Happy Atheist Forum

So, I was wondering what political ideologies the happy atheists (and theists) at HAF most identify with, and why. [strike:sxvenc43]Personally, I'm a libertarian -- I believe in freedom, personal responsibility, and am against authoritarianism, censorship, and laws that unnecessarily restrict our freedom.[/strike:sxvenc43] Never mind, I'm apparently a socialist. What about you?

Ideologically, I'm very much a collectivist. I like helping other people, I'm extremely averse to harming other people passively or actively, and I expect the same from other people. I believe in fairness, particularly fairness in competition. I believe in working together for common goals and helping people for the sake of helping them, not for profit or due to threats. These, I think, stem from my humanism.

In practice, however, I'd like to think I only have a passing connection to my ideologies. Politics should never be ideological; politics should be scientific and fact-based. There should be vast equations where the common good is quantifiable and the means to get to the common good can be demonstrated objectively, scientifically. There should be no ego, no subjective opinion, and no self-service in politics. If the best answer to a political question runs against my particular ideologies, then my ideologies are wrong.

I'm a mess.

I'm a near-anarchist and yet in many ways I support extensive government control. My political alegience varies from case to case, really, but in my country, I identify with the far-right (liberal wing here)

I am a near-individualist, which tends to turn me away from socialist-like parties.

Quote from: "Will"Ideologically, I'm very much a collectivist. I like helping other people, I'm extremely averse to harming other people passively or actively, and I expect the same from other people. I believe in fairness, particularly fairness in competition. I believe in working together for common goals and helping people for the sake of helping them, not for profit or due to threats. These, I think, stem from my humanism.

In practice, however, I'd like to think I only have a passing connection to my ideologies. Politics should never be ideological; politics should be scientific and fact-based. There should be vast equations where the common good is quantifiable and the means to get to the common good can be demonstrated objectively, scientifically. There should be no ego, no subjective opinion, and no self-service in politics. If the best answer to a political question runs against my particular ideologies, then my ideologies are wrong.

Ideologies are simply political stances. It can be as simple as "I believe in liberty"; members of the same ideology can disagree with each other on a wide variety of stances.

I agree that politics should be scientific and fact-based -- your ideology can be based on science and facts, and part of it can be "I believe in science and facts". They aren't mutually exclusive.

Quote from: "Asmodean"I'm a near-anarchist and yet in many ways I support extensive government control.

...What. I don't see how that is even possible.

I'm anti-political party...I rarely agree with them enough to feel comfortable using the party label and they give people who affiliate with them an unfair advantage in campaigns.  Also, we should want people to have to research what a candidate's values are rather than making assumptions based on whatever political party is backing them.

I'm pro liberty and personal responsibility however, I also think we need to look out for the "little guy" that does the jobs the rest of us don't want to do.  

I support socialized fire departments, schools (pre-k through bachelors), police departments, public works, and hospitals/preventative care....having such services available to everyone increases the quality of our country by being the only way to ensure that everyone gets a chance to make a good life for themselves; otherwise ghettos remain ghettos forever.  

I think that a federal sales tax would be a lot more fair on everyone rather than taxing income (but would want to see studies on if it could support our government and how it would affect both the rich and poor, and how it would affect the economy before I'd support changing to it). I know some people are against a federal tax all together but there are a lot of things the federal government pays for which I don't think most people would be willing to give up.

I would not allow illegal immigrants access to socialized services unless ethics made it necessary; emergency care should be provided to them just before transporting them back into their country of origin (with instructions/paperwork telling them how they can enter the country legally if they decide to come back)...I'm not against immigration, I just think it is only right to expect that people who want to live here follow the law of the land and not enter the country illegally.  I also think we should make it easier for seasonal workers to legally enter the country (an additional quick to process visa option) for crop harvests and construction since that is the cause of many working illegally in the states.

Anything done to an adult man or woman's body should be their choice and the government shouldn't intervene unless their right to choice needs to be protected.  Children, of course, should also be protected from inappropriate contact but they don't get to decide, for instance, if they get their flu shot or not because they are too young to make a mature decision.

Consenting Adults should be allowed to marry whomever they want whether it be two men, two women, two men and 1 woman, 5 woman and 1 man etc...I don't care it's their business.  Anyone who wants to adopt a child should be allowed provided they don't have a dangerous criminal background.....children will be happy and grow up just find as long as they have a person and/or family that loves them.

I think scientific sex education is a fundamental right that parents shouldn't be allowed to opt out of.  We don't allow religion to trump proper medical care of minors and we shouldn't' allow it to prevent them from knowing about their sexuality and how to be a responsible sexual being.  Anti-Choice supporters should also agree with this since sex education reduces the need for abortions.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"...What. I don't see how that is even possible.

It's... Weird. And I am the first to admit it.

I am a supporter of "Do what you want", but I also add "...then pay the price" and that is where I would like the government to come in on occasion. Additionally, I like having someone build roads for me and keep the schools and retirement homes running. And rather than donating or some such system, I am happy enough paying taxes... As long as we stop using them on junkies and deadbeats and lazy people and everyone else who has fallen on hard times by their own stupidity or incompetence or way of treating people. (exceptions occur, but are few and far between)

There are also some things which I would very much like a government, namely my own, to keep an eye on for me and my near-anarchist utopia; civilians having firearms, national security and national profit being examples of those.

I think that socialized services sound great in theory, but in practice they don't work because of people. All government control is ineffective. The only way to stop this is to hugely limit the control the government has over us.

...Of course, I'm open to my opinion being changed on this.

Left Libertarian here.

Quote from: "Ultima22689"Left Libertarian here.

...There are such things are right libertarians?  

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "Ultima22689"Left Libertarian here.

...There are such things are right libertarians?  

Yes, we are political unicorns.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-libertarianism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-libertarianism)

The Wikipedia articles are kind of confusing; can you explain to me the difference between left and right libertarianism?

tea party = right libertarians

(correct?)

I don't think so, Whitney. I think they're more conservative than libertarian.

Yeah, that thing is kind of confusing. I'll give it a shot.


So i'll start socially, the typical libertarian, in America at least tends to be very right wing while naturally the left libertarian is socially on the left and supports most if not all the social things liberals are going for but you can add axing political correctness to the list, it's starting to get ridiculous, people want to censor everything now and if you so much look at someone the wrong way you've said something offensive or somebody is a racist . Politically, the left libertarian favors smaller government and the private sector but not quite to the level that the standard libertarian does. Meaning, if I were able to mold government to my liking, i'd chuck away the DEA, IRS and do a big drawback on military and i'd probably axe a lot of other bureaucratic crap that's weighing down on the government. We see the good in the free market, America got to where it is today thanks to capitalism, IMHO. Now that doesn't mean I support the market being literally, outright free with little to no regulation. I think at minimum the amount of regulation that Clinton held during his presidency is neccesary, everyone was making money but as soon as Bush got in, deregulated everything a lot of people weren't making money, like the excess outsourcing. The moment Bush dropped a lot of regulation my father lost his job immediately and so did every single one of his coworkers, replaced with Indian immigrants who they paid a fraction of the money they paid the former staff.

As far as things like welfare, public education, medicine,etc. I'm all for public as long as it works, I don't think leaving a portion of the country out to blow in the wind is going to help the country, some very successful, contributing members of society came from a family on welfare. Everyone deserves an education but the education system needs to be revamped, public schooling as is just doesn't work but axing it won't solve a damn thing. As far as medicine is concerned, this all comes back to regulation, if we had the proper amount of regulation AKA clinton era then people would have money and insurance companies wouldn't be charging outrageous rates like they do now and people would be able to afford it. So in a nutshell, support social services, social freedom, within reason the free market and the right to do whatever the hell you want as long as you aren't directly affecting someone else's life.

So, let me see if I got this right:

Right libertarians are basically conservatives.
Left libertarians are minarchists.

To a degree, like I said I still value many of those evil socialist services as long as they work.

Yeah -- to be more accurate, I would probably describe myself as a libertarian idealist. We're a long ways a way from a libertarian government, and in the meantime, I'll make do with things that work.

Although I know it's slightly biased:

http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz

I always like taking it. I first took it when I was still in high school, and scored as a half-conservative, half-libertarian.

10 years later it has migrated leftward and downward, so that now i'm almost a liberal-statist.

http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz_result?e=30&i=60_30.gif&p=60

Quote from: "terranus"Although I know it's slightly biased:

http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz

I always like taking it. I first took it when I was still in high school, and scored as a half-conservative, half-libertarian.

10 years later it has migrated leftward and downward, so that now i'm almost a liberal-statist.

I score a perfect libertarian score when I take that quiz.

Personally, I like this (http://www.nolanchart.com/survey.php) quiz.

Took the nolan, as expected i'm right on the line between libertarian and liberal.

nolan  result was centrist towards the liberal/libertarian side of the gray box.

...I hate politics.

Both of those test are useless to me. I'm an anarchist/anarcho-communist.

I'm a non political entity, since I'm not allowed to vote here in Germany. According to the Nolan quiz, I'm however a libertarian.

I'm an advocate of anarchocapitalism.

http://www.mises.org

-a-train

Gag.

I see anarchism and capitalism as mutually exclusive.

Quote from: "elliebean"Gag.

I see anarchism and capitalism as mutually exclusive.

how so?

I'm not the best at explaining it, but this sumarizes my view on it:

(from An Anarchist FAQ (http://www.infoshop.org/page/AnarchistFAQSectionA1))

Quote from: "Brian Morris"The term anarchy comes from the Greek, and essentially means 'no ruler.' Anarchists are people who reject all forms of government or coercive authority, all forms of hierarchy and domination. They are therefore opposed to what the Mexican anarchist Flores Magon called the 'sombre trinity' -- state, capital and the church. Anarchists are thus opposed to both capitalism and to the state, as well as to all forms of religious authority. But anarchists also seek to establish or bring about by varying means, a condition of anarchy, that is, a decentralised society without coercive institutions, a society organised through a federation of voluntary associations. ["Anthropology and Anarchism," pp. 35-41, Anarchy: A Journal of Desire Armed, no. 45, p. 38]

To be honest, I don't know anything about politics. All I know is that I don't like Siv Jensen (or most other politicians for that matter...)

Quote from: "elliebean"I'm not the best at explaining it, but this sumarizes my view on it:

(from An Anarchist FAQ (http://www.infoshop.org/page/AnarchistFAQSectionA1))

Quote from: "Brian Morris"The term anarchy comes from the Greek, and essentially means 'no ruler.' Anarchists are people who reject all forms of government or coercive authority, all forms of hierarchy and domination. They are therefore opposed to what the Mexican anarchist Flores Magon called the 'sombre trinity' -- state, capital and the church. Anarchists are thus opposed to both capitalism and to the state, as well as to all forms of religious authority. But anarchists also seek to establish or bring about by varying means, a condition of anarchy, that is, a decentralised society without coercive institutions, a society organised through a federation of voluntary associations. ["Anthropology and Anarchism," pp. 35-41, Anarchy: A Journal of Desire Armed, no. 45, p. 38]

If the author means by 'capital', the means of production, then his statement is nonsensical that anarchists must be against "state, capital and church."  This would mean that anarchists could have no production.  To be an anarchist under this definition in the strictest sense, one would have to be a hunter/gatherer who used only his bare hands to maintain his subsistence.

Anarchocapitalism is a system wherein individuals possess and control property and voluntarily combine to engage in large scale productive efforts without compulsion.  No individual can be compelled by the state to dispose of his property, time, or labor in any way.  The individual is free to do so in that way which he/she sees fit.  Anarchocapitalism is precisely "a condition of anarchy, that is, a decentralised society without coercive institutions, a society organised through a federation of voluntary associations."

The voluntary combination of capital in the effort of large scale production certainly would fall directly inline with this definition of anarchy.  To be opposed to such voluntary associations one would have to oppose anarchy.  What the author means by 'capitalism' remains unclear.  But it cannot mean a social system based on a market economy (which is the definition I am using.)

-a-train

Quote from: "a-train"If the author means by 'capital', the means of production...

Pretty sure he doesn't.

It isn't the production itself, but the exploitation of it that anarchists would abolish. That can happen only if the means of production is owned by the workers who use them.

Quote from: "elliebean"

Quote from: "a-train"If the author means by 'capital', the means of production...

Pretty sure he doesn't.

It isn't the production itself, but the exploitation of it that anarchists would abolish. That can happen only if the means of production is owned by the workers who use them.

So you would advocate a system wherein workers are free to accumulate and control capital, correct?

That is anarchocapitalism.

-a-train

Quote from: "a-train"

Quote from: "elliebean"

Quote from: "a-train"If the author means by 'capital', the means of production...

Pretty sure he doesn't.

It isn't the production itself, but the exploitation of it that anarchists would abolish. That can happen only if the means of production is owned by the workers who use them.

So you would advocate a system wherein workers are free to accumulate and control capital, correct?

That is anarchocapitalism.

-a-train

I understand the words you're saying, but I don't know what you mean. I guess I need to read up on anarchocapitalism myself.    For that matter, I'll need a refresher on anarchocommunism and (more to the roots of my thinking) anarchosyndicalism. Sorry, you'll have to bear with me; I've taken a few too many blows to the ol' noggin over the years.

Quote from: "elliebean"I understand the words you're saying, but I don't know what you mean. I guess I need to read up on anarchocapitalism myself.    For that matter, I'll need a refresher on anarchocommunism and (more to the roots of my thinking) anarchosyndicalism. Sorry, you'll have to bear with me; I've taken a few too many blows to the ol' noggin over the years.

Anarchocommunism would be a system without any economy.  No person would have property rights, nor rights regarding his/her labor.  In fact, no rights at all.  Such a society is simply incomprehensible.  If it somehow existed, it would rapidly transform into either anarchocapitalism or (more likely) some sort of statism or despotism.

Anarchosyndicalism would be anarchocommunism with trade unions.  Individuals would not have rights, but trade unions would.  This also would also eventually be anarchocapitalism, or (more likely) some sort of statism or despotism.

Anarchocapitalism is the market economy.  Each individual in such a system owns himself, his/her labor, and the product of his/her labor: formally known as life, liberty, and property.  With that, the individual has the right to defend his/her own life, liberty, and property.  These rights are neither granted nor protected by any state, they are natural.  Individuals in this system are free to associate, making trade unions, corporations, firms, co-ops, whatever sorts of organizations they volunteer to create and maintain.  Those who do not volunteer are not compelled by any state or threat of violence.  Anarchocapitalism is the economic system of libertarianism, formally known as classical liberalism.

-a-train

This is kind of interesting.

I've heard that Denmark is socialist, and it is also one of the happiest countries in the world. Maybe socialism works after all. Your thoughts?

Quote from: "a-train"Anarchocommunism would be a system without any economy.  No person would have property rights, nor rights regarding his/her labor.  In fact, no rights at all.

How do you figure?

QuoteSuch a society is simply incomprehensible.

Even if I agreed with your assessment, the least I could say is that it would be no less comprehensible that what exists right now.

QuoteIf it somehow existed, it would rapidly transform into either anarchocapitalism or (more likely) some sort of statism or despotism.

How?

QuoteAnarchocapitalism is the market economy.  Each individual in such a system owns himself, his/her labor, and the product of his/her labor: formally known as life, liberty, and property.  With that, the individual has the right to defend his/her own life, liberty, and property.  These rights are neither granted nor protected by any state, they are natural.  Individuals in this system are free to associate, making trade unions, corporations, firms, co-ops, whatever sorts of organizations they volunteer to create and maintain.  Those who do not volunteer are not compelled by any state or threat of violence.  Anarchocapitalism is the economic system of libertarianism, formally known as classical liberalism.

From what I've seen of your posts in another discussion, we're apparently using completely different definitions of words like "capital" and "capitalism"; So there may be, and I would like to think there is, less disagreement between us in concepts than in semantics. Either that, or you're calling "rights" and "property rights" what I call "class privilege" and "ability to oppress".  :blink:

I should have thought of becoming a freelance artist sooner. Too bad I lack adequate facilities to complete a commission in a timely manner (sorry, Asmodean!), a condition which severely limits my income potential.

One need not be "compelled by any state or [overt] threats of violence" in light of what one can reasonably predict, with even but a little imagination, to be the outcome of living any length of time without "gainful employment" in such a society (in fact, I had multiple jobs throughout many of my worst hardships). Is our understanding of the principle of non-coersion that different, or is there (as usual) something in your position I've failed to apprehend?

Sorry, but my take on capitalism is shaped by the only system I've seen my whole life, the American one; and depite my earnestness to achieve at least a modest living, the only outcomes I'm familiar with are 1) those like mine or worse, and 2) those whose privilege is such that they cannot comprehend how one could meet with any less material success than theirs through any fault but one's own, under such a "fair" and "egalitarian" system.

And yes, I am bitter.

But I was already an anarchist before any of that.  


And before I get embarrassed I freely admit that I barely know anything about the topics we're discussing here, so consider this part of my education and please be as clear and concise in your rebuttal as possible, and kindly ask for clarification of terms I may have used incorrectly before charging me with inconsistency or whatever... I'm really, really bad at this subject, which is why I don't really frequent anarchist newsgroups anymore.

Quote from: "elliebean"

Quote from: "a-train"Anarchocommunism would be a system without any economy.  No person would have property rights, nor rights regarding his/her labor.  In fact, no rights at all.

How do you figure?

Property is outlawed under communism.  No person is free to take up any means of production and engage in production (labor).

Quote from: "elliebean"

QuoteIf it somehow existed, it would rapidly transform into either anarchocapitalism or (more likely) some sort of statism or despotism.

How?

It would require that every individual in the system submit themselves to the system.  Groups of conspirators would more easily steal and take advantage of the system because individuals do not account for their own personal wealth (they don't have any).  And if there is no state to account for that wealth, who is left to watch the kitty?  Nobody.  A thief's paradise.

Quote from: "elliebean"From what I've seen of your posts in another discussion, we're apparently using completely different definitions of words like "capital" and "capitalism"; So there may be, and I would like to think there is, less disagreement between us in concepts than in semantics. Either that, or you're calling "rights" and "property rights" what I call "class privilege" and "ability to oppress".  

Capital: a good or goods produced for the purpose of production - examples: a hammer for use in building houses, a press for use in making t-shirts.

Capitalism: the use of capital to engage in production - examples: the use of a hammer in building houses, the use of a press in making t-shirts.

"Capitalism" really needs a qualifier.  "State capitalism": the state owns and/or controls capital.  "Laissez-faire capitalism": individuals own capital and are free to accumulate it or dispose of it in any way they can as they see fit.

Property rights are titles to ownership obtained either by one's own production or the consensual trade with others.  In a market economy, property rights are not granted by any arbiter based on any class distinction.

Since you so graciously shared some of your personal life story, I'll do the same briefly.  My father was murdered when I was six, my mother was left a widow with three children (I was the oldest, one sister was 5 and the other was 6 months) at the age of 25.  She was not good with money and although she got a good insurance payment and a nice payout from Dad's partners in a small business, she was penniless and laden with debt within a few years.  When I was 9 we lived in a tiny two bedroom apartment and I got my first job.  I've been employed almost without any break since.  Taco Bell, Pizza Hut, FedEx, AT&T, Bayer, Harrah's Casino, Marriott Hotels, these are just some of the companies I've worked for.

I saved and started my own business.  It is alive and well today, but it has not come through the recession without any pain.  And just before it started (in 2007) I left my business to do other things.  I still own 45% of it, but I have not worked at it or taken a dime from it since 2007.  I have a wife and two kids.  The recession hasn't been easy.  But we are working as best we can.

My main reason for leaving the business is school.  My major is economics, I am a sophomore, (school takes longer when you work full time).  In 2009, I worked two jobs while going to school.  It was really rough.  I don't think I can do that again.

Anyway, I don't blame the recession on the free market.  I don't blame the free market for the number of Americans that endure hardship.  What we have going on now in America is not free markets at all.  Corporate America has bought Washington.  Corporate America keeps profits and gives losses to the taxpayers.  This is not free-market capitalism, its crony-capitalism.  It's state intervention on behalf of those the state loves.  In some cases it is downright socialism, in others it is fascism.

What we need is more constraint on government.  A constitutional amendment should prevent the government from giving businesses subsidies of any kind.  GM for example makes mistakes that lead to insolvency, so what is the solution?  Go to the government and get them to force everyone else, including employees of competing car companies, to bail them out.  That is not free-market capitalism at all.  Now the troubles that the market would have contained at GM are spread throughout the economy.  The same is true for a thousand other problems which government heaps upon the general public.

I'm not a Republican or a Democrat.  I'm an American.  Neither party seems to differ from the crony system I described.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"This is kind of interesting.

I've heard that Denmark is socialist, and it is also one of the happiest countries in the world. Maybe socialism works after all. Your thoughts?

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"This is kind of interesting.

I've heard that Denmark is socialist, and it is also one of the happiest countries in the world. Maybe socialism works after all. Your thoughts?

Denmark has a mixed economy, it is not a socialist state.  In fact, I am not aware that any industry is nationalized in Denmark.  It embraces free trade and has very open product markets and the freest financial market in the EU.  But it is a major welfare state with some of the highest taxes on the planet.

-a-train

I've taken a bunch of political quizzes today, and all/most of them have described me as a socialist.

Huh.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"I've taken a bunch of political quizzes today, and all/most of them have described me as a socialist.

Huh.

What's wrong with socialism?

Quote from: "Sophus"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"I've taken a bunch of political quizzes today, and all/most of them have described me as a socialist.

Huh.

What's wrong with socialism?

When did I ever imply there was something wrong with it? I guess I'm officially a socialist now, so obviously I like it.

There should be a political party known as "The Jeffersons."

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi304.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fnn199%2Fgottascramma%2FJefferson.jpg&hash=d3c3b338da0800d792d8b52dd8ba22b28038bbed)