Which Political Group Are You?

[Traitorfish]

[QUOTE=Hachifusa]Uh, no. You lack self-esteem.[/quote
No, I possess perspective.

Uh... you plan on killing these people? I think I'd prefer "Overlord Bush" to your murderous mob, thanks.

No, zat vas a yoke. Besides, what's wrong with a revolution? Here's some that rocked:
The English Peasant's RevoltThe Scottish Wars of Independance
The English Civil Wars
The American Wars of Independance
The Early French Revolution (i.e. pre-Reign of Terror)
The South American Wars of Independace (Simone Bolivar and such)
The Early Russian Revolution (Lenin and Trotsky, not Stalin)
The Cuban Revolution
The Vietnamese Revolution
And so on...

OK. What's your point? I'm for liberty and justice, not America's neo-fascist welfare-warfare state. One that reminds me too much of a socialist regime, actually.

Have you actually looked around you? What welfare? Where are you!?! Besides, fascism is pretty different than socialism, on any scale. (e.g. on the economic/social freedom scale Fascism is low social freedom, high economic freedom, socialism is the opposite). You're comment was either a bad attempt at being offensive, or a sign that you are politically ignorant.
Besides, America doesn't know what it's doing. I subscibe to the Keir Hardie, Michael Moore, Social Democrat type of veiw.

It sounds like a critique, but I don't know what you're critiquing, here.
What is the good of the majority? What is the "masses" - but a collection of individuals?

How can individuality exist without a group to be individual from?
I'm 100% for individuality, but when you're talking about nations, indiviudality becomes fairly different. How can you run a nation like that? You have to think of people as groups. Any sociologist will tell you that.
The good of the majority is fairly self-explanitary. It means 'things which are good for the majority', such as nationalised indurty and healthcare, rather than good for the minority, such as privatised industry.

On what basis does your mob decide what the people down the street have to base their decisions on?

My 'mob' has as much basis as your 'mob', so don't try to undermine the whole foundation of politcis unless you're arguing as an arachist.

[ShunNakamura]

In this type of discussion I am thinking of using masses and individual the way I see it as being. Meaning the dictionary defs may not hold 100% to it. Just listen to my logic.

Individual and masses are two entities of the same being. Without one the other would not exist. Individual means apart or seperated from the masses in some way(a unique trait is one example). Masses is a group of individuals. Without one the other would not exist. They both have EQUAL importance. Becoming a part of a mass does not mean that you are no longer an individual rather you are both, just like you were before(anyone living on earth is part of a mass). It just means you as well as some others need/desire the same thing. And when weighing such decisions you must determine what helps the most with minimal sacrifice. If you hurt the masses you hurt the individual and vice versa. There is a balance that must be maintained. The question is how much can each side sacrifice without becoming unbalanced. It can not all be one way. It must equal out. The masses are not the slaves of the individual nor is the individual the slave of the masses. You see what I mean?

Thus I am for properly implemented public education. Why? Uneducated masses can actualy harm the rich individual(we are coming to the day and age where education is needed for many jobs). And the masses once educated will contribute, aiding the individual and the like. Also take note that this works like a loan. The masses that are educated took the loan to pay for thier education. And as they grow they pay that loan back in the same way they got it. As long as the government doesn't meddle too much once it is setup it is fine. The problem with private education is that in more rural areas there would only be one choice.. and thus the masses could be easily forsaken. And you can't forsake one or else the other recieves harm.

The argument for capitalism is that people realize this and thus to avoid harming themselves they will not harm the masses in such a way. The fact is though that many of the buisnessmen that are successful are so for a reason. They don't care if they have to screw someone over to get to the top, as long as they are the ones on top. So unless it would topple them they do not care. And one can damage the massses alot before it causes enough damage to topple the individual. Thus for fairness, and to be equal, you should supply a common baseline and then allow other extra services to be added. Thus a public school systems that also allows private schools is good. It means that the public has some competition and that the private schools will have competition in all areas, even rural. This is in fact in line with some capitalistic ideals. The problem is A) we don't have a properly implemented public education system B)The public education doesn't get enough competition from the private and C) the government really just keeps messing it up more. There are of course more problems. Such as money holes in some school systems, the fact that throwing more money doesn't help... etc.

oh boy... I don't even know what I wrote now... the writing had just taken a life of its own. Meh, it seems to make enough sense that I will just leave it as is, just remember that the second paragraph is the one I meant to write.. the rest just sort of flowed so it may have more holes then a truckload of swiss cheese.

[Traitorfish]

I agree with most of what you said, but I am against the principle of private education. I beleive it causes class distinctions to appear, or if they already exist, it props them up. Education is a basic human right, so all people deserve the same level, and allowing some to get a better level of education is unfair. [The exception to this is specialty schools, such as dance or acting schools, although I dislike them because they seem to be a tool for sad parents to live through their children.]

[DarkLadyNyara]

No, zat vas a yoke. Besides, what's wrong with a revolution? Here's some that rocked:
The English Peasant's RevoltThe Scottish Wars of Independance
The English Civil Wars
The American Wars of Independance
The Early French Revolution (i.e. pre-Reign of Terror)
The South American Wars of Independace (Simone Bolivar and such)
The Early Russian Revolution (Lenin and Trotsky, not Stalin)
The Cuban Revolution
The Vietnamese Revolution
And so on...

Don't forget the Glorious Revolution. That was actually pulled off without bloodshed. (Hence the "Glorious")

[Teek]

No, zat vas a yoke. Besides, what's wrong with a revolution? Here's some that rocked:
The English Peasant's RevoltThe Scottish Wars of Independance
The English Civil Wars
The American Wars of Independance
The Early French Revolution (i.e. pre-Reign of Terror)
The South American Wars of Independace (Simone Bolivar and such)
The Early Russian Revolution (Lenin and Trotsky, not Stalin)
The Cuban Revolution
The Vietnamese Revolution
And so on...

Nothing is wrong with a revolution, if its needed and for the right reasons. A giant communist group over here at my campus is doing some "Drive out the Bush Regime" thing on November 2nd. I'm all for getting rid of Bush, but not to allow the mob to take control and run an American Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

Have you actually looked around you? What welfare? Where are you!?!

I'm referring to our social programs that yield no good but take our money. We have free education, grants, what not, but it doesn't seem to be doing so much good. I mean, smurf, look at our Social Security problems. I understand that you're a socialist so it must be offensive to hear that America has bad socialism, but understand that as a libertarian I rather hate that America has bad, well, liberty.

Besides, fascism is pretty different than socialism, on any scale. (e.g. on the economic/social freedom scale Fascism is low social freedom, high economic freedom, socialism is the opposite). You're comment was either a bad attempt at being offensive, or a sign that you are politically ignorant.

It wasn't so much offensive, as much as I was implying that America tries to be everything at once and fails. It's the ultimate "mixed economy". It's why people don't understand the ramifications of capitalism - they think that America is capitalist (it is, to the same extent that it's social democracy).

Besides, America doesn't know what it's doing. I subscibe to the Keir Hardie, Michael Moore, Social Democrat type of veiw.

America doesn't know what it's doing, but I prefer the "freeom" sort of view. Michael Moore is hardly in that realm.

How can individuality exist without a group to be individual from?
I'm 100% for individuality, but when you're talking about nations, indiviudality becomes fairly different. How can you run a nation like that? You have to think of people as groups. Any sociologist will tell you that.

I dislike sociology, but more than that, I think that's what America was supposedly based on. And it's the only way to really run a nation.

The good of the majority is fairly self-explanitary. It means 'things which are good for the majority', such as nationalised indurty and healthcare, rather than good for the minority, such as privatised industry.

At the expense of the minority. That's not good for anyone.

My 'mob' has as much basis as your 'mob', so don't try to undermine the whole foundation of politcis unless you're arguing as an arachist.

I'm not, but as someone who supports civil and economic freedoms, you'll hear from the people that hate me that I virutally am, haha.

[Madame Adequate]

How can individuality exist without a group to be individual from?

Individuality can only exist in the complete absence of external influences. As that also tends to drive people insane, the best one can do is try to ignore most social/media ideas and decide things for oneself. Individuals who consider their individuality based on the actions or opinions of others are not individuals at all. The group is the antithesis of the individual.

I'm 100% for individuality, but when you're talking about nations, indiviudality becomes fairly different. How can you run a nation like that? You have to think of people as groups. Any sociologist will tell you that.

Not so. The only just way to run a nation is to consider each and every person within it of exactly equal value, entitled to exactly the same*, and with exactly the same rights. (Ideally, to also extend those same beliefs to every Human on Earth.) Groups exist because of like-minded individuals, nothing more. They simply gain more power than they should have because many are lazy or submit to peer pressure.

* If you're wondering, I actually do think everyone is entitled to exactly the same thing - that which their labor earns them.

The good of the majority is fairly self-explanitary. It means 'things which are good for the majority', such as nationalised indurty and healthcare, rather than good for the minority, such as privatised industry.

The only consideration should be 'What is best for the individual?'. The answer is simple; freedom. Freedom requires a lack of social controls, a lack of legal controls, and a lack of economic controls. Because not everyone can be trusted to act appropriately, it is acceptable to create a governmental organization to ensure those controls are avoided, even though said government by definition counters both the second and third tenets there. The government's sole purpose in existence is the preserve the freedoms of the individuals within the boundaries of a national border. Anything further is unacceptable and undeniably contrary to the most essential driving force of Mankind - sentience.

[Nasarian Altimeros]

Am I an individual? I think so....

[Snowball II]

im a whig