[velvet]

Over the last 12 months I've spent a good deal of time re-building my worldview. I'm creating this thread to help me determine where I stand now but also to invite like-minded users (and those opposed) to offer up material (books, journal articles, etc.) that might help develop my worldview. So it's not just another 'where do I stand' thread, as such.

I'm most uneducated and undecided on international relations as a general note.

• Basic Philosophical Underpinnings
  
  I figure the purpose of politics is to allow people to live meaningful lives, so the ultimate political goal is to enable the creation of meaning. I don't subscribe to this in an individual-centric form, though. I consider meaning to refer to internalised experiences gathered with respect to interaction and identification with others (their values, their goals), as opposed to things (i.e., drugs, sex, etc.). This works in tandem with the idea that the ultimate source of meaning is founded in communities (national identifications, regional identifications), as human beings are products of their material and historical conditions. So, I believe, a meaningful life can only be lived with reference to things outside the self.
  
  I'm not a traditionalist. I don't engage in the fetishisation of the old. If the ultimate political goal is to enable creation meaning that results in tendencies towards pluralism. This is combined with the view that our societies (at all levels) are just reflections of interests and values of a local elite (hegemony) and is built on a constant struggle between that hegemony and various counter-hegemonies. So, there is no inherent desirability to one stage of development over another, there's just societies that suit the interests of people you like and societies that don't.
  
  This leads to me having a preference for a set rights and duties. The rights [to create meaning] are that of speech, person, and assembly. The duties [towards preservation] are that of contributions towards universal sustenance, healthcare and education [though the most efficient mechanism], towards protection against foreign aggression, and towards base assimilation.
  
  
• Governance
  
  I support a mixed federal system.
  
  I believe that the central government should hold a technocratic executive [controlling economics (fiscal policy), healthcare, foreign affairs] and a democratic legislature. The technocratic executive has the sole right to propose legislation. The democratic legislature can choose to censure a member of the technocratic executive though a >66% vote. It is elected each seven years in a general election and members have can hold an unlimited number of terms.
  
  I believe that regional governments should exist. These regional governments should be democratic and made up of two representatives from each of the various localities. The electorate in these localities is compiled of individuals - over 18 - registered from birth in that area. Each representative serves two terms of four years maximum and has control of issues relating to activities between localities, generally.
  
  I believe that local assemblies should exist and should be based around direct democratic governance. The electorate is compiled of individuals - over 18 - registered from birth in the area. It has control of all issues ongoing within localities, including social/moral policies.
  
  In general, the activities in the above should be based around the principal of subsidiarity.
  
  
• Economics and Derivatives
  
  In the short-run the level of demand dominates an economies potential and I tend to take the view that fiscal trumps monetary effectiveness-wise. In the long-run the level of supply is of the utmost importance and demands role is as a determinant of price levels. So, I support government interference with regards to short-run issues (emphasis on recessions) but believe that a free-market should prevail. I have studied economics to the extent that I know it isn't wise for me to go into further particularities on individual issues (i.e., specific tax policies, etc.), but I know I do support free trade.
  
  I do support the growth of a strong co-operative sector (and its eventual replacement of capitalism). This should be achieved through both rigging the tax code in favour of these enterprises and engaging in their utmost deregulation. I also don't support a minimum wage, though also prefer it's winding-down as an effective measure as opposed to its sudden abolishment.
  
  Social welfare-wise, a [sustenance-level, inflation-adjusted] basic minimum income guaranteed to all naturalised citizens above 23 seems the best move forward. Specific issues can be left to local charities. Healthcare, free at the point of service, should be guaranteed to all through more-or-less copy-pasting Canada's system. Education, free at the point of cost, should be guaranteed to second-level, and then dependent on the content (usefulness) of the degree thereafter.
  
  
• Social Policies
  
  I support all European immigration into Ireland. I support all required non-European immigration into Ireland, based around a point system.
  
  I have no issue with multiculturualism as long as base cultural values are adhered to.
  
  I'm socially liberal on most of the mainstream issues, on the grounds of pragmatism (labelled: p hereafter) as opposed to moral support in a number of cases. Same-sex couples should be allowed marraige, but people shouldn't be required to serve them. Legalise soft drugs, de-criminalise hard drugs with scope for further legalisation (p). Offer woman the right to abortion. Legalise prostitution, engage in strong regulation against brothels (p). And so on.
  
  I support the re-sacralisation of sex and the adoption of a more conservative outlook on relationship issues.
  
  I support co-operative living and dining.
  
  I would consider my views on sexual equality in-line with that of radical feminism, in general.
  
  I don't support capital punishment. I have no moral issue with it - I just question its effectiveness.
  
  
• The Environment
  
  Climate change is a thing.
  
  I would prefer if we could combat it with localities retaining ownership of their means of energy production (i.e., through wind and solar power).
  
  
• International Relations
  
  I'm a Euro-Federalist and support the EU as existing in-line with the governance section of this post. I believe we should focus on a deepening as opposed to expanding of relations at this moment. I'm fine with England leaving - even if it does cost Ireland some GDP-points - and figure it would leave the project better off in the long-run. I'm not in favour of forming some combined European armed-forces, and least of all engaging in an active foreign policy. Examining demographic projections, it's just not a sustainable option, and I would rather reserve our resources for elsewhere. Rather than this, the EU should further its diplomatic relations with its neighbours (eg., The EuroMed partnership), creating an effective buffer surrounding.
  
  I'm undecided on Russia. I believe it's going to be an Asian century, and furthering policies which enable the New Silk Road to be constructed will provide undeniable benefits to Europe. I haven't seen a compelling enough argument that this involves the annihilation of Russia, which I also am hard-pressed to believe is a genuine threat. However, I do recognise that it involves boxing Russia in, particularly pushing back its influence in Central Asia, so that's a source of future antagonism. At the moment, I'm going to allow my opinions develop in-line with those on the ground.
  
  I don't support the overthrow of Hussien, and I don't support what happened in Syria. But, these things happened, and now we had to deal with them. I would prefer we (The West, NATO) supported local actors on the ground, eg., the Kurds, but since I know we're going to go in at some stage, I was rather it was all scheduled (because it's going to take a long time), rather than just splurges dependent on the changing face of the US administration.
  
  I don't support the irredentism of Irish nationalism. We live in a globalising world, and I consider nation-states becoming increasingly redundant in this regard.

I have my eye on Centrist with some [market] socialist tendencies, but I'm open to suggestions.