What is my ideology? - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Any other minor ideologies.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
User avatar
By Aerofal
#14863668
I have a general idea what my ideology is generally, however I can't really find an actual ideological label that fits me well. I should probably start with my ideal government set-up.

Governmental Structure:
Each individual province has rather high autonomy, with an elected "Strategos" to administrate the region. While the Stategos run the individual provinces, a council of 150 elected representatives (Senators, 3 for each province) who create federal legislation that bind all of the confederation. The Senate creates federal legislation regarding foreign policy, military decisions, federal taxes, the creation of federal projects (I.E continental bullet trains), and some economic decisions regarding subsidies. Each piece of legislation goes through a 2/3rd vote by the Senators before it goes to the Council of Strategos for a simple 1/2th vote.

For all other legislation that binds each and every single member-state, a referendum in which the majority vote from the populous wins.

Regarding the Head of the Confederation, the Council of Strategos appoint a military officer as the head of state. This officer, known as the Archon or Grand Commandant, acts at the face of the nation. He makes all military decisions at the behest of the Senate. He/She also drafts treaties that are voted upon by the Senate and can veto legislation (at which the Council of Strategos can vote to overturn this decision).

Regarding the Judicial System, I would prefer that every and all Judicial position is an elected position. The Grand Tribunal votes upon the constitutionality of various legislation and resolve some issues between member-states.

The federal military will train and work with local militias within the Confederation.

Fiscal Positions:
Regarding the preferred economics of my system, I agree with a more Dirigist approach; substantial state investment within the economy is important for many sectors such as Energy. State investment should be going into companies researching in engineering, bioengineering/biotechnical engineering, aeronautics, alternative energy sources, transportation, and various infrastructure technologies.

The creation of state corporations of utilities to ensure fairness between every individual. And preferably, the creation of local healthcare institutions with federal funding would be preferable in the US's healthcare situation.

Regarding the taxes, I believe the Corporate Tax rate should be 25% with the removal of loopholes and tax deductions for bigger corporations. Regarding the Estate Tax, it should be a progressive tax ranging from 35% to 50%. Income tax brackets should be from 0% for the poorest (under $12000) to 50% ($5000000+). The creation of tariffs for the seedling sectors of the economy would be for the best for the American people.

On international trade agreements, I believe that they do benefit the nation, but we must look at their content and back-out if the particular agreement isn't benefiting us. TPP has way too many hidden provisions, some of which give individual corporations more power than a state within this agreement, and NAFTA isn't as great as we thought it would be.

Regarding the Welfare system, I believe that for someone to receive their benefits, they must be looking for a job, education, vocational training or other career training. If they do not receive a job within 1 year, they can get a job at a federal infrastructure firm to keep their benefits.

Labor Unions must be protected by the state, however, the individual should not be forced into the unions and the unions and other NGOs should be unable to donate to political campaigns or give campaign gifts.

Regarding education and science, state funding into science, is of course, quite important. Common Core and other standardized testing standards should be replaced with a system based on teaching on each individual's ability. Also, funding should be based on federal taxes and not property taxes to ensure the same quality of education.

Social Policies
Any laws regulating the private lives of the citizens (I.E homosexuality, ideological opinions, etc) should be completely banned within the Confederation. The 4th Amendment also applies to all electronic data. Any and all speech, with the exception of speech that incites violence or potential to cause death (yelling fire in a crowded theater), should not be barred by the state. Handguns should require a training license, but other firearms shouldn't and gun show loopholes should be removed. Also, with conscription, the military (or militia) should arm the populous with a semi-automatic service rifle after their 2 year mandatory service.

Regarding immigration, illegal immigration should be strictly controlled. Any and all immigrants who serve the military (be it illegal or non-illegal) should be granted citizenship. Otherwise, the immigration system of the US should be closer to that of the 10 point system of Australia.

Regarding nationalism, civic nationalism should be used to unify my divided country once more. Nationalism based on citizenship should be important; each immigrant must know fluent English and assimilate to our political values (not ideology, but general values such as equal rights) and take a strict citizenship test or serve the military to become a citizen. Every immigrant with dual-citizenship that is under 18 must strip one of their citizenships once they become 18.

So, what am I, PoFo?
User avatar
By Aerofal
#14863672
mikema63 wrote:It falls under the broadly liberal category with elements of nationalism, mild nativism, and economic populism.

Yeah, I figured it was some form of liberalism in one way or another. The real problem IMO is that I can't really find a decent label that isn't just saying some form of liberal (especially when you're in the US and people use the American definition of "Liberal").
#14863783
@Aerofal

Many English words derive their roots from Greek or Latin words particularly political ideologies. "Politics" as a term comes from a Greek word and Greek was the language of nobles during both Roman Empire and the early Middle Ages. You can't just not use Greek or Latin root words for politics in English since that would be ignoring a majority of European history.
#14864253
I would label you a Liberal Nationalist who holds to a Confederated Representative Republican form of governance. I think both your social and fiscal views could be subsumed under this definition. Of course, this will only be a confederated from of governance if each province's membership in the confederation is regarded to be in some sense voluntary and not binding and permanent (I will elaborate below).

Likewise, does your Archon serves terms? I might have missed this, but if he does the above definition will apply almost perfectly and you have functionally a tri-cameral system of governance with checks and balances not unlike the "essential" concept as designed for the United States. If not, I might have to modify the definition to include terms referencing that position. Also, is all of this based upon a constitution of sorts? If so, I would add that to my title as well.

Also, are member states of the confederation considered members of a permanent union or are they voluntary members? I think this is important as this was a problem in the inception at the United States that eventually led to all of its partisan problems from the time of Hamilton to the civil war, and by what criteria would a province be able to leave the union if we are speaking of a true confederation? If provinces have no right or ability to leave the union, I do not think we can call your system confederated in any sense.

Anyway, just my thoughts.
#14864329
@Victoribus Spolia

I hate any ideology that takes two ideology names and slaps them together creating a proper pronoun mess as you have written in the first sentence ("Confederated Representative Republican"? What sort of monstrosity is this?). Every ideology deserves it's own unique and distinctive name. If that leads to a clusterfuck in your political landscape then there is something very wrong with western politics.
User avatar
By Aerofal
#14864419
Victoribus Spolia wrote:Likewise, does your Archon serves terms? I might have missed this, but if he does the above definition will apply almost perfectly and you have functionally a tri-cameral system of governance with checks and balances not unlike the "essential" concept as designed for the United States. If not, I might have to modify the definition to include terms referencing that position. Also, is all of this based upon a constitution of sorts? If so, I would add that to my title as well.

The Archon serves up to three 5 years terms for a total of 15 years in office. I didn't really specify that, so it's more my fault. And yes, this would have to be based on a constitution.

Victoribus Spolia wrote:Also, are member states of the confederation considered members of a permanent union or are they voluntary members? I

Each province is able to leave the confederation through a popular referendum and not by the action of the province leaders themselves.
#14864483
Oxymandias wrote:@Victoribus Spolia

I hate any ideology that takes two ideology names and slaps them together creating a proper pronoun mess as you have written in the first sentence ("Confederated Representative Republican"? What sort of monstrosity is this?). Every ideology deserves it's own unique and distinctive name. If that leads to a clusterfuck in your political landscape then there is something very wrong with western politics.


Good point, I am going to just change my political position to "awesomeness" to avoid any undue complexity. Those who subscribe to my position may just be called awesomites.

Aerofal wrote:The Archon serves up to three 5 years terms for a total of 15 years in office. I didn't really specify that, so it's more my fault. And yes, this would have to be based on a constitution.


Each province is able to leave the confederation through a popular referendum and not by the action of the province leaders themselves.


Thanks for the clarifications. Given what you said, I would say the definition I gave for you would hold as accurate, I will make a small modification as "representative republican" is kinda of a redundancy after looking at it.

You are a Liberal Nationalist, Affirming a Constitutional Confederated Republic.
#14864795
Oxymandias wrote:@Victoribus Spolia

Although I would call your ideology Seiraism or Enotitainism based on the Greek words "order" and "unity" respectively.


What compels you to describe my ideaology with those terms (order/unity)? I'm curious.
#14864978
@Victoribus Spolia

You wish to build cultural, religious, and political solidarity in America and in the Anglo-Saxon world thus uniting them in a way not unlike the re-unification of America that happened during the 1940s-50s or the Era of Good-feelings. You believe in a strong, well-ordered, and centralized bureaucratic government with the king as either a strongman ruler or a figurehead/"political celebrity". You don't dislike federalism but you think it needs to be toned down significantly and that the government should actively control administration lest the unity of the country is jeopardized. You believe that expansion and colonization tames the war-like urges you believe is inherent to all human beings.

On the economic side of things you believe that government should take an active role in the market and that the government, instead of regulating the free market, should push for policies that improve it's efficiency and growth similar to how China operates now (China being the best example, in your opinion, of how the Anglo-Saxon Union would operate). You also do not shy away from the idea of state-owned enterprises and I think that you believe that state-owned enterprises are necessary for the distribution of goods from colonies to the home land. I also think that you don't completely disagree with the idea of a welfare state or social safety net and I think this is due to your Christian background. You think that a welfare state is ideal but think that it is impossible to do so without un-necessarily significantly interfering in the market and thus lowering it's efficiency. However I do think that you think that universal healthcare is a must.

I hope I am right with my interpretation.
#14866699
Oxymandias wrote:You wish to build cultural, religious, and political solidarity in America and in the Anglo-Saxon world thus uniting them in a way not unlike the re-unification of America that happened during the 1940s-50s or the Era of Good-feelings. You believe in a strong, well-ordered, and centralized bureaucratic government with the king as either a strongman ruler or a figurehead/"political celebrity". You don't dislike federalism but you think it needs to be toned down significantly and that the government should actively control administration lest the unity of the country is jeopardized. You believe that expansion and colonization tames the war-like urges you believe is inherent to all human beings.

On the economic side of things you believe that government should take an active role in the market and that the government, instead of regulating the free market, should push for policies that improve it's efficiency and growth similar to how China operates now (China being the best example, in your opinion, of how the Anglo-Saxon Union would operate). You also do not shy away from the idea of state-owned enterprises and I think that you believe that state-owned enterprises are necessary for the distribution of goods from colonies to the home land. I also think that you don't completely disagree with the idea of a welfare state or social safety net and I think this is due to your Christian background. You think that a welfare state is ideal but think that it is impossible to do so without un-necessarily significantly interfering in the market and thus lowering it's efficiency. However I do think that you think that universal healthcare is a must.

I hope I am right with my interpretation.


First paragraph is pretty close.

Second Paragraph is about 50% accurate. I am not a huge fan of universal healthcare, though I believe in guaranteed healthcare and would likely advocate for a voucher system at most to allow citizens to choose their own form of treatment.

I also do not hold to a welfare state per se, I would be much more about reinforcing older institutions such as primogeniture, and arranged marriage to solve social ills than coming up with state solutions such as social security and eugenics. Though I do not mind the idea of a safety-net and a work-for-aid system where those unemployed and needing assistance do so in exchange for some sort of labor-service to the state. Likewise, the disabled should be supported by the church, but I believe the church should be established and protected by the State. Hence, if I hold to any sort of welfare, it is by indirect means that help to better enable the private sectors to accomplish the goals of the state efficiently (which you were onto in discussing my views of efficiency).

Basically, my view is this on economic issues: I hold to a far more decentralized and indirect form of corporatism as seen in Fascist states. I believe that state funding, prohibitions, protections, and initiatives should be used to proactively promote the desired outcomes through the non-governmental spheres of the family, church, and private sector. Thus, a form of corporatism without the intrusive micromanagement and excessive bureaucracy of fascist states.

Otherwise, you were pretty accurate, and your single name descriptors are pretty cool. Though, how would you differentiate between a pro-monarchy and anti-monarchy Enotitianism?
#14866787
@Victoribus Spolia

That's pretty interesting. So your ideal model of corporatism would be based on incentivizing desired outcomes rather than forcing such desired outcomes? That seems very interesting in my opinion.

I think that Enotitianism leans more towards monarchy than most other ideologies to the extent that I would say that it's synonymous with monarchism. Monarchy is an ideal, as long as you have a king who up-holds the standards of a true king and holds a position of power your system of government is a monarchy. However if we are to take into consideration of what I would call a "traditional monarchy" then Enotitianism is probably the most ideal form of government for a modern traditional monarchy.

In each case, both pro and anti monarchy Enotitianism requires a strongman or a figure head, a centralized bureaucratic form of government, an emphasis on unity and stability, a free market, a focus on influencing society rather than controlling it, a focus on nourishing nationalism, and intense militarism. In anti-monarchy Enotitianism, the head of state might as well be called a monarch because he holds the same amount of admiration, influence, and power than a king in pro-monarchy Enotitianism would.
#14866878
Oxymandias wrote:That's pretty interesting. So your ideal model of corporatism would be based on incentivizing desired outcomes rather than forcing such desired outcomes? That seems very interesting in my opinion.


Primarily yes, but I would still place prohibitions on actions that could be undertaken that would be societally detrimental. As an example, regarding contraception, I would incentivize child-bearing and the traditional family model monetarily and with public honors, but would make the sale and possession of contraceptives against the law, just as illegal drugs like Heroin are prohibited in the U.S. currently.

The reason I emphasize incentive and not prohibition is because prohibition alone is not sufficient, for enforced alone it creates resentment, black markets, and the people can usually obtain the desired ends without using the actual product (especially with contraception), but the sting of this prohibition is softened by the incentives to have children financially and publicly. Most governments make prohibitions but rarely give incentives, in doing this they end up having to create more agencies and bureaucracies overtime to find loopholes, investigate black markets, drug rings, etc...This is expensive, inefficient, unpopular, and does not end up accomplishing the desired end.

This is just one example, but would apply to all spheres of society from business to welfare. These sorts of legislative acts would require little additional bureaucracy or micromanaging.

But you are correct, my ideal form of corporatism would require few prohibitions and very little personal intrusion. This would be the ideal, but we do not live in an ideal world, and depending on the population, more prohibitions may be needed on certain issues than would be preferred; however, that being said, the goal is a soft corporatism (Imperialism), not a hard corporatism (Fascism/National Socialism).

This is mainly because I do not think hard corporatism is good for monarchies, believe it can create resentment, and ultimately aims to change the population by social engineering to what is believed to be a higher and purer form (National Socialism/Even Marxism); whereas, my position argues that the goal of the state is to merely restore the natural and historic character of the people that makes them strong and unified in a common Imperial goal, while also working to, with as a little intrusion as possible, protect and preserve that natural and historic character while promoting the Imperial cause and destiny.

Oxymandias wrote:I think that Enotitianism leans more towards monarchy than most other ideologies to the extent that I would say that it's synonymous with monarchism. Monarchy is an ideal, as long as you have a king who up-holds the standards of a true king and holds a position of power your system of government is a monarchy. However if we are to take into consideration of what I would call a "traditional monarchy" then Enotitianism is probably the most ideal form of government for a modern traditional monarchy.

In each case, both pro and anti monarchy Enotitianism requires a strongman or a figure head, a centralized bureaucratic form of government, an emphasis on unity and stability, a free market, a focus on influencing society rather than controlling it, a focus on nourishing nationalism, and intense militarism. In anti-monarchy Enotitianism, the head of state might as well be called a monarch because he holds the same amount of admiration, influence, and power than a king in pro-monarchy Enotitianism would.


Ok. You've convinced me. I am an Enotitianist. Should I change my profile description? :lol:

Show me the Money!" We had a saying in N[…]

Potemkin. Um no. NASA has proven there are planet[…]

You won't hear it in MSM https://www.facebook.com[…]

The Deep Thinks of Hong Wu

You left out the part about the laziness to learn[…]