Your politics, my politics, the worlds politics.

I don't think I fit in either bracket. I tend to be liberal politically but with a 'social oriented mind' personally. I'd like to give an example that I would consider iconic for my view.
It is a very simple example, though a sad one, with which I'm confronted IRL. I have a coworker whose wife is very ill. He is going through hell to take care of 2 kids and a sick wife. We work in a team of 5.
My personal view would be: if 4 of us would work 1 hour overtime per week... we buy him half a day to take care of his family through this rough time. Picture trying to make a rule on this. You just can't. Yet in the end, this is what society is (should be) mostly about.

No matter what politics, leaders, structures, laws or even gods say.. this is your life. This is it. No rule or system can live it for you. Nobody can, ultimately, take away the responsibility that you have to life and take care of your own life.

Politics is a great way to get a flamefest started, because frankly there's always this one too extreme right or extreme left guy -- well, generally both are present. And they can't really agree on each other's views and start to QQ and insult each other and from one thing comes another until finally everybody revolts against the status quo and the moderators' board get stormed by the citizens of Paris and the administrator ends up under the guillotine while the people cries out 'liberté, egalité, fraternité!" and in the mean time, on another roleplaying forum the bolsheviks seize control over the laptops and computers of its members, for they plan on collectivizing the usage of these computers for a strong and prosperous roleplaying forum!

That, my friends, is why I'm not mingling in this discussion.

In before somebody posts that bloody anarchist symbol.

Jeanpierre/Jeanclaude wrote:I don't think I fit in either bracket. I tend to be liberal politically but with a 'social oriented mind' personally. I'd like to give an example that I would consider iconic for my view.
It is a very simple example, though a sad one, with which I'm confronted IRL. I have a coworker whose wife is very ill. He is going through hell to take care of 2 kids and a sick wife. We work in a team of 5.
My personal view would be: if 4 of us would work 1 hour overtime per week... we buy him half a day to take care of his family through this rough time. Picture trying to make a rule on this. You just can't. Yet in the end, this is what society is (should be) mostly about.

No matter what politics, leaders, structures, laws or even gods say.. this is your life. This is it. No rule or system can live it for you. Nobody can, ultimately, take away the responsibility that you have to life and take care of your own life.

You see I would gladly do the same, that is the sort of sense of the "greater good", which I would share with you. But here come Economics, Profit, Money.. Meh. The Human nature does not allow for thoughts of a Utopia to succeed.

That's because a Utopia is a goal, something to strive for. But the nature of Utopia's is that as long as basic human drives exist they will never be reached.

Perhaps. But things dont just happen. Events occur. Conflicts begin.
Ah see this thread has become interesting xD!

Ephitos wrote:You see I would gladly do the same, that is the sort of sense of the "greater good", which I would share with you. But here come Economics, Profit, Money.. Meh. The Human nature does not allow for thoughts of a Utopia to succeed.

I suppose my point is, if the problem is the mindset, no rule or law is going to fix it.
Enough words from me

Is there anything worse then a discussion about politics? Oh thats right lets have one on the internetz

ps. still, fuck you france and fuck you greece

Quin wrote:Is there anything worse then a discussion about politics? Oh thats right lets have one on the internetz

ps. still, fuck you france and fuck you greece

That's the sort of comments that start QQ and flame wars. Keep them out of MY threads Thank you very much.

Ephitos wrote:

Quin wrote:Is there anything worse then a discussion about politics? Oh thats right lets have one on the internetz

ps. still, fuck you france and fuck you greece

That's the sort of comments that start QQ and flame wars. Keep them out of MY threads Thank you very much.

Gedda heck outta here. You dug a massive hole I just happend to fall in.
Ps. I'm no longer cursing.

Alrighty. If you're gonna comment do make actual sense. Saying this discussion sucks, then saying fuck france and fuck you greece really means nothing to nobody.

You're lucky I just did my breathing exercises

This is why politic and religion threads shouldn't be present on forums, specially not RP forums. Cause Ephitos.. To him it might of meant something. Maybe it doesn't to you but that doesn't mean he's wrong (or right), since politics and opinions are all subjective. If you want to discuss these things I suggest not being so aggressive, cause it won't work having a discussion at all then.

I'm just gonna not reply to comments containing no actual input in the topic.

Then there is no point in having a discussion. Cause people have different opinions here, and one point might mean a big input to someone while it doesn't make any to you.

Alright let me rephrase what I just said. I do not LIKE negative opinion such as Fuck France and Fuck Greece. Is that not racial hatred? I don't want that in this thread because then somebody from one of those countries WILL reply. You see this isn't a discussion for "OMFG LUL FUX FRANCE", if he actually stated reasons concerning the title of the thread I'd be more than happy to reply and leave my opinion. But if an opinion with no actual credibility is posted then Why should it have any sort of place here? That's my opinion, and as long as the thread's are started by myself, I'd like to handle these things myself. I will refrain from Flame fests And QQ wars, because YES peoples opinions are different. But I don't see a mature reaction. I see a lolcomment. Perhaps the introduction isn't clear enough in what is welcome here and what isn't. Oh well. Lock it if you want.


Edit : No actual credibility in general, Who am I to decide what is credible and what is not.

Hmm.. Utopia: A place one can strive to reach.. Will it be reached except from when you sleep or daydream? No.. Why? It is not because this or that political view, wish, goal, religion etc fails.. Its not because this or that way is better or worse than the other..

The perfect world can not excist because despite how far we are from animals we still are animals. We have greed, we have wishes, desires, we have survival of the fittest, something that can not be taken away. If you are mentally, physically stronger than others, if your voice reaches longer, is louder, if your pockets are deeper... It doesnt matter if we strip all of humanity down, say equal rights for all, same work scheduals, same payment etc.. Because we are territorial, we are greedy, we do desire other peoples men and wives.. We do crave more and more.. And nature isnt easily changed and can not be altered 100 percent through training, discipline unless someone brainwashes the entire humanity.. But.. Then there is still 1 problem... Who is to brainwash the last remaining brainwasher and keep him or her from becoming the superior bad ass?^^

Ajina wrote:Hmm.. Utopia: A place one can strive to reach.. Will it be reached except from when you sleep or daydream? No.. Why? It is not because this or that political view, wish, goal, religion etc fails.. Its not because this or that way is better or worse than the other..

The perfect world can not excist because despite how far we are from animals we still are animals. We have greed, we have wishes, desires, we have survival of the fittest, something that can not be taken away. If you are mentally, physically stronger than others, if your voice reaches longer, is louder, if your pockets are deeper... It doesnt matter if we strip all of humanity down, say equal rights for all, same work scheduals, same payment etc.. Because we are territorial, we are greedy, we do desire other peoples men and wives.. We do crave more and more.. And nature isnt easily changed and can not be altered 100 percent through training, discipline unless someone brainwashes the entire humanity.. But.. Then there is still 1 problem... Who is to brainwash the last remaining brainwasher and keep him or her from becoming the superior bad ass?^^

/nod
My opinion on that would be, have one person FORCE other people to do it. Although Stalin did great things, his means did not justify the end. And killing off 35 or so million people is not an accomplishment. I like to think, a leader is required. A leader who strives for the greater good of all people, and is ready to sacrifice himself any time to achieve this.
I like to think Trotsky was one.

First off,

I think people who are saying this will devolve into flaming shouldn't pay attention to this thread, neither should those disinterested in politics, let those who have enjoy a civil discussion about a range of political topics, perhaps even changing the opinion of others while they're at it.

With that out of the way,

I consider myself to be a progressive liberal, I'm very much to the right on the 'economic' scale in my homecountry (I'm somewhere on the left in the USA). I'm very much opposed to making it tough to fire people, or high taxes (52%? Hell no!), I believe companies should have a great amount of liberty in their doings but I believe a company should not be given too much liberty to the point where the public is deceived etc. Democracy, in my mind, is always preferable to single-party/person rule.
While I'm for harsh punishments for criminals, I do believe same-sex marriage ought to be allowed, the Dutch drugs policy to be correct (albeit strange in some aspects), I believe the people should have the right to bear arms (Up to a certain point, no AK-47's for you though.).

And well, if I were to pick 2 documents which best outlined my political philosophy they'd be the Declaration of Independence of the United States and its constitution...

So ya...

EDIT: Now then, in line with my own belief that democracy, or rather a republican form of government as is present in the United States, is preferable to a single leader who wields absolute power. His advisors will turn into yes-men, his rule will be unquestioned, leading to maybe fast decisions but necessarily good decisions as debating policy will, inevitably, amount to no change or to your execution/imprisonment/exile (pick your favorite).

Therefore, it is always preferable to have elected representatives, to have checks and balances, to have term limits and most importantly: A limit on power.

Antistia wrote:First off,

I think people who are saying this will devolve into flaming shouldn't pay attention to this thread, neither should those disinterested in politics, let those who have enjoy a civil discussion about a range of political topics, perhaps even changing the opinion of others while they're at it.

With that out of the way,

I consider myself to be a progressive liberal, I'm very much to the right on the 'economic' scale in my homecountry (I'm somewhere on the left in the USA). I'm very much opposed to making it tough to fire people, or high taxes (52%? Hell no!), I believe companies should have a great amount of liberty in their doings but I believe a company should not be given too much liberty to the point where the public is deceived etc. Democracy, in my mind, is always preferable to single-party/person rule.
While I'm for harsh punishments for criminals, I do believe same-sex marriage ought to be allowed, the Dutch drugs policy to be correct (albeit strange in some aspects), I believe the people should have the right to bear arms (Up to a certain point, no AK-47's for you though.).

And well, if I were to pick 2 documents which best outlined my political philosophy they'd be the Declaration of Independence of the United States and its constitution...

So ya...

Quick question, is Liberalism a very open type of political view? Because I AM very open about things yet I see Imperialism entwined with Democracy in USA for example and detest it very much so. I believe in Marxist theory that World wide revolution COULD bring about peace, but this is almost impossible to achieve because people are greedy. Economics is the core root of any problem in my opinion. Personally if I could see world peace, co-operation, the eradication of nationalism and other sources of hatred. I would gladly give my life up.

Wikipedia explains liberalism in a more coherent manner than I can in the same amount of words:

Liberalism (from the Latin liberalis, "of freedom")[1] is the belief in the importance of individual liberty and equal rights.[2] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but most liberals support such fundamental ideas as constitutions, liberal democracy, free and fair elections, human rights, capitalism, free trade, and the separation of church and state. These ideas are widely accepted, even by political groups that do not openly profess a liberal ideological orientation. Liberalism encompasses several intellectual trends and traditions, but the dominant variants are classical liberalism, which became popular in the eighteenth century, and social liberalism, which became popular in the twentieth century.

Liberalism is also encompasses social liberalism which is defined as:

Social liberalism is the belief that liberalism should include social justice. It differs from classical liberalism in that it recognizes a legitimate role for the state in addressing economic and social issues such as unemployment, health care, and education while simultaneously expanding civil rights. Under social liberalism, the good of the community is viewed as harmonious with the freedom of the individual.[1] Social liberal policies have been widely adopted in much of the capitalist world, particularly following the Second World War.[2] Social liberal ideas and parties tend to be considered centrist or centre-left.[3][4][5][6][7]

And I would actually argue that US imperialism, while sometimes misguided, tends to be benevolent imperialism with end results which, in the end, make the living standard of the 'victim' country better.

I'm sorry but I don't trust Wikipedia on to many matters. I suggest you thoroughly examine the sources then confirm it for me. :O

I understand that one can distrust wikipedia (Though recent studies show it is actually quite reliable), yet I would say that these are accepted definitions of liberalism, it's how I see liberalism myself.

A good real life example would be Obama, who is a social liberal, simply take a look at Healthcare Reform, his attempts to regulate the financial market a tad more etc.

Ah I see. Alright, yeah Liberalism really is a very balanced sort of view.
Also, I think that even if the victim country is improved. You cannot justify invasion. It's like me walking over to your house, and cutting down a tree for you. It may or may not improve something for you, but I have no right to do it. Because it is not my business. I would strongly argue that Imperialism simply leads to wars between Capitalistic countries and does not improve anybody's life. Mass genocide can never be justified, even if the country itself is better after it. So Am sorry but I disagree . Respectfully of course.

Ephitos wrote:Ah I see. Alright, yeah Liberalism really is a very balanced sort of view.
Also, I think that even if the victim country is improved. You cannot justify invasion. It's like me walking over to your house, and cutting down a tree for you. It may or may not improve something for you, but I have no right to do it. Because it is not my business. I would strongly argue that Imperialism simply leads to wars between Capitalistic countries and does not improve anybody's life. Mass genocide can never be justified, even if the country itself is better after it. So Am sorry but I disagree . Respectfully of course.

There are dumb, war, there are illegal wars yet there are also just wars, not really much to do with imperialism but something I want to say.

Imperialism is not necessarily an invasion of a country. The Monroe doctrine is a good example this, it made the Americas an American sphere of influence (America for the Americans, so to speak), though it is of important to note that Great Britain's tacit approval and enforcement ensured the success of the Monroe Doctrine. It originated in the 19th century and ensured that there would be no more colonization in the new world by European powers, yes America intervened every now and then but this is infinitely better than having the people exploited as the Europeans did.

The Philippines is a good example of direct American imperialism, to quote historian Max Boot:

The United States would set up a constabulary, a quasi-military police force led by Americans and made up of local enlisted men. Then the Americans would work with local officials to administer a variety of public services, from vaccinations and schools to tax collection. American officials, though often resented, usually proved more efficient and less venal than their native predecessors... Holding fair elections became a top priority because once a democratically elected government was installed, the Americans felt they could withdraw

American imperialism is also the reason that we have a South-Korea today, that we have a free Eastern Europe, a 'democratic' Russia, it halted the advance of communism, which you may not see as a good thing but I do. American Imperialism (or rather influence) also lead to decolonization, my home country, the Netherlands was pressured by the United States to give up on its holdings in Indonesia when the people rebelled and we sought to reimpose our regime. Which is but a singular example.