Conquer Club

i like to think of myself as just about the way things are supposed to be....you can then orient the spectrum from which degree you are from me.

satanspaladin wrote:well do you really need me to tell you what my leanings are!

Nazi?

Semigall wrote:I chose "national socialist", because i'm a member of rightist party and i also cooperate with few neo-national-socialist organizations.

Fair play to ya.

If I was a braver man, I would probably be a nazi...But I'm a cowardly tory-boy.

Norse wrote:

satanspaladin wrote:well do you really need me to tell you what my leanings are!

Nazi?

Ernst Roehm.

and there me thinking you would know i;m a member of the raving
monster loonies party

I lean everywhere! ^^

If i were to describe myself i would say i had the ideals of either a socialist or a libertarian.. let me explain.

I respect the characteristics of humanity which imbue the desire to look after another human being (and creature) who we have never met.
Our empathy gives us a kind of altruism. (we can debate the selfish gene another time)
I also beleive that 'giving' should be voluntary and that the concept is utterly undermined if it is not.

The problem is that in a complex and populous society the embodiment of endeavour is money. Thus without a certain centralisation of our philanthropy (government) our deeds are rested in the hands of a very few. The 'poor' and sickly are cared for at the whim of the wealthy. In this way inequity will always prevail and self respect is the sole possession of the paternal contributor.

Therefore my Utopia would be a state with a social conscience but based upon the direct participation of each member. A society with a contract between the state and government which implies a dual partnership in which the individual members give themselves to the whole.
One where the arms of governance no longer disenfranchise the governed. Where the absolute sovereignty of individual Liberty is maintained, due to being the citizens choice to give to the whole.

I also believe in Meritocracy! Without this the human spirit and desire for improvement is nullified.
Paradoxically, as i said earlier, the only viable method of universal reward for success is money.
Yes there is prestige and 'fame' but without the concept of money these either rely upon purely intellectual pursuits and 'guru' status. A society re-adjusts to one where 'the few' still possess power; indeed fewer, as the currencies of power have been diminished.

So what i am saying is nothing.....
Pragmatism has to prevail over idealism. An integrated system is the only way.
Idealism is what we keep as our core, to remind us; to sway action but not to determine it at the expense of logic!

Placing this into the context of HC's point regarding Margaret Thatcher; she did indeed pull our country out of the mire of quasi-socialist good intention, which had disintegrated into lumbering self-interest and laziness.
She did what no one else could do at the time. Cracking the Unions, she turned our society away from the impossible husbandry of creaking and inefficient industry. Thatcher set the path towards finance, intellectual property and service.

I think that, in the same situation Blair would have done something similar.
(Perhaps he'd have been a Conservative if Thatcher had never existed.) She became the ideological scapegoat for all sin! She allowed us the luxury of contempt for hard decision making. She allowed comfortable ideology and sentimental thought to pervade as antithesis to her own!

So essentially, in my opinion, we have 2 politicians from supposedly opposite ends of the spectrum who may well have behaved in the same manner.
This is in no small part due to our integrated system; strong leaders should show similar end results, if not the same means.
The difference is that Blair would not still sleep like a baby Prince as he decimated age old communities. The difference is the luxury of sentiment.

Thatchers Ideological belief in what she did, was accompanied by distaste for peoples stubbornness in the face of what was good for our society.
In a way she understood them and hated them for not seeing the problem. It is often the way for nouveau riche; the girl of humble heritage made good, refused to empathise in the face of progress.

So i lean everywhere and believe in everything... perhaps you could coin the term 'Social Pragmatist libertarian' for me!

jiminski wrote:I lean everywhere! ^^

If i were to describe myself i would say i had the ideals of either a socialist or a libertarian.. let me explain.

The two are diametrically opposed.

Napoleon Ier wrote:

jiminski wrote:I lean everywhere! ^^

If i were to describe myself i would say i had the ideals of either a socialist or a libertarian.. let me explain.

The two are diametrically opposed.

read before you write ya little tinker.

Fire and Frost would appear to be diametrically opposed and yet we create refrigeration from burning fossil fuels.

jiminski wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:

jiminski wrote:I lean everywhere! ^^

If i were to describe myself i would say i had the ideals of either a socialist or a libertarian.. let me explain.

The two are diametrically opposed.

read before you write ya little tinker.

Fire and Frost would appear to be diametrically opposed and yet we create refrigeration from burning fossil fuels.

Too lazy.

Must...destroy...socialism..

yee-haw! God Bless America!

You were just rambling, weren't you jim? Or ranting, a combo of the two from the looks of it.

Conservative...

muy_thaiguy wrote:You were just rambling, weren't you jim? Or ranting, a combo of the two from the looks of it.

indeed i was MT (well rambling not ranting).. but the the content had resonance in its idiom

I generally consider myself a democratic socialist. I guess according to this poll, I'm a mix of Green (whatever that means) and classical socialist.

I just want people to be happy. That is my political, economic, philosophical, existential, personal goal.

I wouldn't pledge my allegiance to any one idea or philosophy. I guess whichever idea makes sense to solve a problem is the right one. There are probably things about all those options that have some element of truth to them and could work depending on the situation. But I have no idea if Hecterism can make the same claims.

silvanricky wrote:But I have no idea if Hecterism can make the same claims.

"If you ignore the problem long enough, it goes away."

Wait, that's religious right. Never mind.

unriggable wrote:

silvanricky wrote:But I have no idea if Hecterism can make the same claims.

"If you ignore the problem long enough, it goes away."

Wait, that's religious right. Never mind.

"Government is the problem, not the solution". And you can't ignore it.

What about Christian Liberal?

Napoleon Ier wrote:

unriggable wrote:

silvanricky wrote:But I have no idea if Hecterism can make the same claims.

"If you ignore the problem long enough, it goes away."

Wait, that's religious right. Never mind.

"Government is the problem, not the solution". And you can't ignore it.

Government is where people get together, share ideas, share ideals and try to work for a better country/world. At least, thats the theory.
With the right democratic checks, government can be a force for good eg Old Age Pensions, Unemployment Benefit, housing etc etc
Plus, the government has to correct Market Failure eg street lights, police etc
Get a grip Mr. Bourbon.

Napoleon Ier wrote:

unriggable wrote:

silvanricky wrote:But I have no idea if Hecterism can make the same claims.

"If you ignore the problem long enough, it goes away."

Wait, that's religious right. Never mind.

"Government is the problem, not the solution". And you can't ignore it.

Well yes, they're a nuisance, but without them a lot of people would be homeless. Plus they have the guns.

ignotus wrote:What about Christian Liberal?

At times (not all of the time, mind you), it's kind of an oxymoron.

muy_thaiguy wrote:

ignotus wrote:What about Christian Liberal?

At times (not all of the time, mind you), you're a moron.

That was below the belt thaiguymuy

muy_thaiguy wrote:

ignotus wrote:What about Christian Liberal?

At times (not all of the time, mind you), it's kind of an oxymoron.

Yes I know it's an oxymoron.

But what if you believe in God and you are a strong liberal, like me?
So what am I? I really don't know how to describe my political allegiance better than Christian Liberal.
I think that one thing shouldn't exclude the other.

@ norse:

@Iggy

Norse wrote:@Iggy

@ norse:

Ignotus you don't need to bring your religion into politics. I doubt a single person in this country would call themselves, when asked what political allegiance they hail to, a Jewish Conservative.