P&N Radical Poll

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: Lothar

Originally posted by: Pabster
Independent.

:shocked:
Why are people on this board complaining that Liberals are hiding in the "Independent" column?

Papsmear is a closet-case, self-loathing liberal.

 

[Enig101]

Somewhere between Socialist and Democrat. Also, I loathe political parties, so "Independent"?

 

[sandorski]

Fiscal Conservative(Stunt disagrees 😉), Social Liberal

Soon to be 41, back in my teens I was a Free Market Capitalist Minimal Government Fundamentalistish Christian. Now I'm an Atheist/Agnostic, Regulated Economy(as much as necessary), People controlled Government(of whatever size is necessary to do the task the People choose), Pro-Social Infrastructure, Progressivist, and a Changist🙂P English needs new words!).

Basically, all oer the map.

 

[ProfJohn]

Personally I don't think "independent" should be allowed. To many people use it to hide their true beliefs, ala Pab.

Everyone wants to think they are independent, meaning they think for themselves, but how many of these 'independents' end up voting for the same party over and over again?

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Personally I don't think "independent" should be allowed. To many people use it to hide their true beliefs, ala Pab.

Everyone wants to think they are independent, meaning they think for themselves, but how many of these 'independents' end up voting for the same party over and over again?

Understandable, but really imo most of america and this forum are moderate and pick and choose issues, on one issue someone could be a Socialist or Anarchist then on another be Corporate Fascist, I only used mainstream parties for time reasons.

I have found over many years of reading this forum most folks to be moderates, and the poll backs up my hunch so far.

Your idea that there is a far left nowdays in here may just be flawed by your own radical ideas and the diatribe you buy into. I personally think you need to revaluate your perspective really. America is a pretty centrist state, at least as long as I have been around once you get past silly wedge issues or flawed concepts of left and right.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Personally I don't think "independent" should be allowed. To many people use it to hide their true beliefs, ala Pab.

Well, I would have selected a more appropriate option if the poll wasn't so stacked.

I'm neither a diehard Reagan conservative nor a "Neocon" ... somewhere in between with belief of some aspects of both.

Everyone wants to think they are independent, meaning they think for themselves, but how many of these 'independents' end up voting for the same party over and over again?

I thought the Independent was a political designation, not speaking to thought process. And I find it hard to believe that so many are "Independent" ... we sure don't hear from these people.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: Pabster


I thought the Independent was a political designation, not speaking to thought process. And I find it hard to believe that so many are "Independent" ... we sure don't hear from these people.

Of course not, welcome to US Politics 2006, we call this the "Silent Majority" otherwise known as moderates.

Why do you think so many people look at P&N with so much disdain? They are moderate and find partisan hacks from either side annoying.

But that's no fun is it?

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Pabster
I thought the Independent was a political designation, not speaking to thought process. And I find it hard to believe that so many are "Independent" ... we sure don't hear from these people.

Sure we do. You just have a simplistic, black and white world view that keeps you from recognizing them. If they disagree with Bush, you call them liberals. If they support Bush, you assume they're Republicans.

I am an independent, have been most my life (except temporarily when voting in primaries, and I considered myself Libertarian for a while), have voted in both Democratic and Republican primaries, and before Bush 43, have distributed my votes fairly evenly among Dems, Repubs, and third parties. I have great contempt for GWB, however (starting when he slimed McCain in 2000), and you therefore assume I'm a Democrat. You are in error.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Ewat
Would you consider the green party to be socialists?

Green Party is a modern Socialist party with heavy on Anarcho collectivist leanings focusing on it's anti-corporate stance . IE: Free market for burgers and cars; worker owned public services and common use property. But yeah, Socialist mainly.

Link
There are those who fear the Green Party wants nothing less than socialism or communism. It is true that the Green Party advocates for government involvement, which places higher value on the individual than on corporations. However, where their politics tend toward socialism, Green Party members are still supporters of the political framework of the US, particularly as it relates to the rights and freedoms defined in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.

Since when has government involvement ever favored the individual over corporations?

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: Vic

Since when has government involvement ever favored the individual over corporations?

US government? I would say great society era and countless other anti-monopoly lawsuits against companies like standard oil, at&t and even microsoft.

Plenty of other countries have done these types of actions also.

Please dont turn another thread into some kind of anarcho pissing match again.

Gubberment = bad and sucks your taxes, waah it's unfair and you hate them...we know, we know. 😉

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Vic

Since when has government involvement ever favored the individual over corporations?

US government? I would say great society era and countless other anti-monopoly lawsuits against companies like standard oil, at&t and even microsoft.

Plenty of other countries have done these types of actions also.

Please dont turn another thread into some kind of anarcho pissing match again.

Gubberment = bad and sucks your taxes...we know, we know. 😉

AT&T was a monopoly because the government made it one in 1918. Microsoft is still a monopoly, just now recognized and (supposedly) regulated. Standard Oil still exists today, now known as Chevron.

You need to wake up. Big government and big corporations go hand in hand. Politicians know who butters their bread and it certainly ain't the common people. At the same, corporations know just which politician's bread to butter to get that particular government contract or piece of protective regulation in place. There's a lot more evil about big government than just your pathetic and naive "sucks your taxes" jab.

Too bad here. You actually were showing in this thread that you had enough brains to pound sand, but then you slipped and proved you still don't have a clue what's going on.

 

[nageov3t]

I'm unaffiliated / independant.

I used to be a registered republican, but switched to unaffiliated once I realized that the christian right had hijacked the party.

at the end of the day, I consider myself conservative on fiscal issues and foreign relations, and liberal on social issues.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: Vic

Too bad here. You actually were showing in this thread that you had enough brains to pound sand

Ahh I can feel the libertarian love now. =P

We have been over this many times, I hate corporate influence also, probably more then you which is why I do not subscribe to some free market utopian views, it's as naive as wishing for a workers revoloution. Thing is I believe accountability and transparency is the key and you believe the whole thing must be torn down since there is no good in it.

Thanks for contributing to the radical thread though, you do not fail to deliver, comrade. 😉

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Vic
Since when has government involvement ever favored the individual over corporations?

All sorts of regulations on business are pro-individual, e.g., product safety laws, OSHA workplace regulations, FDA on its good days, etc. That said, I think your point about corporate influence is right on the money (so to speak). I suspect many of our current pro-individual laws and regulations could never get approved with today's elected special-interest whores (and I'm NOT limiting that to Republicans).

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Sure we do. You just have a simplistic, black and white world view that keeps you from recognizing them. If they disagree with Bush, you call them liberals. If they support Bush, you assume they're Republicans.

I've been guilty of that before, admittedly. However, it does become readily apparent after reading a series of posts where one stands. You don't deny you are left of center I assume? (And I'm speaking in general here.)

 

[imported_Lothar]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Personally I don't think "independent" should be allowed. To many people use it to hide their true beliefs, ala Pab.

Everyone wants to think they are independent, meaning they think for themselves, but how many of these 'independents' end up voting for the same party over and over again?

I'm an Independent who votes Democrat most of the time.

I only vote when my vote actually matters (meaning on a state level).
There's no point in voting on a federal level for president unless your state is a battle ground state due to the electoral voting system.

I live in Maryland...Any liberal running for president will carry my state.
If I lived in Utah, I wouldn't vote either...Any Neo-Con running for president will carry that state.

If Chuck Hagel, Collin Powell or Rudy Giulianni wins the republican nomination in '08, I'd vote for them in a heartbeat.
I can never vote for Frist, Allen, Brownback, or anyone with the last name "Bush".

And yes, I've already voted "against" Michael Steele and for Mayor Martin O'Malley by absentee ballot in this election.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Sure we do. You just have a simplistic, black and white world view that keeps you from recognizing them. If they disagree with Bush, you call them liberals. If they support Bush, you assume they're Republicans.

I've been guilty of that before, admittedly. However, it does become readily apparent after reading a series of posts where one stands. You don't deny you are left of center I assume? (And I'm speaking in general here.)

I'm all over the spectrum depending on the specific issue. I used to be distinctly right of center when I was younger and still establishing myself financially. I bought into the politics of greed, imagining that if only I didn't have to pay so much to Uncle Sam, look how much more I'd have for myself and my family. I've come to realize how short-sighted and selfish that is, and I've been extremely disgusted with Bush 43 and the fanatics who've hijacked the Republican Party. I've also come to recognize our responsibility to help those less fortunate than ourselves. As a result, I have moved to the left somewhat. On political spectrum tests, I now tend to land slightly left of center.

In short, I've grown to realize the world simply is not a black and white place. It's all about nuance. I support capital punishment, but I am troubled by the number of innocent people who are executed, especially since they are disproportionately poor and minorities. I support personal ownership of firearms, but have no problem with reasonable measures to manage the carnage they can cause, e.g., waiting periods. I personally think abortions are tragic, and can be abused by the irresponsible, but I don't feel I have the right to impose my views on others. I am very pro law and order, but I recognize effective checks and balances are vital to limit the potential abuses of a few bad cops, or the vast majority of fine, trustworthy cops who are nonetheless fallible human beings, subject to honest mistakes, bad days, and occasional lapses in judgment. I strongly believe in fiscal responsibility, preferring to cut both spending and taxes. Unfortunately, when faced with a choice between borrow-and-spend, and tax-and-spend, I'll reluctantly take tax-and-spend over deficits.

Most of all, I vote for the individual I believe shows the greatest integrity and commitment to true public service, regardless of party affiliation. As you might guess, I find the pickings pretty slim in most elections, especially at the national level.

Clear as mud?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Vic
Since when has government involvement ever favored the individual over corporations?

All sorts of regulations on business are pro-individual, e.g., product safety laws, OSHA workplace regulations, FDA on its good days, etc. That said, I think your point about corporate influence is right on the money (so to speak). I suspect many of our current pro-individual laws and regulations could never get approved with today's elected special-interest whores (and I'm NOT limiting that to Republicans).

Oh no. You got it all wrong. The special interests are especially interested in making sure that their slaves stay in good working condition.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Hey, I notice they put Libertarian under anarcho-capitalist (which I agree with). I'm just curious if anyone knows of a party anywhere in the world that is basically Libertarian with an anti-corporate slant?

The National Libertarian Party is anti-corporate. Corporations are a form of collectivism created by governments to interfere with and influence private business.

Libertarians are not anarchists in the common sense of the word, i.e. that there should be no government or law whatsoever. Libertarians believe in government (if minimally) and the rule of law, just not that the government (or the collective if you prefer) has the right to use coercion and force beyond what would be acceptable for the individual, i.e. the state should not have the right to steal anymore than an individual has the right to steal.

I know we've had this conversation before, but every libertarian I talk to is pretty pro-business. I also know we've debated the difference between pro-corporate and pro-business, but I'm lazy and I still use them interchangeably. 😎

What I meant to say is: is there a part anywhere that is essentially libertarian without the pro-business slant?

As I believe we'd talked about before I think businesses will corrupt 99% of the time and greed will lead to abuses without some force controlling them. If a society were to develop where enough power truly rested with individuals to combat the disharmony create by economic disparity then I wouldn't mind abolishing government controls over business. Until that happens it's the only balancing force available other than direct physical violence - which is surely worse.

Basically I want a party that will protect individual freedoms and liberty OVER economic interests where those interests would infringe for reasons other than basic subsistance. You have a right to do what you have to in order to survive. You do not have a 'right' to exploit or infringe on anyone or anything else in order to profit. Profit is fine, if you do it with no abuses, but so far I've almost never seen that. Not sure how else I could explain it.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
Where's the option for "none of the above"?!

I just don't think that I fit into any of the molds exactly... besides, I really hate labels... I'll paste what I wrote in Prof's "Why left..?" thead:
---

I am: age 32, raised conservative but not religious (I'm a Deist of my own sort), military, well-educated, well-read, and well-traveled... and I think that I'd be close to the center if one were to look at most of my opinions on the key issues; but, that said, I lean to the right on all matters of national security, anti-terrorism, Defense spending, etc...

So in the Center, leaning to the Right.

(perhaps this is the reason I'm always walking in circles?)

I'm pro-Bush, anti-Rumsfeld, pro-choice, pro-flat-tax, anti-immigration amnesty, pro-gay rights, anti-gay "marriage", pro-stemcell research, anti-multiculturalism, pro-small government, pro-Detainee Act, undecided on the Patriot Act(s), pro-term limits for Congress/Senate, anti-welfare, pro-ANWR drilling... and, believe it or not, I might be willing to listen to good reasons for the legalization of marijuana (but ONLY marijuana!)

what else? feel free to ask me my stances on things.. I'm very open about most of them... The funny thing is that most of the people around P&N still think that I'm the devil reincarnate! lol...

"The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist."

😉

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Ewat
Would you consider the green party to be socialists?

Green Party is a modern Socialist party with heavy on Anarcho collectivist leanings focusing on it's anti-corporate stance . IE: Free market for burgers and cars; worker owned public services and common use property. But yeah, Socialist mainly.

Link
There are those who fear the Green Party wants nothing less than socialism or communism. It is true that the Green Party advocates for government involvement, which places higher value on the individual than on corporations. However, where their politics tend toward socialism, Green Party members are still supporters of the political framework of the US, particularly as it relates to the rights and freedoms defined in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.

Since when has government involvement ever favored the individual over corporations?

Any time they prosecute businesses for abuses of the environment or the workers or safety or discrimination; the Clayton Act, the Adamson Act, the Railway Labor Act, the Davis-Bacon Act, the Norris-LaGuardia Act, the Wagner Act, the Byrnes Act, the Walsh-Healy Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act, etc ad nauseum. Mind you, not every provision in those acts was pro-worker, but at least some were. I could probably find another 20-50 federal level provisions and decisions in short order, and I haven't even approached state level regulations yet (of which there are nearly as many in every state).

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Vic
Since when has government involvement ever favored the individual over corporations?

All sorts of regulations on business are pro-individual, e.g., product safety laws, OSHA workplace regulations, FDA on its good days, etc. That said, I think your point about corporate influence is right on the money (so to speak). I suspect many of our current pro-individual laws and regulations could never get approved with today's elected special-interest whores (and I'm NOT limiting that to Republicans).

The few protections of individuals that are in place are those that the corporations have allowed to be implemented. It's all smoke and mirrors, the mega-corporations allow their employees in congress to pass a few tolerable protections in order to be able to look as though the individual has power. In the meantime, they use the big stick of government which is still under their control to prevent true competition.

Sadly, few people realize that it's big government which enables big corporations to control us.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
I know we've had this conversation before, but every libertarian I talk to is pretty pro-business. I also know we've debated the difference between pro-corporate and pro-business, but I'm lazy and I still use them interchangeably. 😎

What I meant to say is: is there a part anywhere that is essentially libertarian without the pro-business slant?

As I believe we'd talked about before I think businesses will corrupt 99% of the time and greed will lead to abuses without some force controlling them. If a society were to develop where enough power truly rested with individuals to combat the disharmony create by economic disparity then I wouldn't mind abolishing government controls over business. Until that happens it's the only balancing force available other than direct physical violence - which is surely worse.

Basically I want a party that will protect individual freedoms and liberty OVER economic interests where those interests would infringe for reasons other than basic subsistance. You have a right to do what you have to in order to survive. You do not have a 'right' to exploit or infringe on anyone or anything else in order to profit. Profit is fine, if you do it with no abuses, but so far I've almost never seen that. Not sure how else I could explain it.

Libertarians are not pro-business, they are anti-coercion. Big difference. Libertarians believe in freedom of association, and definitely business is a part of that. But being anti-coercion applies to businesses in that you cannot force yourself on anyone.

Take the issue of smoking in bars for instance. At first glance, the libertarian stance is pro-business because they want bars to be able to decide for themselves. Rather, it's because forcing them to disallow smoking is a form of coercion. The customers are saying they have a right to be in that bar. The employees are saying they have a right to be employed by that bar. However freedom of association would mean that the bar should be able to discriminate and say that they do not wish to associate with employees or customers who dislike their policy of allowing smoking. Employees and customers should not be able to force their views on the owners of the bar any more than the owner of the bar should be able to expect to sit and watch TV in their employees living room any time they choose.

So you see it's not that libertarians are always in favor of business, it's that they're against coercion. It's a subtle difference, but important.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Ewat
Would you consider the green party to be socialists?

Green Party is a modern Socialist party with heavy on Anarcho collectivist leanings focusing on it's anti-corporate stance . IE: Free market for burgers and cars; worker owned public services and common use property. But yeah, Socialist mainly.

Link
There are those who fear the Green Party wants nothing less than socialism or communism. It is true that the Green Party advocates for government involvement, which places higher value on the individual than on corporations. However, where their politics tend toward socialism, Green Party members are still supporters of the political framework of the US, particularly as it relates to the rights and freedoms defined in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.

Since when has government involvement ever favored the individual over corporations?

Any time they prosecute businesses for abuses of the environment or the workers or safety or discrimination; the Clayton Act, the Adamson Act, the Railway Labor Act, the Davis-Bacon Act, the Norris-LaGuardia Act, the Wagner Act, the Byrnes Act, the Walsh-Healy Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act, etc ad nauseum. Mind you, not every provision in those acts was pro-worker, but at least some were. I could probably find another 20-50 federal level provisions and decisions in short order, and I haven't even approached state level regulations yet (of which there are nearly as many in every state).

Too bad that for every law which benefits workers, there are ten laws which benefit a fat cat. Every piece of pork legislation which builds a road past some big wigs previously worthless land, every piece of corporate welfare, every extension of copyright, every ridiculous patent granted.

Don't be fooled by the scraps that the rich are throwing off the table for the citizenry to gobble up. They do that knowing full well that it's simply appeasing the little people. Big business and big government are in it together, making sure that one takes care of the other.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
I know we've had this conversation before, but every libertarian I talk to is pretty pro-business. I also know we've debated the difference between pro-corporate and pro-business, but I'm lazy and I still use them interchangeably. 😎

What I meant to say is: is there a part anywhere that is essentially libertarian without the pro-business slant?

As I believe we'd talked about before I think businesses will corrupt 99% of the time and greed will lead to abuses without some force controlling them. If a society were to develop where enough power truly rested with individuals to combat the disharmony create by economic disparity then I wouldn't mind abolishing government controls over business. Until that happens it's the only balancing force available other than direct physical violence - which is surely worse.

Basically I want a party that will protect individual freedoms and liberty OVER economic interests where those interests would infringe for reasons other than basic subsistance. You have a right to do what you have to in order to survive. You do not have a 'right' to exploit or infringe on anyone or anything else in order to profit. Profit is fine, if you do it with no abuses, but so far I've almost never seen that. Not sure how else I could explain it.

Libertarians are not pro-business, they are anti-coercion. Big difference. Libertarians believe in freedom of association, and definitely business is a part of that. But being anti-coercion applies to businesses in that you cannot force yourself on anyone.

Take the issue of smoking in bars for instance. At first glance, the libertarian stance is pro-business because they want bars to be able to decide for themselves. Rather, it's because forcing them to disallow smoking is a form of coercion. The customers are saying they have a right to be in that bar. The employees are saying they have a right to be employed by that bar. However freedom of association would mean that the bar should be able to discriminate and say that they do not wish to associate with employees or customers who dislike their policy of allowing smoking. Employees and customers should not be able to force their views on the owners of the bar any more than the owner of the bar should be able to expect to sit and watch TV in their employees living room any time they choose.

So you see it's not that libertarians are always in favor of business, it's that they're against coercion. It's a subtle difference, but important.

I understand the theory, but I seldom see the application. Again, I can only speak from my experiences on this. While the general ideas of the party seem great I often encounter people who claim participation in the party who are consistently on the side of the business owner on issues where individual worker protections or environmental protections are at stake. Yes, the party has a platform which is pro-environment, but then again the Republicans are supposed to be the party of small government and responsible spending. A parties platform is not indicative of it's implementation.

As I said earlier, if you reach a society where individuals have the power to get things done themselves, THEN you can abolish the coercive bodies within the government (and I agree the government shouldn't have them). Until you reach that point in society however there has to be some power that can combat the economic strength of the business owners. That power is either, unfortunately, the government or the gun.

Obviously the real issue in this discussion is that the libertarians have no real power to observe and compare with. If the Libs became an actual part of government (like 20%+) then maybe I'd see them doing things I could fully support and I'd join up. Without that I have to rely on my personal relationships with members of the party, and that has been less than hopeful to me.