I am a radical individualist. I don't view anything Political as having legitimate authority and don't attach myself to any political ideology either. I view myself as sovereign and therefore disregard silly notions for things such as the law, moral codes and social norms as nothing to be taken seriously and certainly not absolute. I like the ideas of decentralisation and emergent order.
The LTB Network Forum
What is your Political orientation?
Back to Political Talk & History
Jump to bottomComments
-
Posted on August 24, 2014 at 10:09 AM
I am a constitutionalist. I think we got it right at the beginning and need to apply the document to our governments. Was a democrat for years, that ended in 2001. I don't like republicans either.
2 likes -
Posted on August 24, 2014 at 10:19 AM
@steven I am a constitutionalist. I think we got it right at the beginning and need to apply the document to our governments. Was a democrat for years, that ended in 2001. I don't like republicans either.
I find the constitution interesting. I don't think anything established 300 years ago can work today without evolution.
Although I do think that many fundamentals do not change much over time.
2 likes -
Posted on August 24, 2014 at 10:22 AM
If i have to vote for a party it is the one which gives me the most amount of freedom and democracy.
I would likely vote libertarian, however i don't like the fact that they don't like the government and want a weak government. A government should always be strong but good for its people in my view.
I believe our political democracies/system need a big overhaul. They are inefficient, do not work and are made for a world a few hundreds years old when any technology we use today does not exist.
2 likes -
Posted on August 24, 2014 at 10:24 AM
@steven I am a constitutionalist. I think we got it right at the beginning and need to apply the document to our governments. Was a democrat for years, that ended in 2001. I don't like republicans either.
I find the constitution interesting. I don't think anything established 300 years ago can work today without evolution.
Although I do think that many fundamentals do not change much over time.
The constitution would work rather well if it evolved, I believe. However, currently instead of the constitution evolving, it's devolving
2 likes -
Posted on August 24, 2014 at 10:24 AM
Really don't know, how to describe my political orientation Maybe as anticommunist and antisocialist. Favourite political leaders — Churchill, Thatcher, Reagan, Kwan-Yew. Also i'm the enemy of political correctness ))
Last Edited: August 24, 2014 at 10:25 AM2 likes -
Posted on August 24, 2014 at 1:57 PM
I'm communist. My Godfather is Gamal Abdel Nasser and Che Guevara (RIP both of them).
1 like -
Posted on August 24, 2014 at 7:21 PM
I also believe strongly in individual rights, but I don't believe individual rights include the ability for a person to exercise action that harms other individuals or groups of people. There's the obvious quote about where your right to swing your fist ends. But this also extends to groups of people. In a community with, say, two "races" of people, with one having a 60 percent majority, democratic rights don't mean that the majority group can use a referendum to vote for the other "race" to be subjected to slavery. Almost everyone would agree with that, but what about when the subordination takes more subtle forms? Where do individual rights fit in there? I don't know the answer.
I agree with many ideas on the right, but also with some on the left. The problem is that these definitions keep changing over time and in different countries. Many calling themselves Conservatives in the 1930s would likely claim that modesty, humility, frugality, self-sufficiency, helping your neighbours and community were strong values they supported. Many Conservatives today might say that economic growth, consumer consumption, resource extraction, efficiency (i.e. outsourcing) and aggressive wars are values they support. I don't think the two would recognize each other. (I understand this is painting a broad brush and there are many exceptions, but I'm talking about the majority and the preponderance of public discourse.)
The same thing has happened on the left. Radical Communists and Marxists argued, among other things, for public education, progressive income tax, and the abolition of child labour. (They also argued for many other things I don't support, obviously). I know of almost no Conservative in Canada today who would not agree with this, except perhaps on the tax issue. Compare the old Communists to the UK Labour Party under Tony Blair. Again, both sides would not recognize each other.
I have deliberately left out issues of health care, reproductive rights, gender and sexuality, as these probably need their own topics, but even there, I don't think any of these issues necessarily falls hard into a left or right camp, depending on when and where you're talking about. (teaser: Republicans used to support and defend abortion at one time, though not for the best reasons. For a time, some Communists opposed abortion, again, not for really good reasons.)
So, all of this is a way of saying it's very hard for me to find a specific ideology that I can say I support. I don't object to the word "ideology" by the way, it just means a structured set of beliefs and values. I have no problem saying that I have an ideological opposition to slavery. That's not the same as "dogma", which means accepting an unquestioned viewpoint laid down by authority.
Thanks for starting the conversation!
2 likes -
Posted on August 25, 2014 at 3:52 AM
I also believe strongly in individual rights, but I don't believe individual rights include the ability for a person to exercise action that harms other individuals or groups of people. There's the obvious quote about where your right to swing your fist ends. But this also extends to groups of people. In a community with, say, two "races" of people, with one having a 60 percent majority, democratic rights don't mean that the majority group can use a referendum to vote for the other "race" to be subjected to slavery. Almost everyone would agree with that, but what about when the subordination takes more subtle forms? Where do individual rights fit in there? I don't know the answer.
I don't believe in rights, to me they are a human construct without a universal measure to fix in place. What I mean by that is all human values are subjective; what one person thinks is right another might not, and even if two people agree on a topic there is still no way to measure the agreement outside the subject (individual).
Another problem I see with rights is you are looking to attach your freedom to something external - rights, and the social order that derives from that thought. For me, that is a utopian ideal that can never be reached. Looking externally for freedom puts you in direct opposition to current affairs, as within a society of individuals you will never be in complete agreement for how things ought to be.
My position is very radical, it states nothing external is legitimate; rights, law, property, justice, morality - what is right or wrong etc, that does not put me in opposition to any of these things as I don't view them as valid in the first place - they are not ideas I take seriously.
I have no duty to "my nation", "God", "the state" or any other such cause that sees me as a mere cog. If I choose to serve any of those ideas it is for my own ends rather than because I feel I ought to subject myself to the cause just for the sake for it.
EDIT: I think mights are the only kind of rights.
Last Edited: August 25, 2014 at 3:59 AM1 like -
Posted on August 25, 2014 at 8:09 PM
Well, I should start by saying I completely disagree with your conclusion, although I do agree with many of the things you said. Yes, everything is subjective, in the end, there is no god or absolute judge to tell us what is right and what is wrong, that is something we must decide for ourselves.
I find it interesting that the video posted contained an ad for something related to Nietzsche. Nietzsche said many things, but one of his main arguments was that there are no natural values, they do not exist outside of human context, but he also emphasized that it is we who create our own values, it is for us to decide what is important and what is not. This is part of what he meant with his famous quote "God is dead ... and we have killed him." (He was also mourning the death of a culture intricately interwoven with Christian ideas throughout and feared what it would be replaced with.) Values and morals are not something handed down by god, but they are things we create, and we assign importance to.
I strongly agree with this. In fact, I believe this is the proper beginning of any self-consistent ideology. People come together and decide what they think is important and moral and right, and build a set of beliefs, standards, practices, and laws around this. In other words, they create stories, mythologies, ideologies, and political power.
Some men may not murder because an absolute authority has told them not to, or because they fear punishment for disobeying this rule. Others may decide not to murder because they believe it is simply wrong. Some societies may not tolerate murder because it is blasphemy, others will try to prevent it and punish it because of a collective agreement and understanding that is it morally wrong and unacceptable. I am in the second camp. I may be a fool, and perhaps some day a supernatural power may present itself and tell me I am wrong. Yet I will still disagree and hold to my beliefs.
Indeed, this is my interpretation of what Nietzsche meant by the "will to power". It simply means that we, not gods, have assumed the mantel of responsibility for our lives, our cultures, and our societies, and have worked to take these decisions for ourselves. We have the power, not a King or a God or any supernatural force.
Last Edited: August 25, 2014 at 9:06 PM0 likes -
Posted on August 26, 2014 at 4:35 AM
Well, I should start by saying I completely disagree with your conclusion.
Do you mean the video? That was just an afterthought. Really what I meant by that is rights boil down to mights and that can simply mean law that has consent within a community. I just like that video!
I find it interesting that the video posted contained an ad for something related to Nietzsche. Nietzsche said many things, but one of his main arguments was that there are no natural values, they do not exist outside of human context, but he also emphasized that it is we who create our own values, it is for us to decide what is important and what is not. This is part of what he meant with his famous quote "God is dead ... and we have killed him." (He was also mourning the death of a culture intricately interwoven with Christian ideas throughout and feared what it would be replaced with.) Values and morals are not something handed down by god, but they are things we create, and we assign importance to.
Yes, I am not a Nietzschean, but my views are very close, more in line with Max Stirner.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_Friedrich_Nietzsche_and_Max_Stirner
I strongly agree with this. In fact, I believe this is the proper beginning of any self-consistent ideology. People come together and decide what they think is important and moral and right, and build a set of beliefs, standards, practices, and laws around this. In other words, they create stories, mythologies, ideologies, and political power.
Some men may not murder because an absolute authority has told them not to, or because they fear punishment for disobeying this rule. Others may decide not to murder because they believe it is simply wrong. Some societies may not tolerate murder because it is blasphemy, others will try to prevent it and punish it because of a collective agreement and understanding that is it morally wrong and unacceptable. I am in the second camp. I may be a fool, and perhaps some day a supernatural power may present itself and tell me I am wrong. Yet I will still disagree and hold to my beliefs.
There is another position too that is the moral nihilist, psychological egoist position. That would be that it is neither intrinsically right or wrong to murder (moral nihilism) because morality is something external, generally derived through custom, and it is down to the individual to make up his mind whether to kill or not (psychological egoism).
You can still not like the idea of killing people and want to live within a productive, educated society, but say, if you kill a burglar you view the action as being suitable to your ends and don't attach any moral value to the action - sin, guilt etc. You can still be moved from the action and not enjoy the process, but feel it was necessary for whatever reason.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_nihilism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_egoism
Indeed, this is my interpretation of what Nietzsche meant by the "will to power". It simply means that we, not gods, have assumed the mantel of responsibility for our lives, our cultures, and our societies, and have worked to take these decisions for ourselves. We have the power, not a King or a God or any supernatural force.
I think I agree with that although I haven't read Nietzsche.
0 likes
Post Reply
Please Login to post a reply to this thread.