Can You Sum Up Your Political Philosophy?

[loosecannon]

Classic Xotoxian

I Googled it, was redirected to Exotoxin....

 

[loosecannon]

I see myself as a 'Social Capitalist (Micro)corporatist'.

What the hell is that?

 

[antagon]

tomorrow, cannon. time for a prebenderrechargenap.

 

[Missourian]

Leave me alone.

 

[antagon]

I see myself as a 'Social Capitalist (Micro)corporatist'.

What the hell is that?

right. expand and expound.

more like: pragmatist, social capitalist, progressive, microcorporatist, american, nationalist.

pragmatist: all of what i think about applies to a world i'd like to live in and maintains reasonable freedom for others to do their thing too. this world view can be implemented from policy which can plug into most democratic systems, particularly the US, and in the near-term. real shit.

social capitalist: capitalism with the understanding that the economy is a facility of society. my own brand of socap focuses on the concept of adhesion -- the way and extent to which an economy and society interact -- with the recognition that this relationship is reciprocal and positive-sum when it comes to social or economic inputs having the potential to benefit each. i look at the economy and society with a different anatomy than seems common, and slightly different than other socap models i've seen. i mean social class and market components by 'anatomy'.

progressive: history shows shit doesn't stay the same. major sociopolitical-economic phases are traversed every 75 -110 years with minor trends intermixed. anticipate and adapt. cherrypicked conservatism, innovative progressivism.

(micro)corporatist: (small) business minded. this refers to my personal life but it extends to the policies which i'd suggest. based on my ideas of social class, business ownership presents the most effective mechanism of socioeconomic adhesion. this applies to small businesses, the circumstance from which most businesses emerge, and that which involves more entrepreneurs. policy includes a second look at regulatory capture and a bunch of specific tax gymnastics to effect adhesion -- not merely tax cutting which does the opposite.

american nationalist: i think the politics in the US is fine. the constitution is fine, the way its been interpreted is fine, the politicians are fine, etc... the worst of them are just a couple or 4 years from recall if they've really upset their constituents. the system works adequately.. maybe tweak some things here or there.

ideally policies i have in mind would offer america the advantages which policies in the past have afforded the nation. i see there as being a global economy and all and can appreciate the ways which going global has benefited the economy and society. i also believe that the US is obliged to operate within this global economy as a nation with the interest of its constituents considered most dearly. i've got no problem with indoctrination of a reciprocal loyalty between government, the nation and its constituents through the promotion of values which make an economy and society tick. brainwashing purpose and responsibility into americans in and out of politics.

 

[loosecannon]

you are a pragmatic technocrat.

More questions later.

 

[Immanuel]

For some people I imagine this sort of thing is easy. They might say, "I'm a Democratic Progressive" or something. For most of us, we've been burned by simple partisan adhesion or we've learned along the way that it's just not that accurate to fence your position in a few words. It may take putting out a blend like the popular 'Fiscal Conservative/ Social Liberal', or maybe you've found representation in 3rd parties. Maybe 'Tea Party' is established enough to define a political philosophy.

I have found this hard. I wont likely ever have a party allegiance unless hell freezes over and I go into politics myself. Even then, I am liable to start up my own wayside party. I'm a fan of the U.S. and our way of running the show. I don't think it has pier among nations, at least. Within the American paradigm, I see myself as a 'Social Capitalist (Micro)corporatist'. This is a decent reflection of the aims of what I consider good policy to be and a bit about how I live my life.

But that's me. Anyone care to share where they are coming from with their political, geopolitical, economic and social philosophy?

Sum up my political Philosophy?

Compassionate Conservatism and to be honest I hate using that term now but I would have to think that I am in that category.

I typically agree with much of the points of views of conservatives, but think that they miss the boat when it comes to solutions. On so many issues, I see the side of the conservative as being correct, but believe that they have royally screwed up when it comes to action.

Welfare, for instance, should be a hand up not a hand up, but in the meantime you can't simply let the single parent and children of them starve.

Affirmative Action... a liberal program that makes sense, but does not accomplish its stated goals an in effect, causes more problems than it solves.

Social Security... another liberal program that has at its core a good basis for its existence, but needs improvements as the investment community we have today is so much different than it was when the program was instituted.

Abortion... should be eliminated, but making it illegal is not going to achieve that goal so we have to support mothers in crisis pregnancies even if that means the dreaded "redistribution of wealth".

I see myself sitting on the fence of so many different issues. I find myself agreeing with what conservatives say but then feeling like liberal, er moderate liberal, that is solutions are better at achieving the goals.

So maybe I am a fiscal liberal in social conservative skin?

Immie

 

[FA_Q2]

Fiscal liberal social conservative!!!!!!!!!!

Welcome to the new Marxist theocratic welfare imprisonment country of Immie
All in good jest Immie

 

[antagon]

that is scary. subsidized theocracy.

 

[loosecannon]

pragmatist: all of what i think about applies to a world i'd like to live in and maintains reasonable freedom for others to do their thing too. this world view can be implemented from policy which can plug into most democratic systems, particularly the US, and in the near-term. real shit.

OK

social capitalist: capitalism with the understanding that the economy is a facility of society. my own brand of socap focuses on the concept of adhesion -- the way and extent to which an economy and society interact -- with the recognition that this relationship is reciprocal and positive-sum when it comes to social or economic inputs having the potential to benefit each. i look at the economy and society with a different anatomy than seems common, and slightly different than other socap models i've seen. i mean social class and market components by 'anatomy'.

I appreciate that you see the economy as a social function and that you rely on cohesion as your foundation.

What is that cohesion? And can you elaborate on this anatomy?

progressive: history shows shit doesn't stay the same. major sociopolitical-economic phases are traversed every 75 -110 years with minor trends intermixed. anticipate and adapt. cherrypicked conservatism, innovative progressivism.

Progressivism as a political term doesn't really mean progressive. It's a label like neocon or democrap or republitard. I assume you are using the word in it's literal sense as in preemptive innovation and advance planning etc....? You will have to make more concrete statements as the use of labels is not very descriptive of your real meaning.

We all know what fiscal conservative means to us, but not to somebody else, as an example. And that's an easy one compared to "cherry picked conservatism".

(micro)corporatist: (small) business minded. this refers to my personal life but it extends to the policies which i'd suggest. based on my ideas of social class, business ownership presents the most effective mechanism of socioeconomic adhesion. this applies to small businesses, the circumstance from which most businesses emerge, and that which involves more entrepreneurs. policy includes a second look at regulatory capture and a bunch of specific tax gymnastics to effect adhesion -- not merely tax cutting which does the opposite.

you seem to be talking about investment in society not socioeconomic cohesion. Is that what you meant?

And how can everybody participate in becoming a business owner? Should they? and why?

Are centralized corporations and multinational corps helpful or hurtful toward these ends?

What policies would support this theme?

american nationalist: i think the politics in the US is fine. the constitution is fine, the way its been interpreted is fine, the politicians are fine, etc... the worst of them are just a couple or 4 years from recall if they've really upset their constituents. the system works adequately.. maybe tweak some things here or there.

WOW! really? All of that is fine?

ideally policies i have in mind would offer america the advantages which policies in the past have afforded the nation. i see there as being a global economy and all and can appreciate the ways which going global has benefited the economy and society. i also believe that the US is obliged to operate within this global economy as a nation with the interest of its constituents considered most dearly. i've got no problem with indoctrination of a reciprocal loyalty between government, the nation and its constituents through the promotion of values which make an economy and society tick. brainwashing purpose and responsibility into americans in and out of politics.

This sounds pragmatic and technocratic. It also sort of scares me in that technocrats tend to be flexible enough to adapt extremely awkward solution sets to deal with problems, focusing on results first and foremost. An example being that they might completely enable political and financial corruption, entirely sidestepping correction or reform in favor of a real politik solution that is politically attainable. Geithner and Obama spring to mind.

"brainwashing purpose and responsibility into americans in and out of politics."

police state?

 

[Immanuel]

Fiscal liberal social conservative!!!!!!!!!!

Welcome to the new Marxist theocratic welfare imprisonment country of Immie
All in good jest Immie

No, not Marxist. I just believe that we need to help those who are down on their luck and since I don't think that charities can do the job anymore, I for one am willing to do my part.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

that is scary. subsidized theocracy.

Who you talking about? I never even mentioned the church nor do I have any desire for a Theocracy.

Immie

 

[FA_Q2]

that is scary. subsidized theocracy.

Who you talking about? I never even mentioned the church nor do I have any desire for a Theocracy.

Immie

He got that from my joke. Social conservatism screams theocracy if you were to use it as the current 'conservative' right touts it to be. I know that is not what you meant but it is still funny. For myself - I cannot stand many of the rights views socially and that is why I consider myself a social liberal. I do not want prayer in schools, quite fond of separation of church and state, completely disagree with crap 'morality' laws like the drug war, many drinking laws and the list goes on. On the other hand, I cannot stand the liberals on fiscal terms because they seem to think that they need to spend more and more no matter what and, while I agree with safety nets, I believe that if the liberals had their way we would all end up ward of the state. On the other hand, I cannot stand liberal social engineering or nanny state laws like seatbelt and helmet laws. I guess I could not be called a social liberal. I would use the term libertarian but that is crap as the libertarians are not really what they claim to be and manage to fit an ENORMOUS spectrum of beliefs from conservatism to anarchy.

 

[wyomingpatriot]

the answer is a synergy of far left and far right philosophies.
first, taxes must be increased exponentially to benefit the proleteriat. second, the mentally disabled and the elderly invalid must be liquidated to spare the burden on the proleteriat of supporting them forever, as we do now.

 

[antagon]

that is scary. subsidized theocracy.

Who you talking about? I never even mentioned the church nor do I have any desire for a Theocracy.

Immie

just having a laugh reading the socon fisclib bit out of the context you put it in.

 

[antagon]

pragmatist:

OK

social capitalist:

I appreciate that you see the economy as a social function and that you rely on cohesion as your foundation.

What is that cohesion?

adhesion, really. i imagine the social-economic relationship to be analogous to that of a car body and it's motor. the adhesion would be the chassis which attaches each and transfers the energy to the ground, the world market. cohesion sounds like a social engineering term or something which directly targets separation of income within an economy. i'm not so concerned about that.

business ownership, employment (measured @ labor mkt utilization), land and resource utilization, the pervasiveness of the monetary circulation cycle (mainstreet penetration), investment, public/private safety net pervasiveness (anti-poverty)... these are not equal in value, but the idea focuses on the ways and the extent which humans, natural resources, and land are accessible to the economy. this is a social function, history indicates. all an economy can do is demand these resources. society must supply them; the fuel tank is in the body; the pedal is in policy. when it does so, the whole vehicle accelerates.

effectiveness can be measured in the ppi per capitas, labor market utilization or population utilisation... i wish there were better metrics which isolate exceptional earners from averages, to give a better idea of what the rest of us are working with, however, stat-driven analysis and policymaking misses the bus more often than not. you've got to look at what's actually happening and what more you can do.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Progressives are liars and idiots. After that nothing else matters

 

[antagon]

And can you elaborate on this anatomy?

with the hype of 'free market capitalism' whizzing around circuses like the heritage foundation, i think it is important to look at economies as a conglomerate of markets rather than a laissez faire clusterfuck. some markets within an economy dont benefit the larger economy through their freedom. labor/production markets aren't best left alone, while commerce/trade markets benefits from the freedom to express supply and demand across a market place. an economy comprises at least of a currency market, commerce market, job market, labor market, and an innovation/entrepreneurial/diversification market. these can each be divided in sectors (mfr, finserve, etc). viewing the economy as a component of society, and in turn a national asset, this is limited geographically. outsourcing is a domestic market participant jumping job markets to those of another nation. while international markets pit their prices against eachother, i see 'global market' as being bullshit because supply and demand is not fluid, globally, just the price outcome from these ratios in individual markets are made to compete.

now, for society, i think a good social model is the foundation of good socio-economic philosophy. marx had his bourgeoisie and proles, for example, and he's at least got my kudos for associating social class with social/economic function. this commonplace lower/middle/upper system based on income is retarded. it offers no philosophical direction. you can just give people enough money to be middle class and they will be. we've spent a century like that. even though it worked better than before we gave away middle class status, it is not brilliant.

so good analysis is looking at the status quo and picking winners which might do the economy/society well, overall.

owners - of the means of production, resources and property
workers - earners
wards - of the social state
outsiders - none of the above

very basic, and while nothing is so simple, i think these brackets come with their own mentalities and rational dispositions to social/economic conditions. these reflect ways which individuals are attached to the economy: their means of adhesion. the lines between the groups are also gray: some non-owners are workers whose disposition is aligned with ownership by the way they get paid. commissioned sales-people and upper management, for example, think like and side with ownership. some government workers are workers whose livelihoods are attached to the wards. they kinda think like and side with them, too. outsiders could be that homeless cynic, or a poker pro, or a trust funder. kids are some of the most abundant, but their roll is normally supported by their parents or the state.

the winner i pick are owners who function to recruit wards and outsiders into worker status -- owner status, even. because economies naturally trickle wealth upwards, this can be supported by pumping cash into the wards and it'll all be good. but i feel one better is pumping the same cash into the owner-worker relationship, the job/labor market interaction, facilitating this recruitment more directly.

regulatory incentives, and some of this same cash-pumping could also improve demand for innovation/entrepreneurship/diversification which i see as a market in itself. circumstances arise which demand supply in these concerns, when it is heavily demanded in ratio to the supply, the returns (prices) are greater. regulations buffer demand. raising regulatory thresholds exempting small businesses and micro/start-up businesses accentuates demand. avoiding the popular association between # of employees and regulatory thresholds will improve recruitment, so i'd advocate ties to assets/earnings in that respect.

 

[antagon]

Progressives are liars and idiots. After that nothing else matters

but you're an idiot, and you dont matter. what gives?

 

[LiberalNut]

I am a liberal. That is, I am accepting of change and i don't adhere to any strict doctrine or dogma. I am an anti-conservative insofar as conservatism is protection of the status quo or return to a fictional, rose colored past. I am a pragmatist. That is I advocate what works over moralistic arguments or adherence to any doctrine or dogma. I am a believer in the scientific method and if your ideology puts you in opposition to science, you need to change your ideology.

A conservative in 1776 was a loyalist to the throne of George III.
A conservative in 1860 was pro-slavery.
A conservative in 1920 was against the right of women to vote.
A conservative in 1932 was aginst the New Deal.
A conservative in 1965 was against the civil rights act and pro-Jim Crow.

One could go on and on. I am a liberal because I recognize that change in this country, for the most part, is for the good. I am a liberal because i recognize that conservatives, in the end, always advocate for repression and in the end, they always lose. The history of the United States is a history of liberal triumph. Sure, we back-peddle from time to time but in the end, the liberals always win.