Your Political Views
 

Where do you stand politically?

I couldn't find a thread like this, so I figured I'd make one.

I'm not exactly sure where I stand. I really, really like the idea of communism, with fighting for workers rights, having economic equality and hopefully creating a classless worker's paradise.

But Libertarian ideas seem much, much more practical. The free market seems like it is much easier to achieve, and would give results faster, even if it does put many people into oppression.

I know where I stand on a lot of issues. In my opinion, the church should be separated from the state, everyone should be allowed to have a weapon equivalent to the basic infantryman of the military, the government should be blind to gender, including issues like marriage. I think all drugs should be decriminalized, and that you should have control over your body.

But on issues like economics, both sides seem to have really good points. Both sides say they're promoting the best, and promoting freedom. They both make a lot of sense to me, but I can't really decide.

So, what's your political ideology(/ies)?

I'm too much of an idealist, so I have to compromise.
I acknowledge that Communism would be the fairest form of government, but I don't like it.
Anarchy would be best, but people would have to me intrinsically good for it to work.
For this reason I would prefer a minarchy, and I call myself a minarchist when saying anarchist just doesn't work.
As for the world of today, taking away some of my idealism, I like America's combination of Free Enterprise with some socialism; only I believe they're enforcing socialism in all the wrong places.
They have a welfare system and a virtual monopoly in education, and yet, the American currency is owned by a private institution!
WTF?
Also, for any country, regardless of its form of government, I always advocate the reinstatement of the gold standard.

"People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people."

Sums it up.

I agreed with many of your ideals (save for communism) up until this one. The reason I tend to stray from this thought-line is because it creates too many more problems in itself.

First of all you have to set regulations for age, as you probably wouldn't want 14 year olds going out to Drugmart to pick up some crack rocks from aisle 6. Next you have to measure what is acceptable in public. Do you really want crack addicts to be in McDonalds next to Betty Sue with her happy meal, blowing that smoke around? Second hand from cigarettes is one thing, but from crack, marijuana, meth, or other lovely drugs is quite different.

I know I wouldn't want to become impaired from operating a motor vehicle because Joe Shmoe is sitting next to me at the bar smoking weed.

Then is there going to be any regulation on making it illegal to be high in public? Or are folks on LSD free to run circles around Toys R Us on a bad trip?

Where would it be sold or how would it be properly delt? Would the FDA suddenly have the oversight of regulating coke production?

Seems like it would cause society to sink even further into the shitter if you were to legalize all drugs on a wide scale.

That's another thing where I like socialism in America for pragmatic purposes.
I don't agree drugs should be legalized. I believe if they are not legal, neither should tobacco be.

I disagree, because I don't believe that this is an accurate picture of how things would turn out.

You see, we have two drugs that are already highly addictive and deadly, present in society. Both alcohol and cigarettes definitely count towards a good portion of the deaths in many western countries. This is why it is illegal to smoke publicly in many places (Including restaurants; at least in my state), and drink while driving a car.

The same would apply to virtually any drug introduced. If you see a wo/man who is drunk running around Toys R Us, then he or she would naturally be arrested for either disturbing a business, or being intoxicated in public. To your LSD scenario, it makes sense to me that the same conventions of society would be applied.

It could be marketed like any other substance in America. If we're continuing the alcohol idea, then it would simply be marketed like any other alcoholic beverages; age regulations and the like. If you want to grow your own, like distilling your own alcohol, even better. The FDA would apply the same standards it would apply to any other consumer item. The FDA doesn't classify alcohol, which is addictive and has been demonstrated to damage your brain, and if my memory serves me correct, your liver, so where is the logic with LSD, Marijuana, or MDMA?

Joe Schmoe wouldn't be free to smoke it right next you in a bar, but in his own home, I see no reason for it to be forbidden. Nor should I see a reason why it should be forbidden when the use of drugs is explicitly implied, such as a night club or rave.

Many people already participate in drugs, just as they do alcohol and cigarettes. When the prohibition failed, it was repealed. Why should the "War on Drugs", be any different?

I'm exhausted, so I'm going to keep this short. For those of you that are just plain ignorant, and make any comment whatsoever about 'advocating chaos', I'll deal with you in the morning.

I am an Individualist Anarchist. I believe in a non-hierarchal free society, and that government causes only harm to it's citizens. These kinds of societies have existed in the past and currently exist in various parts throughout the world. My economic system of choice is Mutualism, and I'm certainly one of the biggest anti-capitalists you'll ever meet.

I am a radical. Now deal with it.

Exactly how do you suggest that others "deal with it" ?

I'm a commu-capitalist. I believe that young adults ages 15, 16, and 17 should work for the State. Rural residents would work on farms and such, while urban residents would be assigned to city parks, roads, and graffiti clean-up. Additionally, everyone the age of 18 ( or once they've completed high school, whichever occurs second) should do a manditory 3 years in the military branch of their choice. While in service to the state, they'd earn a wage, but that wage would be placed into a retirement fund, which the State can borrow from in exchange for an interest rate. In other words, someone who gets $20,000 in their retirement fund recieves, say, $50,000 after interest. Additionally, the wages of the last 6 months of military service would be given to the individual in order to help them get on their feet after their service is done. After that, what they do with their life is up to them. If they just want to start working, they can do so. If they want to continue their education (which they'd also have the opportunity to do in the military), their last 6 months of wages should help pay for. (Or their family can help.) If they want to start their own business, they may. The communist aspect only applies to those 6 years, after that they operate as if in a capitalistic society.

As for government officials, it would be democratic. Local elections would be popular democratic. State elections would be representive democratic. Federal elections would be both popular and representative. ("Popular" meaning the votes of each individual.)

You have the interwebs, which I sincerely doubt you set up in a DIY fashion. You fail.

Predicate human relationships on cooperation, rather than violence.

Read: "anarchist".

Everything else is some version of this: "We know what's best, and if you don't agree, you are wrong, so we'll will use clubs and guns to force the issue."

Drake

I'm a Marxist, however, we all know true communist/Marxist regimes only work on paper (like true democracies), as human nature seems to kick in an abuse tends to overtake the good done by the style of government.

That can happen and will happen in any society.

That's better.

Always nice to know that the counsel of despair doesn't lack mouths to speak through.

I'm with Cyntrox, obviously. If you want to talk about this topic, I think you should start a new thread. This one doesn't appear to be intended for full-fledged debate.

Incidentally, what are "the interwebs"? And what does how they were set up have to do with politics?

Drake

You may want to take it easy on judging people of different ideologies than you as "ignorant".

Mutualism is an intriguing idea which I will most likely explore. Is that open minded enough for you? Sans-sarcasm.

Re: your political views
 

Hmmm... my political views. The most concise way to describe myself would be "Libertarian". I can't say I'm "middle of the bird", because after much time and consideration, I have realized that I am slightly right of center. Liberal on social policy, strict on law-and-order policy. That's different form a "law-and-order liberal". Libertarianism is an established and trusted ideology. I am not a hippie. I am a citizen. I perceive regulated free-market Capitalism as the more efficient way of fulfilling the needs of the people.

I'm a very liberal Democrat.

I disagree with this.
The United States is in a war with Iraq right now, and the outcome doesn't look that good. Fundamentally, I think the execution was wrong, and now it has been becoming more and more by appearance that in the Post-9/11 chaos, George Bush took advantage of the people to do so.

With that said, I oppose the War in Iraq. Mandatory military service would mean that I would be forced to serve in Iraq, despite whether I agree with the causes of the war. In a system of voluntary military service, you can go by the excuse of "You signed the contract, therefore you are obligated to fight". However, being born, does not in my mind, qualify as signing a contract that I will agree to fight a war that I disagree with.

Now, three years may not seem like a long time, but realize that the entire Iraq war, has been going on since 2003. So, that's roughly 4 fours, and had I been 18 at the time, if I had chosen the Army or the Marine component of the military, I would only have been a year out of service so far.

Well, it's a thread and to my knowledge, threads are meant for discussion. Discussion, naturally entails debate. So, as long as everyone plays nice, why not?

Cigarettes are regulated by the FDA, as are cigarette papers and other paraphernalia. Marijuana, crack, or meth "packs," I would presume would fall under the same types of regulations.

And so in a club you'd advocate the smoking or crack, meth, and marijuana? So basically anyone that sets foot inside of that club needs a cab ride home?

We already have enough problems with drunk drivers and folks who operate motor vehicles on illicit drugs today. If tomorrow everyone felt it was ok to do these drugs, motor vehicle accidents would be up as well as arrests over that kind of stuff because a lot more people would be doing it.

Not to mention the debate would arise of why stop at your typical street drugs. Now you'd have cyanide, anesthesias, steroids, and gamma-Hydroxybutyric acids in drug stores. So substances thats folks ususally attend college for four years in order to properly administer are now readily avaliable to the general public.

To me it's completely irresponsible in a social sense. Kids would have access to these drugs like they currently have access to cigarettes and alcohol. And they'd disregard warnings like they do with those two. Many have the immature mentality of, "Well, they say it's bad for us but ok for my dad? They're hypocrites! I'll smoke what I want!"

Of course the obvious downfall of this whole idea is having to get the government involved on preventing class actions. Obviously you're not going to want legitimate companies that produce anesthesias to get sued because their product, intended originally only for trained doctors, is now being abused by Joe Public. "I didn't know abusing this product would cause this or that! I want my money!"

Before I go on, I have a simple question:

Do you advocate similar prohibition for substances like alcohol?

That's only because of America's culture's own immaturity. Moderation isn't a common word around; something entirely societal.

Splintered: I don't think you'll get anywhere in this debate. I've had a similar conversation on drugs before on here,

It is abhorrent, the double standards of your country where alcohol and cigarettes are legal and pot is not.

Alright, then how can we change that?

God, I wish I knew. People have this deeply ingrained thought in their heads that pot is evil, while sipping on beer and smoking cigarettes. *shakes his head in disgust*

You cannot classify all drugs into the same category (Pot and crack for instance) but if people can fucking buy and own guns, they should be allowed to buy and do drugs too. A hypocritical application of the first amendment no less. (Or whichever one it is that allows you the right to guns). Pardon my ignorance.