POLL: Political position of SP members?

Remove all ads!

So, yesterday I was reading a few topics and posts in here, and it struck me, how quite a bit of the population in here seemed right conservative and right-wing-ish. So now I am posting this poll to get a better view of the way people think, politically in here. Please respond to the poll, in a serious manner, and please explain, after voting.

I, myself, is waaay out to the left. Socialist with a few anarchistic undertones, but this is not about me, but about you.

BTW: If you are libertarian, choose the one called ne-liberalist, as it is basicly the same.

[ June 10, 2004, 01:15: Message edited by: Firestorm ]

Poll Information
This poll contains 1 question(s). 47 user(s) have voted.
Voting starts at June 09, 2004 11:04 board time.
Voting stops at August 09, 2004 11:04 board time.

Poll Results: Political position of SP members? (47 votes.)

Political position of SP members? (Choose 1)
* Generic left-wing - 9% (4)
* Liberal - 15% (7)
* Communist - 2% (1)
* Socialist - 11% (5)
* Anarchist - 2% (1)
* Socialdemocrat - 9% (4)
* Center - 17% (8)
* Generic right-wing - 2% (1)
* Conservative - 13% (6)
* Neo-liberalist - 4% (2)
* Nothing, politics doesn't interest me - 9% (4)
* Other (please specify below) - 9% (4)

 

I am a liberal Republican, if there is such a thing. To be honest, I really don't identify too well with either party in the US, I tend to be more Centrist than anything, with liberal social leanings and conservative fiscal ideals.

 

There have been quite a few of these in SP earlier but since I never bothered to answer on those I figured I might do it this time. I really consider my ideology to be a mixup between liberalism and conservatism, but in the next ellections I'm very likely to vote for a conservative party so I guess I lean more to the right then.

 

I'm pretty much a classic libertarian - minimal government, maximal personal responsibility. I don't want anyone telling me what kind of values my family is supposed to have, nor using my money to pay for the implications of some other family's values.

Federal government should limit itself to running the military, building roads, and regulating interstate and international commerce. Stay the hell out of my bedroom and my bank account!

 

It's a tough question to answer in my case. I'm left-wing in some regards up do dead-end left, and right up to dead-end right in some others, so it's hardly centrist. And I definitely have no desire to play peacemaker and seek any political compromise. Compromise compromises.

Perhaps Christian Democract would be it, though I disagree with some of those gentlemen's ideas.

Basics: I first of all insist that the state should run in a lawful manner, and that politics be lawful as well. Next, I insist that rights and laws should be respected and neither twisted in interpretation nor violated by taking the letter to the extreme disregarding the spirit.

Plus, rights and laws be the same for all. No blind eye for certain minorities, certain social groups and the like. The government needs not bow to powerful businesses, but it needs to press hard on petty crime as well.

Political correctness is something I hate. Placing it above law is something I hate even more. Each minority needs to learn and accept that the majority have the same rights and freedoms as they have.

Hard stuff: I consider abortion murder and I believe it should be penalised. Marriage is of one man and one woman, and of the right age. No underaged porn, no questionnable material depicting underaged nudity. What goes for a medical manual doesn't go for a movie. Art is art, leave artists alone. Porn magazins are perhaps better than having pervs bother real women, but still... porn incites more need for porn and more... and more. Bad.

Minorities: Some level of exclusiveness must be allowed, mostly for "technical" reasons, though there has to be some level of control. Same rights means same rights and same protection, no preference for minorities. Men are created equal.

Services: When it comes to healthcare, education etc being free or not, it isn't really part of my ideology. The basic criteria for me is "does it work?". If there's a free healthcare and education and it works, it's fine. When it has to be paid and the citizens can afford it, it's fine as well. Sometimes providing something to the population in exchange for taxes works better, sometimes it's better to reduce taxes by that amount and let citizens decide.

Social: The rules of according social welfare grants need to be clear and observed. There's nothing bad about tax-funded welfare. It's only bad when the wrong people get it. The emphasis needs to be put on creating oppurtunities rather than give funds. If you give a man a fish, he won't be hungry tonight. If you teach him to fish, he won't be hungry anymore.

Authority and power: Some things can be left to local authorities - mayors, councils, magistrates and the like. Some don't really need authority attention. However, we don't need any gimped authority. Maintaining an office that can't do much is a waste of money. Plus, gimped authority demands no respect. No damned corporations. Self-government works for local communities, but not for business or specific occupations, period. No authority for Labour Unions as well. Labour Courts, Courts of Commerce, Administrative Courts. Courts and not Chambers!

Churches, parties, organisations: No special status for made-up cults. Religions supported in some tradition and having some broad range of adherents should get special status, but not sects. Political parties should be required to have some program and maintain some activity, as well as to have much more members than it's typically required of them now. Same to organisations. Organisations aren't meant as cheap ways of getting tax breaks. It can't be done in one go, but, ideally, political parties should get no money from taxes. Churches and other organisations in so much as their activities are targetted at a broad range of citizens and/or benefit the whole of society. It's unfair for people who believe differently or not at all to have to pay money for churches.

Army: Professional army, no compulsive service. Some training to all willing, perhaps with some additional benefits. It's good to have citizens trained, but it isn't good to have them mobbed. Reserve military is a good thing, too.

State-citizen relations: The state needs to be close to citizens. It needs to be strong, as a force that will support you, on which you can rely and lean if need be. However, it can't be oppressive and arrogant. No orders when requests will do. No arrogant "you're going to gaol if you don't comply within 14 days per Bill X". Citizens need to be given opportunity to interact with the state willingly and comfortably. It's essential for any authority to maintain good relations with the governed. It's good for the governed to have good relations with the authority.

As family doctors, it's also a good idea to have family civil officers: instead of the citizen being bounced between one office and another, perhaps officers and clerks should handle the totality of civil affairs of one citizen, or a family. And they better have sensitivity training.

Crime: Law needs to be enforced. When someone decides to make it the easier way, he must know they'll come and get him. This doesn't mean penalties should be severe. Not at all! Prison isn't the best solution. Treat those who need it, isolate those who pose threat, but as a punishment for someone who isn't immediately dangerous to his fellow citizens, fines are better and either ones adjusted to the offender's economic status or a certain sum of fines resulting in bad consequences that can't be avoided by being able to afford more fines than poorer folks. Short terms are good as a means of showing that everyone can make his way to prison if he really works on it. Shock value, sort of. Fines have a future and so does civil and administrative law. Criminalising things should always be the last resort. Those who need to be put behind bars should be taught and should work. Abandoning them for boredom of sitting there for years with nothing to do is simply asking for them to develop mindsets we don't like.

Protective functions of state justice definitely require more attention. Sterilise rapists or better castrate them. Similar fate to child molestors. If they are oh-so-sick, lock them into hospitals. At any rate, their personal freedoms are no justification for letting them loose.

Murderers and others who threaten to take revenge on victims, witnesses, judges etc when they get out of prison... shouldn't get out of prison. Simple. I don't know if it's a problem in many countries, but in Poland it is.

So you rate me as you wish now that you know my programme I don't know of any party that shares it.

[ June 09, 2004, 15:27: Message edited by: chevalier ]

 

Of those in the poll, Anarchy, because Syndicalism is a mix of socialism, communism, and anarchy but closest to anarchy and I identify myself with Syndicalism.

 

I'm with Rallymama on this one. However, since I didn't see libertarian as a choice I went with conservative

 

Caleb, that reminds me of a qute from my favorite movie, Monty Python and the Holy Grail:

We're an anarcho-syndicalist commune.

Anyway, I'm basically in the centre, with a balance of social programs and personal responsibility.

 

I went with liberal, because nearly all of my political views lie somewhat left of center, but I'm by no means a hard-line left winger. I'd say I'm somewhere between liberal and center (or left-center if you prefer)

@Splunge - I really wish you hadn't said that. I feel an overwhelming desire coming over me to watch Monty Python now.

 

Despite recent accusations from some of me being far, far left, I'm like Aldeth - left center. I used to be more right center, but the events of the last year and the conduct of much of those on the right (not necessarily referring to SP members here) have done quite a bit to change my views.

For the purposes of this poll, I chose Center, because I'm more center than left (but just barely).

 

The one you call "libertarian" is the one in the poll, called neoliberalist, as that is what that ideology is known as in my country, and I assumed it could be directly translated.

 

@Splunge, you should've seen the mocking I got at another forum for calling myself Syndicalist, all of the mocking comments where about Monthy Python.

How can something so good create something so evil?

 

I believe in dictatorship.

BOW TO ME!

Well, actually, I'm more of a 3rd party person.

I believe in a strong federal goverment, and a decent state goverment. But, I believe in certain things that are dictatorship, and others that are democratic. But more things that are Dictatorship.

 

I don't know what any of those political terms even *mean* so I had to go with 'none of the above'. . . . . .

 

Had to choose "other," so here's the obligatory explanation: Pretty far right on traditional moral issues, left of center on social issues (which I also see as moral issues, but on which I do not share the traditional right-wing view). Not a centrist because I'm not a moderate. Not a big fan of democracy (cf. Plato), though I live in a republic that thinks it's a democracy. Definitely not into separation of church and state, particularly as it is currently understood (which is in strong contrast to the way it was understood historically). Personally, I favor a benevolent theocratic monarchy.