What Are These Political Views Classified As?

[Revoltingest]

Yep, I'd go with NeoCon too, Frankie.

*waves to @Debater Slayer *
Hop into the boat, son, there's plenty of room.

You're a "neo-con"!?
Fie!
A pox upon thee & thy spawn!

 

[YmirGF]

You're a "neo-con"!?
Fie!
A pox upon thee & thy spawn!

Yeah, I know. It SO sucks to be me. Dang 1%-ers....

 

[LuisDantas]

So the views in themselves are not scary, but how they are perceived?

Sort of. The nationalistic and militaristic aspects of those are indeed scary, but I realize that they are also fairly common.

Still, to perceive those as "far left"... boggles the mind really.

 

[Revoltingest]

Sort of. The nationalistic and militaristic aspects of those are indeed scary, but I realize that they are also fairly common.

Still, to perceive those as "far left"... boggles the mind really.

Not so boggling.
Many leftish regimes love militarism.....
USSR
N Korea
PRC
But I wouldn't call DS's views either "right" or "left" or any combination thereof.
The terms are too simplistic & awkward.

 

[LuisDantas]

While we are at it, what do you understand by conservatism?

 

[Revoltingest]

While we are at it, what do you understand by conservatism?

Here, it refers to wanting the old social order, typically a 1950s set of Xian values made law.
But generally, it could harken back to anything in one's traditions.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Seems at first glance in the realm of the far leftists. Not necessarily Marxist or Anarchist far left, but they aren't many in the Left willing to admit that sometimes violence is necessary, not all things should be tolerated, or that the ends of the state are more important than the means. Your statement of "what matters is whether [wealth] is distributed fairly" seems more of Left-winged Socialist Libertarian statement.

I don't believe that the ends of the state are more important than the means either. I wouldn't support treating convicted criminals inhumanely even if that meant the state would be able to save a lot of money, for example.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I would call you a centrist, @Debater Slayer . One with an emphasis on ethics and somewhat conservative views on nationalism.

Which part or parts strike you as focused on nationalism, specifically?

What you have is a terminal case of open minded common sense. No label fits you. And I mean that as a compliment. Stay away from labels. When you take a label (liberal, conservative etc.) you also take its limitations. Now you are free to see all sides logically with an open mind. Great place to be in my opinion.

Thanks for the kind words!

I wouldn't mind if my views fit a label; I just wouldn't want to specifically change my views to fit a label. I don't mind much whether or not they do.

Seems to me you've pretty well internalized the values of the European Enlightenment, DS.

Interesting. Did the European Enlightenment adopt moral objectivism and criticism of religion in general?

 

[Debater Slayer]

As I've said before, you mostly sound like a neoconservative: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism

I have no idea where some of the others in this thread are seeing far-leftism.

Yep, I'd go with NeoCon too, Frankie.

*waves to @Debater Slayer *
Hop into the boat, son, there's plenty of room.

I've looked up neoconservatism before, especially after Frank had mentioned it to me again in a thread. From what I've read, though, neoconservatives supported interventionism and the Iraq War, whereas I'm not in favor of interventionism per se, and I absolutely oppose the Iraq War. That's one of the main disagreements I have with their major positions that I've read about so far.

Don't know. I felt I should reply at least as you have quite an unexpected mixture of views. I cant quite see how the "pieces" fit together but there is a logical coherence to it. I can't think of a name for it though.

Definitely not In the far right or far left though. It is within the intellectual patterns of liberal thinking based on reason, science, secularism and individual rights but the combination of asserting individual rights by a dictatorship is not "centrist" in US or UK politics. I could see DS in a big wig signing the Declaration of Independence or putting enemies of the revolution to the guiltione in France. It's the combination of dictatorial and liberal thinking that makes it hard to place.

Maybe you feel at home with a form of "enlightened absolutism"?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlightened_absolutism

I wouldn't put anyone in a guillotine for opposing a revolution. I'm also not even sure the death penalty should exist to begin with, much less the death penalty without clear and absolutely proved guilt of a crime like murder or rape without intent or ability to rehabilitate.

The link you posted says that "enlightened absolutism" relies on absolute monarchy or despotism, so it seems that the label doesn't describe me.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I don't believe that the ends of the state are more important than the means either. I wouldn't support treating convicted criminals inhumanely even if that meant the state would be able to save a lot of money, for example.

I meant that in regards to your comment that a dictator wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing.

 

[Debater Slayer]

The OP is tough read.

As in, "So freaking long" or something else?

I'd call it "hybrid".
This term has 2 positives:
1) It's accurate
2) It says nothing, but invites inquiry.

You mean a "hybrid" of leftism and conservatism? Or you getting at something different?

 

[Debater Slayer]

I meant that in regards to your comment that a dictator wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing.

I see. That makes more sense now.

 

[Revoltingest]

As in, "So freaking long" or something else?

A little long & indirect at times.
But remember....I'm an ADHD type.

You mean a "hybrid" of leftism and conservatism? Or you getting at something different?

There is more to politics than left & right.
And your views seem a selection from a vast smorgasbord.

Note:
None of the above is criticism.

 

[LuisDantas]

Which part or parts strike you as focused on nationalism, specifically?

These.

(...)
• I think that pacifism is, in many cases, so idealistic as to be impractical and sometimes even dangerous. For some examples, it took two atomic bombs to help end World War II, bin Laden didn't stop engaging in terrorism until he was assassinated, and ISIS is metastasizing and being so brutal right now that any countries' pacifism toward them would basically amount to surrendering to them.

In other words, "violence solves nothing" is a utopian mantra that can be almost completely unhelpful in real-world global politics. I think that countries should only eschew violence when it is unnecessary, not categorically.

(...)

• "There should be no countries and no borders" is another utopian, ivory-tower mantra. Borders are very practical to limit or prevent the entry of people that the country deems undesirable for the purpose of maintaining its welfare. For instance, borders are useful for preventing criminals convicted of, say, murder or theft in another country from entering one's country.

Also, borders can be useful for limiting (emphasis on "limiting," not necessarily completely preventing) the entry of people whose values significantly contradict and possibly undermine those of one's own country. For example, if a country doesn't want very large numbers of homophobes and/or sexists (for example) from another country to move to it, borders can help to limit that. There's nothing wrong per se with the concept of preserving one's culture; only when said preservation is based on false assumptions and faulty logic.

(...)

• Democracy is a means to an end, not an end in itself, and I believe the end should be the well-being of all citizens in any given country. This means that if democracy resulted in persecution of minorities or any other injustices in a country, dictatorship wouldn't necessarily be undesirable. As such, "This president/prime minister is a dictator" isn't a bad thing per se unless this dictatorship persecutes any given group of people or violates constitutional laws that the dictator initially vowed to uphold—in which case changes in such laws shouldn't be off the table for future benefit.

(...)

I was actually surprised by most of this.

 

[Debater Slayer]

These.


I was actually surprised by most of this.

I see. Why were you surprised? I've mentioned at least some of these in debate threads, as far as I recall.

 

[LuisDantas]

I see. Why were you surprised? I've mentioned at least some of these in debate threads, as far as I recall.

The parts that I quoted? I don't recall seeing them mentioned. I guess I don't expect people to hold such beliefs and tend to gloss over them as heat of the moment or something similar.

 

[Debater Slayer]

The parts that I quoted? I don't recall seeing them mentioned. I guess I don't expect people to hold such beliefs and tend to gloss over them as heat of the moment or something similar.

Not sure what you mean. I believe the views I mentioned are tenable, so I don't try to gloss over them as "heat of the moment" or anything else. I have no problem saying that I do hold the beliefs I listed here. How else would I have created this thread to begin with?

 

[LuisDantas]

That is why I stand surprised. If I had to classify you on the left-right spectrum now, I would put you on moderate right.

 

[Revoltingest]

Not sure what you mean. I believe the views I mentioned are tenable, so I don't try to gloss over them as "heat of the moment" or anything else. I have no problem saying that I do hold the beliefs I listed here. How else would I have created this thread to begin with?

Have you taken one of those political spectrum quizzes to see where you land?
Could be helpful.

 

[sun rise]

Not so boggling.
Many leftish regimes love militarism.....
USSR
N Korea
PRC
But I wouldn't call DS's views either "right" or "left" or any combination thereof.
The terms are too simplistic & awkward.

So would many rightish regimes and theological ones. Militarism has been the human condition back into the mists of history.