What is your political ideology

[CPA]

Noocracy

[The Great-German Empire]

National-Liberal-Populist.

National: I believe that all nations are better off serving themselves, and that they must adapt their laws, customs and policy to their own needs. I do not place much faith in 'international law' because it is either unenforced (as it pretty much is today) or tyrannical-by-diplomacy. To me, bilateralism is the best form of foreign diplomacy, national pride is tangibly beneficial to politics and morale, and multinational countries only work if their various cultural groups have many common factors. A nation should also strive to not depend on any one other nation, and always have an option to get whatever external resources it needs from multiple sources; and all nations except possibly very small ones must have armies of their own in order to defend themselves and to keep the profession of soldier/officer open to citizens. Furthermore, national policy must ensure that the population does not shrink. Therefore, I am "National".

Liberal: I believe in individual freedoms such as (absolute) freedom of speech and the press, the right to bear arms, the right to not self-incriminate, the freedom from cruel punishment... And the list goes on. I believe in the equal rights of all adult, able-minded individuals without discrimination by race, sex, religion or political beliefs - though some rights should be reserved for citizens, like the right to vote. I believe in limited government, transparency and privacy as a right. In fact, my main political desire is "individual agency" - the ability of one individual to think and act on their own volition, free from restriction and coercion and only limited by the sanctity of equivalent rights and freedoms of other individuals. That being said, I am not a progressive, thus I may be called a conservative liberal, and once I was derided as not being a liberal at all. Nevertheless, I consider myself "Liberal"

Populist: I believe that democracy should be exercised by as much of the population as possible, in order for the will of the people to be heard; and, more importantly, I stand for independent thought. I believe that intellectual authority has little place in politics, with scientific issues like those of climate being the only ones to which "experts" have any relevance. I do not believe it's beneficial for a political elite to exist, as it can warp both actual opinion and perceived support, and thus I support elected position recalls and referendums as an integral and regular component of democracy. I am also opposed to far-reaching programs where popular disapproval is sacrificed "for the greater good", and that the phrase "greater good" itself is a suspicious red flag. I also welcome political newcomers. This is why I am "Populist".

[Ardoki]

Socdem Islamism is best.

Ftfy

No.

[Kombinita Socialisma Demokratio]

In descending order of importance:
Pacifist and (strive for)idealist
Feminist/Egalitarianist/Anti-racist/Anti-sexist
Direct Democracy
The rest are more minor and much more likely to fall victim of the no true Scots" fallacy

Socially minded
[*]Compassionately governing because private charity is clearly not enough currently
[*]Free healthcare (still keep the priority system that the ER uses; feel bad for the person rushed past the line, be glad that you are well enough to not need that)
[*]Foreign aid/Disaster relief
[*]A guaranteed degree of education for free, at least half of what is able to realistically be provided
[*]Bare minimums guaranteed for all (at least a small shack, clean water, a few sets of clothes for each relevant weather condition, and plain bland rice/beans; may add more if post-scarcity and/or population desires it)

Internationalist
[*]Cooperation between federal governments to the extent that international governments are as strong as, if not stronger than the combined power of the involved federal governments

Socialist-ish
[*]Workers and community/customers share ownership of all industry
[*]Workers (possibly also customers/community) vote on who among the workers becomes the manager/boss/supervisor for a set period of time
[*]Workers and community/customers vote to decide who gets a raise/demotion (no more room for demotion, given a chance to improve; after third demotion after there are no more demotion levels, fired)
[*]Set pay levels if workers not paid exactly based on how much they achieved out of 60 % of realistic potential
[*]Bare minimums guaranteed for all (at least a small shack, clean water, a few sets of clothes for each relevant weather condition, and plain bland rice/beans; may add more if post-scarcity and/or population desires it)

Treating international borders more or less like intranational borders, that is, close them only where necessary (no extra) when necessary (quarantines, a felon is definitely running)

[Snofjogur]

I believe the best possible system is a unitary parliamentary republic where government officials are elected by meritocratic democracy and the economy is a socialist one. (The absolute best would be an anarchy in which everyone had the progressive education required to maintain harmony without government intervention and in which everyone had free access to exactly as much as they needed of the products of everyone else’s work and all the surplus were distributed equally, but we’re people, not robots, so republic with elections and economy it is.)

I don’t believe in political parties. When you have only independent candidates, each candidate puts forth their ideas and plans and people can vote on them based on what they view as their merits and flaws. When you have political parties, you both lose customisation (because you have to vote for a previously assembled package instead of picking exactly the combination of candidates you like) and have to settle for a diluted version of whatever you believe in (because parties tend to associate with an ideology and take a more or less moderate version of that ideology; there are extremist parties, but most fairly influential parties are pretty centrist). An additional disadvantage in some developing countries is that incompetent people end up in government positions they know little or nothing about and thus cannot exercise their power in an informed way.

Now, we have seen time and again the (often disastrous) results of ignorant people voting on things they don’t fully understand the consequences or intricacies of. This is why democracy doesn’t work. However, every other system involves having a single person or a small group of people make decisions which affect the entire population. Who’s to say who should be granted that power and who shouldn’t? The solution is what I call meritocratic democracy, where each person is only allowed to run for a position in government or to vote for the candidates for that position if they are well-versed in the main subject(s) that position deals with. Economists know a lot about economy, but they don’t usually know a lot about science, education or foreign affairs; thus, only economists with a minimum level of credentials in their field (I’d say minimum a master’s degree, but this is certainly debatable) should be allowed to run for government positions dealing with economy so we can avoid having someone making poor economic decisions for the nation because they don’t understand the implications of said decisions. Likewise, scientists know a lot about science but not usually about economics, education or foreign affairs. And so on. The exact same reasoning applies to voting for candidates. Voting for a candidate is choosing that candidate’s proposals over all other candidates’, so it is, in effect, a decision which will affect the entire nation; it should thus be an informed decision. A scientist wouldn’t necessarily understand the full implications of the proposals of the candidates to economy-related government positions, so they shouldn’t be voting for those candidates, and likewise for all other subject combinations.

Now, a single person can sometimes make poor decisions even if they are experts in their fields; two minds think better than one, and three think better than two. Furthermore, having a single person with absolute power, even if it’s only within a specialised sector, can easily lead to corruption. These are the two reasons I believe a parliamentary system is the best option. Each division of the executive/legislative power (science & technology, economy, education, foreign affairs, etc) should be formed by a small number of decision-making members. This number should be large enough to promote the discussion of competing ideas and make corruption less likely but small enough to prevent debates taking forever (I like 7 members per sector, but it could well be that another number is better or even that each sector has its own optimum). Each decision would then be made democratically by the members of the sector involved in the subject the decision touches upon. In the event that a decision is multidisciplinary (such as, I don’t know, how much tax money to direct towards the nation’s space programme, which is related to science & technology and also to finance), all sectors involved get an equal voting chance (which would make it unfair to have differently sized sectors). I can think of two ways to handle stalemates: either force members to continue debating and repeat votes until one proposal is victorious or have a moderator (who must have credentials in politics and be thoroughly briefed on the issue at hand whenever they are called upon) whose sole job is to cast an additional vote for one of the tied proposals (to clarify, there would be a single moderator for the entire government, not one per sector) (I like the moderator version better because it’s easier and it prevents members of parliament deliberately stalemating proposals indefinitely to prevent a proposal they disagree with from being victorious). No chancellor, prime minister, president, etc; no member of government should be more important than the rest.

Now, I know there are examples of federal governments which work (Germany and Canada come to mind), but I dislike the system. If you’re going to allow each administrative division of the nation to have its own laws, you might as well call it an alliance of independent but aligned nations instead of a nation. Your government suddenly needs to be bigger by a multiplicative factor equal to the number of administrative divisions (plus a little more because you still need some sort of central government to keep it all together). More seriously, it paves the way for abuse because someone can travel to a different division in order to take advantage of some law that is different there.

The issue of people taking advantage of other people brings me to my last point, that of the economy. A state-planned economy with illegal private enterprise (i.e. a socialist economy) makes it harder for corporations to take advantage of the public, whether by offering low-quality services, by charging excessive amounts of money for their services or by forcing the people to accept something they don’t want. Sure, a government-controlled service can do all of that, but with a system like the one described above it’s easier to vote the corrupt government out and replace it with a better one than to create a startup to compete with a massive corporation. Living in Britain and having lived in and travelled to other places, I have first-hand knowledge of this. Railway services in Britain have become ridiculously expensive since they were privatised, and buses (which are also privatised) are nowhere near as punctual as they used to be (compare this to trains and trams in Germany, which are sort of a government service and, from my experience, nearly always run on time). On the other hand, I have only good things to say about the National Health Service, which is a government service (compare this to the services offered by private hospitals in countries like the USA and Mexico, which are very expensive and sometimes not truly concerned with patient welfare / quality of life).

There’s more information in my nation’s main factbook (linked to in my signature), but I’ve also explained the reasoning behind my philosophy with the hope of sparking debate. I’ve also avoided talking about my social views to keep this on topic.

[Thermodolia]

In descending order of importance:
Pacifist and (strive for)idealist
Feminist/Egalitarianist/Anti-racist/Anti-sexist
Direct Democracy
The rest are more minor and much more likely to fall victim of the no true Scots" fallacy

Socially minded
[*]Compassionately governing because private charity is clearly not enough currently
[*]Free healthcare (still keep the priority system that the ER uses; feel bad for the person rushed past the line, be glad that you are well enough to not need that)
[*]Foreign aid/Disaster relief
[*]A guaranteed degree of education for free, at least half of what is able to realistically be provided
[*]Bare minimums guaranteed for all (at least a small shack, clean water, a few sets of clothes for each relevant weather condition, and plain bland rice/beans; may add more if post-scarcity and/or population desires it)

Internationalist
[*]Cooperation between federal governments to the extent that international governments are as strong as, if not stronger than the combined power of the involved federal governments

Socialist-ish
[*]Workers and community/customers share ownership of all industry
[*]Workers (possibly also customers/community) vote on who among the workers becomes the manager/boss/supervisor for a set period of time
[*]Workers and community/customers vote to decide who gets a raise/demotion (no more room for demotion, given a chance to improve; after third demotion after there are no more demotion levels, fired)
[*]Set pay levels if workers not paid exactly based on how much they achieved out of 60 % of realistic potential
[*]Bare minimums guaranteed for all (at least a small shack, clean water, a few sets of clothes for each relevant weather condition, and plain bland rice/beans; may add more if post-scarcity and/or population desires it)

Treating international borders more or less like intranational borders, that is, close them only where necessary (no extra) when necessary (quarantines, a felon is definitely running)

That sounds like hell. Literally hell

[Kombinita Socialisma Demokratio]

In descending order of importance:
Pacifist and (strive for)idealist
Feminist/Egalitarianist/Anti-racist/Anti-sexist
Direct Democracy
The rest are more minor and much more likely to fall victim of the no true Scots" fallacy

Socially minded
[*]Compassionately governing because private charity is clearly not enough currently
[*]Free healthcare (still keep the priority system that the ER uses; feel bad for the person rushed past the line, be glad that you are well enough to not need that)
[*]Foreign aid/Disaster relief
[*]A guaranteed degree of education for free, at least half of what is able to realistically be provided
[*]Bare minimums guaranteed for all (at least a small shack, clean water, a few sets of clothes for each relevant weather condition, and plain bland rice/beans; may add more if post-scarcity and/or population desires it)

Internationalist
[*]Cooperation between federal governments to the extent that international governments are as strong as, if not stronger than the combined power of the involved federal governments

Socialist-ish
[*]Workers and community/customers share ownership of all industry
[*]Workers (possibly also customers/community) vote on who among the workers becomes the manager/boss/supervisor for a set period of time
[*]Workers and community/customers vote to decide who gets a raise/demotion (no more room for demotion, given a chance to improve; after third demotion after there are no more demotion levels, fired)
[*]Set pay levels if workers not paid exactly based on how much they achieved out of 60 % of realistic potential
[*]Bare minimums guaranteed for all (at least a small shack, clean water, a few sets of clothes for each relevant weather condition, and plain bland rice/beans; may add more if post-scarcity and/or population desires it)

Treating international borders more or less like intranational borders, that is, close them only where necessary (no extra) when necessary (quarantines, a felon is definitely running)

That sounds like hell. Literally hell

Which part(s)?
Compassion and cooperation?
Striving for the ideal?
Direct democracy?
Equality?
Peace through not preparing for ending peace?

[Ardoki]

I think pragmatism is the way to go. Idealism is, just not realistic.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

In descending order of importance:
Pacifist and (strive for)idealist
Feminist/Egalitarianist/Anti-racist/Anti-sexist
Direct Democracy
The rest are more minor and much more likely to fall victim of the no true Scots" fallacy

Socially minded
[*]Compassionately governing because private charity is clearly not enough currently
[*]Free healthcare (still keep the priority system that the ER uses; feel bad for the person rushed past the line, be glad that you are well enough to not need that)
[*]Foreign aid/Disaster relief
[*]A guaranteed degree of education for free, at least half of what is able to realistically be provided
[*]Bare minimums guaranteed for all (at least a small shack, clean water, a few sets of clothes for each relevant weather condition, and plain bland rice/beans; may add more if post-scarcity and/or population desires it)

Internationalist
[*]Cooperation between federal governments to the extent that international governments are as strong as, if not stronger than the combined power of the involved federal governments

Socialist-ish
[*]Workers and community/customers share ownership of all industry
[*]Workers (possibly also customers/community) vote on who among the workers becomes the manager/boss/supervisor for a set period of time
[*]Workers and community/customers vote to decide who gets a raise/demotion (no more room for demotion, given a chance to improve; after third demotion after there are no more demotion levels, fired)
[*]Set pay levels if workers not paid exactly based on how much they achieved out of 60 % of realistic potential
[*]Bare minimums guaranteed for all (at least a small shack, clean water, a few sets of clothes for each relevant weather condition, and plain bland rice/beans; may add more if post-scarcity and/or population desires it)

Treating international borders more or less like intranational borders, that is, close them only where necessary (no extra) when necessary (quarantines, a felon is definitely running)

The spoilers sound pretty cool but for the 1st spoiler, how will the gov lay for the low-income welfare (the stuff about the shack, water, food, clothes)? If it's from taxes they sounds like they'd be pretty high. As for the 3rd spoiler, I strongly disagree with asterisks 2 and 3, and I don't understand asterisk 4. Could you explain please?

[Illuminatori]

deep state illuminati psyop technocrat

this means that i only really care about scientific advancement, to facilitate purifying the bloodlines with eugenics and unifying them into a transcendent AI hivemind, and protecting the environment

humans are scum, some of them need to be kept around to perpetuate the deep research society but most of them need to be sacrificed to Lucifer. the most efficient way to do this is to bombard them with hormone disruptors and sexual perversion propaganda to disable their reproduction, this is working pretty well so far and we should be rid of most of you parasites in a few generations

the fact that we have you all in a massive human sacrifice operation and you haven't noticed is pretty funny

i honestly think that the elders are spending too much time though with torturing you all to death with your banal loveless consumer/worker existence, it would be more merciful to just bioweapon you all already

TL;DR this is hell and you are living in it

[Califia]

I suppose i'm Monarchist, I often say i'm Anti-Nationalist. Since it appears to me that most people just care about the soil rather than what makes the Nation upon that good soil - Sovereign and his or her people. That's really it, unlike Illuminatori though I kinda like people even if often they're pretty vile.

[The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord]

deep state illuminati psyop technocrat

this means that i only really care about scientific advancement, to facilitate purifying the bloodlines with eugenics and unifying them into a transcendent AI hivemind, and protecting the environment

humans are scum, some of them need to be kept around to perpetuate the deep research society but most of them need to be sacrificed to Lucifer. the most efficient way to do this is to bombard them with hormone disruptors and sexual perversion propaganda to disable their reproduction, this is working pretty well so far and we should be rid of most of you parasites in a few generations

the fact that we have you all in a massive human sacrifice operation and you haven't noticed is pretty funny

i honestly think that the elders are spending too much time though with torturing you all to death with your banal loveless consumer/worker existence, it would be more merciful to just bioweapon you all already

TL;DR this is hell and you are living in it

Pardon me, but you do realize that NationStates General is an out-of-character board, right?

[Marcianus]

Conservative Libertarianism.

[Illuminatori]

unlike Illuminatori though I kinda like people even if often they're pretty vile.

they are just cattle with primitive survival/reproduction scripts going crazy in their heads. they are a virus that would consume and reproduce itself until it burned out if we hadn't taken control of their weak minds and programmed them for self destruction

you are welcome, anyway. i am personally in favor of mercykilling you, it's these older guys who just want to watch you eat yourselves to death who are the really cruel ones

death solves all problems. no man, no problem

[Christian Confederation]

Center right or moderate right. I'm for strong borders and nationalism (the pride in your nation), strong military, anti globalization, pro life, pro death penalty, pro prison reform, anti iligal imagration, pro democracy, pro capitolism, anti comumist, pro second amendment, pro mandatory background check, pro ice, pro war on drugs, pro isreal, pro Wall.

So basically I'm your friendly neighborhood conservative.

[Illuminatori]

Pardon me, but you do realize that NationStates General is an out-of-character board, right?

nationstates general is an amusement park where we watch low information idealists idealize their animal notions about perfecting the mass production of their own meaningless pleasure. it is a place for naive, soft-hearted insiders to shake off our notions of putting you out of your misery, and learn to accept and eventually love your generational condemnation to struggle for nothing

[Califia]

unlike Illuminatori though I kinda like people even if often they're pretty vile.

they are just cattle with primitive survival/reproduction scripts going crazy in their heads. they are a virus that would consume and reproduce itself until it burned out if we hadn't taken control of their weak minds and programmed them for self destruction

you are welcome, anyway. i am personally in favor of mercykilling you, it's these older guys who just want to watch you eat yourselves to death who are the really cruel ones

death solves all problems. no man, no problem

Dare I say, that's a very edgy position. Sure, people are weak. But people can also be stronger than that, it's just that in these times people are weak methinks. The mind is programmed by the experience of man and perhaps someone bent on destruction sent us down this path or maybe they thought it was a good path. Only the Lord may know right? Anyway, i'll put in a quote of my own.
No man, nothing good that goes with him.

[USS Monitor]

deep state illuminati psyop technocrat

this means that i only really care about scientific advancement, to facilitate purifying the bloodlines with eugenics and unifying them into a transcendent AI hivemind, and protecting the environment

humans are scum, some of them need to be kept around to perpetuate the deep research society but most of them need to be sacrificed to Lucifer. the most efficient way to do this is to bombard them with hormone disruptors and sexual perversion propaganda to disable their reproduction, this is working pretty well so far and we should be rid of most of you parasites in a few generations

the fact that we have you all in a massive human sacrifice operation and you haven't noticed is pretty funny

i honestly think that the elders are spending too much time though with torturing you all to death with your banal loveless consumer/worker existence, it would be more merciful to just bioweapon you all already

TL;DR this is hell and you are living in it

unlike Illuminatori though I kinda like people even if often they're pretty vile.

they are just cattle with primitive survival/reproduction scripts going crazy in their heads. they are a virus that would consume and reproduce itself until it burned out if we hadn't taken control of their weak minds and programmed them for self destruction

you are welcome, anyway. i am personally in favor of mercykilling you, it's these older guys who just want to watch you eat yourselves to death who are the really cruel ones

death solves all problems. no man, no problem

Pardon me, but you do realize that NationStates General is an out-of-character board, right?

nationstates general is an amusement park where we watch low information idealists idealize their animal notions about perfecting the mass production of their own meaningless pleasure. it is a place for naive, soft-hearted insiders to shake off our notions of putting you out of your misery, and learn to accept and eventually love your generational condemnation to struggle for nothing

*** Warned for trolling ***

Forum rules. Read them please.

[Kombinita Socialisma Demokratio]

In descending order of importance:
Pacifist and (strive for)idealist
Feminist/Egalitarianist/Anti-racist/Anti-sexist
Direct Democracy
The rest are more minor and much more likely to fall victim of the no true Scots" fallacy

Socially minded
[*]Compassionately governing because private charity is clearly not enough currently
[*]Free healthcare (still keep the priority system that the ER uses; feel bad for the person rushed past the line, be glad that you are well enough to not need that)
[*]Foreign aid/Disaster relief
[*]A guaranteed degree of education for free, at least half of what is able to realistically be provided
[*]Bare minimums guaranteed for all (at least a small shack, clean water, a few sets of clothes for each relevant weather condition, and plain bland rice/beans; may add more if post-scarcity and/or population desires it)

Internationalist
[*]Cooperation between federal governments to the extent that international governments are as strong as, if not stronger than the combined power of the involved federal governments

Socialist-ish
[*]Workers and community/customers share ownership of all industry
[*]Workers (possibly also customers/community) vote on who among the workers becomes the manager/boss/supervisor for a set period of time
[*]Workers and community/customers vote to decide who gets a raise/demotion (no more room for demotion, given a chance to improve; after third demotion after there are no more demotion levels, fired)
[*]Set pay levels if workers not paid exactly based on how much they achieved out of 60 % of realistic potential
[*]Bare minimums guaranteed for all (at least a small shack, clean water, a few sets of clothes for each relevant weather condition, and plain bland rice/beans; may add more if post-scarcity and/or population desires it)

Treating international borders more or less like intranational borders, that is, close them only where necessary (no extra) when necessary (quarantines, a felon is definitely running)

The spoilers sound pretty cool but for the 1st spoiler, how will the gov pay for the low-income welfare (the stuff about the shack, water, food, clothes)? If it's from taxes they sounds like they'd be pretty high. As for the 3rd spoiler, I strongly disagree with asterisks 2 and 3, and I don't understand asterisk 4. Could you explain please?

For jobs where it is not possible to pay the workers directly according to how much work they did compared to how much they could do, there should be several different fixed levels of pay that they may receive. To determine which level they receive, they start off on the lowest, then the voting on raises lets the coworkers and customers rate how well the person is working. If they are working well, they get a raise. If not, then they are demoted. Once they reach the lowest level, they will remain there. If the vote decides to demote them three times after they have reached the lowest level, then they are fired.
The payment for the welfare is only necessary for who is lacking, so many are not going to receive more. First, legalise squatting; that alone should lower homelessness drastically in the developed world. Now the remaining is more manageable. Hire people temporarily to construct small communal living areas for the homeless, or even use the economics of scale to make many identical bedrooms, kitchens, and bathrooms, and then use the temporarily hired people to put it all together and make several combinations. It need not be perfect, only barely sufficient or better and cheap. This and clean water can be paid for by reallocating the military budget, which is quite large. The cost of drilling a well is not more than the cost of a soldier plus their weapons. Clothing need only by supplied to some, as many have more than enough, and many of those who do not live in areas where the weather conditions do not significantly vary. Beans and rice are very cheap food, and not quite all of the required calories need be supplied from those alone. Basically reallocate military funding, legalise squatting, do things cheaply, and raise taxes when necessary.

[Plasir Grand]

right libertarian/market liberal

[Illuminatori]

*** Warned for trolling ***

Forum rules. Read them please.

i did read your 'trolling' section of the forum rules but it is not clear to me what you did not like about my post, maybe you could explain that? i made only serious statements about the nature of humans and governance.

[USS Monitor]

*** Warned for trolling ***

Forum rules. Read them please.

i did read your 'trolling' section of the forum rules but it is not clear to me what you did not like about my post, maybe you could explain that? i made only serious statements about the nature of humans and governance.

Appeals belong in the Moderation forum: viewforum.php?f=16

[Jinkyr]

Largely libertarian of the KYFHO variety.

In a perfect world:

I believe I should have the right to do whatever I want, as should any person. Governments only have the right to impose influence when there are two parties with equal claim to something and a dispute over that thing.
So the government has no right to enforce vice laws (you can do whatever you want to your body or possessions).
It has no right to act on any situation where there is no complainant (the government can't enforce your rights for you until you specifically ask).
It has no right over private property (except where a non-consenting person is involved).
There is no such thing as intellectual property. If I can copy it then I own my copy and you own yours. I can't take yours from you, but I can create something identical. No patents, copyrights, trademarks.

[Aussandries]

democratic socialism with a more human face and better civil rights (such as free speech)

[Democratic Communist Federation]

In general, I am a libertarian Marxist communist. Leftists used the term libertarian a century before the American right appropriated it. Obviously, people are free to use whatever terms they please. However, I am sometimes criticized by people, perhaps Americans, for using this term. Outside of the U.S., libertarianism more commonly refers to left-communism, libertarian socialism, and libertarian communism. My own libertarian Marxism includes Luxemburgism (Rosa Luxemburg), Antifa, and the critical realism of the late British philosopher Roy Bhaskar.