WF Political Views

I just want to get an idea of the political views of Wordforge. I am purposely putting this in The Green Room so it doesn't become a, "Fuck you liberal! Fuck you conservative!" sort of thing. I just want this to be a peaceful poll. If you want to put your general views down, that's ok. I don't think it's a surprise to anyone that I'm very liberal. I have a feeling that Wordforge is predominately conservative.

I know there are people from other countries here besides the US. Feel free to partake in the poll if you want. I am going to try and make this very general, but some of the choices aren't as general, I don't think, like Libertarian. I don't know what people in other countries use to describe their political beliefs.

Now, let's get the facts!!!

-Hummus

I would've had the range be...

Awful.
Simply atrocious.
Sane.
Fuck it.

Well, the system of politics itself is a big problem.

And your pole isn't multiple choice,

I'm libertarian,liberal and.... Apathetic.

Which do you most often go with? Which do you mostly align yourself with now? I thought if I made it multiple choice, people would abuse it. Someone might click, Liberal and Conservative, or click all of them.

Teh baba.

Extremely cynical and anti-anti-empirical. To the extent that "reality has a well known liberal bias" that means I'm to the left of most. My politics come off as more left than my actual policy preferences are because the Republican party and modern American conservatism pretty much have to be rejected out-of-hand because of their uniform dogmatic aversion to anything empirical. Liberals aren't much better, but at least there's a place among them for people who acknowledge that reality matters.

Yep. You fucked yourself. A fair number of liberals and conservatives here classify themselves as "libertarians". If you had a multiple choice you'd get a better read. Although since I actually voted for Barr, I can legitimately say I'm a Libertarian.

When the time comes to vote, I have to go Dem as there is no real options.
I have voted Rep before, I actually look at the candidates and whether or not they are evil or not.

so I am thinking of now making another one of these, with it being multiple choice. what should my options be? Should they be the same, just multiple choice, or should I change them?

Yep.
If they ever stop being the ideology/party of fear, they might have some good ideas again.

What the hell happened to the Robert Ingersol & T.R. Republicans?

I don't see it out there.
I stopped waiting.

Well, you can't vote "conservative" and "liberal", you vote Democratic and Republican.

You also don't get to vote Facist and Communist.

Socially liberal, conservative on law enforcement, guns and government. Some libertarian views. Mostly apathetic.

What exactly does that mean though?

The first and foremost duty of the third one is the first one, and you can't have the first one without the second one.

So, they all need to exist, so on that level we're all "conservative", on those three.

So if the "conservative", position is something above and beyond the acceptance that they need to exist, what exactly is it?

And if in fact that is all it is, doesn't that paint the liberal position as anarchy, but disarmed, and thus we all run around with harmless cream pies?

Hey...wait...that wouldn't be so bad....

Oh, right, right, the limeys have the shields and the little clubs.

...course, they're typically up against chavs with pebbles and spray cans....

Yep.

Pretty much nullifies Rand's objective standard too.

If I'm responsible for my own happiness, and it pleases me to not be a Randroid, but in fact, a firebrand liberal, then poof, up it all goes.

Quite a relief, if objective reality dictated conservatism, I wouldn't want to live.

But objective reality doesn't prescribe anything, so you can be whatever the fuck you want to be, and I want to be Diacanu.

Except if you believe (1) you're responsible for your own happiness and should be able to live the way you want to AND (2) the state should intervene in people's lives to fashion a better society, then you are either self-contradictory (your ideas are in direct opposition to one another) or an elitist (that freedom of choice is for you but not for others).

Objective reality does not dictate conservatism. But a belief in personal autonomy contradicts modern liberalism.

Fine. But shouldn't your philosophy allow others to be as THEY want to be as well?

I believe in liberal social ideals, but I think they should be achieved on the ground by grassroots, and aided by citizen journalism, and the state should be the instrument of last resort.

But then, this "the state should do everything", view was only ever a straw man to begin with.

I couldn't give a toss what "modern liberalism", thinks.
I question whether such a centralized entity exists, and if so, where does it?

You're projecting something onto me I don't espouse.

And your wording is a bit vague.

Criminals want to commit crimes, should they be allowed to do so?
Of course not.

Unlimited autonomy would be anarchy.

But if we're going to get into the nitty gritty, fine, I don't think big business can be blindly trusted to be a Tony Stark style savior to mankind, they tend to become thuggish oligarchs as surely as corrupt politicians, and need to be checked with regulations.

Teddy Roosevelt, understood that.

I don't buy into the "if you don't want Blamco to use foreign slave labor, and to dump pollution, you're against freeeeedooooom!! ", argument, sorry.


But even then, I'd prefer corrupt corporations be brought down with investigative journalism, and boycotts.

But, some of 'em are too fucking big, so you need the bigger club.

I'd prefer that be less often as possible, of course.

It's a tricky tightrope.
I'm as squeamish about state power as I am corporate power, and both take advantage.

How does one build a welfare state without the state? How does one enforce the liberal vision of equality without state coercion? You say the state is the last resort; the problem with modern liberalism is this: its ideas can't gain traction without the state. The state is the first, last, and only resort.

And the belief that "the state should do everything" is the claim is also a strawman. The state can't do everything. The question is: is the state justified in intervening in an individual's life in order to achieve certain social outcomes?

Do not make the counterclaim that it already does by locking up criminals. Libertarians (Randroids or not) are not anarchists; they do not suggest that the state should not exist, or that it should have no coercive power. Only that it's power should be limited to the protection of individual freedom.

You say you believe in liberal social ideas. Fine. Which are you: a modern liberal (the state is empowered to enforce those ideas) or a classical liberal (the individual is autonomous and free)? Some of column 'A', some of column 'B?'

If so, to the extent you allow column 'A,' you force others to live as YOU would have it, not as THEY would have it. But would you be content with such a system if it wasn't YOUR priorities being enforced?

Let me ask you this: what is the boundary of personal autonomy? If you had to state a rule for the limits of personal freedom, what would it be?

Lawmakers in Saudi Arabia and North Korea would agree. Something isn't bad just because it's illegal. Where should the line be drawn?

No one suggests that corporations are the savior of mankind, only that they exist to fulfill a demand for products and services, which is a good thing. As for them becoming thuggish oligarchs? Even the biggest business in this country is a small, small fraction of the total economy. It's only when corporations use government for their purposes that their power exceeds their own capabilities.

Regulation isn't the savior, either. In fact, it's often pointless, costly, inefficient, or even pernicious. How many big corporations get government to provide regulations that do little but stifle competition?

I agree that all actors in society--corporations included--require limitations set by law. But, just as with personal freedom, corporate freedom should only be regulated in accordance with a philosophy of limited government.

All corporations hire labor at the prevailing rate and most generate some form of pollution of some kind. If they comply with the labor and environmental laws of the country they operate in, isn't that sufficient? Or must an emerging country where people live in huts have the same regulatory environment an economic superpower does?

It is indeed. If journalism and boycotts don't do the trick--that is, if people are aware and still say "meh, I'm fine with it"--what justification is there for government action?

I'm much more squeamish about the former than I am the latter. Because the former is singular and has a monopoly on force. A corporation can't interfere with my life, it can only hire or fire me. The state can make all sorts of demands on my time and resources and penalize me if I don't comply.

Again, I'm not "modern liberalism", you're talking to me, not it.

Leaving it that vague, everyone is a libertarian.

I merely disagree with Randroids on matter of degree.

Probably.

Material/financial harm, naturally.
Enron had to go, as does Monsanto, as does Blackwater/Xe.

Rand did.

And they always will.

There is no single silver bullet, but we try things anyway.

Absent carved in stone rules for that philosophy, it amounts to a belly-feeling.
And we end up with the trial-and-error system we've got anyway.

A big murky debate for another time.

The only way they'd be fine with it, is if there were nothing to report.

Fuck with people's food, they'll react.
Who's going to go "meh, I'll eat a little plutonium if that company creates jobs"?
No one.
A criminal/negligent company, once exposed, either shapes up, or ships out.
Most companies are good actors on the stage.
If there's even a sniff of e-coli, the beef industry destroys whole batches.
But, then you had the peanut butter tainting by people who couldn't give a fuck.
Well, the companies that used that peanut butter were responsible, and pulled stuff off the shelves.
The boss of the Micky-Mouse outfit that made the shitty peanut butter seemed quite ambivalent about the whole thing though.
Them's the ones you gotta watch.

To me, an oligarch is an oligarch, and they're all in a gang-bang with each other.
I don't draw much of a line.

Ideally, the government is us.
We start to wrestle that power back by simply remembering that, and then acting accordingly.

Okay.

Not at all. Many do not think the state should be limited at all.

But the degree is important. If they say the government is only instituted to prevent force and fraud in human affairs, what would you say? (I see you answer this below...)

You didn't answer the follow-up.

Should a person not be allowed to gamble (potential financial harm)? Ride a motorcycle (potential physical harm)? Play softball? Bungee jump? Hike in the forest?

Don't mean to get all Socratic, but "harm" is not a suitable standard. By that standard, the state is empowered to intervene in your life if they feel any aspect of it harms you. Remember: the state protects YOU as well as others...

In fairness, corporations provide a tremendous amount of good and only a few exhibit true malfeasance.

Not if their government patrons are not empowered to act on their behalf.

Maybe, but what philosophy isn't by that standard? And this philosophy does advance a good: freedom.

The errors--once allowed in--are difficult to remove. We still have New Deal era farm subsidies...

Just sayin': one's tolerance for working conditions and environmental regulations are highly dependent on one's situation. One man's sweatshop is another man's opportunity to NOT work on the farm. One man's filthy smokestack may be another man's key to cleaner drinking water.

Not so. Horrific things are reported everyday and many people simply don't care.

Sure, if you can find a profound self-interest aspect. Getting people to act out of self-interest is not a problem; it's getting them to act AGAINST it. "Thirteen year olds are making shirts in Thailand? Yippeee! Cheap clothes at Wal*Mart!"

I think most are good even when not on stage.

If I don't like corporation X, I can always try to deal with corporation Y. Corporations are like individuals in that they have their own plans and ambitions, and these do not necessarily align. Indeed, competitors try to gain at each other's expense.

The state is huge, powerful, has unlimited resources, and can resort to violence to enforce its will.

I think it would be better if the power were dialed back a bit, no matter who wields it.

While I agree in principle with what you are saying, shit like this suggests that yes, we do need laws and regulations to prevent large corporations from exploiting weaknesses in the regulatory systems (and straight up corruption) in the 3rd world.

Realist.

Really? Where? While Rand no doubt would support the free association of individuals, the corporate mindset and corporate boards were just as big of bogeyman for Rand's protagonists as any mustache twirling statist goon or union strongman.

Poor poll choices. I'm a libertarian socialist, which is pretty much an anarchist.

evil fascist

I believe in the Teal-Colored Reign of Terror.

This device is known as a Landeez. It's obviously, in both name and design, some insidious part of your reign of terror, but I'm not sure how it fits in . . .