Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Natalcya Katla]

Having a government that tells a religion what to do sounds ripe for abuse, and perhaps I misunderstand the statement about political speech via broadcast media. And compulsory military service strikes me very very negatively, though I'd assume that Norway has some sort of national service equivalent that can be substituted for young men with philosophical, moral, ethical, or religious qualms about serving in the military.

To restate, I'm not claiming that the current situation in the US is any great example. This is an area where, in my estimation, even the most classically liberal Western democracies don't live up to our own standards.

Having a government that tells a religion what to do is unproblematic as long as the government is a democratically elected one and complying with international human rights - and as long as those who disagree with the policies enforced upon said religion are free to quit it and establish their own religious communities unmolestedly, if they can be arsed to do so. That's the case here, and it happens. They even get state funding if they manage to scratch out a big enough community - a policy I'm personally opposed to, as I'm principally against the government handing out subsidies without exerting influence.

Fortunately, most people are sufficiently apathetic about religion that they don't actually care one way or another, however. They'll typically go to church on Christmas Eve for the sake of tradition, and then not show their faces there again until the next Christmas comes around. For its part, Easter is not so much a religious holiday any longer as it is an excuse to go skiing in the mountains. It's thoroughly lovely.

As far as the ban on political ads in media broadcasts goes, it applies exclusively to purchased broadcast adverts - "political commercials", if that's clearer. Political representatives and challengers are perfectly free to express their views and policies in debates and interviews in any kind of media outlet, and are regularly invited to do so. The law is there to prevent any political party from gaining an advantage by buying themselves more media exposure than their opponents. It curbs excessive lobbyism, prevents crazy spending and puts the parties on even footing, ensuring that the decisive factor in elections is the political message, not the size of the war chest.

Parties are still allowed to pay for ads in paper and online media, and distribution of pamphlets is commonplace in elections. That kind of advertising is much more affordable, though, and doesn't make one party able to buy an advantage over its adversaries.

I think it's a sensible law, personally.

Regarding alternatives to military service on the basis of personal conscience/beliefs: Yes, there are. Hence why I wrote: "...year of compulsory military or civil service..." above. 

[Ashar Kor-Azor]

*SNIP*

[admin]Please do not attack other members.  Or troll.  Etc.-Havo[/admin]

On liberalism, conservatism, the left, the right, the estates general, and all that:

The sheer degree of agreement and common ground in these western thought-systems begins to necessitate another term, or at least the shearing apart of two synonyms at the root.

Liberality might suffice for this task. It might, if I am lucky, underline that the whole lot of it comes from some absolutist French king experimenting with autonomy or rights or freedoms or new taxes or opiums for the masses and that, largely, they differ only in what either tradition has used as an answer to the unifying question of 'how do we push on with this social contract we're playing around with?'

Everything else the public gets in an uproar about, more or less everything that highlights differences for the sheer sake of divisiveness, is crap.

---

On Arizona:

-The main problem is letting people not pay into the system and take money out of it, or capital flight.

-Capital flight could be best dealt with by having a five minute work visa granting process.

-The police brutality and misconduct problem is significant; you cannot account for it. Some officers already have said they will respect it, while I am told some officers have essentially said, 'yeah, we'll drum up a pretext if we can't check these people procedurally.' Whether they'll do this depends solely on how overwhelmed with work they will be. I don't think they'll be overwhelmed; they're a sheriff's office.

-The identification thing is a crock. We can have anything we want; we should be able to figure out easy DNA analysis in the space of minutes from a device that fits into a squad car when people do not carry their papers. Carrying your papers is some regressionist KGB-GRU-SS-gestapo shit. We should be able to phase it out, just like we should have an energy economy that runs off solar energy and all this other crap. But what can you do.

-Immigration reform needs to favor nation-building. The best nations don't turn away extra workers; they figure out ways to effectively incentivize both legal immigration and infrastructure expansion so you can hire more people more easily and tax them fairly.

-Don't goddamn tell me the immigrants are the core problem when it's the people that hire them illegaly to work under the table and screw over legal competition that hurt the system the most. This is like Vikarion and Lillith's AIG complaints - it's not the company; it's not the financial apparatus or the employees or the minority shareholders. It's the short-term golden-parachute fucks and their owner voting-bloc stockholder backers who set the competitive standard at a quarterly do or die.

-These are all signs of bad or insufficient regulation of the US free market.

Later, guyz.

[Valdezi]

So me, a left wing libertarian. A skeptic and a situationist. Exactly like my character.

One thing I think is interesting, is when I looked at the races in EVE, I read the descriptions and thought:

'Facist religious Empire that keeps slaves, not for me.'
'Corporate state.' /vomits
'Minmatar.... I don't even know what that is.'
'Liberal democracy.... where do I sign up?'

I think it's really interesting that all the Caldari guys seem to be centre-right libertarians and I think that demonstrates something about the Empires and how we are attracted to some more than others for political reasons.

[Seriphyn]

I do not label myself with anything.

However, I am a massive British patriot, and thus support its cultural/political history, and a large part of that is down to pure 'what is sensible'. You will note that the three main parties in the UK are not that different from each other...each of them offer their own "sensible" solutions to various problems. None of which are routed in extreme ideology like you might find elsewhere.

As such there are things I am right-wing about, rooted in British conservative traditionalism, and some things I am liberal about, such as social democracy. Apart of this country is the high taxing of the rich to help the poor. If you don't like it, you can leave, it's been like that and is apart of their socio-political culture.

From our own traditional culture, marriage is an institution for a man and a woman, and it is also the business of the church, which the state shall have no business in. However, as a nation of equality, where the OTT political correctness has eliminated institutional discrimination against homosexuals, people of that orientation have the right to be wed legally in order to have the same rights as straight couples. Therefore, we have reserved civil unions for them, as marriage is the area of the church etc.

Unlike the US, which is a melting pot in its very essence, Britain as a civilization stretches back thousands of years, and thus should not be permitted to be subdued by foreign cultures. I am not ethnically British, but I identify as one, and my maternal family came here, learnt the language and did the whole "When in Rome..." thing. Even my old auntie sees ourselves as "guests", and that if you want to force your culture onto Britain, you can head back to your own country etc.

You can see the mix of left and right wing there, so I don't identify as either.

[Casiella]

The larger meta issue of mixing responses preferred by various parties defines me as well. In many cases, a party adopts a stance on a particular issue, not because of some need for intellectual coherence, but because they want to appeal to a given demographic. As an individual, however, I don't engage in the same calculus and thus try to discern what is practical and right according to some superposition of my values over reality. Thus, in US politics, I agree with significant portions of the left regarding immigration policy but further to the right on abortion issues. And I take a decidedly unorthodox view on marriage: the government should only issue civil unions regardless of gender. Marriage is a religious institution and the government has no legitimate state interest in such questions. Therefore, my wife and I can have a civil union from the government as can my sister in her same sex relationship, and my congregation can choose to separately recognize my marriage without being required to do so for my sister.

In today's highly polarized and radicalized politics, of course, I'm a heretic to any establishment ideologue. Not that I'm worried about it.

[Saede Riordan]

thats pretty much where I am, and while truth be told, I'd rather be slightly more conservative with government policy etc, I'm sort of forced be be liberal by virtue of the republicans being backed by people who want to deny me my rights.

[Alexander Rykis]

Well, apparently I'm a borderline communist

[Alexander Rykis]

And I agree Seri, but more time.

Three years mandatory civil or armed forces service upon the 18th birthday or graduation from High School, whichever comes first.

[GoGo Yubari]

That's the RL me according to this test. I'm sure it's fairly spot on, but personally I reject all political affiliations and doubt I fit in any neat classification.

Lots of similar leaning on this forum according to the test, btw.

[Alexander Rykis]

I don't have any direct political affiliations... but I do feel strongly about one thing.

Nationalist Socialism... in a loose sense.

* Alexander Rykis puts on FROG suit and waits for flames

[Benjamin Shepherd]

Hmm, weird. I always thought you were a fiscally right-wing libertarian Alex. IDK, just guessed.

I have to commend everyone for keeping this thread from acting as the frontline of a flame war.

Also, how about we post what our characters would be like? Do the test as if you are your character.

Me -


Benjamin Shepherd -

[Lillith Blackheart]

Well, apparently I'm a borderline communist

Communists aren't authoritarian.

Oh wait, we're talking Soviet Communists and not, like, Communist Communists, huh?

[Alexander Rykis]

Yeah...

Except this is kind of inaccurate. I'm more Nationalist Socialist than true communist

[scagga]

Well, apparently I'm a borderline communist

Communists aren't authoritarian.

Oh wait, we're talking Soviet Communists and not, like, Communist Communists, huh?

Perhaps it is more helpful to identify the theorist whose brand of communism you are making reference to instead, e.g. Marx, Bakunin, Kropotkin, Proudhon, etc..

[scagga]

Yeah...

Except this is kind of inaccurate. I'm more Nationalist Socialist than true communist

This chap will go far.