[Dystopian Darkness]

Basic political principles:

I believe democracy is the worst political regime excluding all others (like Churchil said). I recognize inherent flaws in democratic principles but I simply haven't found a better form of ruling a country yet. Regarding suffrage, I think it should be voluntary but I'm not sure if it should be universal. I'm open to the possibility of restricting voting rights to the wisest individuals who fill certain requirements. This is just a possibility, but for now I prefer universal suffrage.

I believe Republic is superior to Monarchy

I believe presidentialism is a more desirable system of government, and I strongly dislike semi-presidentialism because the chief of state ends up becoming a puppet with little power or importance (this happens in my country. I'm also open to parliamentarism

I believe individual rights triumph over public good but I think a minimum of the latter is necessary. Generally, I'm in favour of individual rights > collectivism because I see the individual as valuable and rightful owner of his/her life and actions

Economy:
I believe the economy should be capitalist but a small (10-15%) part should be owned and ran by the state to provide essential public goods and services like healthcare, education, some clothing, electricity, clean water, military, national defence and the justice system (courts, prisons, departments of justice...). Overall I have a preference for the private sector, entrepreneurship, free competition and free trade. I think some public sectors like healthcare and education should be allowed to exist in a private form, as long as the public sector is preserved (military, national defence and justice should never be privatized).

I believe companies shouldn't be private with government backup or public with private capitals, either it is 100% public or 100% private. I've seen the result in my country of companies ran both by private corporations and the state. Usually there's a conflict of interests and the result is catastrophic, so no exceptions to this rule - Either you're private or public, there is no in between. The private sector should be as free as possible, but the public one should be strong and efficient since it serves an important function. The government should govern as little as possible, but when it governs it has to be done with efficiency and authority

I believe a proportional tax rate is the most fair and appropriate because it treats everyone equally and the rich end up paying more anyway. I think taxes should fund public essential goods and should be limited to the bare minimum

I believe the welfare state should exist but in a small, well regulated form to prevent frauds. I think only really poor and desperate families or individuals should be entitled to welfare. I consider welfare necessary but it is merely attacking symptoms, not the cause

I believe affirmative action should not be allowed because, like I just said, it attacks symptoms and not the cause

I believe that free market regulation should only exist when necessary and provided there is evidence (such as peer reviewed studies) to prove the harm done is greater than the benefits. Regulation should prevent monopolies and oligopolies (exceptions made for public services ran by the government like the military or healthcare - In that case it should be strongly monopolized), environmental damage and protect workers (only the minimum necessary)

I believe global warming is real and that we ought to preserve the planet, but without hurting our economic growth and technological development. I value the concept of sustainable development

I believe a minimum wage should exist but it shouldn't be to high, just the bare minimum to allow for a decent living. Labour rights should come accompanied by duties, workers should be protected from exploitation and abuses of power but ought to be productive in return. I don't side with corporations or the working class, I take my stance case by case to see who's rights. I strongly support the vision that workers and employers shouldn't be enemies but cooperators for the common good (profit and productivity)

I believe globalization is good but national culture should be preserved. I also think free allocation of resources and capital worldwide should be allowed as long as it doesn't compromise the national economy, productivity and culture

I believe healthcare should be mostly public but a small private sector should be allowed to compete (maybe 15-20%)

I believe exactly the same about education, but the private sector should be a bit larger (about 30-40%)

I believe clothing should be mostly provided by private entities and the free market but public welfare should be allowed for very poor people

I believe there shouldn't be a maximum wage

I generally oppose protectionism unless it's well justified, such as for preserving a very important national industry.

I believe meritocracy is a valuable concept, the most capable and skilful individuals should be given higher rewards and positions of power.

I believe economic inequalities and class are natural and therefore unavoidable

I believe personal responsibility and hardwork are more determinant to one's success than simple bad luck. Regardless, I acknowledge some individuals have it harder in life and it's important to create equal opportunities

This last point is still in development, but I don't discard the possibility of using technocracy in public services if it makes them more efficient and improves quality

Social issues and society:

I believe family is an important institution since it serves to integrate individuals and children in society and gives most people a sense of belonging and bonding. As such, family should be protected as a social institution and the same goes for marriage.

I am pro same sex marriage and adoption, but I'm not anti-traditional families like conservatives say so often. In fact, I am very pro LGBT (including transgenders); I don't care about people's personal choices, I care about how productive and valuable they are.

I support gender equality and I disapprove gender roles. Man or woman, what matters is the capacity and skills of the individual. I don't support complete equality of outcomes or anything like that, just equal opportunities. I think in some cases some exceptions should be made such as the case of pregnant women.

I am very pro-choice - I believe in a woman's right to abort when she wants (until 12-14 weeks pregnancy) for any reason she wants without being obligated to consult a psychologist or shrink. My position on abortion derives from my moral consideration that a fetus is not a person and therefore nothing is lost

I don't think it's a bad idea to abort fetuses with disabilities or to try to improve our species without recurring to positive or negative eugenics, such as by educating the population and inciting pursuit of knowledge and science. A little of eugenics may not be bad but only a tiny little

I believe animals shouldn't legally have any rights since it's a logical impossibility, and I believe humans matter more than animals. Still, I think some regulations against animal cruelty are necessary (I have a dog)

I believe tradition should be preserved as long as it's not harmful. I have a wide definition of tradition. I define it as anything that is done or kept by a certain group of people over a long period of time. Simple things like the way a specific population behaves or does business are tradition for me.
I believe personal choice is important in society as long as it doesn't harm anyone else.

I believe race, ethnicity, gender, religion or personal beliefs shouldn't matter to determine anything about the individual's potential success or skills

I believe my country isn't better than others, but I consider it, personally, more important than others and I don't think it's bad to be patriotic. I'm proud of many things about my country and people

I believe multiculturalism right now is a fraud. I don't seek to erase different cultures, but I have a preference for western cultures (and some asian ones) over any other. I'm not anti-immigration, but I think the EU needs to restrict immigration and grant it only to individuals who have given proof they are here for peace and prosperity. This reminds me that I strongly dislike political correctness

I believe war is necessary sometimes, specially to defend my country's sovereignty or to protect someone else from gross violations of human rights. Otherwise, I think diplomacy is preferrable.

I believe the military should be balanced - Medium sized, skillful and disciplined. The draft should not happen but if it does it should exist for both genders

I believe private property is a right that should never be abolished

I believe free speech is fundamental, absolute and should not be restricted unless it directly incites hate.

[Since I'm not American I'm not commenting on gun issues]


Justice:
I don't support the death penalty, but I'm considering if it should be valid for corrupt politicians (and only for this case). My reason for generally not supporting capital punishment is because it costs a lot of money and doesn't prevent crime. I also think criminals should work to pay their debts to society.

I believe the maxium sentence should be 30 years, but for individuals who show zero or close to zero possibility of rehabiliation it should be a lifetime

I believe the justice system and everything connected to its structure should be 100% public and courts should be 100% sovereign and independent to prevent corruption

I belive rehabilitation is preferrable and with the advance of science I think someday we'll be able to create medication that will prevent criminals from comitting crimes, among other methods. I think the west focuses too much on punishment in detriment of rehab and we still haven't tried hard enough to ressocialize people. Regardless, a degree of punishment and suffering is always necessary and for very dangerous criminals (example - Terrorists and authors of genocide) punshment outweights rehabilitation. So basically, in most cases I prefer rehab over punishment but sometimes punishment is more important.

I believe criminal law should be preventive, not punitive. Criminality is better fought by erasing causes (like poverty), not symptoms

I believe light drugs should be legal, along with tobacco and alcohol. Heavy drugs should be illegal to sell but consumption should always be legal (I'm talking about the simple act of consuming). Drug traffickers should to to jail

I believe prostitution should be legal and regulated, but never promoted or glamorized. The same goes for pornography. Also, tax the shit out of both.

I believe a competent police is important, the police shouldn't perform abuse, but they shouldn't be too limited either.

I believe in a minimum of rights for prison inmates but I don't think prisons should be a 5 stars hotel.

I believe the justice system's higher priorities are to ensure social and community peace or respect for the law and to prevent recidivism, either trough rehabilitation or life imprisonment. In some cases, incapacitating the individual might work; for example, someone who commits crimes related to money shouldn't be allowed to work with banks or insurance companies

I believe the law should be written on paper (my country has the Romanic-Germanic law system, not the commonlaw one) and a written constitution ought to exist as well. Other sources of law are of little importance. Writing down laws give us some security.

I believe, both socially and justice-wise, that liberty is more important than security, but sometimes it is inevitable to sacrifice liberty. It should be justified though.

Religion and morality:
I am an atheist and I don't think morality is necessary to be a good person

I believe immorality only happens when someone else (or something, like an institution) is hurt. Something that doesn't hurt anyone else (like homosexuality) can't be immoral in my book

I believe secularism is preferable, no religion should be persecuted or promoted by the state. Religion shouldn't influence the law or public authority decision making

Freedom of speech shouldn't be restricted because of religion, because there are no words that will stop anyone from believing

I believe freedom of religion is important but should be restricted when it seeks to impact public decisions, society or other people other than the believer.

To conclude:

I believe the state is the only reliable way to organize a society. Individuals are more important than simply satisfying the state's will but authority will always be necessary and sometimes more desirable than chaos or excessive individualism

I believe we are a species with billions of years of evolution behind us and we can still improve ourselves a lot

I believe the most fundamental values in society (for me) are, in order:
- Life (Human life)
- Liberty and freedom (I use both words interchangeably)
- Property (read - Private property and ownership)
- Justice
- Well being and happiness (including essential public services and satisfying basic needs)


This is written from an European perspective, so keep in mind I mind what is liberal in America is close to conservative in Europe.

[Noob]

Run-of-the-mill European liberal-capitalist with socially liberal, secular tendencies, essentially. It's also clear that you're a proponent of economism - reduction of everything to their economic values alone, or at least to the extent that it will allow a society to continue functioning - and only things that can be assigned an immediate economic value have worth.

I believe globalization is good but national culture should be preserved.

In other words, the Westernisation/Americanisation of the rest of the planet is good, but at the same time you would like to preserve your country's national culture. That's a double standard. It's also not going to work.

I believe tradition should be preserved as long as it's not harmful.

Harmful to whom - everybody and everything? In that case, you would have no tradition nor any standards.

This reminds me that I strongly dislike political correctness

'Political correctness' is basically how post-modern liberalism perpetuates itself despite its internal contradictions, by stomping out thought crime. It's like a grey political cloud that seeks to envelop and regulate everything politics-related, by making it compatible with post-modern liberalism. Why do you oppose it?

[Dystopian Darkness]

Run-of-the-mill European liberal-capitalist with socially liberal, secular tendencies, essentially. It's also clear that you're a proponent of economism - reduction of everything to their economic values alone, or at least to the extent that it will allow a society to continue functioning - and only things that can be assigned an immediate economic value have worth.

Why do you say this?

In other words, the Westernisation/Americanisation of the rest of the planet is good, but at the same time you would like to preserve your country's national culture. That's a double standard. It's also not going to work.

Yes it is, I don't see how certain cultures need to be erased to allow globalization. Globalization allows me to access more culture and goods/services, it doesn't erase my origins. I'm a part of western culture (I am western) so westernisation is a part of me

Harmful to whom - everybody and everything? In that case, you would have no tradition nor any standards.

Why? For example, genital mutilation is a tradition I disapprove, but it's still a tradition. I've already said I have a different conception of tradition. When I think of tradition, I don't think about bullfighting or straight/traditional marriage, I think about fundamental values and habits a certain population has, including language, cultural perceptions, business and economic preferences, family structure, etc.

'Political correctness' is basically how post-modern liberalism perpetuates itself despite its internal contradictions, by stomping out thought crime. It's like a grey political cloud that seeks to envelop and regulate everything politics-related, by making it compatible with post-modern liberalism. Why do you oppose it?

Because political correctness silences the truth simply because it's unpopular, rude or no one wants to hear it. Why should I support it?

[Noob]

Liberals believe the most important aspect of society is the individual:

I believe individual rights triumph over public good but I think a minimum of the latter is necessary. Generally, I'm in favour of individual rights > collectivism because I see the individual as valuable and rightful owner of his/her life and actions

Capitalists believe in private ownership and want to make lots of profit:

I believe clothing should be mostly provided by private entities and the free market but public welfare should be allowed for very poor people

I believe there shouldn't be a maximum wage

I generally oppose protectionism unless it's well justified, such as for preserving a very important national industry.

I believe meritocracy is a valuable concept, the most capable and skilful individuals should be given higher rewards and positions of power.

I believe economic inequalities and class are natural and therefore unavoidable

I believe personal responsibility and hardwork are more determinant to one's success than simple bad luck. Regardless, I acknowledge some individuals have it harder in life and it's important to create equal opportunities

I believe private property is a right that should never be abolished

Yes it is, I don't see how certain cultures need to be erased to allow globalization. Globalization allows me to access more culture and goods/services, it doesn't erase my origins. I'm a part of western culture (I am western) so westernisation is a part of me

The Americans are very patriotic, and wish to make their new citizens patriotic Americans. But it is the idea of making a new nation literally out of any old nation that comes along. In a word, what is unique is not America but what is called Americanisation. We understand nothing till we understand the amazing ambition to Americanise the Kamskatkan and the Hairy Ainu. We are not trying to Anglicise thousand of French cooks or Italian organ-grinders. France is not trying to Gallicise thousands of English trippers or German prisoners of war. America is the only place in the world where this process, healthy or unhealthy, possible or impossible, is going on. And the process, as I have pointed out, is not internationalisation. It would be truer to say it is the nationalisation of the internationalised. It is making a home out of vagabonds and a nation out of exiles.

Essentially, Westernisation comes back to bite. It isn't confined to everywhere that isn't the West - its universalist drive affects the West all the same. One of its results is mass migration to the West, the breakdown of European nation-states and transformation into 'universal nations', and from that the new fetish and phenomena of 'multiculturalism'.

I've already said I have a different conception of tradition.

As I asked, tradition harmful to whom? The market and economism? Liberalism? Christianity? Ethnic minority worker migrants and their cultures?

cultural perceptions

Such as what - is this a synonym for liberal values? You have already mentioned gender equality, for instance. This changes family structure, which means that tradition isn't being preserved.

Because political correctness silences the truth simply because it's unpopular, rude or no one wants to hear it. Why should I support it?

The only politically incorrect thing that I saw in your post was a dislike of multiculturalism, but even then you have no problem with your nation's culture being displaced by globalisation, so perhaps it's that you would like the eroding process to happen more slowly?

[Dystopian Darkness]

Capitalists believe in private ownership and want to make lots of profit:

Only a sane individual wouldn't want profit
[/quote]

The Americans are very patriotic, and wish to make their new citizens patriotic Americans. But it is the idea of making a new nation literally out of any old nation that comes along. In a word, what is unique is not America but what is called Americanisation. We understand nothing till we understand the amazing ambition to Americanise the Kamskatkan and the Hairy Ainu. We are not trying to Anglicise thousand of French cooks or Italian organ-grinders. France is not trying to Gallicise thousands of English trippers or German prisoners of war. America is the only place in the world where this process, healthy or unhealthy, possible or impossible, is going on. And the process, as I have pointed out, is not internationalisation. It would be truer to say it is the nationalisation of the internationalised. It is making a home out of vagabonds and a nation out of exiles.

Makes sense, I agree with the premise

Essentially, Westernisation comes back to bite. It isn't confined to everywhere that isn't the West - its universalist drive affects the West all the same. One of its results is mass migration to the West, the breakdown of European nation-states and transformation into 'universal nations', and from that the new fetish and phenomena of 'multiculturalism'.

True, the nationalization of the international is an ongoing process, but can you explain me how my national culture will be erased? For example, language wise I don't see my country adopting English as the national tongue. As someone who has travelled inside Europe (I've been to Italy and the Netherlands) I noticed significant cultural differences. I don't see how it is being erased.

As I asked, tradition harmful to whom? The market and economism? Liberalism? Christianity? Ethnic minority worker migrants and their cultures?

To society and people. Genital mutilation physically harms someone, so I oppose it. Traditional marriage is reductive of both sexes' potential so I oppose it (as being the only valid marriage concept - I have nothing against people voluntarily living according to traditional marriage and gender roles) Is this complicated to understand?

Such as what - is this a synonym for liberal values? You have already mentioned gender equality, for instance. This changes family structure, which means that tradition isn't being preserved.

Not all tradition should be preserved. Curiously, what was tradition 100 years ago isn't anymore. Slavery, for example, was abolished. Tradition isn't worth it if it hurts individuals, both psychologically and physically. Traditional marriage, for example, limits the functions and potential of both men and women because men can work as house-husbands and women can become CEO's

The only politically incorrect thing that I saw in your post was a dislike of multiculturalism, but even then you have no problem with your nation's culture being displaced by globalisation, so perhaps it's that you would like the eroding process to happen more slowly?

[/quote]
I'm still looking forward for a better explanation of this. How do you envision, precisely, the displacement of an European country's culture by American culture? The impact of Americanization is felt and sometimes internalized, but many habits remain the same. Are you going to argue that culturally America and Europe have no differences, or will not have in the future? Globalization is felt culturally and socially, namely in the media (movies, TV shows, books, etc.) and even in fashion trends - But I see national or native culture still existing. For example, my country still produces music and native movies (unless you want to argue that the diffusion of rock and hollywood are the causes)

I don't know how politically correct it is to be against affirmative action. Is it incorrect? What about anti-Islam?

[Noob]

Only a sane individual wouldn't want profit

OK, and so you're a capitalist - you asked for reasons why I described you as a capitalist, and I showed you the link.

True, the nationalization of the international is an ongoing process, but can you explain me how my national culture will be erased? For example, language wise I don't see my country adopting English as the national tongue. As someone who has travelled inside Europe (I've been to Italy and the Netherlands) I noticed significant cultural differences. I don't see how it is being erased.

I didn't mention anything being erased. I usually speak of 'watering down', 'dilution' or 'displacement'.

To society and people. Genital mutilation physically harms someone, so I oppose it. Traditional marriage is reductive of both sexes' potential so I oppose it (as being the only valid marriage concept - I have nothing against people voluntarily living according to traditional marriage and gender roles)

Which people? Are they liberals, Christians, capitalist - what? So you believe in "equal marriage", meaning you don't believe in traditional marriage. OK.

Is this complicated to understand?

I understand everything that you're communicating to me perfectly well, but you aren't communicating everything to me - you need to be more specific. 'Tradition' is not one big amalgam - there are different traditions. If you take 'physical harm', which will no doubt morph into 'harm' as a qualifier on what needs to be done away with, you'll end up getting rid of a lot of "tradition".

Not all tradition should be preserved. Curiously, what was tradition 100 years ago isn't anymore. Slavery, for example, was abolished. Tradition isn't worth it if it hurts individuals, both psychologically and physically. Traditional marriage, for example, limits the functions and potential of both men and women because men can work as house-husbands and women can become CEO's

Yes, we know. I'm not defending "tradition" here, I'm asking you on what basis you want to preserve "tradition". So we know that you're not for the traditional family or upholding gender roles, presumably because that hinders the ability of individuals to participate in the market, pursue a career, and pursue their best economic interest.

I'm still looking forward for a better explanation of this.

It's perfectly fine if you disagree with my answers, but try not to infer that my answers are bad if you don't like them.

How do you envision, precisely, the displacement of an European country's culture by American culture? The impact of Americanization is felt and sometimes internalized, but many habits remain the same. Are you going to argue that culturally America and Europe have no differences, or will not have in the future?

That's what globalisation works towards, yes. It's a gradual process - it doesn't happen in bursts. Jefferson described the US as a universal nation in pursuit of universal values - the rest of the world is a canvass to be Americanised. There might remain some superficial cleavages in the way, like slightly different fauna and foliage (languages, token leftover customs), but the aim is for hyper-individualistic, egalitarian, liberal-capitalist, desacralised, secularised, multiculturalist, consumerist, universal nations with little in the way of a distinct identity. Here, there will be no fundamental differences in value systems or religion, and no independence.

I don't know how politically correct it is to be against affirmative action. Is it incorrect? What about anti-Islam?

Perhaps, but it's not so politically incorrect that debate about it appears in mainstream discourse. Being anti-Islam would be politically incorrect - but since you essentially mentioned that all religions should be relegated to the private sphere, concerning the individual only, there shouldn't be any specific reason to be anti-Islam.

[Dystopian Darkness]

I didn't mention anything being erased. I usually speak of 'watering down', 'dilution' or 'displacement'.

Every western and even some non-western cultures have been watered down or reduced because of globalization. It's inevitable. I don't oppose this as long as the advantages of globalization benefit me

Which people? Are they liberals, Christians, capitalist - what? So you believe in "equal marriage", meaning you don't believe in traditional marriage. OK.

The category of people is irrelevant. Simply putting it, my constitution has a set of values that presumably all society adheres to, so everyone or anything that violates those principles (including a tradition) should be outlawed.

Obviously everyone's sensitivity is different (the Christian compared to the liberal) but I'm thinking of the individual in abstract and not a specific group

I understand everything that you're communicating to me perfectly well, but you aren't communicating everything to me - you need to be more specific. 'Tradition' is not one big amalgam - there are different traditions. If you take 'physical harm', which will no doubt morph into 'harm' as a qualifier on what needs to be done away with, you'll end up getting rid of a lot of "tradition".

And psychological harm. B sides bullfighting (which I'm not in favour of abolishing for reasons related to employment and profit) and things like genital mutilation (that are not that common in the west) which traditions cause physical harm?

Yes, we know. I'm not defending "tradition" here, I'm asking you on what basis you want to preserve "tradition". So we know that you're not for the traditional family or upholding gender roles, presumably because that hinders the ability of individuals to participate in the market, pursue a career, and pursue their best economic interest.

I'm not in favour of legally enforcing the preservation of tradition. But if specific individuals of families have a tradition and it doesn't break the law I see no reason to not allow it.

It's perfectly fine if you disagree with my answers, but try not to infer that my answers are bad if you don't like them.

I disagree partially, but internet forums aren't funny if everyone agrees with you

That's what globalisation works towards, yes. It's a gradual process - it doesn't happen in bursts. Jefferson described the US as a universal nation in pursuit of universal values - the rest of the world is a canvass to be Americanised. There might remain some superficial cleavages in the way, like slightly different fauna and foliage (languages, token leftover customs), but the aim is for hyper-individualistic, egalitarian, liberal-capitalist, desacralised, secularised, multiculturalist, consumerist, universal nations with little in the way of a distinct identity. Here, there will be no fundamental differences in value systems or religion, and no independence.

Except the multiculturalism part, I agree with this. I really do. I don't know if it makes me a bad person

I disagree with the part of the small details - Things like language or simply the habits of socially interacting with others, or even habits in clothing (modesty V Irreverence and exorbitance) allow us to distinguish people from different countries even if there's more in common than different. Just look at national patrimony and monuments - A perfect symbol of past disputes and victories that I doubt globalization will water down

Perhaps, but it's not so politically incorrect that debate about it appears in mainstream discourse. Being anti-Islam would be politically incorrect - but since you essentially mentioned that all religions should be relegated to the private sphere, concerning the individual only, there shouldn't be any specific reason to be anti-Islam.

Islam is statistically the most harmful religion in the world (check terrorist groups list) and it is incompatible with any western country. Now, if Muslims decided to not bomb satirical magazine stores and so on I would be more tolerant of their presence.

Some of my views are considered right wing or unpopular by my peers, but that's inside the context of the national crisis we're facing. I'm in favour of, for example, privatizing more companies because my government intervenes too much and wrongly . I'm also in favour of deporting large groups of immigrants that live on welfare, create criminality and threaten public safety. Please, don't bring the "race" card.

[TheKrimsonKeiser]

I would say you are maybe a third way social democrat (or a Red Tory), free trader, and a nationalist. What country are you from? Also, why do you think that economic growth is essential? Just for my own personal curiousity