And I know we all need to feel good while we're doing whatever we're doing to dig ourselves out of this, but there are realistic ways of doing that in addition to ritual masturbation.

[Chriz]

It's not even that it's debt-based, it's that it's nothing-based.

Are you talking about the economy overall, or the current trend of spending our way out of debt?