What Is Your Political Philosophy?

The 9th amendment was written so not to make one right more important than
another.

Hard-lined left-winged extremist knee-jerk reactionary liberals who want to
cram their dogma of intolerance and hate down our throats have a hard time
with this amendment. They demand that one amendment is more important
than another. As a matter of absolute fact Democrats demand that they
subjugate Americans to their Collectivist mentality which doesn't require a
reasonable mentality to accept AND removes rights from the American people.

November will bring America back together. Reasonable thinking people will be
in charge instead of the hateful and bitter group that's been ruling the past
few years.

 

I'm assuming you mean besides absolutely nothing.

Beats me and the majority of thinking Americans. Some people can't fathom freedom
and Liberty. Those people are always on the Left.

Stewardess, an air bag please. I feel a HUGE puke coming on.

 

I hope your last couple of sentences become a reality. I'm tired of idiots picking our leadership.

 

If only, I could find a nice political party of morals that is willing to solve simple poverty, end our exorbitantly expensive War on Drugs in the name of fiscal responsibility and an unwillingness to keep repeating historical mistakes in modern times, and get us into fusion in eight years or less.

 

We are wishing for the same things. For if you want to save a tremendous amount of money, tax money, getting rid of poverty would get rid of most crimes. The you would only have most crimes being committed by sociopaths, who cannot be cured. We could keep them in a humane place, locked up from the rest of society. And of course give people back their most basic right, the right of owning one's own body and consciousness, so end the war on drugs.

We actually now have the capability to end poverty, but it would deeply affect the rich, and we value a few being rich more than we value not having poverty. Yet I think we will do it, end poverty, which gets rid of most crime, for crime is an effect of poverty. Poverty will always create certain kinds of crime. Perhaps one day the light bulb will come on in enough heads and we can move forward in an intelligent manner.

Of course Neoliberals don't have al light bulb to come on, throwing light. But they will eventually die out and be replaced by human with light bulbs that can turn on.

 

I was responding to a post but it does have meaning related to our individual poltical philosophy.

Typically I refer to myself as a "progressive libertarian" and I use that in the same context as the founders of America that were unquestionably very "progressive" politically as well as being "liberals" that maintained the the "natural (inalienable) rights of the person" superseded the statutory and common laws of the land.

We should all be aware of the fact that "civil rights" are established based upon statutory and common law while "inalienable rights" are based upon natural law and there is a significant difference between the two. Under the US Constitution (9th Amendment) the "Inalienable Rights" are superior to "civil rights" that can be created under statutory or common laws of the land whenever there is a conflict.

We can also note that the "common laws" of America were created under the political ideology of the "Divine Right of Kings" which was rejected when America was founded but the common laws in many cases remained intact as they have not been challenged in many cases.

Our "civil rights" of property are based upon the "common law" and enumerated "statutory laws" established under the political ideology of the "divine right of kings" and, as I accurately point out, in this case the "statutory (civil) rights of property" violate the "natural (inalienable) rights of property" of the person in many cases. From the "progressive libertarian" political ideology that the "inalienable rights of the person" are supreme, a political ideology that the "progressive liberals" (classical liberals) that founded America held, this is an unacceptable situation that must be addressed.

That is a political ideology issue and this thread is about our political ideologies.

 

In a sense this is quite true because it gave equality to the unenumerated and enumerated rights of the person. In it's use of the term "rights" it's obviously referring to the "natural (inalienable) rights" of the person as opposed to "civil rights" that are always granted by government through statutory enumeration or by enumeration in the common laws established by government.

The authors of the Constitution were very much aware of the fact that they were incapable of listing (enumerating) all of the inalienable rights of the person and were also aware of the fact that they didn't even know what all of those inalienable rights were.

Ironically they also referred to inalienable rights that today we seem to have lost an understanding of completely. My example is the Article II requirement of "natural born citizen" being established for the presidency. The authors were referring to the "inalienable right of citizenship" that is only applicable to citizenship based upon jus soli (i.e. Latin - The Right of Soil). The Inalienable Right of Citizenship (i.e. natural born citizenship) can never be established based upon the citizenship of the parents because Inalienable Rights are always inherent in the person and are never dependenty upon another person (e.g. the parents). Even when the 14th Amendment was passed the authors understood that "natural born citizenship" was based upon Jus Soli and that was the criteria they used in that Amendment. Why is it that here we are over 100 years after when the 14th Amendment was ratified and they knew that "natural bornd citizenship" was an inalienable right and we have somehow managed to forget what the "Inalienable Right of Citizenship" (natural born citizen) actually is?

 

I believe that presumption may not be true. Good capitalists know that there is no upper limit to capital markets.

What harm could it do, to simply subsidize the least efficient labor market participants at the cost of a form of minimum wage; to pursue opportunity costs other than competing in the market for labor.

Fixing a Standard could simply involve achieving a new equilibrium in our Institution of markets termed capitalism, in our republic, up to a federal standard.

I also believe socialism should bail out capitalism by paying the debts of the several United States establishing federal Standards.

 

am a poliyically independent person and vote for the person whom I think is bestsuited for the job, regardless of their party affiliation therefore, in your poll pittingBush against Clinton, I will offer this: first of all, my first choice would be mitt Romney, then Jeb Bush, and ifno other suitble repunlicanm cndidate would apper, I would vot for Hilary clinton. She is in third place because of her poor showing during her initiation as First lady, and apparenly failed attempt to operate as co-president. Her Health package trial was an absolute disaster. Still, I hope that her politics have matured sufficiently hat she could take on the office of the Presidncy.

I, fo one, do not believe that the president nee4ds to hve all the answeres but should take on the job in similar manner as CEO, or Chairperson of the Board. (Thisseldom occures with the very notable e4xception of Ronald Reago, who in his first term personified that image. Thus,while the parties past exploits areimportant, they take a back seet to the parties management skills.

 

Does anyone believe the general government should not bailout the several States when establishing federal Standards. In my opinion, it is clearly delegated to our federal Congress.

 

Great question. Why don't you go start a thread about that instead of constantly bumping this one with your mindless twaddle.

 

Because I don't need to appeal to the masses to ask about that part of any political philosophy. Why don't you provide your perspective instead of merely resorting to fallacy while claiming you have any valid opinion regarding this topic?

- - - Updated - - -

Because I don't need to appeal to the masses to ask about that part of any political philosophy. Why don't you provide your perspective instead of merely resorting to fallacy while claiming you have any valid opinion regarding this topic?

 

DONISTON'S PLAN TO SAVE THE WORLD(*)



I have said in the past that I don't think this world can go to a one world order ; NOT JUST YET. There are three factions at work here,plus a religious faction, all of which are predominantly on the other side of the Pacific and Atlantic from us. (Yes, I said predominently) So let them fight it out on their turf. In time,perhaps a one world order can come to pass but not yet. In the meantime, for our own survival, I propose the following..

First of all, we must convince all of the countries in the Western hemisphere to join with us Not necessarily politically, but for our mutual protection.(*)
Next we must convince them (and our own citizens) to recall all of their citizens excepting (temporarily) Diplomatic Envoys f om the Eastern hemisphere, and remove or destroy all military and allied equipment under their control which they had provided. earlier to the countries.
No, I don't mean all buildings, schools, Hospitals, Clean water ,religious or Educational facilities. That would be cruel and inhumane (not human,-- humane)(*)
But all infrastructure intended to inhance their Government's ability to wage war. or the down-trodding of it's or it's neighbor's people.(*)

We, especially should remove all troops, and military and technological equipment which we have provided, or in the process of constructing.(*)

And lastly though this seems harsh, We should cease all humanitarian aid to that hemisphere. And insist that our Territorial boundrys are moved outward and respected to at least 200 miles or more (except in the Aleutian Island area where that is logically impossible).


THE RESULTS? WE have the Smarts and the technology and material to withstand any of their technelogical threats, and without access to our shores, we can let them stew in their own juices.(*)
Sometime in the future, perhaps a “Civilized” one world Government could be created.

 

Anarchist. Where libertarians fear to tread.

 

one sentence -

In most cases, the bad people will win. - hkisdog.

 

A pro gun control anarchist...? How does that work?

 

On religion

Freedom of faith

On Israel

Zionism. One state solution with full rights for all citizens.

On America

Strongly positive

On Obama

See Rev. Wright

On gun rights

Strongly back

On free abortions, LBGT rights etc.

In Israel: strongly advocate

In the diaspora: "Law of the land is law of the Jews !" (Talmud)

 

[video=youtube;-pxRXP3w-sQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pxRXP3w-sQ[/video]

 

Well, anarchism is a collectivist ideology after all. Further: while an armed citizenry is a part of anarchist philosophy, that doesn't mean they support the NRA or American gun culture.

 

My political philosophy, propaganda, and rhetoric is, that our Founding Fathers did an most Excellent job at the covention with our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land.

Only well regulated Militias of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

 

??? Real anarchism is the antithesis to collectivism. I understand that hard core collectivists like the poster I responded to like to claim to be anarchists but they're just in it for the cool points and/or shock value and really have no idea what they are talking about...kinda like a 15 year old hipster wearing a Che Guevara tee that they bought for $40 at Hot Topic.

You can't be an anarchist while at the same time calling for government to decide who gets to be armed.

 

Socialism does that, with a social contract.

 

I vote for the candidates who best represents my political views. In the past I've voted Republican but since GWB, the war on women, the war on Obama, the war on the poor, I've voted Democrat.

 

I still believe supply side economics should be supplying us with better governance at lower cost.

 

The government is a monopoly. It does what monopolies do when competition is prohibited by law. It offers less benefit for greater cost over time. If you want economics to work in government, find a way to make them compete to provide better service at a lower price or get out of the business.

As an example, if you end the monopoly enjoyed by the US Postal Service and let other companies like FedEx and UPS compete for that service, either the USPS provides a competitive service at a competitive price or it closes its doors and the other companies deliver the mail.