Your political identity?

[Viker]

Do they get to say "Off with their heads!",
& make it happen? I want the power to
command a Duke to be my footrest.

You're just going to have to usurp one of the monarchs on the list then bark out orders and do eccentric monarch things.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Can you tell me why you prefer that over direct democracy? It's not that i disagree it's just I just don't know much about the pros and cons of different types of government. I know the US is a constitutional Republic and having rights for all is always a good thing. I also can see some the problems direct democracies can cause i mean if there's no codified rights then the majority much vote for something that causes harm to a minority group. So for that reason im leaning towards agreeing with you.

Exactly. The two main reasons I oppose direct democracy are that 1) sometimes the majority may vote to oppress a minority, generating a need to codify the latter's rights and strongly enshrine them (e.g., via a constitution that's not easy to modify by majority rule), and 2) the general public don't always have sufficient knowledge about certain subjects to be able to directly vote on decisions regarding those subjects without the risk of causing significant harm in the process. An example of this could be an environmental or medical decision where only highly informed, specialized knowledge can qualify someone to make a sound decision.

There are other issues I see with direct democracy, but these two are the most salient ones.

 

[EconGuy]

So this is just me being a little curious.

How would you describe your own political “identity?” The policies you support?
The politicians you support?
What you dislike about your chosen politicians? What you would want to see in the future?
And why?

Since this is in a rather general area, all are welcome to participate. But perhaps a little clarification or maybe even translation may be in order???

Have at it and let me know!!



And I know this is politics, but try to remain somewhat civil, guys.
Please

Extremist-----------Moderate----------Extremist

I'm in the middle.

I know this because extremists on both sides accuse me of being an extremist on the side to their opposite.

 

[metis]

Extremist-----------Moderate----------Extremist

I'm in the middle.

I know this because extremists on both sides accuse me of being an extremist on the side to their opposite.

So, you're extremely Moderate?

I'm confused.

Welcome here to RF, btw.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Politics-is-boring-ism.

 

[EconGuy]

So, you're extremely Moderate?

I prefer radical moderate.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So this is just me being a little curious.

How would you describe your own political “identity?” The policies you support?
The politicians you support?
What you dislike about your chosen politicians? What you would want to see in the future?
And why?

Since this is in a rather general area, all are welcome to participate. But perhaps a little clarification or maybe even translation may be in order???

Have at it and let me know!!



And I know this is politics, but try to remain somewhat civil, guys.
Please

To be honest, I don't think about it enough to actually know.

When time of voting comes along, I'm kind of a selfish / pragmatic dude. I'll vote for whoever's policy ideas at that moment would benefit me most. Fully realizing that their "campaign promises" rarely, if ever, get implemented. I will do a bit of research every time though, just to see what's what and who's who. But rarely, if ever, do I encounter people that impress me with their integrity and selflessness. Or intelligence even, for that matter.
So it feels like I can not really make a good choice for voting. They always all seem the same type of "rotten apples". Some worse then others.
Hence why I usually go the pragmatic route. Kind of a thing like choosing the "lesser of several evils" if you wish, lol

I don't like politicians in general. I'm kind of a Plato guy when it comes to power. I'm off the opinion that power should be given to people who don't actually want to have it. But in a democracy, this can't happen. Because you can only vote for those on the list. And those on the list by definition want to have power or they wouldn't put themselves up for election...


On the other hand, there's an additional reason why it doesn't really keep me awake at night.
That reason is the realization that we actually live a good life.

Regardless of all the doomsday complaining about "the economy" and all that jazz.... we live a good life. I'm nothing special, in the sense that I don't earn truckloads of money. We earn an average salary. Nothing special.

Yet, we can rather comfortably own a nice house. We have 2 cars. We have gaming consoles, a nice 4k TV, a small swimming pool for the kids, a nice garden, I can comfortably buy steaks for dinner, I can finance my hobbies (drums, gaming, riding my bike,...) and even though we have to scrape and save up a bit for it we can also rather comfortably go on a family holiday with the kids in the summer. Education of my kids is as good as free and quality health care is very accessible and cheap also.

Really, we have nothing to complain about, if we are being honest about it. Compared to plenty of other countries, we actually bath in luxury and wealth.
Does that mean that politicians do a good job? No. But imo it does mean that they aren't doing a terrible job either, imo.


Maybe that isn't the most responsible stance I can take as a citizen... but in all honesty, I have my hands full already running my family and company. That's what is on my mind every day. And at the moment, for me at least, the country / system is providing me with all the necessary tools and resources I require to be able to do that in a comfortable way. Could it be better? Very likely. But again, I'm not much of a complainer.

The day I'm less comfortable, will likely be the day that I'll care more about it.

 

[Ella S.]

So this is just me being a little curious.

How would you describe your own political “identity?”

Existentialist post-left anarchist in theory. There are ongoing arguments in online anarchist spaces regarding the nuances of anarchist theory, but this level of specificity comes up less frequently when I'm productively working on actual causes or in real-life communities.

In practice, I tend to have enough in common with other anarchists that "anarchist" on its own is fine.

Unfortunately, "anarchist" is a term that's starting to be misused. I'm seeing capitalists and democrats self-identifying as anarchist recently and I've seen many anarchists who suspect this is a form of entryism. Anarchism is inherently anti-capitalist and anti-democratic in all of its forms, whether that's post-left anarchism, anarcho-communism, anarcho-syndicalism, anarcho-pacificism, anarcho-nihilism, or what have you.

This is because "anarchism" means "without rulers." That's opposed to democracy because democracy is "rule by the people," so it inherently includes rulers. It's also opposed to capitalism because capitalism is bound up in plutocracy, "rule by the wealthy," and corporatocracy, "rule by corporations."

You can think of anarchism, instead, as self-rule. It's a kind of autonomy and independence where you have supreme rule over yourself and your personal property, but you can't tell other people what to do with themselves and their property. In this way, there are no rulers above you and you yourself are not a ruler. When you cooperate with others under anarchism, it's in a way with no centralized authority or hierarchy, and therefore you cannot "privately own" their workplaces because that creates a centralized authority over them.

The key idea in anarchism is an advocacy for autonomy and self-sufficiency independent of all hierarchical structures of authority. Anarchy does not mean lawlessness or chaos; quite the opposite. An anarchist would not murder their neighbor for personal gain because this would violate their neighbor's autonomy. Anarchy means without rulers, but "without rulers" is a rule. That's why anarchy is represented by an "A" overlapping an "O;" it symbolizes "anarchy is order."

As a post-left anarchist, I don't believe in grand narratives of progress or revolution. I don't believe workers should own the means to production like in socialism because I don't think there should be workers; I think we should be as self-sufficient as possible and voluntarily contribute to mutual aid for those who cannot survive independently, which constitutes a post-work society.

As an existentialist anarchist, I deny that government authorities or market forces are capable of assigning any form of "objective" value that must be recognized on a personal level. Instead, I think we are all condemned to be wholly responsible for what we choose to value and how we choose to act on those values. I think the legitimacy of federal laws and capitalist economics are inherently based on rejecting that truth by prescribing specific universal values that can only be artificially enforced through the use of violence since they are not truly meaningful on their own.

This is a simplified overview of the topic, but hopefully it's good enough as an introduction for anyone who is unfamiliar with these terms or how I use them.

The policies you support?

I don't support policy because I reject the state and refuse to partake in its apparatus. I support direct action through voluntary mutual aid and decentralized dual power structures. I prefer turning towards one another to solve our problems collectively, independent of hierarchical institutions.

I sympathize with the pragmatic approach of some anarchists that vote for libertarian restrictions on the government and regulatory restrictions on corporations, but I abstain from that practice on ideological grounds. I do not want to concede any legitimacy to the state, much less actively use its authority for my own political ends.

The politicians you support?

I support none, because I am opposed to the authority of office, although I am a fan of some specific political thinkers such as Proudhon and Camus.

The closest I get to supporting politicians is that I hesitantly tolerate moderate libertarian socialists and social democrats when we agree on smaller social issues like LGBT and BIPOC acceptance, anti-consumerism, and when they get serious about co-ops and unions. The problem is that all politicians, by their nature, support the hierarchical authority of the state and so I cannot fully support any of them.

I spent over 2 hours writing this.

 

[bobhikes]

So this is just me being a little curious.

How would you describe your own political “identity?” The policies you support?
The politicians you support?
What you dislike about your chosen politicians? What you would want to see in the future?
And why?

Since this is in a rather general area, all are welcome to participate. But perhaps a little clarification or maybe even translation may be in order???

Have at it and let me know!!



And I know this is politics, but try to remain somewhat civil, guys.
Please

Moderate, in general do not like any of the current major and minor parties. Republicans too conservative trying to assert Christian beliefs as national policy, Democrats to liberal trying to tax us all so that we can all be equal.

What we need are:
a) Term limits on all Federal political offices. This puts limits on alliances forcing new ones every so many years. Curtailing big money.
b) To limit the time and expenses allowed for election runs this will allow minor parties to be effective while also curtailing big money.

The problem with politics today is that it is not about serving your country. Its about how much money you can get from the government. We need to limit the amount of money they can get and the problem will actually resolve itself.

 

[metis]

a) Term limits on all Federal political offices. This puts limits on alliances forcing new ones every so many years. Curtailing big money.

I used to be opposed to term limits but now am for them because my observations have it that once a politician is in his/her last term, they generally can be more willing to do the right thing versus the politically-correct thing.

b) To limit the time and expenses allowed for election runs this will allow minor parties to be effective while also curtailing big money.

I agree, but don't hold your breath.

 

[Angelical]

I’ve never Voted, but I pay attention to everything usually.