What do you stand for, politically?

[Bbucko]

I'm not a Utopian, I'm a realist. I honestly believe that, if given a choice between a more comfortable existence for everyone or a better life for oneself at the expense of others, most people would choose the latter.

There is no such thing as a level playing field, and there is no such thing as blind justice, pretending otherwise is an exercise in futility. Any attempt to level-out the playing field or invoke a greater sense of universal justice will be fiercely resisted by those who benefit from the status quo, namely those already in power.

Our system requires an underclass, which is held in place through lack of education, fear of deportation and a culture that places a greater value on things than on people. Our middle class is shrinking.

Far too many things are criminalized, and we are far too over-policed; this is only getting worse, not better. And the police have morphed from Officer Friendly to grimly overarmed SWAT teams, especially in majority-minority areas. We have allowed those who live in fear (90% of which is irrational) to override our basic civil rights.

I do not believe that just because something's legal makes it right, any more than the fact that something is illegal makes it inherently wrong, and I believe that grown adults, fully aware of the consequences of their actions, should be given all possible leeway in how they conduct their lives. I loathe prohibitionism and distrust all authority.

I also believe in representative democracy; legislating via referendum is cowardly on the part of politicians and is, IMO, a form of tyrannical mobocracy. I do not believe that it has a place in contemporary politics.

In my ideal (Utopian, therefore impossible) world, we'd be living in much higher density, with rapid, clean and convenient public transport that went where you needed it at the hours you need it. Greater density of housing would lead to larger areas of nature and in much closer proximity than currently exists. Suburbanism and sprawl will take decades to undo, if ever.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

That was awesome, BB... :biggrin:

 

[maxcok]

I think I read somewhere a quote about those who seek power should never be allowed to hold positions of power.

I feel this way about most people who seek jobs in law enforcement too. In my experience, most of them seem to be overcompensating for something. It may be different in the UK where you still have friendly bobbies who don't carry guns? The observation fits many politicians too, especially those on the so-called "conservative" side. In the US at least, they often seem to be overcompensating as well, and are only interested in preserving (conserving) power and financial advantage for themselves and their favored constituents.

Although I am the first to admit that my political views are uninformed and naive it does seem that a lot of the career politicians seem to be in politics for the sake of politics, power and perks it brings, rather than because they want to help make society a better place.

I think there are many who start off with the best intentions for society as a whole, much more so among progressives and liberal Democrats. However, the system being what it is, and the increasingly obscene amount of money required to mount a successful reelection campaign in the US, tends to compromise values and intentions, if not outright corrupt.

Like I say, Im naive, but shouldn't the government be there to do what is right, morally right, not what is politically expedient?

You would think, wouldn't you? However, money and power (and they really are two sides of the same coin) are addictive and self-sustaining. The lust for money and power, in short greed, will ultimately overrule what is best for society as a whole, best for the people as a whole, and most definitely what is in the interests of the least powerful and least fortunate.

*ducks for cover and awaits torrent of clever responses on why this is a misguided position to hold*

You underestimate yourself, sir. You have expressed the essence of the role of government more plainly and succinctly than most can with their longwinded bloviations. Do speak up.

 

[798686]

7. outlaw gerrymandering - if the elected official cannot be re-elected on his or her record alone then it's time for new blood or the term limit.

I agree with term limits - the 4-5yr average in the UK (5yr max) seems to work well. However, I'd also support a US-style limit of 2 terms for any individual as PM. I haven't seen any cases (in my lifetime lol) where an individual serving a third term has produced many benefits (I'm thinking of Thatcher and Blair, specifically).

The problem is where you set the threshold. What are moderate taxes?
10%, 11%, 15%?
You can't really tell that in Switzerland we have a large state with high taxation.

I'd probably go with about 40% max overall taxation on income, in the UK. Might not be possible in the current circumstances, mind you.

For UK peeps really:
I'd lower the 20% tax rate, to 15% for lower earners (and pay for it by keeping tax-free pay at £6,500 - rather than planned increases to 7.5 or 10k). I'd make the 20% tax threshold start at around £20-21,000 - then up the 40% threshold to start from around £42,000 (currently, £37,500).

I'd keep NI largely the same - altho I'm not really sure why the % drops off (to around 1%) above the upper limit? Maybe because they're paying for all the social security they could ever need by then. Altho...if it was raised to 5% above the upper threshold, it would make child benefit for high earners sustainable. :wink:

Not sure about inheritance tax. Any ideas?

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

I used to be really political, actively so. Nowadays, my naivete having suffered endless assaults by the seemingly ever harsher realities and more detailed understanding of history, economics and politics I find myself less and less sure that political activism is as useful a mechanism for social change as many believe.

Having said that I used to be a social democrat from a dyed in the wool (UK) Labour Party voting family and would if I still lived in Britain be a Labour voter. In my late teens and early twenties my social democratic politics morphed into more extreme left wing beliefs as I read more about socialism and anarchism.

For a long time I was both passionate and embittered by a world which I thought could, should and would be transformed from a mess of corruption and exploitation to a socially responsible and more free and equal place.

Eventually my faith in human beings began to wane, and without that my hopes for an anarchist utopia could not be justified. If human beings are inherently incapable of perfecting themselves then they are equally incapable of creating a perfect society for themselves.

These days I describe myself (in jest) as an Existentialist Nihilist but this moniker does convey some of my real political beliefs. I don't think human social evolution is progressive, I think it's cyclical, I still believe in absolute personal freedom and equality but I no longer believe that people can be relied upon to respect these concepts without the remonstrance of the law.

I think humans are innately both astonishingly good and terrifyingly evil, and everything in between, meaning that no politics I know of fully takes this in to account. Right Wing politics presumes that people are innately evil and ignores the better side of human nature, it forces people to comply with the better judgement of a state which acts like a stern parent while at the same time acting without any regard for the wellbeing of the people whose liberty it impinges upon.

The left wing in politics presumes that humans are innately good or at least are capable of being so, and this means that it expects the role of a law enforcing state to become obviated once economic and social equality have been achieved, this ignores that fact that some people will always want to act in socially irresponsible ways and that greed and covetousness are essentially ineradicable. The dictates of left wing politics expect things of people which they simply aren't capable of.

So I still believe in social justice, and personal freedom, I think that the fight we all have with our worst instincts is replicated in society and that rather than attempting to evolve ourselves to some kind of utopia all we can really hope to do is be constantly vigilant and work ceaselessly to counteract the negative effects the worst aspects of human nature can have on society.

That's neither a left or right wing position really. I don't really like representative democracy because I think it tends to bring out some of the worst in people, and ultimately is a form of show business in which appearances always disguise realities and no one tells the truth.

But all the same I do vote in elections, I tend to vote for candidates whose intelligence I respect and whose record I like for involvement in campaigns and on issues I take seriously. That means I rarely (which is to say have never) voted for a right wing or centre-right candidate, but in recent years this has become coincidental to the fact that right orientated politicians rarely have either of the prerequisites I expect rather than a doctrinaire or overtly political expression of allegiance to any particular party. I might not even find myself fully in agreement with all the political views the candidates I vote for.

I live in a country with very little by way of mainstream left wing political parties or candidates so taking in to account the spectacularly democratic and Byzantine complexity of the electoral system here I frequently find myself merely voting tactically to keep out the worst candidates on the ballot. That's required me to vote for some mediocre politicians (whom I expected not to make the cut and actually get elected) as well as the candidates I respect. Ireland uses the purest form of RP (IMO) -Single Transferable Vote Proportional Representation.

Linky if anyone's interested in finding out what I'm talking about - Single transferable vote - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So to answer the OP directly, I'm not sure if I stand for anything distinct politically speaking. I used to have a really clear political stance, these days I'm just a pragmatist.

 

[D_Andreas Sukov]

I stand for everything the Coalition stands for.

The state shouldnt be nannying people. If they can't afford healthcare, then they didnt work hard enough. They all have gold-plated pensions, so there is no excuse.

And these benefit cheats! I mean, i dont care that Corporate fraud is at £125 billion a year, the Bankers are smart enough to get around the system so fair play to them, but the family struggling on £500 a week, saying they are unemployed to get more cash makes my blood boil. My parents dont work so little Timmy can have clothes that actually fit him or live in a warm house rather than a damp one! The bastards!

Lets have it right, Poor people are scum and if they cant prosper in the sea of Jobs and oppurtunities that we all know exist then, they obviously dont deserve the air they breathe. Alteast whilst no one has realised to gain a profit on it yet.

And why do lower and middle class people want to go to university anyway? Dont they know that we have people bred for power? To titilate the idea that they can have any control over this country is just harsh on themselves.

And immigrants. Dont get me wrong, i like ethnic food as much as the next person. But now that we have the recipe.....i dont think we really need them around.

 

[798686]

^ Awww, I love new Labour!

 

[798686]

These days I describe myself (in jest) as an Existentialist Nihilist but this moniker does convey some of my real political beliefs. I don't think human social evolution is progressive, I think it's cyclical, I still believe in absolute personal freedom and equality but I no longer believe that people can be relied upon to respect these concepts without the remonstrance of the law.

I think humans are innately both astonishingly good and terrifyingly evil, and everything in between, meaning that no politics I know of fully takes this in to account. Right Wing politics presumes that people are innately evil and ignores the better side of human nature, it forces people to comply with the better judgement of a state which acts like a stern parent while at the same time acting without any regard for the wellbeing of the people whose liberty it impinges upon.

The left wing in politics presumes that humans are innately good or at least are capable of being so, and this means that it expects the role of a law enforcing state to become obviated once economic and social equality have been achieved, this ignores that fact that some people will always want to act in socially irresponsible ways and that greed and covetousness are essentially ineradicable. The dictates of left wing politics expect things of people which they simply aren't capable of.

Some really interesting points, Hil - very eloquently put. :smile:

I agree about the cyclical nature of things - usually in response to current circumstance or what's come immediately before. That theory about the constant cycle between Democracy > Anarchy > Dictatorship > Democracy..., seems to be generally accurate.

I do think there are steps forward in thinking from time to time that move things forward slightly - as with the Renaissance, or certain progress in general social understanding since the 50s/60s (specifically in terms of disability, mental illness, minorities, etc), in the UK and parts of Europe at least.

I think there's always going to be inequality, or negative traits to take account of, whether driven by fear, need, greed, or whatever else - but maybe we'll gradually learn ways to compensate for or recognise it?

 

[dandelion]

dont know now if the subject of pensions came up in this thread or another. However the government just announced a gleam of sanity for the state pension system, to return to a standard fixed rate basic pension and getting rid of the means tested top up system. Means testing is a bit of a disaster because of all the negative incentives it gives. Dont save, the government will only take it off you because you wont get a top up on your pension. Dont get a job, because you wont be able to afford to work once you lose your basic unemployment benefits. I dont know how they could do it, but I am against means tested benefits. Better to have a bit of rough justice in the sytem.

 

[aajjxx]

Libertarian here. Economically, right wing as it gets. Socially, far to the left. The same views most Americans hold regardless what bullshit major party they self-identify with.

edit: Before I start being accused of wanting to let corporations do whatever they want, please note I draw a big distinction between being "pro business" and "pro market".

IMO the complaints progressives/liberals have I completely agree with, I just disagree with them on what to do about it. For instance, I see big business and big government as one in the same. So to cut down both, I think you should cut down the government, not strengthen it and forcing more regulations down peoples' throats (regulations written by and enforced by ex executives of the very corporations they should be regulating!). Regulation ends up just putting up a wall to new businesses trying to compete in those markets, and solidfying the power of those monopolists/oligopolists thus keeping prices artifically high.

I'd like to see big business play by the same rules all the rest of us have to play by. If that makes me "anti-business" so be it. I'm content to believe multinational corporations need to abide by the discipline of the market and not get special sweetheart deals, subsidies, and lopsided regulations from the government.

 

[Cybearia]

And immigrants. Dont get me wrong, i like ethnic food as much as the next person. But now that we have the recipe.....i dont think we really need them around.

Soooo wrong :spank:... but f*king hysterical! LOL.

 

[D_Andreas Sukov]

Soooo wrong :spank:... but f*king hysterical! LOL.

Nicked that from a Rowan Atkinson sketch about the Conservative party conference.