Can You Sum Up Your Political Philosophy?

[Revere]

Read the book in my avatar.

 

[loosecannon]

Read the book in my avatar.

stop shilling your book on this forum.

 

[hipeter924]

Do whatever you want, so long as you respect people's property rights and don't try to impose your ideology/belief on me or force me to do things I don't agree with. That's it in a nutshell.

 

[Avatar4321]

I can do it with two hyphenated words: Self-government

 

[loosecannon]

I can do it with two hyphenated words: Self-government

can I see the long form of that?

 

[Revere]

Read the book in my avatar.

stop shilling your book on this forum.

I'm not as smart as he is.

 

[antagon]

syndicalism is an interesting concept. i'm a big league social capitalist so it curdles my milk a bit, but i like reading up on alt econ models for their insight into weak points in capitalist theory/systems.

is there practical policy which might reflect the values underlying AS, but which could have application in the US? how would you define middle class? merely middle income? how would you target them with support? is it fair to characterize AS as trade-union-based governance at the more extreme end?

 

[Wry Catcher]

I am an American, a citizen of the greatest experiment in government by the people, for the people in the recorded history of mankind.
For this reason alone, my political philosophy might be best expressed by words written by others:
Read in this order: The Declaraton of Independence; The Preamble to the Constitution of the United States; the words of President Washington in his Farwell Address; and, putting emotion aside, rationally and critically consider these words in terms of Twenty-First Century politics.
Is the Conservative Movement in all of its manifestations consistent with an honest and accurate effort to achieve the mission statements offered in these documents?
Absolutely not.
For this reason alone, I am not a 'conservative' in any sense of the way conservatives act today.
I do, however, support and practice fiscal conservative principles in private; my wife and I live within our means and have no debts beyone a small mortage on our home; we also protect our planet and its resources as much as one family is able, we recycle, reduce our use of water to the minimum and use public transportation as often as feasible. We also support local business as much as possible, of course the costs maybe higher, but the benefits to our community our nation are many; we hold our savings in a local credit union, and leave only a few thousand dollars in a mega-bank for travel purposes (ATM's) and emergencies; we avoid like disease Home Depot, Wal-Mart and anything to do with Rupert Murdoch and dine out in local restaurants, avoiding chains and fast food places entirely.
We believe in progress, though we honor tradition we do not hold it as sacrosanct. Like science, what is must always be examined and re-examined, tested and new ideas considered without bias; when practicle old mothods must be improved and discared.
Therefore, I am not a Reactionary.
So, what is my political philosophy? Framed by the documents above, an open mind and an inclination towards pragmatism (vis a vis, ideology) I'm a progressive I am also a registered Democrat because capital needs labor, for even the richest among us cannot eat gold. And unless labor produces and is paid a fair wage, the rich may very well be stuck with little to eat and no one to protect their wealth.

 

[Big Fitz]

One word: Federalist.

Now, since that means nothing to most people nowadays, let me explain.

Weak and defined national government, strong and less defined state governments. The original intent of America's government. A meritocracy. It is conservative, as well as libertarian, but less of a kooky fringe to both. There are needs for rules, and freedom of association with those whom you agree with is tantamount.

Life, Liberty, Property. Free to be with, support, love and work for whom I desire.

That is the core of my beliefs.

 

[loosecannon]

syndicalism is an interesting concept. i'm a big league social capitalist so it curdles my milk a bit, but i like reading up on alt econ models for their insight into weak points in capitalist theory/systems.

is there practical policy which might reflect the values underlying AS, but which could have application in the US? how would you define middle class? merely middle income? how would you target them with support? is it fair to characterize AS as trade-union-based governance at the more extreme end?

As I understand it Italy was a pretty advanced AS system before Mousilini took them off a cliff into fascism. I'd would have to brush up tho.

Defining middle class isn't the point, as much as providing the legal framework that allows collectively owned enterprises to excell rather than offering incentives to their natural rival, corporations.

One example is that there are laws that prevent companies from engaging in banking and insurance at once. But imagine if credit unions were legally capable of also marketing collective self insurance. Your local community credit union would become a powerhouse capable of funding all kinds of local development just like Warren Buffet became a one man dynasty because he got free use of insurance capital.

While such a firewall might make sense in the case of private banks why are collectives prohibited from organizing such enterprises by themselves, for themselves?

AS as trade-union-based governance at the more extreme end?

I would hope not. Unions and collectives are very different beasts. IMO unions are the stuff of socialism or social democracy. They were a huge improvement over the abusive practices of the robber baron era, but have definitely proven useless in the modern world.

Anarcho syndicalism is about collective capitalism. Since the primary strength of capitalism is the economies of scale it enables allowing people to create for themselves the same economy of scale is perfectly within their rights.

Why should states charter corporations and shower incentives upon them while not streamlining the same opportunity for actual people?

 

[antagon]

fitz, what you have described is more similar to democratic-republican or confederate. these are the opposite of federalist.

 

[Big Fitz]

fitz, what you have described is more similar to democratic-republican or confederate. these are the opposite of federalist.

Just like liberalism, the terms have switched it seems.

 

[antagon]

cannon, because of the different ways which corporations can be owned, i feel that the AS proposal is redundant. is there a difference between an employee-owed corp and what you are talking about?

insurance is a ponzi scheme. i'm not sure how they could dodge that characterization. the reason why banks are isolated from trading directly in insurance is because they could steal from depositors to pretend their insurance is solvent. should any organization holding people's cash be exempted?

that's an interesting take on unions. i've always associated unions with labor-centric collectivism and communism. they're independent from government, they provide labor, they levy tax on their constituents. socialism aims to retain this function within government. social democracy aims to regulate these benefits into a wider capitalist system. the latter happened in the US, benefiting the rest of us, while unions effected labor elitism independently.

actual people can benefit from the same incentives as corporations. i think. what do you mean?

actual people could just create a corporation, furthermore. that's where they come from. what is wrong flawed with incorporation in your view?

 

[PixieStix]

Pixieism works for me

 

[antagon]

fitz, what you have described is more similar to democratic-republican or confederate. these are the opposite of federalist.

Just like liberalism, the terms have switched it seems.

federal, however, has always referred to central government, hence federalists like hamilton and washington favoring strength in the central government. DRs like jefferson and madison aligned better with how you've described your position. confederate is particularly descriptive of your ideas about federal vs state power balance. it has been since the articles of confederation. then, as now, this is the opposite of federalist.

 

[DiamondDave]

Registered Republican (so I can vote in the primary)
Fiscal Conservative
Social Moderate
Government imprint/size reduction zealot
Extreme anti-progressive
Advocate of personal responsibility and charity over government welfare entitlements

 

[loosecannon]

cannon, because of the different ways which corporations can be owned, i feel that the AS proposal is redundant. is there a difference between an employee-owed corp and what you are talking about?

The difference is that in an anarcho syndicalist state only fully employee owned corporations would be nurtured whereas privately owned corporations would be banned, dechartered, or discouraged via policy.

insurance is a ponzi scheme. i'm not sure how they could dodge that characterization. the reason why banks are isolated from trading directly in insurance is because they could steal from depositors to pretend their insurance is solvent. should any organization holding people's cash be exempted?

Sure, collective self insurance is a mechanism by which people hold their own money, and get all the benefits of insurance, investment capital and economy of scale without having to surrender profits and equity.

that's an interesting take on unions. i've always associated unions with labor-centric collectivism and communism. they're independent from government, they provide labor, they levy tax on their constituents. socialism aims to retain this function within government. social democracy aims to regulate these benefits into a wider capitalist system. the latter happened in the US, benefiting the rest of us, while unions effected labor elitism independently.

Whereas unions are a marriage between socialism and capitalism, anarchosyndicalism is a marriage of capitalism and democracy.

Unions are merely a collective attempt to secure political power and bargaining power in pursuit of socialist benefits.

AS is an attempt to install "Capitalism of (all) the people, by (all) the people, for (all) the people."

AS is a system whose intention is to support the means of production being owned entirely by labor. It intends to eliminate the class structure in so doing.

 

[Big Fitz]

fitz, what you have described is more similar to democratic-republican or confederate. these are the opposite of federalist.

Just like liberalism, the terms have switched it seems.

federal, however, has always referred to central government, hence federalists like hamilton and washington favoring strength in the central government. DRs like jefferson and madison aligned better with how you've described your position. confederate is particularly descriptive of your ideas about federal vs state power balance. it has been since the articles of confederation. then, as now, this is the opposite of federalist.

Federalism is a political concept in which a group of members are bound together by covenant (Latin: foedus, covenant) with a governing representative head. The term "federalism" is also used to describe a system of the government in which sovereignty is constitutionally divided between a central governing authority and constituent political units (like states or provinces). Federalism is a system in which the power to govern is shared between national and provincial/state governments, creating what is often called a federation. Proponents are often called federalists.

That's what I'm talking about. A voluntary compact between states, limited in scope and power leaving the bulk of the power with the states.

 

[loosecannon]

That's what I'm talking about. A voluntary compact between states, limited in scope and power leaving the bulk of the power with the states.

Your concept was widely held during the constitutional convention. But it wasn't universal. The southern states should have realized the gravity of that disagreement and secured a more certain bill of states rights before signing on.

 

[candycorn]

Q: Can You Sum Up Your Political Philosophy?

A: Progressive

I tend to be someone who "hates the game, not the players" and individual laws are, for the most part, simply spices in the stew. We are living under a document that is over 230 years old. Could you imagine not updating your company's basic business plan in 230 years?

For example, Article I section IV of the Constitution states the following:

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

The Congress shall assemble at least once in every Year, and such Meeting shall be on the first Monday in December, unless they shall by Law appoint a different Day.

But somehow we've gotten to the point of having elections of national importance on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November every 2 years; at the same time. Obviously due to technology, the electorate is more compacted than ever and sophisticated enough to know that the election in Virginia could effect what happens in Kentucky. You don't believe me? Ask anybody who used to enjoy hiking or climbing the mountains that are now all gone thanks to the GOP and their relaxation of mining rules or business owners who know full well that Obama care is going to be a disaster unless it is reined in and right soon.

A progressive look at the Constitution--mandated by the Constitution itself--is the only thing that can truly save this country from the special interests that infect both principal political parties. And yes Tear Partiers...your party would be infected too if you mattered. Christine O'Donnell is using contributions to pay her rent! Yeah; she wouldn't be subject to corruption would she?

We should have staggered elections that begin on the first day of Summer and end on the first day of Fall every two years. States, drawn from a hat so to speak, would schedule their elections each week during those thirteen weeks or so between 6/21 and 9/21. So voters in August and September will know the stakes of electing a crop of republicans or democrats. Perhaps the electorate would be inclined to do so; perhaps not. But the one thing it would do is allow all to know what is on the line and what type of government we are sending to Washington on any given election year.

How often should we start over with the Constitution to take into account the technologies and social realities of the day? Every four score and seven years has a nice ring to it.

This is just one of the many examples of how we need to progressively re-write the Constitution to ensure that the modern day realities are taken into account.