What is your political ideology

[The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord]

"While the hand of the state may be made of iron, it wouldn't be a fist to strike the people, but rather an open palm to uplift them..." is a decent quote to describe it.

My ideal form of government is a supranational technocratic world-state with elements of a constitutional participatory democracy and a mixed economic system with slightly market socialist leanings. The legislature would be bicameral and consist of a lower house comprised of randomly-selected citizens, and a upper house structured in a vaguely corporatist form. The executive branch would be ran by a directorial council of "philosopher-monarchs/scholar-officials" who have achieved the highest rankings in the civil service. Socially, a civic religion inspired by Mohist thought would be prevalent so as to ensure brotherhood and unity.

TL;DR My oversimplified ideal form of government is a global authoritarian republic with technocratic elements.

EDIT: Slight changes in terminology made for conciseness

[Nor Portland]

Anarcho-Syndicalism with heavy influences from Christian Anarchism and Democratic Confederalism. I subscribe to these theories because they make the most sense in terms of human morality and living

[Unified German-State]

[Western Vale Confederacy]

(Image)

>associating the German Empire with Nazi Germany

Actual historical illiteracy.

[Nor Portland]

(Image)

Sir I'm gonna need a timestamp on that shit

[Frievolk]

(Image)

>associating the German Empire with Nazi Germany

Actual historical illiteracy.

Associating either the German Empire or the Black-Red-Gold Liberal Germany with the Nazis is peak Nazi Revisionism.

[Unified German-State]

>associating the German Empire with Nazi Germany

Actual historical illiteracy.

Associating either the German Empire or the Black-Red-Gold Liberal Germany with the Nazis is peak Nazi Revisionism.

@ All the retards who think the image is original, it's clearly not when you simply look at the URL. I saw swastikas and guns, since they're the most overpowering feature. Simple as that. Also if you nitpick about little things like that you are a literal pseud.

[Western Vale Confederacy]

Associating either the German Empire or the Black-Red-Gold Liberal Germany with the Nazis is peak Nazi Revisionism.

@ All the retards who think the image is original, it's clearly not when you simply look at the URL. I saw swastikas and guns, since they're the most overpowering feature. Simple as that. Also if you nitpick about little things like that you are a literal pseud.

Also, Dirlewanger apologist.

Miss me with that Nazi shit.

[Unified German-State]

@ All the retards who think the image is original, it's clearly not when you simply look at the URL. I saw swastikas and guns, since they're the most overpowering feature. Simple as that. Also if you nitpick about little things like that you are a literal pseud.

Also, Dirlewanger apologist.

Miss me with that Nazi shit.

Dirlegang epic as f*uc*k

[Mryasia]

My OOC ideology is a leftist libertarian

[Audioslavia]

Associating either the German Empire or the Black-Red-Gold Liberal Germany with the Nazis is peak Nazi Revisionism.

@ All the retards who think the image is original, it's clearly not when you simply look at the URL. I saw swastikas and guns, since they're the most overpowering feature. Simple as that. Also if you nitpick about little things like that you are a literal pseud.

Hurling abuse at other users is against the rules. *** This is a warning ***.

I'm also removing your signature. Signatures should be eight lines, maximum, and should not be designed solely to troll people.

[Free Arabian Nation]

To be honest, I really don't know what I am. I believe in a balance between State Socialism, Worker Socialism, and Capitalism (Which makes me a centrist or state capitalist, idk lol). Socially speaking I thought I was extremely libertarian, but I was proven wrong multiple times especially with my heavy ideas of Nationalism and State Power.

So... I really don't know what to think.

[Berlin-Munich]

My political ideology is i base everything case by base and go from there, so i dont really have a specific ideology, i guess a little more conservative but it all depends on what it is really

[Awesome Dudes and Dudettes]

To be honest, I really don't know what I am. I believe in a balance between State Socialism, Worker Socialism, and Capitalism (Which makes me a centrist or state capitalist, idk lol). Socially speaking I thought I was extremely libertarian, but I was proven wrong multiple times especially with my heavy ideas of Nationalism and State Power.

So... I really don't know what to think.

https://8values.github.io/ this'll help
Anti-Establishment Left leaning Centrist

[Ghost Land]

This thread just doesn't die, does it?

Right-wing libertarian, classical liberal, socially conservative, supporter of small government and benevolent autocracy. The government section of this dispatch outlines my ideal political system.

[Captian Lard]

This thread just doesn't die, does it?

Right-wing libertarian, classical liberal, socially conservative, supporter of small government and benevolent autocracy. The government section of this dispatch outlines my ideal political system.

"Benevolent Autocracy" are my favorite words to put together.

[Bear Stearns]

Capitalism with a dose of nationalism.

Although I'd just be happy if things returned to how they were in the 1980s. Modern politics really suck.

[Free Arabian Nation]

To be honest, I really don't know what I am. I believe in a balance between State Socialism, Worker Socialism, and Capitalism (Which makes me a centrist or state capitalist, idk lol). Socially speaking I thought I was extremely libertarian, but I was proven wrong multiple times especially with my heavy ideas of Nationalism and State Power.

So... I really don't know what to think.

https://8values.github.io/ this'll help
Anti-Establishment Left leaning Centrist

Ty...

...And I'm a populist >_>
https://8values.github.io/results.html?e=53.7&d=34.2&g=39.2&s=92.1

[The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord]

This thread just doesn't die, does it?

Right-wing libertarian, classical liberal, socially conservative, supporter of small government and benevolent autocracy. The government section of this dispatch outlines my ideal political system.

It doesn't. It's like the years, in that it starts coming and it don't stop coming.

As a side note to my prior posts, my ideological/political views are based upon my Mohist-inspired moral philosophy. To summarize the fundamentals of my position:

In the Form of Formal Argumentation
Premise: (You act as though) Your physical and psychological needs have intrinsic value, and you work to meet them
Premise: The differences between the “other” and the “self/kin” are negligible*
Conclusion: (You should act as though) Everybody's needs have intrinsic value, and you should work to meet them as best as possible when practical (i.e. one should act with unconditional compassion)

In essence, I hold that "pure" egoism and "pure" nihilism are rather arbitrary means of answering "what-to-do-next", in that oneself is not fundamentally different from others, and therefore one should treat others with the same dignity/love with which one treats oneself. From this basis, further moral truths can be discovered. In somewhat more detail, if we argue morality in the real world is about addressing the problem of what-to-do-next, then it removes the focus on individuals to more general statements. If moral choices are actually about decision-making, then the application of the idea "intrinsic value is impartial" does generate compelling reasons to care about the experiences of other people and factor them impartially into our decisions, because we interact with them in our daily lives. Their experiences and thus choices do matter, because they have consequences for our decisions. I'm not sure there is utility in rejecting impartiality, for the self, for others, and for society. I maintain that this argument evidently follows from the application of impartiality to the broader definition of morality, which is to say that the Good is thus an independent and objective abstraction based on caring about the experiences of other people and factoring them impartially into our decisions for the benefit of all (i.e. "unconditional compassion", or jian'ai according to the Mohist philosophers), and that moral human behavior would be in accord with it.

I believe that a quote from Mozi sums it up rather nicely:

If people regarded other people’s states in the same way that they regard their own, who then would incite their own state to attack that of another? For one would do for others as one would do for oneself. If people regarded other people’s cities in the same way that they regard their own, who then would incite their own city to attack that of another? For one would do for others as one would do for oneself. If people regarded other people’s families in the same way that they regard their own, who then would incite their own family to attack that of another? For one would do for others as one would do for oneself. And so if states and cities do not attack one another and families do not wreak havoc upon and steal from one another, would this be a harm to the world or a benefit? Of course one must say it is a benefit to the world.

*My reasoning for embracing such an abstract meta-ethical axiom (that is to say, that the differences between the “other” and the “self/kin” are negligible, or more broadly the phenomenon of empathy and the concept of impartiality) is that I realized knowledge in the domains of mathematics, logic, and especially morality are made by the same process that gives us scientific knowledge. Namely creativity and criticism. This is true even though the nature of investigation is very different in all these domains (mathematics/logic, for example, being axioms and proofs, logical consistency and completeness). Furthermore, scientific explanations necessarily employ abstract objects and quantities that are not directly experienced but essential parts of the explanation. Also, if abstractions are all just in the mind (just the way we represent regularities in the outside world), then all we've done is shuffle the problem of abstraction in the outside world to abstractions in our own minds. Not to mention that unobservable universals are necessary components of explanatory knowledge, whether scientific or in another domain. By saying there are no abstractions, the "pure" egoist or the "pure" nihilist thus implies that there are only subjective illusions and that only meaningless world of subatomic particles exists. But that also means rejecting that experience, the self, and indeed the very concept of personhood exists, and thus the importance and primacy of your own sense of good. My reasoning for embracing such an abstract meta-ethical axiom (that is to say, that the differences between the “other” and the “self/kin” are negligible, or more broadly the phenomenon of empathy and the concept of impartiality) is that I realized knowledge in the domains of mathematics, logic, and especially morality are made by the same process that gives us scientific knowledge. Namely creativity and criticism. This is true even though the nature of investigation is very different in all these domains (mathematics/logic, for example, being axioms and proofs, logical consistency and completeness). Furthermore, scientific explanations necessarily employ abstract objects and quantities that are not directly experienced but essential parts of the explanation. Also, if abstractions are all just in the mind (just the way we represent regularities in the outside world), then all we've done is shuffle the problem of abstraction in the outside world to abstractions in our own minds. Not to mention that unobservable universals are necessary components of explanatory knowledge, whether scientific or in another domain. By saying there are no abstractions, the "pure" egoist or the "pure" nihilist thus implies that there are only subjective illusions and that only meaningless world of subatomic particles exists. But that also means rejecting that experience, the self, and indeed the very concept of personhood exists, and thus the importance and primacy of your own sense of good. By abstract quantities, I mean things like energy and entropy, as well as physical constants like the charge of the electron. For an example, look no further to the concept of heat. We know that heat doesn't require material transfer. The transfer of heat energy depends on the reduction of a difference in distribution of some physical quantity, like the redistributing of translational movements and molecular vibrations between the molecules of one object and another. These differences between systems are objective parts of the explanation. Thermodynamics describes high level physical processes, like the tendency towards greater disorder, but these have not yet been derived from simpler descriptions of interactions between particles. It is not clear if such a reduction is possible as an explanation. My point about abstractions is that they are essential parts of explanations (including physics) that appear to be semi-autonomous to the lower level description, yet still being objective. They are not only simpler but provide better understanding than even a hypothetical computer simulating all the fundamental laws to predict what would happen would produce (without denying determinism). However, we're not really talking about physics, but moral values. It is very unclear how these have any basis in the "hard" physical world. But nevertheless, I argue that they form essential parts of our best explanations for different levels of description, in other words, they appear to be nonphysical but objective. Values, such as the distinction of right and wrong appear in our moral theories that are conjectured to address real problems, and so we must count them as objective if these theories survive. In essence, if you reject abstractions as having any independent objective reality (like moral values, except what one arbitrarily imposes), then you must also reject the premise that the self or personhood exists, a concept which is patently absurd.

TL;DR: I think that the Good is an independent and objective abstraction based on caring about the experiences of other people and factoring them impartially into our decisions for the benefit of all (i.e. "unconditional compassion"), and that moral human behavior would be in accord with it.

[The Isle of Beithe]

Whenever I take political ideology tests, I fall into the right-libertarian spectrum, but this fails to adequately describe my views -- especially since I support certain ideas that would fall more into the left-libertarian spectrum, such as greater workplace democracy. So I guess I'll describe myself as a centrist overall?

Some ideas I support: anti-corporatism (what I'd call "true capitalism"), anti-globalism, small government (but not full-on minarchism), supporter of a mix between direct democracy and republicanism, meritocracy (to a limited degree).

I am also a strong advocate of using modern technology to redefine political systems. For example, I believe that in a society where most governance occurs at a relatively local level, the internet is a great tool for the exchange of ideas between communities.

[Grand Unity of the Righteous Nation Cele]

My political ideology is whatever I feel like saying it is, at the moment. I find labels like that and a strict adherence to them to be detrimental toward actual disussion because they promote tribalistic us-vs-them mentality.

[The Isle of Beithe]

My political ideology is whatever I feel like saying it is, at the moment. I find labels like that and a strict adherence to them to be detrimental toward actual disussion because they promote tribalistic us-vs-them mentality.

I support this statement.

[Democratic Communist Federation]

My political ideology is whatever I feel like saying it is, at the moment. I find labels like that and a strict adherence to them to be detrimental toward actual disussion because they promote tribalistic us-vs-them mentality.

However, a clear and consistent framework of knowledge allows for purposeful action.

[Byzconia]

I'm a liberal socialist. Think of it as between social democracy and democratic socialism. Personally, I also support market socialism and would like to see a larger role for cooperatives and worker management in the economy.

[Definitely Not Robots]

A form of anarchy where the only functions of the "state" are to defend the nation against aggression by foreign powers and provide services and utilities (running water, sewage, etc).

EDIT: Removed "whatever they please" because it sounded weird.
EDIT: Removed the word government because the word government would imply laws exist.