syo
Well-Known Member
No. Never.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Your political identity?
- Thread starter SomeRandom
- Start date
syo
Well-Known Member
What is this? It's kind of distorted information.
Absolute monarchy - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Oprichnina - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
syo
Well-Known Member
The wikipedia article says that kings and queens have power. Huh???
Viker
Your beloved eccentric Auntie Cristal
Those two are paradoxical.
Democracy, philosophically, is closer in relation to anarchy/anarchism as they share a common aspiration of self governance.... i.e.classic liberalism and classic libertarianism, like myself.
In today's climate I am a "liberal/progressive". Something, like "conservative" that's losing it's meaning.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
I'm far Left, not registered to a party I've voted for fewer Dems since I've moved to California and voted more for Green candidates (they were never on the ballot in Indiana).
Mine is more about what I don't want - such as theocracies, dictatorships, authoritarianism, communism, plutocracies, oligarchies, monarchies, or anarchy. Apart from that, and since democracy seems to be the closest we currently have to what I might want to see - although I think the one person, one vote tends to mean we will always have divided societies - it has to be democracy, and mostly on the Left rather than the Right - so left-libertarian.
I also don't like so much wealth being in so few hands, given that this also tends to give them greater power, but where this in turn goes against democracy. If we should have more power to people then it should come from either being better informed or sufficiently intelligent to understand the issues or both. But I don't know how this might work out in practice.
For the sake of stability, I'd also prefer public utilities and transport to be under public ownership rather than private, and also for the finance industry to be more controlled so as not to allow the kinds of speculation that often brings catastrophes in their wake. But as to this last, I don't know how that could be achieved whilst living in a global market that has different ideas as to how finance should work.
I also don't like so much wealth being in so few hands, given that this also tends to give them greater power, but where this in turn goes against democracy. If we should have more power to people then it should come from either being better informed or sufficiently intelligent to understand the issues or both. But I don't know how this might work out in practice.
For the sake of stability, I'd also prefer public utilities and transport to be under public ownership rather than private, and also for the finance industry to be more controlled so as not to allow the kinds of speculation that often brings catastrophes in their wake. But as to this last, I don't know how that could be achieved whilst living in a global market that has different ideas as to how finance should work.
exchemist
Veteran Member
One Nation conservatism.
- Market economy, regulated to prevent abuse of the consumer, the environment and company employees,
- openness to migration and international trade,
- support for traditional culture and institutions, with reform where needed,
- a measure of redistributive taxation, to help the poorer and to limit the accumulation of inherited wealth, without snuffing out private enterprise,
- state provision of services that are typically not well provided by private enterprise (health, most public transport, certain utilities).
- state intervention in the market for key strategic reasons, e.g. climate change.
Last edited:
exchemist
Veteran Member
If you are far left in the US, you are probably centre left in Europe
.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
I think they just call it "basic pro-social human" in Europe, lmao.If you are far left in the US, you are probably centre left in Europe
exchemist
Veteran Member
That's not a term I recognise from European politics. Social democrat is the most usual label for the centre left.
The above is what I think of when I think of intellectual conservatism. We may not agree on how to pursue specific goals, but we share many of the same core values and goals (e.g., health care as a free and fundamental human right as well as prevention of abuse of employees).
I'm pretty sure my positions as a democratic socialist align more with what you outlined above than with those of most on the far left (e.g., communists and Marxists-Leninists), even.
Much of American "conservatism" nowadays and far-right conservatism in Europe seem to me to have entirely different values and core goals than yours or mine in the first place. As much as some people claim otherwise, theocracy, legally enforced social conservatism (e.g., same-sex marriage bans), ultra-nationalism, and corporate overreach are not synonymous with conservatism, which I generally think of as a preference to preserve or improve on the status quo instead of fundamentally changing it.
I call it "wealthy people don't boss around"
exchemist
Veteran Member
I agree. Conservatism is increasingly being hijacked by an intolerant, narrow-minded, inward-looking nationalism, which I both despise and slightly fear, putting me in mind, as it does, of the European experience in the 1930s. For example the One Nation Tories in British conservatism have been either driven out or marginalised, since Brexit.
Koldo
Outstanding Member
I am going to use your list to help create mine:
- I don't care if a constitution exists because those in power will always find a way to interpret it however they want to.
- I don't care if I am living in a democracy, anarchy, monarchy, or dictatorship per se.
- I support the separation of religion and state.
- I support universal free health care as long as it doesn't involve incredibly expensive health care. There should be a (very high) limit per person.
- I support free education up to university (at least online university since it is very cheap to achieve this).
- I support free speech, except for hate speech.
- I support animal rights.
- I support heavy progressive taxation with low consumption taxes.
- I support rehabilitative justice in some crimes only. Restorative justice should be the main focus.
- I support environmental regulations.
- I support all nations owning atomic bombs to deter invasions. This would also reduce the costs with the military.
Viker
Your beloved eccentric Auntie Cristal
"Absolute monarchs remain in Brunei, Oman, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates and are classified as mixed, meaning there are representative bodies of some kind, but the monarch retains most of his powers."
Some modern monarchies, a few with power.
Do they get to say "Off with their heads!",
& make it happen? I want the power to
command a Duke to be my footrest.