What's your deviation?

[Free Missouri]

In what way are you an anarchist if you support organized coercion?

I believe he means that we, as individuals will, coincidentally, decide, at the same time, to physically remove or terminate communists. through any means necessary.

Anyways, I'm a Christian Libertarian that deviates from Libertarianism on the matter of Borders (I believe open borders will only be a safe option AFTER we neuter the welfare state) and the matter of Abortion (Pro-Life, though still technically libertarian here because that a child past the age of viability has the sacred, unalienable, creator-endowed right to Life.)

As far as Philosophically, I basically believe that the source of all authority is from god, delegated to the governed who must then give their consent to be governed, and thus, when a government loses the consent of the governed it is no longer to be considered legitimate, and must be thrown off.

And Yes, if you couldn't tell, I believe that the single best Philosophical Document in history is the First two Paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence.

[Herargon]

It could be said in two words; Technocratic democratism.

My sig pretty much says the rest. Don't know what, aside from the 'technocratic democratism', I would be according to my sig.

Herargon

[Olivaero]

It could be said in two words; Technocratic democratism.

My sig pretty much says the rest. Don't know what, aside from the 'technocratic democratism', I would be according to my sig.

Herargon

So how would that work? Is that like, the Chancellor gets voted in by economists?

[Adriatic Microplate]

I'm a classical Marxist and member of the IMT, but I'm unusual in how much emphasis I place on Rosa Luxemburg (particularly my wholehearted embrace of The Accumulation of Capital), a fairly strong anti-relgious (especially anti-Catholic) streak, and support for conception of revolutionary integrationism put forward by Clara and Richard Fraser.

[Sack Jackpot Winners]

This is PG-13 forum.

And this is a G/PG topic.

I'm pretty libertarian but I hate and distrust state and local governments.

I get that though, I'm probably a bit more in line with libertarianism than I let on, but living in Northern California you learn to distrust state and local governments as a mean of suburban survival.

[Ganonsyoni]

I'm pretty much a socialist. Leaning towards left-libertarianism more and more. And, given that I'm american and part of a minority that gets murdered often (trans), pretty pro-gun. I was anti-gun for a while, but after seeing some pretty convincing arguments and demonstrations, I'm firmly in the pro-gun/self defence/gun club camp.

[Herargon]

It could be said in two words; Technocratic democratism.

My sig pretty much says the rest. Don't know what, aside from the 'technocratic democratism', I would be according to my sig.

Herargon

So how would that work? Is that like, the Chancellor gets voted in by economists?

Nah. It's more like where the chancellor gets elected by politicologists. Those who are economists could become bankers, and so would people wanting to lead an university, be chosen by talentful professors.

Basically, it's that the people best in their respective field get elected for those field positions. The difference with meritocracy is that meritocracy is about 'those that earn it should lead'.
In a technocracy, it would not be the question if you deserve a position because you're a celebrity or a rich businessman, but because you are best at skills required for such a position.

[Risottia]

That's some cognitive dissonance.

Hes a ancap what can you expect

Ah, and here I thought he was one of those Makhnoites.

[Olivaero]

So how would that work? Is that like, the Chancellor gets voted in by economists?

Nah. It's more like where the chancellor gets elected by politicologists. Those who are economists could become bankers, and so would people wanting to lead an university, be chosen by talentful professors.

Basically, it's that the people best in their respective field get elected for those field positions. The difference with meritocracy is that meritocracy is about 'those that earn it should lead'.
In a technocracy, it would not be the question if you deserve a position because you're a celebrity or a rich businessman, but because you are best at skills required for such a position.

Oh sorry your not from the UK are you? I meant the as in the Chancellor of the Exchequer who is in charge of economic policy basically. I don't think the leader of the government should get elected by political scientists though There doesn't seem to be much thought given in such a system to the social contract between the individual and the state for example. Sure people are getting ruled over skillfully but the academia that produces the rulers will have some biases within it too and could be extremely un-representive of the people who live in the state.

[Lies and Ignorance]

I'm a hardline anarchocommunist. I agree with the libertarian socialist method of skepticism towards power, and I anchor my skepticism in a Marxist analysis of capitalist property relations.

[Herargon]

Nah. It's more like where the chancellor gets elected by politicologists. Those who are economists could become bankers, and so would people wanting to lead an university, be chosen by talentful professors.

Basically, it's that the people best in their respective field get elected for those field positions. The difference with meritocracy is that meritocracy is about 'those that earn it should lead'.
In a technocracy, it would not be the question if you deserve a position because you're a celebrity or a rich businessman, but because you are best at skills required for such a position.

Oh sorry your not from the UK are you? I meant the as in the Chancellor of the Exchequer who is in charge of economic policy basically. I don't think the leader of the government should get elected by political scientists though There doesn't seem to be much thought given in such a system to the social contract between the individual and the state for example. Sure people are getting ruled over skillfully but the academia that produces the rulers will have some biases within it too and could be extremely un-representive of the people who live in the state.

Ahh, I see you have heard from or read Du contract social of Rousseau.
Though it could also be that people vote upon their chancellor, and that the most voted upon chancellors then get into a list where out of them the chancellor then is elected. That actually sort of happens where I live, but not exactly.
I indeed do not live in the UK but I neighbour it. The people elect the lower house, and then these MPs appoint a person to create a coalition. That person usually becomes premier.
In the past, it was the queen or king that appointed that person. Nowadays though, it's been changed.

[Ashmoria]

I am a liberal democrat but I believe that we ought not to start new expensive programs until we can pay for them (and the programs we aren't paying for now).

[New Dukaine]

Personally, I am a centrist-liberal, or a left centrist.

[Dushan]

Idiosyncratic Right-Wing Libertarian might or might not be a fitting description.

[Hakons]

I'm mostly liberal. I think workers are the most valuable part of the economy, so by US standards I'm a socialist. I deviate from most liberals (Democrats), in that I think we should spend less on the military and focus more on soft power. I'm for legal abortion, but I think it should be moderately restricted. Gay marriage should be legal, but I'm only tolerant of it. My political views are mainly from being a Methodist Protestant.

[Pope Joan]

I agree with Phil Ochs; "There's no place in this world where I'll belong".

I oppose abortion as an option for birth control.

I oppose the death penalty.

I would limit government bureaucracy.

I oppose our wanton warmaking.

I think small entrepreneurs, shopkeepers, are great.

I think monstrous transnational corporations are going to suck us dry and leave us a lifeless husks.

So I have no home.

There is no political/opinion base which welcomes me.

[Olerand]

On economic and social matters, I am pragmatically a social-democrat, but ideologically a socialist. On matters of society, culture, politics etc. I am French Republican, egalitarian, and laïcard.

[Valaran]

I'm not sure.

I'd be a soc dem/liberal in the US, and fluctuating centrist in the UK, but neither is very precise, partly as my views aren't completely set. Besides, I focus heavily on international affairs, of which I'm something of an interventionist pragmatist.

[Thermodolia]

Generally liberal/progressive, but unlike some of my compatriots, pro-free trade, pro-interventionism, an American exceptionalist, and somewhat pro-gun.

This is pretty much me except that I also somewhat support the death penalty.

[Ikania]

I'm an economic liberal who has had a very hard time trying to reconcile collective bargaining and basic liberty. The whole concept of "you're not allowed to go to work if the union strikes", as well as being forced to pay the unions even when you're not part of one, it really doesn't work for me. It tramples on the rights of the individual, and the whole 'right to work' thing sounds, on the balance, quite appealing.

Of course, I may be entirely wrong on the whole entire concept of it, but based on what I've been told, I'm not too ready to accept this supposedly liberal tenet as a part of my ideology.

[Ashmoria]

I'm an economic liberal who has had a very hard time trying to reconcile collective bargaining and basic liberty. The whole concept of "you're not allowed to go to work if the union strikes", as well as being forced to pay the unions even when you're not part of one, it really doesn't work for me. It tramples on the rights of the individual, and the whole 'right to work' thing sounds, on the balance, quite appealing.

Of course, I may be entirely wrong on the whole entire concept of it, but based on what I've been told, I'm not too ready to accept this supposedly liberal tenet as a part of my ideology.

it does sound better. that's why it is necessary to say "right to work for less" because that is what you get in right to work states.

[The Constitutional Republic of Freedonia]

Conservative Libertarian/Minarchist. Strongly against government intervention in just about every area, save the bare minimum necessary to protect the rights of the people, but I would gladly have both soft drugs and alcohol banned outright.

[Koninkrijk Zeeland]

Americans should call "liberals" social democrats because liberal means a supporter of freedom. Liberals want more government intervention which results in less economic freedom.

[Vorond]

Fascism is fun!

[Olerand]

Americans should call "liberals" social democrats because liberal means a supporter of freedom. Liberals want more government intervention which results in less economic freedom.

They are not social democrats, however; left-wing American liberals are social liberals.