What is your political philosophy?

[Weiser Wonder]

Originally Posted by llama64

I also believe that individuals should need to prove themselves able to accept the responsibility of certain privileges. Namely, the right to vote. Service to society for a defined term would be one way of enacting this. No one should be able to vote without proving themselves worthy. That said, the other rights and freedoms must be protected for all members of society.

I'd like you to explain how this would work in society without alienating the unprivileged and removing their right to vote. The notion of letting only "smart people" or "worthy citizens" vote sounds nice when looked on from an uncritical eye. However, when scrutinized it is obvious what a flawed system that is. All your system would do is disenfranchise the most unfortunate and wores off members of society, creating a government that isn't responsible to the citizens that really need help.

[llama64]

Originally Posted by Weiser Wonder

I'd like you to explain how this would work in society without alienating the unprivileged and removing their right to vote. The notion of letting only "smart people" or "worthy citizens" vote sounds nice when looked on from an uncritical eye. However, when scrutinized it is obvious what a flawed system that is. All your system would do is disenfranchise the most unfortunate and wores off members of society, creating a government that isn't responsible to the citizens that really need help.

That's the point actually. Those who want to make change, must first prove that they are worthy of the responsibility. The path to gain the franchise must be kept open to all who want to seek it. All other rights and freedoms are guarded and protected by the government who is answerable to all factions of society, but only those who have given a chunk of their life in service may participate directly in government.

To be honest, I am describing a philosophy which is an ideal. The realistic implementation of such a system would require such a dramatic overhaul of our social values that I personally think it's impossible to enact.

I don't have faith in the blind masses to properly govern our society. I also have an equal distaste towards trusting it to the "elite". Rather, I'm seeking some sort of compromise between the two.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Weiser Wonder

I don't understand what gives you guys the idea that a less regulated market is the way to go. The middle class in the United States hasn't seen an increase in their standard of living in god knows when. With the trickle-down economics of the Bush admin the rich have gotten richer and the middle class and poor have struggled to maintain their current standard of living.

Only because the tax cuts were specifically made to the middle class.

[jammies]

Some interesting viewpoints, I'm actually surprised that there doesn't seem to be anyone who is willing to buck the trend and advocate more social control.

[Cube Inmate]

There are too many gray areas for me to be able to espouse a definite philosophy...I'm often debating various positions even with myself! For example, I can easily see both sides of the "freedom vs. prohibition" debates relating to drugs, smoking, polygamy...whatever! However, there are a couple of principles of which I'm certain:

1) People are idiots!
2) The larger the group, the worse the group-think gets.

Now, that's not to say that YOU are necessarily an idiot...I'm referring to the fact that humans operating as a group--a "society"--are collectively stupid, panicky animals. Now that I think about it, I believe it was Tommy Lee Jones in "Men In Black" who first alerted me to this fact. Given the fact that our governance is based entirely on the ebbs an flows of public opinion, whch are continuously being affected by an overload of incomplete and incorrect information, I really have no faith in democracy as we now define it. So, my political philosophy is "look out for #1," as much as possible. In general, that involves voting for the 4-year dictatorship that will screw me over as little as possible.

At this point, I seem to believe that the balance has tipped too far in the direction of government intervention. The size of government should be vastly reduced before considering the introduction of any *new* bureaucracy, regulation, etc. Give me a political party that campaigns on that premise alone, and I'll have found an ideological home.

The modern trend that scares me the most is that trend towards a more "global" government, epitomized by the European Union, the United Nations, and things like the global-warming "Kyoto Kult." Since our governance is already dysfunctional enough with only 33 million Canadians with differing views, imagine how dysfunctional it becomes when we start being governed by a "democracy" of billions, most of whom have vastly different values than I (or you, or any individual) have.

Be afraid! If things don't change soon, global government is where we'll end up, and that's good only for the elite few who end up being on the "inside" of such a government.

[Flame Of Liberty]

AnarchoCapitalist, anti-state, anti-democracy, pro-market (includes law creation too).

[mykalberta]

Overall philosophy - I believe in personal responsibility. Everyone is responsible for his or her own actions and has no one to blame but themselves.

Economics - risk big win big is what drives the economy - the middle class is simply along for the ride.

Socially - do what you want, just dont tell me about it or make me pay for it.

[missdpuck]

Originally Posted by Weiser Wonder

I don't understand what gives you guys the idea that a less regulated market is the way to go. The middle class in the United States hasn't seen an increase in their standard of living in god knows when. With the trickle-down economics of the Bush admin the rich have gotten richer and the middle class and poor have struggled to maintain their current standard of living.

We can all relate to,say, the price of hockey tickets. We're told the market determines the price. So what do we do to get lower prices? A boycott? They know we're addicts and "they" have got us. "They" set the price and then suck us into paying it. I believe that works with lots of things. Notice I don't know who "they" are......