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 philosophy? 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)