Your Political ideology?

history_buff

oscarBravo wrote:

What does that mean?

I have a horrible presentiment it isn't going to have anything to do with Plato.

It simply means I'm a Republican patriot who favours a traditional brand of Republicanism, rather than the Marxist tripe being pushed by modern Sinn Fein.

biko

I'm in the same spot as Mandela. Pretty accurate I believe.
Fits my username.

Jackie laughlin

A traditional Irish pseudo republican wouldn't know the difference between Plato and Pluto and would probably not know that the Marxist line is for Irish consumption while the traditional line is maintained for the lucrative US market.

history_buff

Jackie laughlin wrote:

A traditional Irish pseudo republican wouldn't know the difference between Plato and Pluto and would probably not know that the Marxist line is for Irish consumption while the traditional line is maintained for the lucrative US market.

Were you born a cynic or did you to go to classes?

Jackie laughlin

HistoryBuff,
I'm not at all cynical. I'm a cheerful, optimistic socialist. However, I grew up with all the duplicity of so-called republicanism and despise it's destructive, anti-Irish character.

FTA69

I'm a Republican Socialist, I suscribe to the idea the "only true inheritors of the struggle for freedom are the Irish working class", isn't that right history buff?

SkepticOne

Akrasia wrote:

I don't have an exact ideology, 'Libertarian socialist' or Anarchist would describe me best. I am opposed to the state, but i am more opposed to capitalism. As long as we have capitalism we need a strong state to regulate it, but only if that state is democratic in nature.

I think once you get rid of the state, the distinction between capitalism and socialism disappears. Both require a state. Capitalism requires the state to protect private property and enforce contracts. Socialism requires the state to coerce resources from individuals for redistribution. I don't think either concept makes much sense outside the concept of a state.

banaman

I don't like limiting myself with labels but here's what I believe:-
1) life is what is important, as a human, therefore, I believe that human life is most important. (given a choice I'd choose to save my, or anyone else's, kids before a dog or cat)
2) following from the above we are all born equal and ALL other distinctions are purely subjective.
3) As a society we have a duty of care and consideration for ALL our fellow citizens (actually all our fellow humans)
4) there is NO SUCH THING as a SELF-MADE MAN/WOMAN and anyone who argues such a case is a selfish bar-steward.
5) private property inheritance is a crime against your fellow humans. How can you be so deluded as to believe that you own a hill, a tree or any living thing?
6) It is society's duty to care for its sick, old and its kids.

Kaiser_Sma

Ok banaman you were going fine untill points 4 and 5. I'm not sure exactly were your politics end and lala land begins.

Is your problem with the lack of universal commonage or mearly with concept of ownership?

Chakar

Political ideology? I would have to say I would be classed as right of centre.

Cronus333

banaman wrote:

I don't like limiting myself with labels but here's what I believe:-
1) life is what is important, as a human, therefore, I believe that human life is most important. (given a choice I'd choose to save my, or anyone else's, kids before a dog or cat)
2) following from the above we are all born equal and ALL other distinctions are purely subjective.
3) As a society we have a duty of care and consideration for ALL our fellow citizens (actually all our fellow humans)
4) there is NO SUCH THING as a SELF-MADE MAN/WOMAN and anyone who argues such a case is a selfish bar-steward.
5) private property inheritance is a crime against your fellow humans. How can you be so deluded as to believe that you own a hill, a tree or any living thing?
6) It is society's duty to care for its sick, old and its kids.

Sorry, what? points 1 and 2 were excellent but after that..... Nobody has a duty to do anything. While it might be highly desirable you can't force people to do good. Also I don't see why you have a problem with people keeping what they earn. Otherwise why bother earning it?

samb

SkepticOne wrote:

I think once you get rid of the state, the distinction between capitalism and socialism disappears. Both require a state. Capitalism requires the state to protect private property and enforce contracts. Socialism requires the state to coerce resources from individuals for redistribution. I don't think either concept makes much sense outside the concept of a state.

I know a few anarchists myself (who I have great time for) but they usually have trouble explaining how a state-less society would not simply be rampant capitalism and surrival of the fittest. For me human culture and complex society is what most seperates us from most animals and is the only way to provide a decent life to those who could not compete in a anarchist/extreme-liberatarian fantasy.

Jackie laughlin

Civilised living depends on a state. Even the open society depends on the state. Iraq is an example of what happens when there is no state.

Banaman,
Don't be put off by clever jumping on your use of the word "duty". Your points leave you not too far from a basic socialist position.

There are just a few rich and successful people who have the strength to say that they have been fortunate. One of my friends who has won awards for "entrepreneurship" is fond of chiding his fellow business people by addressing them with the fact that had he been born two doors down, he'd probably be unemployed.

Of course, it is unfair that people should inherit wealth rather than have to work but there is a world of difference once we talk about scale. Everyone wants to leave something to their kids but a variable inheritance tax should bring something like common sense.


Did I see above a "republican socialist" ask a "republican" anti-Marxist a question about the working class?

banaman

Kaiser_Sma wrote:

Is your problem with the lack of universal commonage or mearly with concept of ownership?

Basically with the whole exclusive and inheritable property. Since at some point in history private property was taken by those with the biggest stick, largest sword, most power etc from everyone else I believe that to perpetuate such theft is of dubious morality.
However where the "state" in response to the wishes of its people chooses to allocate property to its people for them to support themselves then I would deem that acceptable.
However what becomes of that property after their death? I believe it should return to the "people"
Thus you hold it in stewardship not ownership or in Environmental parlance you are merely part of the crew not a passenger on "spaceship" Earth

Sand

Realist liberalism.

And for what its worth, property rights are the barrier between slavery and freedom. The State serves the citizen. That is why it exists. The citizen does not exist merely to fund the States "progressive" programs. Its not a coincidence that corrupt and oppressive regimes go hand in hand with poor property rights. I personally fail to see any compelling moral or legal argument for property left to descendants being taxed punitively, when such property is net of income taxes, sales taxes, road taxes, stamp duty and whatever other shakedown you can think off paid during the lifetime in which that property was earned.

Since at some point in history private property was taken by those with the biggest stick, largest sword, most power etc from everyone else I believe that to perpetuate such theft is of dubious morality.

What rights exactly would an individual have in a system where the State removes their property rights [using force to do so, I can hardly imagine volunteers for slavery], making them utterly dependant on the state for their wellbeing?

Thats even before you contemplate the horror of the clowns who brought you the CIE branching out into broader economic adventures.

The Corinthian

Sand wrote:

Realist liberalism.

Doesn't every ideology claim to be 'realist'?

Except for Surrealist National Socialism, of course - Heil Potato!

democrates

Sand wrote:

Realist liberalism.

And for what its worth, property rights are the barrier between slavery and freedom. The State serves the citizen. That is why it exists. The citizen does not exist merely to fund the States "progressive" programs. Its not a coincidence that corrupt and oppressive regimes go hand in hand with poor property rights. I personally fail to see any compelling moral or legal argument for property left to descendants being taxed punitively, when such property is net of income taxes, sales taxes, road taxes, stamp duty and whatever other shakedown you can think off paid during the lifetime in which that property was earned.

What rights exactly would an individual have in a system where the State removes their property rights [using force to do so, I can hardly imagine volunteers for slavery], making them utterly dependant on the state for their wellbeing?

Thats even before you contemplate the horror of the clowns who brought you the CIE branching out into broader economic adventures.

I think it would be retrograde for the state to confiscate all I have earned upon my demise and bar me from leaving anything to my kids. The French actually outlaw attempts to disinheirit your offspring, but they charge up to 60% on inheritance by non-blood relatives including charities, a bit extreme for my liking.

At the same time I don't like the idea of ever more powerful elite dynasties, an investor class parasiting off the bettery-hen employee masses, there's something profoundly sick about that, maybe I'm identifying with Irish history and the repugnance of the lord and tenant regime.

A balance is surely the answer. If the trust-fund beneficiaries are slack-jawed gad-abouts, tax should distribute the store of wealth over time for the greater good. I don't agree with the overnight inheritance tax situation, it should be spread over a number of years and if you die before it's all paid off the bill goes forward with your estate up to the max of the estate at which point it become state property. Once we're not taking an extreme position it's a question of percentage and time, I'd love to see a poll on what public opinion is on that, together with peoples view of their ideology label.

Cronus333

thats what I should have added: a poll. silly me.

To a large extent I agree with you democrates (I never thought I'd say that
....) but inheritance laws are quite strange creatures. I don't agree with the French system, I think you should be allowed to disinherit your children but heavily encourage people not too by messing around with inheritance tax. Otherwise I think you have it right here.

Sand

Doesn't every ideology claim to be 'realist'?

Well, some claim to be visionary but I accept the point. I guess I was trying to express that Im for liberal society but I recognise that not everyone else is.

Once we're not taking an extreme position it's a question of percentage and time, I'd love to see a poll on what public opinion is on that, together with peoples view of their ideology label.

Thered be no surprises I think. Youd be asking the majority people if they like the idea of a minority being taxed twice over for the crime of dying and passing on "too much" wealth to their descendants. Schaudenfreude alone would cement the result.

Theres not much evidence that a government would spend the money any better than an investor/parasite [Whose inheritance paid for the electronic voting machines? decentralisation? funding the catholic church's compo bills? The army of "consultants"?] and a fools money will be redistributed soon enough either way. I cant see any argument for taxing income thats already been taxed. Surely that implies that the rate of taxation in your particular case was too low in the first place, because you somehow managed to still make "too much"? I dont like the concept of the State having a "right" to tax arbitrarily. It needs to justify it and recognise that its not "free money". Theres no real justification for taxing you twice imo, even if lightly.

democrates

Sand wrote:

Theres not much evidence that a government would spend the money any better than an investor/parasite [Whose inheritance paid for the electronic voting machines? decentralisation? funding the catholic church's compo bills? The army of "consultants"?] and a fools money will be redistributed soon enough either way. I cant see any argument for taxing income thats already been taxed. Surely that implies that the rate of taxation in your particular case was too low in the first place, because you somehow managed to still make "too much"? I dont like the concept of the State having a "right" to tax arbitrarily. It needs to justify it and recognise that its not "free money". Theres no real justification for taxing you twice imo, even if lightly.

I totally agree on the waste we have seen, it will be reflected in the next election. I don't view 'the state' as a seperate entity, a kind of enemy oppressing us, we elect and pay the government and civil service to serve us, to see to the common good.

True, some in power positions get hooked on spending the peoples money. This element of our democratic arm has been malfunctioning, perhaps still variously corrupted by private interests. But I think it needs to be fixed, not abandoned. We need full transparency and civilian oversight, and representative democracy doesn't cut it, direct democracy is the only system I know of that enables adequate people power, but that's a long term project which needs to grow from the grassroots.

On double-taxation, a general principle followed is that you can't tax a tax (are cars an exception?), but most transactions are taxed. The sector that shoulders the greatest burden by far taking all taxes into account is the paye worker. We've seen all the tax-breaks for others, and while urban-renewal schemes and the like may be justified, ssap's which allow directors to grow property portfolios free of income tax or cgt:eek: are bare-faced elitist measures, given that ordinary paye workers are excluded. So I'm all for reducing the unjust paye burden by having everyone make their fair contribution. Solve that and inheritance tax becomes less of an issue.

Jackie laughlin

The neo-liberal project is to use the state to transfer wealth to the already wealthy. The state is never neutral. It exists to be used for the common good or the particular good. We choose which.

boneless

FTA69 wrote:

I'm a Republican Socialist, I suscribe to the idea the "only true inheritors of the struggle for freedom are the Irish working class", isn't that right history buff?

That makes me an advanced Republican Socialist...

Sgt. Sensible

Jackie laughlin wrote:

Civilised living depends on a state. Even the open society depends on the state. Iraq is an example of what happens when there is no state.

What was civilised about the wars between competing states in the last century? Gulags, concentration camps and the creation of the atomic bomb would have been impossible without states and massive bureacracies. Iraq is a mess because it was destroyed by states (the US and UK) for reasons which are not entirely clear.

Cronus333

Sgt. Sensible wrote:

What was civilised about the wars between competing states in the last century? Gulags, concentration camps and the creation of the atomic bomb would have been impossible without states and massive bureacracies. Iraq is a mess because it was destroyed by states (the US and UK) for reasons which are not entirely clear.

So you would rather bands of looters and roving biker gangs to the protection of a state?

Jackie laughlin

Sgt,
Cronus is of course right. No one ever said that states were unconditionally goood but the absence of state power is not gentle anarchy but war.

darkman2

Id consider myself a 'social-capitalist'. Im a Fianna Fail supporter but I find PD policy enduring and dont minnd Fine Geal. The rest can bugger off:p

Pocari Sweat

Anarchy ftw, because democracy is wrong.

Ozzy

Utopian Anythingismist here

Cronus333

darkman2 wrote:

Id consider myself a 'social-capitalist'. Im a Fianna Fail supporter but I find PD policy enduring and dont minnd Fine Geal. The rest can bugger off:p

Enduring or endearing? hopefully both!

darkman2

Cronus333 wrote:

Enduring or endearing? hopefully both!

'endearing' thats it!! I really dont understand why the PD's get such bad press. IMHO its their economic policies that really put us on the road to change:rolleyes: