What are your political views?

[Skinia]

Oh such a... distressing topic.

My political views, as those of many people, vary according to perspective.

I advocate strict democracy, ludicrous civil freedom, a market socialist economy, and death to all who deny the civil rights of others.

However, if I were placed in charge of a country, then you can expect that political freedom to be lowered significantly.

Holy fucking shit, of all the democracy advocates I've talked to, you're awesome. Have a hug before I go to bed.

[Thama]

But that logic doesn't extend to the other side of the economic spectrum, I see.

I said my home country's right-wing's more like a center-right.

My birth country's left wing parties classify as centre-right in most of the rest of the civilised world. Their right wing parties would be outright banned in Germany or France.

I speak of course of Poland.

[Thama]

Oh such a... distressing topic.

My political views, as those of many people, vary according to perspective.

I advocate strict democracy, ludicrous civil freedom, a market socialist economy, and death to all who deny the civil rights of others.

However, if I were placed in charge of a country, then you can expect that political freedom to be lowered significantly.

Holy fucking shit, of all the democracy advocates I've talked to, you're awesome. Have a hug before I go to bed.

Yay hugs ouo <3

[Camelza]

And honesty and international humanism and many, many more. However the catholic church of Spain was quite terrified by the consequences of a communist victory, thus they allied with the initially fascist Falange and fully comitted to them after the most definitely reactionary Franco took over.

While I can agree with the Church and Franco's alliance being very much an anti-Communist alliance; I can see significant compatibility between the Abrahamic religions and Fascism, if not complete.

In theory they're ideological enemies.
Catholicism, as every religion, considers nationalism its enemy and a scourge that brought her down from its leading role in Europe. You see, fascism is a nationalist ideology and as such demands total devotion to the nation and the great leader(who is the personification of the nation), something that is seen as something less than blasphemy by any religion which demands devotion to God and preaches that all people are the children of god, regardless of their national background.
However the Spanish Falanges were actually traditionalist, pro-catholic authoritarians with nationalist leanings and as such very close to the Catholic church.

[Olerand]

I said my home country's right-wing's more like a center-right.

My birth country's left wing parties classify as centre-right in most of the rest of the civilised world. Their right wing parties would be outright banned in Germany or France.

I speak of course of Poland.

The PiS? What is their ideology? National conservatism?

[Thama]

My birth country's left wing parties classify as centre-right in most of the rest of the civilised world. Their right wing parties would be outright banned in Germany or France.

I speak of course of Poland.

The PiS? What is their ideology? National conservatism?

I meant far right, not PiS.
They are Nothing but lukewarm PiS(s).
Though I often overuse very strong words in situations where softer words would convey my true feelings, I'd be quite happy if all Polish right wing parties were wiped off the planet and their leaders executed. Even the lukewarm PiS(s).

[Olerand]

In theory they're ideological enemies.
Catholicism, as every religion, considers nationalism its enemy and a scourge that brought her down from its leading role in Europe. You see, fascism is a nationalist ideology and as such demands total devotion to the nation and the great leader(who is the personification of the nation), something that is seen as something less than blasphemy by any religion which demands devotion to God and preaches that all people are the children of god, regardless of their national background.
However the Spanish Falanges were actually traditionalist, pro-catholic authoritarians with nationalist leanings and as such very close to the Catholic church.

I was thinking more along the Phalanges' societal and social aspect. They...Uhm..."Reached out", as the far-right does, to the poor. They supported the Church's societal positions, using the Church's religious reasonings too. Even economically, their(I do believe Franco was interventionist economically) practices fitted the Church's position, even if they were more authoritarian and painful in their means than the Church advocated for.
Even culturally, they stressed Spain's Catholic heritage, and future, as the Church often does for Europe at large. Well, the Church has recently given up on the call on a Christian future, but still.

[Olerand]

The PiS? What is their ideology? National conservatism?

I meant far right, not PiS.
They are Nothing but lukewarm PiS(s).
Though I often overuse very strong words in situations where softer words would convey my true feelings, I'd be quite happy if all Polish right wing parties were wiped off the planet and their leaders executed. Even the lukewarm PiS(s).

Hm...The PiS is the right-wing of Poland, OK. What is the far-right?

Also, somewhat harsh, wouldn't you say?

[Barrera]

Socially, I'm quite conservative but economically,I'm very much a social democrat—similar to Martin Luther King, Jr. I'm not sure where that puts me in the traditional political spectrum but I usually term myself center-left.

In US politics, I'd be a 'Faith and Family' Democrat.

[Olivaero]

So why use the term "Right" when you mean "Ability to"?

Ah, Kantian distinction. I mean willpower in this sense.

Negative Rights are truths derived from self ownership for me. Because I own myself, nobody has the ability to get into my mind and start fvcking with me. That same idea is branched out into a legal guide based on consequentialist aims.

No one has the ability to get into your mind currently and start fucking with you just by their will power but they can feed you drugs that alter your mental state. That's altering your mind. I'd say it's morally wrong but it is within people who have access to those drugs power.

[The Liberated Territories]

Than what was the first part?

Okay good luck with that.

So what is the motivation to establish a state to enforce it's laws, if there are no rights then there are no rights of states, correct?

There is no contract. To say that the state has a social contract is to imply positive rights. You are contradicting yourself.

What first part? I rejected the inherent status of rights, and rejected the distinctions between positive and negative rights. That is all.

I don't want to punish you. I couldn't care less if you decide to break the United States' social contract or whatever. I was simply saying that if you lived in such a State/society, you would be punished. Think speaking out under Stalin.

Rights of States are established by force too. States are often founded on an ideological basis, most of the Western world's being variations of liberalism. However, it is not a State's ideology that enforces its laws, and punishes those who violate the social contract. It is force.

Contracts with the State are the rights granted to you by the State, in return for the duties demanded by said State.
In return, you recognize the State, in its rights and duties.

Once again, I categorize "positive" and "negative" rights as rights. All encompassing. No differentiation.
Rights granted by Humans, as in society/the State, and revocable as such. If your State were to exit the UN.

You rejected the distinctions between positive and negative rights that I already went over about. Assume I continue this train of thought and said "there is no difference between human and ape."

Okay. And? There is no justification to recognize a state created on force. Why should I recognize a bully's right to exert his influence over me since he can?

I do not want rights granted to me by the state. Ergo I have no reason to recognize it. But it continues to recognize me and demand stuff from me anyway. It is not I, who have not by default taken anything, or if I had paid it back, and if I had taken anything then it was without my consent like above, the aggressor in this situation, which derives no legitimacy, and cannot be called a contract by the definition.

Ah, Kantian distinction. I mean willpower in this sense.

Negative Rights are truths derived from self ownership for me. Because I own myself, nobody has the ability to get into my mind and start fvcking with me. That same idea is branched out into a legal guide based on consequentialist aims.

No one has the ability to get into your mind currently and start fucking with you just by their will power but they can feed you drugs that alter your mental state. That's altering your mind. I'd say it's morally wrong but it is within people who have access to those drugs power.

It could, but I still can think by biological basis, right? Unless I was born a dumb puppet, of course.

[Camelza]

In theory they're ideological enemies.
Catholicism, as every religion, considers nationalism its enemy and a scourge that brought her down from its leading role in Europe. You see, fascism is a nationalist ideology and as such demands total devotion to the nation and the great leader(who is the personification of the nation), something that is seen as something less than blasphemy by any religion which demands devotion to God and preaches that all people are the children of god, regardless of their national background.
However the Spanish Falanges were actually traditionalist, pro-catholic authoritarians with nationalist leanings and as such very close to the Catholic church.

I was thinking more along the Phalanges' societal and social aspect. They...Uhm..."Reached out", as the far-right does, to the poor. They supported the Church's societal positions, using the Church's religious reasonings too. Even economically, their(I do believe Franco was interventionist economically) practices fitted the Church's position, even if they were more authoritarian and painful in their means than the Church advocated for.
Even culturally, they stressed Spain's Catholic heritage, and future, as the Church often does for Europe at large. Well, the Church has recently given up on the call on a Christian future, but still.

Of course, As I said the Phalange was Fascist only in rhetoric, in reality it was reactionary, staunchly catholic and very proud about it. The only problem with Franco's pro-catholic regime and the catholic church was its violent tactics and extreme authoritarianism ...although that was not something unexpected to Spanish catholic officials, if we take a certain look at the Spanish Catholic Church's history.

[The Serbian Empire]

Somewhere off the beaten track. I'd be accused of being far-right economically and far-left socially but very far from political center.

[Barrera]

Somewhere off the beaten track. I'd be accused of being far-right economically and far-left socially but very far from political center.

Libertarianism.

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

Somewhere off the beaten track. I'd be accused of being far-right economically and far-left socially but very far from political center.

I'd say you are center-right.

[Olerand]

You rejected the distinctions between positive and negative rights that I already went over about. Assume I continue this train of thought and said "there is no difference between human and ape."

Okay. And? There is no justification to recognize a state created on force. Why should I recognize a bully's right to exert his influence over me since he can?

I do not want rights granted to me by the state. Ergo I have no reason to recognize it. But it continues to recognize me and demand stuff from me anyway. It is not I, who have not by default taken anything, or if I had paid it back, and if I had taken anything then it was without my consent like above, the aggressor in this situation, which derives no legitimacy, and cannot be called a contract by the definition.

The differences between human and ape are biological. As by nature. I hope you're not comparing political science to biology.
Social sciences are not hard sciences.

You don't have to. The Human race has, however. Ever since the founding of the first States at the dawn of recorded history. The original States were entirely and solely based on force, in fact.

Then change your society's conceptions, they're the one forcing the State on you.

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

Somewhere off the beaten track. I'd be accused of being far-right economically and far-left socially but very far from political center.

Libertarianism.

Not an option, though.

And *right-wing libertarianism, thank you very much.

[Olerand]

Of course, As I said the Phalange was Fascist only in rhetoric, in reality it was reactionary, staunchly catholic and very proud about it. The only problem with Franco's pro-catholic regime and the catholic church was its violent tactics and extreme authoritarianism ...although that was not something unexpected to Spanish catholic officials, if we take a certain look at the Spanish Catholic Church's history.

Acknowledged, and true. I agree then.

[The Liberated Territories]

You rejected the distinctions between positive and negative rights that I already went over about. Assume I continue this train of thought and said "there is no difference between human and ape."

Okay. And? There is no justification to recognize a state created on force. Why should I recognize a bully's right to exert his influence over me since he can?

I do not want rights granted to me by the state. Ergo I have no reason to recognize it. But it continues to recognize me and demand stuff from me anyway. It is not I, who have not by default taken anything, or if I had paid it back, and if I had taken anything then it was without my consent like above, the aggressor in this situation, which derives no legitimacy, and cannot be called a contract by the definition.

The differences between human and ape are biological. As by nature. I hope you're not comparing political science to biology.
Social sciences are not hard sciences.

You don't have to. The Human race has, however. Ever since the founding of the first States at the dawn of recorded history. The original States were entirely and solely based on force, in fact.

Then change your society's conceptions, they're the one forcing the State on you.

They go by the scientific method. If anything, everything is an abstract concept that is organized by the human brain anyway. Same for rights.

What does force have to do with rights?

I cannot, or if I can, it is inconsequential. You are missing the point: as a social contract is organized by a society, then it would require 100% of it's members to agree to it's legitimacy. If even one person objects, it ceases to be relevant. The state then cannot derive any justification other than your pandering to "lolforce." Rights, arbitrary or not, is what we use to derive justification on a moral or utilitarian basis.

[Olivaero]

No one has the ability to get into your mind currently and start fucking with you just by their will power but they can feed you drugs that alter your mental state. That's altering your mind. I'd say it's morally wrong but it is within people who have access to those drugs power.

It could, but I still can think by biological basis, right? Unless I was born a dumb puppet, of course.

You can still think but what you think is determined by which neurons fire and the likely hood of certain pathways opening up is determined by the chemicals present between the connections in said neurons so alter them and some one is controlling the way you think. Not necessarily exactly but for all intents and purposes they are reaching into your mind and increasing the likelyhood of producing what they consider a more desirable outcome happening. You have no way to fight against it other than not taking the drugs in the first place which they could force you to do.

[Olerand]

They go by the scientific method. If anything, everything is an abstract concept that is organized by the human brain anyway. Same for rights.

What does force have to do with rights?

I cannot, or if I can, it is inconsequential. You are missing the point: as a social contract is organized by a society, then it would require 100% of it's members to agree to it's legitimacy. If even one person objects, it ceases to be relevant. The state then cannot derive any justification other than your pandering to "lolforce." Rights, arbitrary or not, is what we use to derive justification on a moral or utilitarian basis.

Certainly not. The physical world exists regardless of Human consciousness or lack thereof. The laws of physics predate humanity, and will survive it.
This is like that philosophical question(apparently somewhat common in America, as I heard it originally being discussed there) "does a tree make a noise if it falls in the forest and no one hears it" or somesuch question.
Of course it does. The laws of nature, the laws of physics, exist regardless of our understanding or recognition of them.

Force ensures the respect of your rights, and punishes you for breaking the rights of others(or the State's).

I disagree. A social contract needs a majority, not all. If a majority does, then it is so.
Sometimes, you don't even need a majority, only an influential minority imposing its will on the majority, as long as it can, most often through force.

[Waldriech]

Mhm, Ok

[Waldriech]

I'm suprised at the large amount of Far-Lefts and Comunists. Does anyone else agree.

[Waldriech]

Cough*

[Waldriech]

So, what are you political views. Trying to get this forum active again!