Do you support more than one political philosophy?

I am philosophically conservative (Burke, Adams, Santayana, Kirk) but have to admit to sympathy for some elements of most every party, except full blown socialists and communists. Libertarians champion liberty and the dignity of the individual, Greens support preservation of the environment (though they are obviously pinko), and Dems and Republicans both have defensible elements to their platforms. I guess I'm more comfortable overall with the Libertarian platform. Et vous?

 

Thomas Hobbes is the only one to get it right so far....

 

This was the comment that seems so misunderstood. Greens aren't conservationists. They are Malthusians. Simply ask, and they'll regurgitate up all manner of artificial scarcity dogma. Conservation isn't a recognition of scarcity, it's a recognition of responsibility and stewardship. Greens are generally the the folks who's afterthought is the actual environment. Ever seen the Al Gore travel entourage?

 

I can't disagree with you there. Of course, they don't call themselves malthusians, but that really is what they are.

Why do they call themselves greens? There is no political philosophy called "green". So what's the deal there?

Why the lack of honesty?

 

Sure, but mostly just the TRUTH, no lying, misleading, and pay helped which is what we are today. Yes, there will always be a little corupt. BUT !!!! We can go back to being a great nation with GOOD regulation, people that dont follow Cheerleaders(insert trump, clinton, pence), vote for people willing to take from the rich and give to the poor, not all the way to socialism, but to where we were in the 50s - 70s... All would be good... Today, we are ran by the money, period. Look at this site, all republican that are ignoring the REAL news...

 

Current conservatives are really reactionary. They wish to back up the clock to years past, which cannot be done. I believe in fiscal responsibility, but recognize that with money essentially free of interest now, the government should borrow and do a massive infrastructure project. The adherence to dogma and aversion to compromise or reason is why we have a broken government.
I also find it fascinating that those who want minimal government in control of companies want government rules concerning women (birth control, abortion) or homosexuality (I could care less) - areas where government doesn't belong.

 

I'm not sensing that anyone else in the thread has sympathies for any philosophy but his own. I frankly cannot understand this. No person and no group is completely wrong about everything.

 

I am a social democrat but I sympathise with the communist viewpoint.

I feel that the mechanisation of the workplace, that will make most of the population unemployable, will make communist a realistic and achievable goal.

 

Yes, it can. Not like actual time travel, but we can certainly get back to having a smaller less intrusive government. It just takes a willingness to do that on the part of voters, and letting whoever is elected know that they can be tarred and feathered (which I am all for with Trump now) .

Sorry, but you are not for fiscal responsibility.

Who cares about birth control? Abstain as much as you want, ladies! As for abortion, sorry but no. There's another life involved at that point.

 

Who do you think you are to tell people what they do and do not believe?

 

I think I am me.

Sorry, but we're 20 trillion in debt, and he wants to borrow money that our children and grandchildren will be saddled with because it's cheap to borrow now. Nope, not fiscally responsible at all.

 

That might be true but he may view that as the most fiscally responsible thing to do which would make him for fiscally responsibility.

It seems that the difference then would be that you both have different ideas of fiscal responsibility rather than him being against fiscally responsibility.

 

I am primarily a supporter of a (very) progressive agenda...but there are elements of the American conservative agenda that get, if not my support, at least more of my support than the liberal take. I like lots of the socialistic agenda...small parts of the communist agenda...and often reluctantly, the green agenda.

I despise the Libertarian agenda almost in total, although I realize there are elements that have some worth. But the overall impact of libertarianism terrifies me.

 

I'm mostly Libertarian with some elements of liberalism. Mostly I want a secure country and people to follow the rule of law. I do not care who marries who, if you want an abortion or if you're a woman who pees standing up. Just don't ask me to pay for your lifestyle. Legalize drugs. Slash the military budget along with everything else.

 

I think your post just demonstrates that we each have our own unique political philosophies, often with lots of similarities but always with key differences. Trying to categorise them is like trying to categorise types of snowflake (the actual atmospheric ice crystals, not overly-sensitive people ).

 

My divorce from Libertarianism occurred many years ago, but I am drifting back in that direction. The problem was (is?) that where I come from at least, there are people who would stand in line for the chance to kill the last deer, turkey, canvasback duck, buffalo, golden parakeet (if there were any left), passenger pigeon (if there were any left) or white rhinoceros on this Earth. They would set the forest on fire to get it done if necessary. It's "their land and no gummint can tell me what animal I can and cannot kill to feed my family cause this ain't Russia." That is just wrong.

The reason i am drifting back to Libertarianism is that we either trust ourselves to control this kind of impulse in ourselves and our neighbors or we don't. And if we don't, we are saying we trust government more. And actually I do in some respects. It's not an easy dilemma to solve.

I do like the idea of private groups like Ducks Unlimited pooling their resources to buy or lease wetlands and hunting grounds, and they for sure would enforce game limits and hunting seasons, to preserve wildlife for their children if nothing else. It's better than absolute lawlessness on one hand or totalitarianism on the other, though to be fair, Libertarians aren't anarchists either.

 

Well, Libertarianism is sort of like communism in that we've never had a real workers controlled economy as Marx forecast, other than in small areas and for a limited time -- I know about the Paris commune and hippie communes and some religious orders, which do qualify. Communism in industrialised countries always turns into totalitarianism, not just authoritarianism. Similarly, I don't know that there has ever been a full blown Libertarian regime anywhere. We're unlikely to find out, because the majority on the left and on the right simply don't want it, especially the drug legalization part.

 

I get the drug legalization but have to draw the line at importation or possession with intent to distribute of meth, coke and heroin in quantities over about an ounce. Especially meth.

 

Yes, I agree. We have to find ways to decrease the demand. That will be the most effective way to curb the problem. Throwing people in prison is nothing more than a money grab. It does nothing to solve the problem. In fact most people tend to get drugs easier in prison than on the outside. How is that helping anyone.

 

First and foremost...decriminalizing drugs should be a priority for every political party and agenda. Why we still have a "war on drugs" is unfathomable. Future generations will probably look back at the notion as primitive.

I'm actually hoping an "ism" comes along that makes more sense in this new age in which we live...than any of the ones currently popular.

 

The on drugs

Unfathomable? You know many meth addicts?

The war on drugs, which is a street term anyway, is to interdict and imprison drug dealers, especially kilo quantity dealers of meth and heroin, and cocaine to a lesser degree. Mere users are practically guaranteed probation and drug treatment for a first offense, even in conservative Texas.

Good luck getting anyone to support your call to decriminalize large scale distribution of meth and heroin. Anyway that's pure Libertarianism, which I thought you hated.

 

I don't know what has caused the upsurge in meth use, but I suspect depression, not the mental illness necessarily, just dejectedness and despair at the loss of good employment prospects in today's economy.

 

Thank you for responding as an adult.

Trump has introduced nepotism and sold off sections of government to incompetent and/or corrupt folks. Look at DeVos, Perry, Price, Pruitt,... Losers all.

An expanded military is NOT fiscally responsible. We need an infrastructure program NOW. It would pay back in multiples, while defense is waste in comparison.

How do you feel government intrudes on your life? (I assume you are a male). Do you feel Red China had a right to tell women they could NOT have more than one child? (I assume no) Why then, is it our government's business to tell women they MUST have a child if they do want to ?- IT IS THEIR BODY - off limits for government.

Do you remember Thalidomide? It was a drug peddled to pregnant women - children were born with no arms or "flipper" arms - I WANT a government that holds corporations responsible for what they sell. We already had pure Free Market - Upton Sinclair wrote about it in The Jungle. It was a great time for Carnegie, Rockefeller, and a few others, but for the bulk of the people, not so much. I know those in the GOP hold those days near and dear - when neither blacks nor women could vote - but those days belong in the past.

I feel government is all that stands between me and corporations from ripping me off or poisoning me - either directly or by having the government bail them out - as happened in the "Savings and Loan" bailout, and again in 2008 - and by either selling harmful crap or polluting our air and water.

Wall St. banks are setting up for another fall - they got away with no penalty - the "too big to fail" are even bigger now - and there is talk by government bought and paid for of relaxing regulations!!!! We need Glass-Steagal re-instated. (And yes, Bill Clinton signed the repeal of Glass-Steagal - I never voted for him, I voted for Ross Perot two times).

 

Actually, even ardent Libertarians support government remedies for fraud (and violence). It's in the platform:

1.7 Crime and Justice

The prescribed role of government is to protect the rights of every individual including the right to life, liberty and property. Criminal laws should be limited in their application to violations of the rights of others through force or fraud, or to deliberate actions that place others involuntarily at significant risk of harm[.]