What is Your Political Ideology?

[Questarian New Yorkshire]

Individualistic devolution. We should de-evolve the human species to a pre-ape stage, so that we can have true and absolute freedom. No more dominance hierarchies, no more religion, no more politics. Just eat and survive, in the pure anarchy of nature, guided not by the hands of Machiavellians or economic markets, but the pure chance of genetics.

extremely based

[Cekoviu]

Individualistic devolution. We should de-evolve the human species to a pre-ape stage, so that we can have true and absolute freedom. No more dominance hierarchies, no more religion, no more politics. Just eat and survive, in the pure anarchy of nature, guided not by the hands of Machiavellians or economic markets, but the pure chance of genetics.

how do you propose that we do this

[Tol Elenna]

Individualistic devolution. We should de-evolve the human species to a pre-ape stage, so that we can have true and absolute freedom. No more dominance hierarchies, no more religion, no more politics. Just eat and survive, in the pure anarchy of nature, guided not by the hands of Machiavellians or economic markets, but the pure chance of genetics.

how do you propose that we do this

It's not a realistic position, I know that. I'm sure 99.999% of people would reject such an undertaking, even if we had the mastery over genetics necessary to pull it off. And all it would take would be a small group of people to refuse it, and they would find themselves masters of the world. Even if a group of people decided to de-evolve on some far flung terraformed world in the future, they would only then be conquered by those who chose not to. It's more a fantasy than reality. Outside of that, I guess my views are combination of economic liberalism, parliamentary democracy, secularism, moral conservatism, and maximizing autarchy.

[The English Regions]

Individualistic devolution. We should de-evolve the human species to a pre-ape stage, so that we can have true and absolute freedom. No more dominance hierarchies, no more religion, no more politics. Just eat and survive, in the pure anarchy of nature, guided not by the hands of Machiavellians or economic markets, but the pure chance of genetics.

This is like the next step down from Rousseau's general idea of an ideal society and "state of nature" hypothesis, it is just not possible to achieve, the only way to do would for it to be guided. Humanity has a propensity to learn or build structures even in primitive and so to prevent development of hierarchies, factionalism and religion.

[Cekoviu]

how do you propose that we do this

It's not a realistic position, I know that. I'm sure 99.999% of people would reject such an undertaking, even if we had the mastery over genetics necessary to pull it off. And all it would take would be a small group of people to refuse it, and they would find themselves masters of the world. Even if a group of people decided to de-evolve on some far flung terraformed world in the future, they would only then be conquered by those who chose not to. It's more a fantasy than reality. Outside of that, I guess my views are combination of economic liberalism, parliamentary democracy, secularism, moral conservatism, and maximizing autarchy.

autarchy or autarky?

[Andaristiva]

I consider myself to be a "practical left-wing loony-" my main political principle is that all people should be equal both economically and socially; and that the government's sole duty is to support the people in progressing towards this society, but I know that all attempts to create an economically and socially equal society have been brought down by humanity's natural selfishness and cruelty, and that in many cases attempting to create this society has made the world even more unequal. So instead, I just make do with the society I am part of, trying to make the world a better place, in hope that those who come after me will be more inclined to look after and support each other than the people of today.

Interestingly, my time on NationStates has slightly changed my political ideology. The process of ruling a simulated country has helped me become more understanding of governmental necessary evils that, despite not quite fitting with my left-wing ideals, would be dangerous to ignore. In particular, I am starting to understand why governments spend so much money on supporting business and the military, rather than welfare and education, after I pretty much ran them both into the ground in Andaristiva by constantly putting people before business and had to start reconstructing them in a panic.

[Tol Elenna]

It's not a realistic position, I know that. I'm sure 99.999% of people would reject such an undertaking, even if we had the mastery over genetics necessary to pull it off. And all it would take would be a small group of people to refuse it, and they would find themselves masters of the world. Even if a group of people decided to de-evolve on some far flung terraformed world in the future, they would only then be conquered by those who chose not to. It's more a fantasy than reality. Outside of that, I guess my views are combination of economic liberalism, parliamentary democracy, secularism, moral conservatism, and maximizing autarchy.

autarchy or autarky?

Right, I meant autarky, though in theory autarchism sounds good but would likely result in anarchy and being conquered.

[The Islands of Versilia]

Individualistic devolution. We should de-evolve the human species to a pre-ape stage, so that we can have true and absolute freedom. No more dominance hierarchies, no more religion, no more politics. Just eat and survive, in the pure anarchy of nature, guided not by the hands of Machiavellians or economic markets, but the pure chance of genetics.

Barbaric and uncivilised. Quite unappealing. Whilst I appreciate and enjoy nature, to devolve ourselves to lesser beings is most certainly repulsive.

[Tol Elenna]

Individualistic devolution. We should de-evolve the human species to a pre-ape stage, so that we can have true and absolute freedom. No more dominance hierarchies, no more religion, no more politics. Just eat and survive, in the pure anarchy of nature, guided not by the hands of Machiavellians or economic markets, but the pure chance of genetics.

Barbaric and uncivilised. Quite unappealing. Whilst I appreciate and enjoy nature, to devolve ourselves to lesser beings is most certainly repulsive.

Nothing in nature is as barbaric as civilization. Animals are saints next to humans, all the more so because they don't claim to have a conscience or be self-aware. The woman who marries for money and abandons her children, the man who sexually molests and presents himself as supporting women's rights, the high functioning psychopaths in all levels of the medical profession. We're just as barbaric, what makes us different is we proclaim to high heaven to be things we are not, and in what seems like an almost perpetually-schizophrenic state, we actually believe it. And this is the tacit agreement of homo sapiens, to put up a front, a facade, to "keep face." I prefer the honest barbarism of nature, I prefer consistency. You take a look at a tiger, and you know from its fangs and claws what it's about; you look at a man, and you haven't got a clue; you speak to him, and now you know even less.

[Nakena]

Barbaric and uncivilised. Quite unappealing. Whilst I appreciate and enjoy nature, to devolve ourselves to lesser beings is most certainly repulsive.

Nothing in nature is as barbaric as civilization. Animals are saints next to humans, all the more so because they don't claim to have a conscience or be self-aware. The woman who marries for money and abandons her children, the man who sexually molests and presents himself as supporting women's rights, the high functioning psychopaths in all levels of the medical profession. We're just as barbaric, what makes us different is we proclaim to high heaven to be things we are not, and in what seems like an almost perpetually-schizophrenic state, we actually believe it. And this is the tacit agreement of homo sapiens, to put up a front, a facade, to "keep face." I prefer the honest barbarism of nature, I prefer consistency. You take a look at a tiger, and you know from its fangs and claws what it's about; you look at a man, and you haven't got a clue; you speak to him, and now you know even less.

Nah its you who excludes the current state of things from nature. Its still nature and about survival. Doesnt matters if its an jungle of plants or concrete buildings.

This whole civilization vs nature stuff is an false dichtonomy in this context.

[Cekoviu]

Barbaric and uncivilised. Quite unappealing. Whilst I appreciate and enjoy nature, to devolve ourselves to lesser beings is most certainly repulsive.

Nothing in nature is as barbaric as civilization. Animals are saints next to humans, all the more so because they don't claim to have a conscience or be self-aware. The woman who marries for money and abandons her children, the man who sexually molests and presents himself as supporting women's rights, the high functioning psychopaths in all levels of the medical profession. We're just as barbaric, what makes us different is we proclaim to high heaven to be things we are not, and in what seems like an almost perpetually-schizophrenic state, we actually believe it. And this is the tacit agreement of homo sapiens, to put up a front, a facade, to "keep face." I prefer the honest barbarism of nature, I prefer consistency. You take a look at a tiger, and you know from its fangs and claws what it's about; you look at a man, and you haven't got a clue; you speak to him, and now you know even less.

believing this requires an astonishing level of ignorance about ecology and evolution as well as ethics and philosophy tbh
here, this is a really accessible and pretty cheap book that might begin to help you understand how violent nature is: https://www.amazon.com/Tropical-Nature- ... 0684187108
it is not better than human society in any way

[Drongonia]

So reading through this thread I've seen that the majority of people support left-wing ideologies (not exactly a surprise, it's NS after all), and perhaps more interestingly Cekoviu has been appointed as the arbiter of everyone's political opinions. Sounds like nice work if you can get it.

[Cekoviu]

So reading through this thread I've seen that the majority of people support left-wing ideologies (not exactly a surprise, it's NS after all), and perhaps more interestingly Cekoviu has been appointed as the arbiter of everyone's political opinions. Sounds like nice work if you can get it.

yes, it pays pretty well and offers great benefits, and it allows me to do what i love

[Nakena]

So reading through this thread I've seen that the majority of people support left-wing ideologies (not exactly a surprise, it's NS after all), and perhaps more interestingly Cekoviu has been appointed as the arbiter of everyone's political opinions. Sounds like nice work if you can get it.

yes, it pays pretty well and offers great benefits, and it allows me to do what i love

Appointed Arbiter of Everyone's Political Opinions is quite the title though.

[Atheris]

Individualistic devolution. We should de-evolve the human species to a pre-ape stage, so that we can have true and absolute freedom. No more dominance hierarchies, no more religion, no more politics. Just eat and survive, in the pure anarchy of nature, guided not by the hands of Machiavellians or economic markets, but the pure chance of genetics.

That's... physically impossible, but fuck it. I'll sign on.

[Alba and Cymru]

Barbaric and uncivilised. Quite unappealing. Whilst I appreciate and enjoy nature, to devolve ourselves to lesser beings is most certainly repulsive.

Nothing in nature is as barbaric as civilization. Animals are saints next to humans, all the more so because they don't claim to have a conscience or be self-aware. The woman who marries for money and abandons her children, the man who sexually molests and presents himself as supporting women's rights, the high functioning psychopaths in all levels of the medical profession. We're just as barbaric, what makes us different is we proclaim to high heaven to be things we are not, and in what seems like an almost perpetually-schizophrenic state, we actually believe it. And this is the tacit agreement of homo sapiens, to put up a front, a facade, to "keep face." I prefer the honest barbarism of nature, I prefer consistency. You take a look at a tiger, and you know from its fangs and claws what it's about; you look at a man, and you haven't got a clue; you speak to him, and now you know even less.

Civilization is the evolutionary goal of humanity. Anything that corrupts civilization is inherently immoral. The examples you've given - greed, deceit, sloth, are all tools of civil and cultural devolution. Thomas Hobbes would agree with your view of the inherent fallen nature of humanity, but this does not mean that barbarism is the answer. Man is the only cruel animal, yes, but he is also the only animal to command his food, terraform the earth, and reason with others' ideas as well as his own. We are built for civilization, not against it.

[Anatoliyanskiy]

I'm a Washington Consensus Liberal - Centre-right on economic issues, centre-left on social issues, pro free trade, pro immigration and pro western interventionism.

''Sounds like Libertarianism but with extra steps''.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Rawlsian, but socialist.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

Capitalism with pragmatic regulations to prevent abuses, alongside unapologetic nationalism. Supporter of regulating lobbying, decentralization of government, reducing the role we play overseas to focus on domestic problems, and overhauling our poor infrastructure. I would love nothing more than to pull out of the middle east.

[MineLegotia and Equestria]

Christian Conservative that supports small moral government and free markets.

[Vistulange]

Barbaric and uncivilised. Quite unappealing. Whilst I appreciate and enjoy nature, to devolve ourselves to lesser beings is most certainly repulsive.

Nothing in nature is as barbaric as civilization. Animals are saints next to humans, all the more so because they don't claim to have a conscience or be self-aware. The woman who marries for money and abandons her children, the man who sexually molests and presents himself as supporting women's rights, the high functioning psychopaths in all levels of the medical profession. We're just as barbaric, what makes us different is we proclaim to high heaven to be things we are not, and in what seems like an almost perpetually-schizophrenic state, we actually believe it. And this is the tacit agreement of homo sapiens, to put up a front, a facade, to "keep face." I prefer the honest barbarism of nature, I prefer consistency. You take a look at a tiger, and you know from its fangs and claws what it's about; you look at a man, and you haven't got a clue; you speak to him, and now you know even less.

This, folks, is what happens when you take Rousseau at face value and don't adapt it to modern society.

[Ochenea]

Barbaric and uncivilised. Quite unappealing. Whilst I appreciate and enjoy nature, to devolve ourselves to lesser beings is most certainly repulsive.

Nothing in nature is as barbaric as civilization. Animals are saints next to humans, all the more so because they don't claim to have a conscience or be self-aware. The woman who marries for money and abandons her children, the man who sexually molests and presents himself as supporting women's rights, the high functioning psychopaths in all levels of the medical profession. We're just as barbaric, what makes us different is we proclaim to high heaven to be things we are not, and in what seems like an almost perpetually-schizophrenic state, we actually believe it. And this is the tacit agreement of homo sapiens, to put up a front, a facade, to "keep face." I prefer the honest barbarism of nature, I prefer consistency. You take a look at a tiger, and you know from its fangs and claws what it's about; you look at a man, and you haven't got a clue; you speak to him, and now you know even less.

Well monkeys don't commit genocide I'll give you that.

[Cekoviu]

Nothing in nature is as barbaric as civilization. Animals are saints next to humans, all the more so because they don't claim to have a conscience or be self-aware. The woman who marries for money and abandons her children, the man who sexually molests and presents himself as supporting women's rights, the high functioning psychopaths in all levels of the medical profession. We're just as barbaric, what makes us different is we proclaim to high heaven to be things we are not, and in what seems like an almost perpetually-schizophrenic state, we actually believe it. And this is the tacit agreement of homo sapiens, to put up a front, a facade, to "keep face." I prefer the honest barbarism of nature, I prefer consistency. You take a look at a tiger, and you know from its fangs and claws what it's about; you look at a man, and you haven't got a clue; you speak to him, and now you know even less.

Well monkeys don't commit genocide I'll give you that.

One might argue that army ants do.

[The Islands of Versilia]

Nothing in nature is as barbaric as civilization. Animals are saints next to humans, all the more so because they don't claim to have a conscience or be self-aware. The woman who marries for money and abandons her children, the man who sexually molests and presents himself as supporting women's rights, the high functioning psychopaths in all levels of the medical profession. We're just as barbaric, what makes us different is we proclaim to high heaven to be things we are not, and in what seems like an almost perpetually-schizophrenic state, we actually believe it. And this is the tacit agreement of homo sapiens, to put up a front, a facade, to "keep face." I prefer the honest barbarism of nature, I prefer consistency. You take a look at a tiger, and you know from its fangs and claws what it's about; you look at a man, and you haven't got a clue; you speak to him, and now you know even less.

Well monkeys don't commit genocide I'll give you that.

If I recall correctly other primates have engaged in similar activities. A sort of chimp war occurred sometime ago, I cannot remember exactly.

[Cisairse]

Nothing in nature is as barbaric as civilization.

This has serious "First sentence of a 400-page political theory magnum opus" vibes.