Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Wow. I strongly agree with much of what is been said here so far.
I wish we had a parliamentary system of government. We treat our president is if he is a king. We expect him to solve all of our problems, while at the same time, we blame him for everything that goes wrong.
At the very least, I'd like to see a much weaker executive branch. A more federalist system with greater power given to the states would certainly be an improvement.
I think the ONLY way to prevent the corruption is a minarchist night-watchman state. Just my not so humble opinion, ha ha.
A recent study showed the U.S. is objectively an oligarchy, not a democracy or a republic.
I think the ONLY way to prevent the corruption is a minarchist night-watchman state. Just my not so humble opinion, ha ha.
A recent study showed the U.S. is objectively an oligarchy, not a democracy or a republic.
This goes beyond politics. It's cultural and philosophical.
I like taking those online political ID tests. Each time I get labeled a strong libertarian socialist. This is from Wiki and describes me very well...
Libertarian socialism (sometimes called social anarchism,left-libertarianism and socialist libertarianism) is a group of political philosophies that promote a non-hierarchical, non-bureaucratic society without private property in the means of production. Libertarian socialists believe in converting present-day private productive property into common, while retaining respect for personal property, based on occupancy and use. Libertarian socialism is opposed to coercive forms of social organization. It promotes free association in place of government and opposes the social relations of capitalism, such as wage labor.
Adherents of libertarian socialism assert that a society based on freedom and equality can be achieved through abolishing authoritarian institutions that control certain means of production and subordinate the majority to an owning class or political and economic elite. Libertarian socialism also constitutes a tendency of thought that promotes the identification, criticism, and practical dismantling of illegitimate authority in all aspects of life.
This goes beyond politics. It's cultural and philosophical.
I like taking those online political ID tests. Each time I get labeled a strong libertarian socialist. This is from Wiki and describes me very well...
Libertarian socialism (sometimes called social anarchism,left-libertarianism and socialist libertarianism is a group of political philosophies that promote a non-hierarchical, non-bureaucratic society without private property in the means of production. Libertarian socialists believe in converting present-day private productive property into common, while retaining respect for personal property, based on occupancy and use. Libertarian socialism is opposed to coercive forms of social organization. It promotes free association in place of government and opposes the social relations of capitalism, such as wage labor.
Adherents of libertarian socialism assert that a society based on freedom and equality can be achieved through abolishing authoritarian institutions that control certain means of production and subordinate the majority to an owning class or political and economic elite. Libertarian socialism also constitutes a tendency of thought that promotes the identification, criticism, and practical dismantling of illegitimate authority in all aspects of life.
We are very close, yet different. We agree on the principles though, which is what matters. I could have my ideal system, and you could have your ideal system and they could coexist in the same land mass.
My beliefs most closely align with "Deontological Libertarianism".
Quote:
Natural-rights libertarianism, also known as deontological libertarianism refers to the view that all individuals possess certain natural or moral rights, mainly a right of individual sovereignty, and that therefore acts of initiation of force and fraud are rights-violations and that is sufficient reason to oppose those acts.
This is one of the two ethical view points within right-libertarianism, the other being consequentialist libertarianism, which only takes into account the consequences of actions and rules when judging them, and holds that free markets and strong private property rights have good consequences.
Deontological libertarianism is based on the non-aggression principle, which states that no human being holds the right to initiate force or fraud against the person or property of another human being, under any circumstances. Deontological libertarians consider this principle to be the basis of all morality, and therefore they believe that any violation of the principle is immoral, no matter what other arguments may be invoked to justify that violation.
I meet more people who actually believe in the principles of liberty every day, that can only be a good sign.
We are very close, yet different. We agree on the principles though, which is what matters. I could have my ideal system, and you could have your ideal system and they could coexist in the same land mass.
My beliefs most closely align with "Deontological Libertarianism".
I meet more people who actually believe in the principles of liberty every day, that can only be a good sign.
I agree with much there. I should note I'm only socialist in my own outlook. As we know, coercion/force is the tool of the authoritarians.
Wow. I strongly agree with much of what is been said here so far.
I wish we had a parliamentary system of government. We treat our president is if he is a king. We expect him to solve all of our problems, while at the same time, we blame him for everything that goes wrong.
At the very least, I'd like to see a much weaker executive branch. A more federalist system with greater power given to the states would certainly be an improvement.
Actually one of the great strengths of the United States is that it does *NOT* have a parliamentary system of government. Such governments are famously unstable and when taken to extremes can lead to coups and other nasty outcomes.
See, that is why our systems could share a region, neither requires people to be forced into participation.
I prefer free markets to socialism, but I have no problem with someone trying socialist projects if they don't force the participation.
And I have no problem with free markets just as long as you aren't "acquiring" resources thru illegitamate means and forcing people to participate (which is basically our current economy).
If you want to build a rake and sell it to me using a currency or other good...fine. Maybe I'll agree to it or maybe I won't. But you don't have the right to "own" all the resources used to make the rake or "own" the intellectual process you went thru in construction so that I could never build my own rake without your approval. I don't have the right to force you to tell me where you got the materials or how you built it but if I can do it own my own...so be it.
The endless game of taxation, private ownership of natural resources/ideas, regulation, and use of force has got to be stopped.
Under our current system you'd have to "ask permission" to build the rake, have it inspected, have it priced (in many cases), buy the materials (even if they occur in nature), place it in a designated area, then give part of your profit to a state entity by force. Then at the end of the year you have to report the transaction once again to the state...by force...so they can see if you've behaved yourself.
Wow. I strongly agree with much of what is been said here so far.
I wish we had a parliamentary system of government. We treat our president is if he is a king. We expect him to solve all of our problems, while at the same time, we blame him for everything that goes wrong.
At the very least, I'd like to see a much weaker executive branch. A more federalist system with greater power given to the states would certainly be an improvement.
Sort of what the Constitution originally laid out. Non-enumerated powers went to the states. Instead the Feds have sucked them up, the states role in the national government has been reduced to nothing, and the president ends up with a lot more power than ever intended because the federal government is massively larger than ever intended. The guy basically existed to make appointments, reject overreaching laws, and give foreign nations one person to talk to, and now through the massive federal bureaucracy as an extension of the executive branch he can make up a reason to reach down into whatever he wants.
Actually one of the great strengths of the United States is that it does *NOT* have a parliamentary system of government. Such governments are famously unstable and when taken to extremes can lead to coups and other nasty outcomes.
I don't see much political instability in Canada, the United Kingdom, Sweden, etc. I believe their systems are a lot more efficient than ours.
I don't see much political instability in Canada, the United Kingdom, Sweden, etc. I believe their systems are a lot more efficient than ours.
Those models of government can, do, and will act without the consent of those they govern, and they use violence to do it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
