Political Ideology....

SEVERUSMAX

Benevolent Master
Joined
Apr 1, 2004
Posts
28,995
Me, I'm 45% Libertarian, 25% Centrist, 10% Social Darwinist, 10% Anarcho-Syndicalist, 5% Paleo-Conservative, and 5% Jacobin. :D :cool:
 
I am pretty much a libertarian on the public policy issues of the day. I believe limited government makes the most sense, but fear the anarchists may be correct that it will never remain limited. Their vision of anarcho-capitalism is interesting and often very sophisticated, but probably not possible.

In political philosophy I am a genetically engineered mutation combining strains of Adam Smith and Ayn Rand, with a shot of Hayek and a dash of Edmund Burke.
 
Last edited:
SEVERUSMAX said:
It's okay. I already knew about the anal, but I don't mind being reminded of it. :D

Oh, good.

Friday evening is a rotten time for me to do any serious thinking, my apologies.

I just felt I needed to add something to the thread.

:rolleyes:
 
sweetsubsarahh said:
Oh, good.

Friday evening is a rotten time for me to do any serious thinking, my apologies.

I just felt I needed to add something to the thread.

:rolleyes:

I've had worse threadjacks- a lot worse. :D
 
I'm an old school conservative. I favor states rights, a limited Fed, fiscal responsibility and virulent protection of our constitioually guarenteed freedoms.

I look to government to provide rational, reasaonable, logical and even rule. Shange, for the sake of change, is antathema to me and thus, I'm a fairly implacable foe of the liberal agenda. Not because I am against helping thos eless fortunate, but because I am against wholesale change when I don't see the need for it or a plan to implement it that seems rational.

Basically, I'm a dinosaur. And there are very few of us left as far as I can tell.
 
Colleen Thomas said:
I'm an old school conservative. I favor states rights, a limited Fed, fiscal responsibility and virulent protection of our constitioually guarenteed freedoms.

I look to government to provide rational, reasaonable, logical and even rule. Shange, for the sake of change, is antathema to me and thus, I'm a fairly implacable foe of the liberal agenda. Not because I am against helping thos eless fortunate, but because I am against wholesale change when I don't see the need for it or a plan to implement it that seems rational.

Basically, I'm a dinosaur. And there are very few of us left as far as I can tell.


But you have such a lovely tail.

:heart:
 
sweetsubsarahh said:
But you have such a lovely tail.

:heart:

I'm sure that she does. Some lucky lady will have fun with that, if they haven't already. I don't really know much about her private life, which is probably how she likes it, from the sound of it. Some lesbians probably don't want to be on display for the voyeuristic pleasure of red-blooded straight (or, in my case, bi) men. I wouldn't exactly blame her for that. Then again, I wouldn't be disappointed if the opposite were true about exhibitionism.

Anyway, that's a rather cool philosophy. Sounds familiar. A lot of that corresponds to the Paleo-Con and Libertarian sides of my thinking.
 
Last edited:
Having come to the unfortunate viewpoint that you don't get to the point of wanting to lead the people without some trauma in your past making you idealistic and single-minded (advocate) or so egotistical that you think you know better than other people (deluded) or wanting to take advantage of all the free corruption just sitting around (vote for hire)...

I'd prefer to be led by the advocate, with the sure knowledge that we can kick them out in four years after they've fixed the one thing they're good at and start fixing the other stuff they ignored.

I'm for making drugs and sex with consent legal. Penalties for damage done under the influence or violating the concept of consent.

Besides, making drugs legal would cut off a huge slush money fund the government has that it uses to fund all its bullshit.

Mostly I wouldn't like to get involved, because to actually be a civil servant is a difficult vocation when it's done right, and if they do it right, they deserve my respect and my vote, so they'll get it.

So I'll vote for who looks the most dedicated and the least stupid.
 
Recidiva said:
Having come to the unfortunate viewpoint that you don't get to the point of wanting to lead the people without some trauma in your past making you idealistic and single-minded (advocate) or so egotistical that you think you know better than other people (deluded) or wanting to take advantage of all the free corruption just sitting around (vote for hire)...

I'd prefer to be led by the advocate, with the sure knowledge that we can kick them out in four years after they've fixed the one thing they're good at and start fixing the other stuff they ignored.

I'm for making drugs and sex with consent legal. Penalties for damage done under the influence or violating the concept of consent.

Besides, making drugs legal would cut off a huge slush money fund the government has that it uses to fund all its bullshit.

Mostly I wouldn't like to get involved, because to actually be a civil servant is a difficult vocation when it's done right, and if they do it right, they deserve my respect and my vote, so they'll get it.

So I'll vote for who looks the most dedicated and the least stupid.


Understandable.

In case anyone is wondering, I suspect that the Jacobin part is a hold-over from a past life. I was probably involved in the Reign of Terror. :devil:
 
SEVERUSMAX said:
Understandable.

In case anyone is wondering, I suspect that the Jacobin part is a hold-over from a past life. I was probably involved in the Reign of Terror. :devil:

That's completely understandable.

Took me several years to get over the disappointment of not having a serving wench handy.

*sigh*
 
well, politics isn't everything,

personal and social changes --good ones-- come, also, from outide 'political movements'

social democrat* 50%

anarchist ** 30%
--(see chomsky at http://www.spunk.org/texts/intro/sp000281.html)

classic ("paleo") conservative 15%

marxist revolutionary 5%
--(when all else fails....)

====
* For example, Sweden and Finland.
**It's to be kept in mind that any group, if it has power, tends to become lazy, even corrupt, and sometimes vicious. "Anarchist" at very least implies skepticism about exercise of government authority compatible with liberty and human values.
 
Last edited:
I am actually a Libertarian - Modified. I don't hold with the Libertarian parties stance on the current situtation in Iraq!

The Rational Anarchist claim was my character speaking!
 
Recidiva said:
That's completely understandable.

Took me several years to get over the disappointment of not having a serving wench handy.

*sigh*

Well, the big hint for me is the occasional impulse to go completely against my Libertarian principles and suggest that so and so be executed. Then I remember that this is NOT me or what I stand for. So, who is it? I can only guess that it was another life for my soul.

And, Colly, if people like you were still in charge of the GOP, I'd probably still be a Republican. Back in the good ol' days, it was the party of Bob Dole. I voted for Bob Dole, and probably would again, with no problem. It's the current GOP leadership that pisses me off. Too sad that it is no longer the party of "smaller government".
 
Back
Top