Social Question

Kraken's avatar

Which political philosopy do you find most agreeable?

Asked by Kraken (1177points) June 28th, 2010

I don’t care if you are conservative, liberal, middle of the road or a radical. I want to play devil’s advocate to you answer so therefore I will assume a contrary roll to your argument and keep in mind I want good discussion and good manners but solid conjecture. I want good clean fun, but conjectural debate. I will be contrarily objected to your side, even if I agree with it. So if you are game, I am game, so let’s play. Just keep in mind that I am your opponent because I need to be in order to make this a game so may the best side win.

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

12 Answers

FireMadeFlesh's avatar

I find I do not agree with any established political organisation that I know of, since they seem to all rely on the following tenets:

1. People have a right to have a say, even if they don’t know what the hell they are talking about.
2. Defeating the opposition is more important than running the country.
3. Preserving your ministerial pension is more important than running the country.
4. Politicians should talk ad nauseum, and maybe by the time the talks end the public won’t care what the decision is any more.
5. External commissions, run by qualified people, can make recommendations all they like, but in the end we know best and retain the right to ignore them all.
6. If the opposition says A, we can either disagree because they are of the devil, or agree to appear reasonable. Coming up with a rival plan can wait until after the election.
7. A politician’s job is to come up with a policy, and if the implementation sucks they can just blame some lowly bureaucrat.
8. The party decides who leads, and the people vote for the party. The elected Prime Minister can be dumped at any time, so long as the party thinks another can do better.
9. The role of the government is to keep the public happy, no matter how unreasonable their demands.
10. Any promises are strictly negotiable, since the media will stop caring in two weeks, and the public in three.
11. The public face of the party is more important than developing solid policies.
12. Any personal ethical problem can be dismissed with a smile, laugh, and a simple statement that everyone is human.

I disagree with all of the above, and so do not find any existent political party to my liking. I refuse to vote. Fine me, AEC, if you dare.

BoBo1946's avatar

Independent ! don’t like any of them! They run on a platform and do as they damn well please!

Vincentt's avatar

I vote GreenLeft in my country, which is about my stance in life. I very much value individual freedom but also taking care of the less fortunate (considering myself pretty fortunate) and sharing fairly. Such a short description can’t really represent my general views on any issue though. I might pose an issue later but I really shouldn’t be on Fluther right now with exams coming up ;-)

Ron_C's avatar

I am a progressive democratic, liberal republican. God!...I have no party.

roundsquare's avatar

What do you mean? Do you mean:
A) Which do we find most accurate?
B) Which do we wish were in place?

ETpro's avatar

@Ron_C So am I. Let’s join up and create a party. Maybe we could call it the Prodelirep Party.

I like the personal responsibility message of Republicans, but wish they would apply it to themselves, not just others. Every single thing they foul up, they blame on Democrats. Even when they control all 3 branches of government, everything that goes wrong is someone else’s fault.

I like the social attitudes of libertarians and Democrats. Live and let live. Your right to swing your fist stops at my nose. But the extremes of this can lead to a society that is too permissive and holds nobody personally accountable. I guess here I am center left.

Fiscally, I am somewhat conservative, but really hard to pin down to a niche. I would slash corporate taxes. The US corporate tax rate is among the highest in the world, and that drives jobs offshore. Besides, corporate taxes just get tacked on to cost of goods and are ultimately paid by the consumer. That said, I would eliminate all the tax loopholes that let huge multinational businesses offshore all their profit centers and rake in billions per quarter without paying any taxes at all. You want to do business in the USA, pay your fair share in the USA. Letting huge multinationals dodge taxes while small and mid-sized businesses can’t afford to makes for unfair competition. It handicaps the very sector of our economy that generates most of our new jobs.

I would also increase the tax rate on net earnings (after deductions) of more than $500,000 per year. Reagan slashed the top tax rate from 70% to 28%. Before that, we were slowly retiring the debt of WWII and the Great Depression. Immediately after Reganomics came in, the National Debt began to skyrocket. Reagan is the only president in US history to ever have tripled the US national debt. Also, in the last 30 years, the real earnings (adjusted for inflation) of the bottom 60% of American earners has decreased. The next 30%, the upper middle class, has just barely held their own. The top 10% have profited and the top 1/10th of 1% have seen their holdings of America’s total wealth skyrocket. Our current tax structure is a blueprint for the slow but certain conversion of America into a banana republic.

I suppose we could balance the budget without a tax increase by eliminating Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and all welfare. I don’t favor that. I think a return to Dickensian England with its poverty, misery and workhouses would be a singularly bad idea. Also, throwing tens of millions of additional people into abject poverty when the economy is still on the brink of collapse would be extremely penny wise and pound foolish. It may resonate with the “I’ve got mine…” crowd, but those same people who vote consistently to cut everyone else off so they can get more for themselves are the ones who will immediately grab torches and pitchforks and pour into the streets when their own finances are impacted. And the Depression their austerity-for-all-but-the-rich program would provoke would definitely impact their finances. Most of them are not actually wealthy, just hoodwinked by a few who yearn for an oligarchy.

So, that’s my politics. Is there a name for that platform?

YARNLADY's avatar

I would be most comfortable if the world was ready for a government based on rationalism, but since that’s not going to happen in my lifetime, I try to work within the system to support the items I approve of, and help defeat the ones I don’t.

Dr_Lawrence's avatar

I support a socially conscious democratic form of government that is fiscally responsible, environmentally conscious that promotes economic growth and values individual freedoms.

I am looking for a party that can achieve all these things in a country that will support it.

The search goes on.

mattbrowne's avatar

Moderate greenleft.

Ron_C's avatar

@ETpro I almost balked at your proposals until I saw the part about lowering taxes on U.S. firms and insuring that multinationals paid their fair share of taxes. Their current function is to suck wealth out of the country and contribute as little as possible.

I really hate the idea of these tax havens in the Caribbean. How could anything be more wrong and unfair?

ETpro's avatar

@Ron_C It just goes to show that we have the best politicians that money can buy.

Kraken's avatar

@mattbrowne Good call Matt.
I don’t believe in extremism because they tend to shut their ears to compromise and discussion. Plant a tree a day, ball it in the soils and fertilize it, heck yeah! We can reclaim nature for us!

Answer this question




to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther