What is your political affiliation? (US politics)
- Thread starter ZTHorse
- Start date
ferritlove
Citizen of Zooville
Nice!
CetaceanLover23
Esteemed Citizen of ZV
I align with the Democrats, but I also have some conservative points of view. I do think that most liberals though are WAY to politically correct nowadays.
Stormkat70
Tourist
I consider myself a centrist, the far left and far right have become way too divisive for me.
LoudlyStrangeLight
Tourist
Traditionalist Libertarian. Extremely pro freedom culturally and economically. Borderline Georgian party.
Basically Fed govt should exist simply with standing army and supreme court/ Congress/ executive.
States create and enforce laws independant of each other. State law overrules federal, and Gov't limited as much as possible.
Let interracial gay married transvestite abortion physicians raise their children on the pot farm they defend with AK-47s.
Basically Fed govt should exist simply with standing army and supreme court/ Congress/ executive.
States create and enforce laws independant of each other. State law overrules federal, and Gov't limited as much as possible.
Let interracial gay married transvestite abortion physicians raise their children on the pot farm they defend with AK-47s.
saddlebum66
Supreme Citizen of ZV
Not that it matters, or even SHOULD matter here....I'm not toeing anyone's party line...used to be the right had Yellow-dog Democrats to kick around....now, here in the Silver State, We have Dead-pimp Republicans. In his Congressional District, a known procurer was running for election to the House....he died a month before the Election, but was voted in anyway...go figure...
Thats golden and freedom XD
M
mares4me
Guest
Me no like politics
Din
Tourist
To be honest, they do not care about your rights. They will rather put you in jail than make concessions.
M
mares4me
Guest
To elaborate on this point, a politician would readily strip away my rights and dignity because I'm zoo in order to gain support from the masses. Not my cup of tea.
ZetaGirl
Tourist
The way I see it, there is the party that wants to strip me of my rights, and the party that will support my rights as so far as it is politically convenient for them, but no further. So I'm between a rock and a hard place. So I'm forced to side with the group that is at least not hostile to me.
My political affiliation: Damn near anybody other than Trump! That bleeding chancre on the ass of the world has done more damage to the reputation of the USA than anybody since... Well, ANYBODY.
Aside from that, my politics are pretty complex - Both sides, even the extremists, have SOMETHING good to say, if only they'd get their heads out of their asses and actually do more than run their collective mouth about it. The Democrats want my guns. Come get 'em. Bring plenty of friends. And ask yourself how many corpses it's worth to you to get them. The Republicans want more out of my wallet. Learn to do what I do: Spend within your means. Don't have the money for your pet project? Tough shit. Just like I do, you can figure out a way to live without it. The libertarians make a lot of sense - on paper. But exactly like communism, and for exactly the same reasons, in the real world, it can never work as advertised. Both are destined to become totalitarianism in (relatively speaking) short order. Anything driven by religion - ANY religion - is nothing but "I know what's best for you in all circumstances - god/allah/yahweh/whatever told me so - so shut up, accept your place as an underling, and we'll take care of doing your thinking for you." OK, great - Show me this "god" of yours. Until I can stand in front of him/her/it and shake hands with it, I've got no choice but to assume you're talking out your ass - and behave accordingly. The greeners... Gawd... let's just don't even go there, shall we?
A certain Mr. Thoreau said it best: That government which governs least, governs best.
Aside from that, my politics are pretty complex - Both sides, even the extremists, have SOMETHING good to say, if only they'd get their heads out of their asses and actually do more than run their collective mouth about it. The Democrats want my guns. Come get 'em. Bring plenty of friends. And ask yourself how many corpses it's worth to you to get them. The Republicans want more out of my wallet. Learn to do what I do: Spend within your means. Don't have the money for your pet project? Tough shit. Just like I do, you can figure out a way to live without it. The libertarians make a lot of sense - on paper. But exactly like communism, and for exactly the same reasons, in the real world, it can never work as advertised. Both are destined to become totalitarianism in (relatively speaking) short order. Anything driven by religion - ANY religion - is nothing but "I know what's best for you in all circumstances - god/allah/yahweh/whatever told me so - so shut up, accept your place as an underling, and we'll take care of doing your thinking for you." OK, great - Show me this "god" of yours. Until I can stand in front of him/her/it and shake hands with it, I've got no choice but to assume you're talking out your ass - and behave accordingly. The greeners... Gawd... let's just don't even go there, shall we?
A certain Mr. Thoreau said it best: That government which governs least, governs best.
MistyFriend
Tourist
communist.
Well, at least you can see that you don't know how it works. That's the first step in learning something new.
Communism *ON PAPER* may well be the most perfect form of government possible. Communism *IN THE REAL WORLD* invariably (based on imperical data) becomes a stratified totalitatian state - One only needs to look as far as the old USSR, or current-day China and North Korea to see the truth in that.
Libertarianism is, IMO, going to do the same thing, despite claiming differing goals and methods. Human nature means that both are inherently doomed to a final stratification of "haves" and "have nots", ruled by an elite few of the "haves". Exactly how they arrive at that state will differ, but the end result will be identical.
MistyFriend
Tourist
(before i start i would like to add that i wasn't flaming this person in the original post as they really do have a huge misunderstanding of what communism is)
communism on paper is not "form of government".
communism is when money, the state, and class is entirely demolished. thus instead of a state governing the people and the people electing politicians to represent them politics become entirely localized and becomes a form of direct democracy with no leaders, but instead communities of people coming together to decide what is best for their communities.
the true end goal of communist thought has always been this, but marxists/leninists/stalinists/trots tend to not really see how one could take advantage of the transitionary state that is supposed to bridge the gap between capitalism to socialism and socialism to eventually communism. which is why i'm anarchist. places like the ussr and china were not communist in the way they operated in the slightest. they were products of cults of personality and totalitarian state socialism, not communism. also i must say this again... i am NOT trying to start a fight, only educate.
Just my opinions,
Communism only works when its voluntary. In example, communes where the small group of people respect the rules set forth to be governed by. The amish would be an example of a central ideology in which money becomes of little importance over the greater good. Communes have worked but they also fall apart, like waco, TX or other communes that were successful until the are broken up the government. I see what marx was pointing out the issues in capitalism, but what he has failed to see is that humans are envious, and will covet what they cannot have. Its why milton hershey, who was as idealist, who put his workers first, didn't lay anyone off during the great depression and built an entire town for them, his workers still turned against him out of envy.
Communism works when everyone is volunteers to adopt the system, which in of itself, is a libertarian ideal of freedom of association. Communism economically is a joke because even china has free-market zones like hong-kong and shenzhen. You cannot force people into communism, or you have mao-zedong, pol-pot, and of course stalin.
I have no qualms with communists doing their own thing voluntarily by starting communes and such, its when they wish to force people to adopt communism. Not everyone wants communism, and thats just the free-will of people choosing a system to live under.
MistyFriend
Tourist
well yeah obviously it's going to be voluntary. if you said that you were a principled libertarian leftist and you said that you wanted involuntary global communism at the cost of firing squading every non-consenter in the entire world you aren't my comrade. also i have no sympathy for hershey, as he was still extracting profit from the labor of his workers despite what he might have "did for them", quite literally making him the definition of a capitalist pig.
now let's get to the real meaty part of this whole thing.
the goal of communism is to inevitably get rid of any motive for greed as most of us believe that it isn't simply human nature to step on eachother for our personal gain and that somebody has to have a motive to be greedy besides "human nature".
social darwinist might makes right bullshit is a tumor on the back of society and it needs to be removed before we can truly start improving. i used to believe in this shit too. i believed that i was never going to change from the person that parroted "but muh human nature" to the person i am now, but i did.
nurture not nature, folks. we can all be a little bit better if we try hard enough.
Roxxi
Zooville Settler
Communism on paper seems like a utopia. just like socialisim. It works on a small scale when you have at most a few hundred people living in a commune voluntarily. When you try to expand that out to millions of individuals. Well, not every one is going to accept it because humans are not ants in a colony. So then how do you force some one to accepted it?.... why with force of course. The fallacies of communism as a functional mass government is in that it assumes that every one is ok giving up their personal freedoms for the greater good. The greater good on the whole translates to the good of the ruling elite and anything that goes against the ruling elite must be purged. Enter Mao Zedong or Stalin men who killed 100s of millions of people trying to force people to accept communism. Right now china is about to eat Hong Kong because they refuse to accept communism. While it might not be the goal of communisim it has always ended the same because humans are not selfless enough to implement it properly.
Anarchy is as equal to failure as Socialism and Communism because again with out rules and laws, human beings show the worst of them selves. While there really isn't an example of a functional anarchist govern't you only have to look to places like Mogedishu and really any Sub sharian African country, places where they are nearly lawless. Where they throw transsexuals off the tops of buildings and witch doctors skin virgins alive and eat them because it cures AIDS.... Remove the rules, have no repercussions to do bad things and humans become far worse than animals. At least when animals kill you or takes your meal its nothing personal. Again, I am sure it can work on a small scale but it fails miserably on a larger country sized scale.
why I am staunchly against communisim and socialisim not the idea but the way it must be practiced and enforced. Because I am a wild lover of freedom and space. I spent many years being forced to live a certain way under some one elses rules. In the tradtional sense yeah they are a beautiful concept and if people want to live like that on their own then more power to them. My gripes stems from the fact that I am extremely well off. I don't want to put a number on it but with all the current presidential candidates suddenly swinging hard left socialist(or at least their form of it anyway) it has put my way of life very much at risk and the way I see it I don't owe any body any portion of my land or money. Certainly not 60-70% of it.
Anarchy is as equal to failure as Socialism and Communism because again with out rules and laws, human beings show the worst of them selves. While there really isn't an example of a functional anarchist govern't you only have to look to places like Mogedishu and really any Sub sharian African country, places where they are nearly lawless. Where they throw transsexuals off the tops of buildings and witch doctors skin virgins alive and eat them because it cures AIDS.... Remove the rules, have no repercussions to do bad things and humans become far worse than animals. At least when animals kill you or takes your meal its nothing personal. Again, I am sure it can work on a small scale but it fails miserably on a larger country sized scale.
why I am staunchly against communisim and socialisim not the idea but the way it must be practiced and enforced. Because I am a wild lover of freedom and space. I spent many years being forced to live a certain way under some one elses rules. In the tradtional sense yeah they are a beautiful concept and if people want to live like that on their own then more power to them. My gripes stems from the fact that I am extremely well off. I don't want to put a number on it but with all the current presidential candidates suddenly swinging hard left socialist(or at least their form of it anyway) it has put my way of life very much at risk and the way I see it I don't owe any body any portion of my land or money. Certainly not 60-70% of it.
Last edited:
Your welcome to that opinion, but history has shown the majority of people and prosperity chose a free-market system, even though heavily regulated in some areas. If given the choice, most people would voluntarily choose to live in west germany vs east germany if they had the full option to choose.
Economic system, if you like. Which is a defacto form of government in and of itself.
Much as I might wish otherwise, history has demonstrated time and again that direct democracy beyond the "couple-hundred warm bodies" level goes under with scarcely a ripple, and turns into a bunch of feuding cliques with little or no warning, lasts a short time, and then either morphs to a representative government of some sort, or turns into full-blown "Fuck you, I got mine - and now that you mention it, I want yours too, so hand it over, asshole" grade anarchy.
And therein lies one of the most deadly (to the concept) problems - Not everybody is interested in playing by your rules. (Which is, admittedly, true for pretty near ANY government/ideology)
Unless you can figure out a way to force *EVERYBODY* to comply (and good luck to you on that...) you WILL have the ones who aren't willing to play the game by the rules you set. There's simply no getting around that fact. TRYING to force compliance gave us Stalin, Mao, and similar loverly fellows. And use of force to make it happen pretty wells puts a bullet in the head of the concept "obviously it's going to be voluntary", doesn't it?
Except that it IS human nature to step on each other for personal gain, and has been since before there was such a critter as humans.
All I can say is life must be great with those rose-colored glasses on...
caikgoch
Esteemed Citizen of ZV
You need to back up one more step. Any form of government can be good when it is small enough for a benevolent individual or group to maintain control. Time or scale will ruin it sooner or later. Either the benevolent ones will age and be replaced by a fool (study European history) or the society will grow beyond the span of control of the benevolent ones (nasty little things can hide in bureaucracies). Study the writings of the American Founders, these are the kinds of questions that they debated. They had opposing examples in the English King and the early Pilgrim settlements to demonstrate both problems. (Note: both Jesus and the Pilgrims were hard core Communist) Their solution was to make government as distributed among the people as possible and leave as much flexibility as possible in it. So I agree, a free market republic is the worst form of government there is, except for all of the others.
Last edited: