News What Idea Shapes Your Political Philosophy?

[Ivan Seeking]

What do you consider to be the basis or roots of your political philosophy and opinions? Is it Plato, the plight a certain group like the Palestinians, a cause such as environmentalism, national loyalty and basic patriotism, a greater concept or ideal such as world peace, an economic ideal, or a simple "what's best for me" perspective?

In my case, as most here probably know, it's the U.S. Constitution. I believe when honored and enforced, this document, and esp the Bill of Rights, thus far sets the standard for enlightened government. However I must say that I was quite impressed with the Canadian Constitution. In particular I found the right to conscience intriguing.

 

[jimmie]

"Rightpath"

The idea that included, and was not limited to, i believing that attaining a "rightstate", the state in which there is not any desire for any particular thing and that "rightvision", 3D vision and that of the 'first-person', was possible and attained, only because "I" intended to not do any particular thing and was not loyal to any particular idea, including the "rightpath".

 

[russ_watters]

I'm not sure if "loyal" is the right word, but anyway, it would have to be the Constitution and the principles on which it and this country were based. Locke and such.

A close second would be the principles of morality. The Moral Imperative, in particular.

 

[ComputerGeek]

"We Sink or Swim Together"

 

[Ivan Seeking]

"We Sink or Swim Together"

Who are "we"?

 

[Pengwuino]

I believe I am "loyal" (also don't think that's the right word) to the idea that people should be accountable to themselves in general. If you want something, you work for it. If you know something is your fault, you take responsibility. If you see something you don't like, fix it yourself. Basically, don't let other people do your work for you.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

It will be very interesting to see who chooses not to respond to this thread, don't you think?

I believe I am "loyal" (also don't think that's the right word) to the idea that people should be accountable to themselves in general. If you want something, you work for it. If you know something is your fault, you take responsibility. If you see something you don't like, fix it yourself. Basically, don't let other people do your work for you.

How does this translate as a political philosphy? In other words, how does this determine your political bias?

 

[oldunion]

My logic, my distaste for hegemony by any party, my support for strength in numbers.

 

[edward]

As it applies to countries and governments: A chain is only as strong as it's weakest link.

 

[oldunion]

As it applies to countries and governments: A chain is only as strong as it's weakest link.

then what do you have to say about the usa?

 

[Smasherman]

Ultimately, the enlightenment of humanity. Specifically: socialism, veganism, and (real) education.

 

[edward]

then what do you have to say about the usa?

Too many weak links and the whole blasted chain is rusting.

 

[oldunion]

Too many weak links and the whole blasted chain is rusting.

claps hands

 

[GENIERE]

… However I must say that I was quite impressed with the Canadian Constitution. In particular I found the right to conscience intriguing.

Then you should be even more delighted with the US Constitution. It does not give you rights; it assumes you already have them. If you can define “the right to conscience”, a US citizen already possesses it. All constitutions limit individual rights to enable a society to exist, a fault and a blessing.

[Edit} I found this in correspondance from Madison to Jefferson; "because there is great reason to fear that a positive declaration of some of the most essential rights could not be obtained in the requisite latitude. I am sure that the rights of conscience in particular, if submitted to public definition would be narrowed much more than they are likely ever to be by an assumed power."


I detest the liberal political philosophy nicely expressed by this platitude.

QUOTE=Smasherman] Ultimately, the enlightenment of humanity. Specifically:
socialism, veganism, and (real) education. [/QUOTE]

I am loyal to a political philosophy that allows me to live my life as I wish to live it, as free as possible from external influence. That may be considered a “what’s best for me” philosophy but some of my tangible and intangible wealth, that which allows me to live as I wish to live was made possible by the society I live in. I am indebted to society. The degree of indebtedness, my fair share, is something only I can determine.

Although not a political philosophy, I am also loyal to capitalism.
.

 

[Smurf]

However I must say that I was quite impressed with the Canadian Constitution. In particular I found the right to conscience intriguing.

The whole constitution or just the Charter?

 

[vanesch]

'scientia vincere tenebras'

 

[Smurf]

'scientia vincere tenebras'

Wisdom will vanquish Darkness


how cute.

 

[loseyourname]

The only idea I can think of that I am truly wedded to is epistemological, not political. That idea is simply empiricism. Frankly, it is difficult to apply the kind of inductive logical precepts that work so well for the hard sciences to politics, but even so, speculative theorizing*, while nice to engage in, is never going to convince me of anything. Outside of that, I suppose I am fairly well wedded to ethical libertarianism as well, the idea that no action is wrong unless it results in unauthorized harm to a moral agent. I'm sure this shapes my political thinking in some way.

*Especially of the Hegelian idealist mode, which, to me, includes Marxist historical thought. This also colors my political thinking. It is probably somewhat unfair to group social theorists in completely with the kind of speculative metaphysics that ruled continental philosophy in the late modern era, but given the influence, it is hard for me not to.

 

[vanesch]

Wisdom will vanquish Darkness
how cute.

As a more elaborate version of this:

"Human thought should never submit Itself,
neither to a dogma, nor to a party,
nor to a passion, nor to an interest,
nor to a preconceived idea, nor to anything,
but to the facts themselves,
because for it to submit,
would mean the end of its existence."

H. Poincare.

 

[Anttech]

Free and fair trade
Speration of Buisness and Politics
Reduced world poverty
Equality
The UN

I detest the liberal political philosophy nicely expressed by this platitude.

" Ultimately, the enlightenment of humanity. Specifically:
socialism, veganism, and (real) education. "

Your selfish views and his global views can co-exsit, can they not? Or do you feel so threaten by having the bottom of the pile on equal footing with you that you can't fathom someone wanting to help others to be as good or better then you? If you are "free and liberated" what's your problem with others being as "free and liberated" as you? And what's your problem within your freedom to allow others to exercise there freedom to bring the poor and uneducated more eqaulity with you, as long as it won't impede on your freedom?

I find your hatered an oximorron.

 

[Gokul43201]

freedom and opportunity

 

[BobG]

1. Freedom.

2. A safe community to live in where a person can expect to make a reasonable living.

The second is the purpose for government. Finding the right balance between the amount of government needed for the second and the idea that people should generally be free from government is the hardest part.

 

[Burnsys]

A world where private banks won't make profit for doing nothing.

And a world where painted paper (Money) would not be an obstacle to development and improvement.

 

[sid_galt]

Reason and as a consequence individual rights.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Then you should be even more delighted with the US Constitution. It does not give you rights; it assumes you already have them. If you can define “the right to conscience”, a US citizen already possesses it. All constitutions limit individual rights to enable a society to exist, a fault and a blessing.

Yet we find that driving is a privilege, not a right, and conscientious objectors were forced to flee to Canada during the Vietnam war. So I think there's still plenty of room for improvement.

From the Tenth Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Which is generally taken to mean: All is retained which has not been surrendered. But in practice rights are not assumed to exist. I see this as one of the great failings of Constitutional law.

 

[alexandra]

The basis of my political philosophy would have to be materialism - specifically, Marxist historical analysis.

My political beliefs developed as a result of the society I grew up in, in which injustice was not only present but clearly visible. I came to loathe all forms of injustice and crimes against humanity and developed a passion for justice that has influenced all my major life choices. I came to understand that powerful forces obscure reality from our view, and that one has to work hard (research, read, study) to understand the true nature of the world we are living in.

My own personal political mission is to educate (really educate - get people to question the reality they are being presented, pre-packaged, by those in power). This does not mean I intend to 'convert' others to my way of thinking (that would not be real education): I want to do whatever I can to encourage people I encounter to think for themselves, to question the status quo.

 

[sid_galt]

Yet we find that driving is a privilege, not a right,

Are you referring to the driving license?

and conscientious objectors were forced to flee to Canada during the Vietnam war.

But it wasn't a flaw in the Constitution which permitted draft. According to the 13th Amendement, draft would have been unconstitutional. That the Supreme Court refused to rule it as such is a problem of the Supreme Court, not of the Constitution, IMO.

 

[BobG]

From the Tenth Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Which is generally taken to mean: All is retained which has not been surrendered. But in practice rights are not assumed to exist. I see this as one of the great failings of Constitutional law.

I agree. Almost everything protected by the Tenth Amendment is circumvented by the 'Interstate Commerce' loophole.

The other method of circumvention is federal tax dollars. Every federal program that feeds money to states and local communities makes states and local communities more dependent upon the federal government and allows the federal government to dictate the rules. This has a few pros (it eliminates a few abhorrent situations; for example, a local community couldn't decide its local jailhouse was going to be a mud hut with bars, sitting out in the middle of the desert with no electricity or running water), but a lot of cons (local communities wind up being ruled by outsiders as much as themselves).

 

[SOS2008]

1. Freedom.
2. A safe community to live in where a person can expect to make a reasonable living.
The second is the purpose for government. Finding the right balance between the amount of government needed for the second and the idea that people should generally be free from government is the hardest part.

Ditto. (I always like your posts.)

 

[Smurf]

I think I'm pretty darn maleable. My beliefs have changed a lot recently, so its hard for me to say that I'm loyal to anything anymore (or ever was in the first place)

 

[Anttech]

Where did Smurf go? Who kidnaped Smurf and replaced him ??

 

[Smurf]

are you trying to say something but realising your too dull, and resorting to puny sarcasm?

 

[Andre]

In my case, as most here probably know, it's the U.S. Constitution. I believe when honored and enforced, this document, and esp the Bill of Rights, thus far sets the standard for enlightened government.

Just an observation, nothing more, would it matter if we seem to observe that the American constitution was based on autochthonic legislation?

The people of the Six Nations, also known by the French term, Iroquois [1] Confederacy, call themselves the Hau de no sau nee (ho dee noe sho nee) meaning People Building a Long House. Located in the northeastern region of North America, originally the Six Nations was five and included the Mohawks, Oneidas, Onondagas, Cayugas, and Senecas. The sixth nation, the Tuscaroras, migrated into Iroquois country in the early eighteenth century. Together these peoples comprise the oldest living participatory democracy on earth. Their story, and governance truly based on the consent of the governed, contains a great deal of life-promoting intelligence for those of us not familiar with this area of American history. The original United States representative democracy, fashioned by such central authors as Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson, drew much inspiration from this confederacy of nations. In our present day, we can benefit immensely, in our quest to establish anew a government truly dedicated to all life's liberty and happiness much as has been practiced by the Six Nations for over 800 hundred years.

 

[Anttech]

Well my "puny sarcasm" is sharper than your wit it seems

 

[Smurf]

Well my "puny sarcasm" is sharper than your wit it seems

utter nonsense, you're just too dull to understand my gaping genius.

 

[Anttech]

<--- what's happened to me?

 

[Smasherman]

I detest the liberal political philosophy nicely expressed by this platitude.
QUOTE=Smasherman] Ultimately, the enlightenment of humanity. Specifically:
socialism, veganism, and (real) education.

.[/QUOTE]

What I am saying here is that the enlightenment of humanity has highest priority; Socialism, veganism, and (real) education are secondary, meaning that they can be discarded if found incorrect.

Socialism because it seems to offer the best solution to the world's economic problems.

Veganism because of the benefits for both an individual and society.

(real) Education because it is what appears to allow an individual to find the path of enlightenment.


I assert that the enlightenment of humanity is the ultimate goal that must be achieved. The other things I mentioned are only the best-looking means to that end, as I see it.

 

[Gokul43201]

I assert that the enlightenment of humanity is the ultimate goal that must be achieved.

You haven't defined this "enlightenment"...would you, please ?

 

[Smasherman]

You haven't defined this "enlightenment"...would you, please ?

It's not a very solid goal. It's irrationally based, as are all things. This is not philosophy, and nor do I wish to fully explain my belief. Let it be said that "enlightenment" is the state where one is not "forced" to think certain thoughts by another. This is essentially the opposite of dogma.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Are you referring to the driving license?

Yes; in this day and age, the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness, depends on one's ability to function within society. It may be a minor point in practice, but in principle I see driving as a right that is surrendered only when the public's safety is at stake. [rant]But beyond that, I see the [motorycycle] helmet and seatbelt laws for adults as violations of this principle as well. The intent of these laws make perfectly good sense, and I always wear my seatbelt when driving cars and a helmet when riding bikes, but personal rights of choice should not generally be surrendered in the interest of health insurance premiums.[/rant]

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Just an observation, nothing more, would it matter if we seem to observe that the American constitution was based on autochthonic legislation?

Absolutely! At one point I remember seeing a list of documents and philosophies from which the authors of the Constitution borrowed ideas and principles... it seems to me that it was quite long. And of course the Constitutional debates are famous for their deep philosophical content.

 

[GENIERE]

...But in practice rights are not assumed to exist. I see this as one of the great failings of Constitutional law.

I tend to agree with your comments in this post but I'm confused by "failings of Constitutional law". Is there an alternative you're considering or just musing.

 

[GENIERE]

Just an observation, nothing more, would it matter if we seem to observe that the American constitution was based on autochthonic legislation

I ran across this a few years ago. IMO the US constitution was not based on it but it was highly influential.

I wonder how well it served the several nations?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I tend to agree with your comments in this post but I'm confused by "failings of Constitutional law". Is there an alternative you're considering or just musing.

I believe that the spirit if not the letter of the constitution has been violated by the aforementioned loopholes. The States have become dependant on the Fed for money, which results in expanded and unintended federal powers. Now, since the Federal Government is funded by taxes, it seems to me that the Federal tax rate is the problem. We give the Feds money who then give it back to the State, and in doing so we surrender the State's autonomy, and in some cases, personal liberties. One example of this was the 55 MPH Federal speed limit which was enforced with the threat of withholding Fed funds. It seems to me that this situation needs to be corrected. The fed has far too much influence.

 

[GENIERE]

I believe that the spirit if not the letter of the constitution has been violated by the aforementioned loopholes. The States have become dependant on the Fed for money, which results in expanded and unintended federal powers. Now, since the Federal Government is funded by taxes, it seems to me that the Federal tax rate is the problem. We give the Feds money who then give it back to the State, and in doing so we surrender the State's autonomy, and in some cases, personal liberties. One example of this was the 55 MPH Federal speed limit which was enforced with the threat of withholding Fed funds. It seems to me that this situation needs to be corrected. The fed has far too much influence.

Amen brother!

 

[GENIERE]

.

What I am saying here is that the enlightenment … [/QUOTE]

Had I realized you were a youngster, I would have been less gruff in my comment.

In my youth, I was an “enlightened” ultra liberal and voted for JFK and LBJ. I can’t describe the elation I felt when LBJ won all but 6 or 7 states in the ’64 election.

The “enlightenment of humanity” is a phrase that will have as many meanings as there are human inhabitants of this planet. It cannot be defined, as you have discovered, so one cannot plan a course to achieve it. Platitudinal and negative phrases dominate liberal writing and are difficult to criticize. The phrase “Bush is an idiot” is an opinion, I cannot disprove an opinion but I can opine that the writer lacks intelligence. I cannot be against the concept of everyone receiving a “real education”, I might favor the concept if I knew what it was.

As far as Socialism, you will be hard pressed to find a viable socialist economy. I suggest you review the stagnant economies of Germany and France v. the economy of India. You may find that India began to prosper when the government removed the shackles of a planned economy, as did the UK under Mrs. Thatcher. The once touted French health care system proved itself unable to tend to the needs of 14000 of its citizens who died during a recent heat wave. Compare the results of President Clinton’s economic policies to those of President Carter. Compare the position of the USA to that of the EU re: a democratic Muslim nation (Turkey) being permitted to join the EU. I submit the EU is more racist than the US; that they simply have not faced the problem before (ignoring the ever prevalent anti-Semitism). Marx’s scapegoat (leftist writers always need a scapegoat) was Judaism. He equated Judaism with capitalism, not the religion. The modern scapegoats are, the corporation, oil, capitalism, individuality, the wealthy, Christianity, Judaism, Islam and the most evil of all nations, the USA.

 

[Smurf]

Ha! The deaths of the heat wave was because of France's heathcare system was socialist. Funny.

 

[vanesch]

Compare the position of the USA to that of the EU re: a democratic Muslim nation (Turkey) being permitted to join the EU.

? What democratic Muslim nation has recently joined the USA ?

(nah, don't say "Iraq" )

 

[Anttech]

You may find that India began to prosper when the government removed the shackles of a planned economy, as did the UK under Mrs. Thatcher.

So you are saying the economy is good in the UK? All Thatcher did was move the UK out of an industry based economy to a service based economy. The UK still has many “socialistic” ideals in place. For example the NHS, the BBC.

Compare the position of the USA to that of the EU re: a democratic Muslim nation (Turkey) being permitted to join the EU. I submit the EU is more racist than the US; that they simply have not faced the problem before (ignoring the ever prevalent anti-Semitism)

Opinion!

May I point you to your country History.. Racist indeed!

Points you obviously don’t understand, or care to understand:

a) Turkey is occupying a EU state.
b) In most Countries in the EU and the Commission it is Ilegal to deny the Young Turks Holocaust, which turkey does.
c) There economy is poor, and is no where near inline enough with the rest of Europe’s.
d) Most Europeans (Original EU states) believe the EU is already too big now, and needs some reforming.
e) Turkey have not been refused entry, the EU are talking about how to do it and when.
f) Turkey is Geographically not in Europe, so if we allow them in, should we also allow in Morocco, Algeria, Egypt, Kurdistan, Iraq….
g) The Turkish people don’t want to be in Europe, they want to have the economical benefits but don’t really want to be part of Brussels

The once touted French health care system proved itself unable to tend to the needs of 14000 of its citizens who died during a recent heat wave.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/799444.stm

France leads the world in health care, says the World Health Organisation in a major report, which rates the UK 18th and the US 37th - despite being the country which spends the most per head.
The rating is based on a comprehensive assessment of medical treatment, including factors such as availability of medical insurance and pharmacies.

 

[Anttech]

Germany and France v. the economy of India

GDP
US $40,100
France $ 27,600
Germany $ 27,600
India $3,100

Population below poverty line:
US 12%
France 6.5%
Germany NA
India 25%

prospering?

Lets add the US for a laugh... Hmm why is thre GDP so high yet there is such poverty? (Figures taken from CIA fact book)