What is your ideological preference?

[Korihor]

I put up a similar poll (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=4080103#post4080103) at the IIDB and I just wanted to see what the spread was here. :teeth:

[Stabbytheclown]

I hate committing myself to political labels. Every time I do, people attribute attitudes to me that I don't hold. I suppose mixed economy, libertarian social views is a decent description, but just as a rule of thumb.

[MrFrankZito]

I'm a libertarian, mostly.

Culturally, I am a hardcore liberal.
I am a fiscal conservative.
I am a military isolationist, but an economic free trader and believer in globalization.
I believe in tough criminal laws, but staunchly oppose capital punishment.

[James Peter]

My ideal isn't there. Essentially though, a platonic republic. Halfway between a monarchy and a democracy.

Democracy doesn't work because people are stupid, short sighted and selfish. Elections are more about who can manipulate the media (and thus the people) the best and who can offer the biggets bribes to 'key demographics' rather than who has the country's best issues at heart.

A straight monarchy (especially a hereditary one) suffers because no individual can have sufficient knowledge to manage a large state alone and a good father does not guarantee a good son (if only every Caesar had been an Octavian!)

So what is the solution? A blend of the two. Take the cream of society, the most intelligent and benevolent, and give them the power to rule collectively as long as they served the country's interests. I guess its inevitable that in some ways such a system would devolve into a class system, but constitutional and social measures to prevent that could be devised. The key is that every member of the electorate stands as such on their own merit alone and that they gain no benefit from their responsibility. Exactly what the requirements to be allowed to vote (for surely not all members of this elite would directly govern, they would choose from amongst their own number) is open to debate but it would have to include a basic knowledge of politics (both national and international) and, perhaps, some compulsory national service (as in Switzerland, Israel and elsewhere). Essentially it is closer to a modified form of democracy than a modified form of monarchy but jetisons the flawed notion that people know what is best for them. They don't.

[Ryokan]

but jetisons the flawed notion that people know what is best for them. They don't.

But you do? Or your elite does?

[Darth Executor]

But you do? Or your elite does?

He doesn't, but the elite should. That's why they're the elite and you're a nobody. :wink:

[Solly]

Hmmm, no constitutional monarchy...

[Darth Executor]

So what is the solution? A blend of the two.

:thumb:

Take the cream of society, the most intelligent and benevolent, and give them the power to rule collectively as long as they served the country's interests. I guess its inevitable that in some ways such a system would devolve into a class system, but constitutional and social measures to prevent that could be devised. The key is that every member of the electorate stands as such on their own merit alone and that they gain no benefit from their responsibility. Exactly what the requirements to be allowed to vote (for surely not all members of this elite would directly govern, they would choose from amongst their own number) is open to debate but it would have to include a basic knowledge of politics (both national and international) and, perhaps, some compulsory national service (as in Switzerland, Israel and elsewhere). Essentially it is closer to a modified form of democracy than a modified form of monarchy but jetisons the flawed notion that people know what is best for them. They don't.

How do you plan on choosing who the elite is? Elections? How does this make it less succeptible to manipulation than a normal democracy?

[SteveF]

A decent range of choices; captures the possible options better than a lot of similar polls. I voted Liberal/moderate although I'm also sympathetic to democratic socialism. Indeed, I'd argue that these two categories could possibly be combined, at least based on the examples provided.

I would imagine (not being an expert) that Sweden is fairly moderate economically; sure there are socialist values underpinning it, but I don't think it is full blown socialism. I guess it depends how you define moderate (or indeed socialism) in this poll.

[Solly]

Me too Steve.

[Ryokan]

He doesn't, but the elite should. That's why they're the elite and you're a nobody. :wink:

Why should the elite? How do they know what's good for everyone else? How do we decide they are the people that know that? It seems like a crummy, "elitist" system with far greater chance for corruption than our current one, lack of freedoms aside.

[Ryokan]

A decent range of choices; captures the possible options better than a lot of similar polls. I voted Liberal/moderate although I'm also sympathetic to democratic socialism. Indeed, I'd argue that these two categories could possibly be combined, at least based on the examples provided.

I would imagine (not being an expert) that Sweden is fairly moderate economically; sure there are socialist values underpinning it, but I don't think it is full blown socialism. I guess it depends how you define moderate (or indeed socialism) in this poll.

It really depends on how you define socialism. Scandanavia has a massive welfare state, but on the other hand in alot of ways it has deregulated industry and commerce to an extent that would make even Reagan or Thatcher pause. Its how they fund the welfare state, actually.

[James Peter]

But you do? Or your elite does?

I'd like to think that somebody who has spent twenty years studying economics has a better grasp of how to best manage the economy than somebody who left school at 16 and struggles to divide 150 by 12 without a calculator...

Generally my position would be to trust the experts to make the decisions rather than requiring the experts to convince the public in the face of (potentially) a better funded marketing campaign by special interest groups.

How do you plan on choosing who the elite is? Elections? How does this make it less succeptible to manipulation than a normal democracy?

You'd need to have objective requirements that need to be met - a particular level of education and knowledge, for example. If you don't know the name of the president of a country I'm going to assume you don't understand its political climate sufficiently to have a useful contribution to make in a debate on how we should relate to it.


In principle I like democracy, it just has one slight flaw: people. If politicians have to act in a way to ensure their re-election in three years time then they will always focus on what is best in the short term rather than what is best in the long term. That is one stength of an Imperial system - there is no concern about having to get re-elected and so you can focus on what to do over a 30 year reign and beyond, reasonably confident that even if you die your successor will continue to work towards the national goals without being overly distracted by populist measures.

[Ryokan]

I'd like to think that somebody who has spent twenty years studying economics has a better grasp of how to best manage the economy than somebody who left school at 16 and struggles to divide 150 by 12 without a calculator...

Generally my position would be to trust the experts to make the decisions rather than requiring the experts to convince the public in the face of (potentially) a better funded marketing campaign by special interest groups. If you think there is an expert opinion on economics then you are crazy. Get 20 in a room and they will disagree with each and everyone of each other. :teeth: Not only that, but it doesn't tell the economist what to do. Do you want a fast growing economy or one with a greater degree of equality? Which elite decides that?
Even more than that different experts think different things. Sociologists and economists never agree. They often butt heads with political scientists too. You can't just hand over the economy to the economist (much as we might like it) because it touches on everything else. Not only that, but if you are selecting the elites from intellectuals you are opening yourself up to group think.



You'd need to have objective requirements that need to be met - a particular level of education and knowledge, for example. So if you don't take our test welll enough, we tell you what to do with your life and what rules you should follow? If you don't know the name of the president of a country I'm going to assume you don't understand its political climate sufficiently to have a useful contribution to make in a debate on how we should relate to it. Maybe, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't have some say in the decisions that effect your life.


In principle I like democracy, it just has one slight flaw: people. If politicians have to act in a way to ensure their re-election in three years time then they will always focus on what is best in the short term rather than what is best in the long term. That is one stength of an Imperial system - there is no concern about having to get re-elected and so you can focus on what to do over a 30 year reign and beyond, reasonably confident that even if you die your successor will continue to work towards the national goals without being overly distracted by populist measures.
Except in an autocratic or oligarchic system the elites tend to just do what is best for themselves, and not necessarilly in the long term either. Who cares what happens to the country when your dead as long as you and yours are protected. No political system is free of people.

[Darth Executor]

Why should the elite? How do they know what's good for everyone else? How do we decide they are the people that know that? It seems like a crummy, "elitist" system with far greater chance for corruption than our current one, lack of freedoms aside.

Oh, I disagree with James Peter's specifics. Those problems are solved with the concept I would introduce into my empire: political cults. Train politicians from birth to do a specific job. No hereditary positions. One drops dead, another from the pool replaces him/her.

[Darth Executor]

You'd need to have objective requirements that need to be met - a particular level of education and knowledge, for example. If you don't know the name of the president of a country I'm going to assume you don't understand its political climate sufficiently to have a useful contribution to make in a debate on how we should relate to it.

But politicians already have a high level of education and knowledge. It's not easy to get into a leadership position and no party is going to put a complete moron in one. Yes, we take jabs at politicians but most of them did quite a bit of school and worked hard to get where they are.


In principle I like democracy, it just has one slight flaw: people. If politicians have to act in a way to ensure their re-election in three years time then they will always focus on what is best in the short term rather than what is best in the long term. That is one stength of an Imperial system - there is no concern about having to get re-elected and so you can focus on what to do over a 30 year reign and beyond, reasonably confident that even if you die your successor will continue to work towards the national goals without being overly distracted by populist measures.Here I agree, which is why an Empire (with my own custom modifications) is my preferred system.

[Ryokan]

Oh, I disagree with James Peter's specifics. Those problems are solved with the concept I would introduce into my empire: political cults. Train politicians from birth to do a specific job. No hereditary positions. One drops dead, another from the pool replaces him/her.

So group think writ large. Dehumanized drones doing the same things the same way inpepetuity.

[James Peter]

If you think there is an expert opinion on economics then you are crazy. Get 20 in a room and they will disagree with each and everyone of each other. :teeth: Not only that, but it doesn't tell the economist what to do. Do you want a fast growing economy or one with a greater degree of equality? Which elite decides that?
Even more than that different experts think different things. Sociologists and economists never agree. They often butt heads with political scientists too. You can't just hand over the economy to the economist (much as we might like it) because it touches on everything else. Not only that, but if you are selecting the elites from intellectuals you are opening yourself up to group think.


Sure, but I'd rather have economists arguing with each other and with sociologists than have the whole issue settled on the basis of who has the most money to spend on advertising and who gets the best celebrity spokesperson.

So if you don't take our test welll enough, we tell you what to do with your life and what rules you should follow? Maybe, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't have some say in the decisions that effect your life.

Sure, but under the current system many people actually have little say anyway. If I live in an area where there is a large democrat majority then my vote is essentially worthless. The power doesn't reside with the many, but with a small number of swing voters and so the entire election comes down to trying to bribe/persuade those swing voters. Pensions policy is determined because certain seats will swing if the grey vote are converted to your cause - while most 30 year olds have more important concerns than worrying about what will happen to them in 35 years time. On issue after issue policy is decided to entice key voters and as long as it doesn't go too far the majority may grumble but won't vote on the basis of that issue alone. Proportional representation can solve the problems to some extent and if we're going for a straight democracy then I'd advocate a Swiss system. I just don't think the Swiss system would work in a country the size of Britain, let alone in one the size of the US. And incidently the reason the Swiss system works is because they have a strong national identity and are generally well educated (certainly compared to the US or UK). A well educated population is absolutely essential to the idea of democracy... Right now our populations just can't handle it.

Except in an autocratic or oligarchic system the elites tend to just do what is best for themselves, and not necessarilly in the long term either. Who cares what happens to the country when your dead as long as you and yours are protected. No political system is free of people.

Safeguards against that could be implemented. The key principle would be that the system is in no way hereditary. The same oppurtunity for all, no double standards for the aristocracy's children to have different education to the plebs. The only distinction between voting citizens and non-voting citizens would be your own individual merits.

Remember also that we are talking ideals here. In practice things would of course be much more complicated but the general principle that the more able should lead and protect the less able is, i think, well founded. I wouldn't let somebody perform surgery on me without the appropriate training and skills, I wouldn't send somebody off to fight in a war without first training them...so why would I advocate letting somebody run the country without the appropriare skills and training? Ideally by the age of 21 (or something similar) every citizen would be 'worthy' of a vote but today that isn't the case and would take a generation or more to change.

[Darth Executor]

So group think writ large. Dehumanized drones doing the same things the same way inpepetuity.
They don't have to be dehumanized. For most of history men have been doing whatever their father did (usually farm something). Most people didn't get to choose their job and they got through just fine. Heck, a lot of people today end up in jobs they hate. With my highly efficient government people would also need to do less hours on the job to keep the nation running so they'll have more free time to pursue whatever they want, as well as the money to do it, and thanks to the discipline gained in the workplace boredom will become far less of a factor than it already is.

[Ryokan]

They don't have to be dehumanized. For most of history men have been doing whatever their father did (usually farm something). Most people didn't get to choose their job and they got through just fine. Heck, a lot of people today end up in jobs they hate. With my highly efficient government people would also need to do less hours on the job to keep the nation running so they'll have more free time to pursue whatever they want, as well as the money to do it, and thanks to the discipline gained in the workplace boredom will become far less of a factor than it already is.

I think it would go a long way to stifling creativity. Especially if our drones are just interchangeable cogs. And through most of history men never went further than 10 mies from their homes. I don't think that's good either.

[Darth Executor]

I think it would go a long way to stifling creativity.

Kinda, but the benefits far outweigh the problems. First, the extra free time lets them pursue their creativity. Not as much as in a society where they could have pursued it full time but it does dampen some of the side effects. Second, when society A has one highly creative, highly competent individual and 99 morons while society B has one hundred well above average individuals, B will do better. Third, creativity is stifled in our own society. Not as much as it would be in mine but it still is, because money is a factor, especially when it comes to education. You might wanna become the next einstein but without the necessary education you'll have to settle for a janitor position.

[James Peter]

But politicians already have a high level of education and knowledge. It's not easy to get into a leadership position and no party is going to put a complete moron in one. Yes, we take jabs at politicians but most of them did quite a bit of school and worked hard to get where they are.

Yep, politicians themselves aren't the problem. Even under my system we'd still have the same people in the leadership positions for the most part. Or at least, the same people would get involved in politics - different people may suceed under my system. We currently have the best election winners in power, not the best leaders.

[Ryokan]

Yep, politicians themselves aren't the problem. Even under my system we'd still have the same people in the leadership positions for the most part. Or at least, the same people would get involved in politics - different people may suceed under my system. We currently have the best election winners in power, not the best leaders.

I don't see how that is possible. And isn't leading the public a important role of the leadership?

[Darth Executor]

Yep, politicians themselves aren't the problem. Even under my system we'd still have the same people in the leadership positions for the most part. Or at least, the same people would get involved in politics - different people may suceed under my system. We currently have the best election winners in power, not the best leaders.

I think the suggestion I made in the Civics forum to ban opinion polls would help with your system.

[Ryokan]

Sure, but I'd rather have economists arguing with each other and with sociologists than have the whole issue settled on the basis of who has the most money to spend on advertising and who gets the best celebrity spokesperson.
The election usually isn't decided that way. You need to reach threshold of money and celebrity endorsement to run, but the person with the most doesn't have enough of an advantage to decide things. Other factors are usually more important.

[QUOTE]
Sure, but under the current system many people actually have little say anyway. If I live in an area where there is a large democrat majority then my vote is essentially worthless. Recent elections have given the lie to that in my country. The power doesn't reside with the many, but with a small number of swing voters and so the entire election comes down to trying to bribe/persuade those swing voters. Alot of politicians who believed that regretted ignoring their base. Pensions policy is determined because certain seats will swing if the grey vote are converted to your cause - while most 30 year olds have more important concerns than worrying about what will happen to them in 35 years time. On issue after issue policy is decided to entice key voters and as long as it doesn't go too far the majority may grumble but won't vote on the basis of that issue alone. Proportional representation can solve the problems to some extent and if we're going for a straight democracy then I'd advocate a Swiss system. I just don't think the Swiss system would work in a country the size of Britain, let alone in one the size of the US. And incidently the reason the Swiss system works is because they have a strong national identity and are generally well educated (certainly compared to the US or UK). A well educated population is absolutely essential to the idea of democracy... Right now our populations just can't handle it. Britain and the US are some of the most prosperous and powerful countries in the world, and some of the fastest growing and most stable industrialized democracies outside of scandanavia. Why isn't it working?



Safeguards against that could be implemented. The key principle would be that the system is in no way hereditary. The same oppurtunity for all, no double standards for the aristocracy's children to have different education to the plebs. The only distinction between voting citizens and non-voting citizens would be your own individual merits. Assuming your merit was able to be measured by us.

Remember also that we are talking ideals here. In practice things would of course be much more complicated but the general principle that the more able should lead and protect the less able is, i think, well founded. I wouldn't let somebody perform surgery on me without the appropriate training and skills, I wouldn't send somebody off to fight in a war without first training them...so why would I advocate letting somebody run the country without the appropriare skills and training? Ideally by the age of 21 (or something similar) every citizen would be 'worthy' of a vote but today that isn't the case and would take a generation or more to change.Given your qualifications it is unlikely everyone would ever be ready for the vote.

[James Peter]

Britain and the US are some of the most prosperous and powerful countries in the world, and some of the fastest growing and most stable industrialized democracies outside of scandanavia. Why isn't it working?


I simply cannot see it lasting. Empires and Nations rise and fall. We need long term solutions to deal with the problems of the emergence of China and India. Those solutions won't be popular in the short term (and so are incredibly difficult to implement under the current system).

The figures of US economic strength are slightly warped by a very small number of very wealthy individuals. Switzerland may lag slightly behind but doesn't do so by much and you'll find the the country is generally much more balanced, with very few very poor. To be honest there is very little I prefer of the US's situation to Switzerland's. Switzerland is small, secure and conservative.

[Ryokan]

I simply cannot see it lasting. Empires and Nations rise and fall. We need long term solutions to deal with the problems of the emergence of China and India. Those solutions won't be popular in the short term (and so are incredibly difficult to implement under the current system). What problems. Assuming we can convince China to be a responsible great power a more evenly distributed power structure globally is good for us, in my mind.

The figures of US economic strength are slightly warped by a very small number of very wealthy individuals. Only slightly though. Switzerland may lag slightly behind but doesn't do so by much and you'll find the the country is generally much more balanced, with very few very poor. To be honest there is very little I prefer of the US's situation to Switzerland's. Switzerland is small, secure and conservative.But no system can make the US or Britain Switzerland, or Singapore, or Luxembourg, or any small prosperous little nation like that. It might be nice to live in such a place, but the big countries are what enables them to exist.

[Ben Franklin]

Alright...! Come on, you anarchists...! Already number 2 in the polls...! Just a few more...! :)

[Timothy Leary]

Some of those ideologies can be both true for a person. (Ex: Anarcho-Capitalist would be anarchist and libertarian)

[Darth Executor]

I voted for the last one because mine isn't there and it's the most appealing of those that are.

[Harfelugan]

I voted for the last one because mine isn't there and it's the most appealing of those that are.Same here , no room for elitest in this system , boredom is replaced by the need to survive . We're not talkin Amish lifestyle are we ?

[Darth Executor]

Same here , no room for elitest in this system , boredom is replaced by the need to survive . We're not talkin Amish lifestyle are we ?

No, we're talking men going out to hunt while women sit home and do all the work.

[Harfelugan]

No, we're talking men going out to hunt while women sit home and do all the work.
Cool ! However sitting while working tends to limit their productivity . The chairs for them may not be a good idea .

[Selznak]

Paleolibertarian here. Radical libertarianism coupled with cultural conservatism.

[Harfelugan]

Paleolibertarian here. Radical libertarianism coupled with cultural conservatism.Much to hard to sppell . Thats its big downfell . Eliteist love that in an ideology . It keeps uz hunter gatherers out .

[Selznak]

Much to hard to sppell . Thats its big downfell . Eliteist love that in an ideology . It keeps uz hunter gatherers out .

Alright, fine. How about conservative libertarian? :tongue:

[Harfelugan]

Alright, fine. How about conservative libertarian? :tongue:

I've gone hunting with conservative barbarians before , "like Dick Cheny types " , but conservatives have problems in the library .

[Gaytheist]

Maybe someone needs to tell Dee Dee the results of the poll. She keeps chastizing me for not respecting the sensibilities of this conservative forum. Apparently it's not that darned conservative.

[Darth Executor]

Hardly. Not a lot of people (including most conservative regulars) picked one.

[Timothy Leary]

Paleolibertarian here. Radical libertarianism coupled with cultural conservatism.
What do you mean by that?

Do you mean you're a libertarian who is personally socially conservative (i.e. but don't want the government involved, like Presidential Candidate Ron Paul)?

If not, then how are you different than any other libertarian? Maybe you're a Paleo-Conservative?

[Timothy Leary]

Maybe someone needs to tell Dee Dee the results of the poll. She keeps chastizing me for not respecting the sensibilities of this conservative forum. Apparently it's not that darned conservative.
This poll hasn't had as great of a response as the last one Korihor did.

[Yankee_Doodle]

I only voted conservative moderate because you failed to include simply conservative. I would rate myself as socially and economically conservative in the spirit of say a Newt Gingrich; although I'm probably not 100% socially conservative (there are a few issues where I'm probably socially moderate). Fiscally, I strongly support a return to not only greater state rights, but the states taking a little more control over functions now being performed by the feds, like the functions of HUD or the Dept. of Education. I also support a slow transition to a private compuslary social security system. However, I'm not as drastic as some who would privatize the post office (which IMO fails to consider that many functions, like operating a postal system and promoting science, are enumerated by the Constitution). But I'm still wondering how you fail to include conservative, yet include such wayward viewpoints as communism or facisms.....or my favorite anarchism (which to my dismay actually polls at 15%....gee wiz, I don't think anyone will stop you if you want to form a hippy commune or from becoming a hunter gatherer....isn't that why we have Montana?).

[HerodionRomulus]

It's not easy to get into a leadership position and no party is going to put a complete moron in one. .

Please! Do not post such statements. It is waaaaay too tempting to make an insulting crack about certain politicians. :lol:

[Timothy Leary]

It's not easy to get into a leadership position and no party is going to put a complete moron in one. .

Two words: Howard Dean

[Darth Executor]

Two words: Howard Dean

Howard Dean is not a complete moron. Neither is GWB. Now go away, I feel dirty for saying that.

[Timothy Leary]

Bush is naive, not a moron. Dean is a moronic idiot. You are dirty.

[Mr Arkadin]

I object to your list of options although its quite extensive. I am a market anarchist, or as I prefer agorachist, which does not mean hippy communes; nor does it mean liberal social views but just that social views should not be enforced by the state since the state should not exist. This applies also to your libertarian option; one can be a libertarian, or market anarchist, and be a social and cultural conservative. For example Lew Rockwell and Hans-Hermann Hoppe.

[Tobias Reiper]

Since none of the choices reflect my stance (though the conservative one did come close), I won't vote but I am socially conservative (if you talk to me in person I'll make Rush Limbaugh look like a bleeding heart pinko lib) and fiscally apathetic.

In other words, I couldn't care less about the economic state of the country, as even though I wouldn't object to having a bit o' the green I'd be able to survive without it, as long as I have access to acres of forest.

EDIT: Actually, looking over the choices again I'd have to choose the social aspect of "social/fiscal conservatism" (I'm sure not moderate, as moderates tend to go liberal on the important issues) and the fiscal aspect of "primitivism."

[Gaytheist]

Alright, as I said, someone please tell Dee Dee. Conservative social views: 24%. Liberal social views: 71%.

[Timothy Leary]

Grow up and get over it already.

[Chuck Lee]

I wasn't able to vote in the poll. I don't do ideologies. I'm a middle of the road swing voter. It's not that I'm wishy washy, I just like a balance.

Traditionally I vote Republican as often as Democrat, although I broke that tradition in the last election. I voted all Democrat (but not as a registered Democrat) because all the Republicans on my ballot supported the Bush policies, and had lost track of the Republican concept of reducing government spending. Government spending can be a good thing, but only in moderation. Somebody's gotta balance those spendthrift Democrats, and the Bush plan of being even more spendthrift just doesn't cut it.

I'm fiscally moderate and socially moderate.

[Tlalynet]

Got a place for early church socicalism, im not sure communism fits there though esp with its very different egs.
In the perfect world of course, Anarchy, thers no just rule where no rule is needed.
Either way I have to agree that the poll is too narrow

[Chaotic Void]

I gotta agree with Tlalynet. Anarchy belongs in a perfect world.

For a here-and-now orientation, I don't really give a damn. As a Christian, I am supposed to pray for the leader, regardless if they are Conservative, Liberal, Fascist, Communist or a Monarchy. God doesn't really give a crap about who's in office.
Besides, Political Orientations are just like Church Denominations and Favorite Sports Teams, in the sense that They just give us a reason for people to pick at each other for no reason.

On a side note, I just get sick when ever any religion tries to force their political views on its members.

[Nordic Kid]

Conservative moderate. I'm sort of a shmorgasborg of ideas...politically and economically "liberal", religiously moderate/conservative, and socially conservative...maybe I should start my own political party:teeth:

[Turgonian]

Moderate Conservatism for me. But I almost chose Theocracy. I did not, in the end, because it is essentially an imposed system, which would conflict with my constitutionalism -- i.e. power is spread over e.g. an aristocratic class and the voters, and the country is ruled in accordance with tradition and established habits. I think you could say it looks like the Catholic Church on a national level.

[HerodionRomulus]

Moderate Conservatism for me. But I almost chose Theocracy. I did not, in the end, because it is essentially an imposed system, which would conflict with my constitutionalism -- i.e. power is spread over e.g. an aristocratic class and the voters, and the country is ruled in accordance with tradition and established habits. I think you could say it looks like the Catholic Church on a national level.

In other words, it would look like Colonial México.

[Turgonian]

Constitutionalism respects what Plato called the agraphoi, the 'unwritten' (laws) in his book Nomoi (Laws). It is opposed to voluntarism, where all power rests with a certain person or class, whether a monarch, a dictator, an aristocracy, or democracy gone wild.

[rogue06]

Libertarian with a capital L! (www.lp.org/)


If you're not sure where you stand politically take the
World's Smallest Political Quiz (www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html) and find out. Just answer a handful of questions and get your answer. It's fast and incredibly easy, and has been praised by the Washington Post and USA Today.

[HerodionRomulus]

I took the test and unsurprisingly I was left of center.

[Turgonian]

:thumbd:

When I took that quiz, I was on the fence between Libertarianism and Conservatism. :yes:

[Kristian Joense]

The wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchocapitalism) describes my political ideology pretty well(especially the quotes of Rothbard), mix that with my pro-life(who's compatibility with Anarchism is defended here (http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/18_3/18_3_5.pdf)), pro-family stances, my staunch stance against capital punishment, pacificist and theonomic tendencies and you have basically got my political views, atleast the central core of them.

It is amusing that I get categorized as supporter of "hippy communes" in the poll, when that isn't really the case at all, but I voted any way.

One think that is also very important for me is the right for people to work/live where ever they want so long as they don't violate the property rights of others. That is I am against immigration restrictions, period. I am also against patents and copyrights and "IP" laws such, although some forms of trademarks law are legitimate.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

The options are skewed out of the author's ideology. Certain options are pit against each other when they shouldn't be, certain examples are just wrong. It cannot be answered.

[Kristian Joense]

Yeah I know, some of that seems really biased. I am curious are there any specific issues you have in mind ?

It is always nice to read your posts on these(or any matters for that matter) matters. Since you are a very thoughtful poster. Even though I often disagree with you, you always do your best to make a logical case for you position and to make necessary distinctions.