tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12177833.post116193391918726562..comments2024-03-21T02:16:25.967-07:00Comments on Freethought Weekly: Poll on Political IdealogyDeltahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15708796218860983185noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12177833.post-9157801836744005552010-06-12T03:14:16.387-07:002010-06-12T03:14:16.387-07:00travian beyond program eklenti
Araba yarisi oyunla...<a href="http://travianprogram.blogspot.com/" rel="nofollow">travian beyond program eklenti</a><br /><a href="http://araba-yarisi-oyunlari-oyna.blogspot.com/" rel="nofollow">Araba yarisi oyunlari</a><br /><a href="http://hdonlinefilmizle.blogspot.com/" rel="nofollow">HD online film izle</a><br /><a href="http://bagkurborcsorgulama1.blogspot.com/" rel="nofollow">Bağkur borç sorgulama</a><br /><br />thanks admintravianprogramhttp://travianprogram.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12177833.post-30168057442246694962008-06-19T09:24:00.000-07:002008-06-19T09:24:00.000-07:00thank you nice sharingaraba resimlerithank you nice sharing<BR/><A HREF="http://maswey.blogspot.com" REL="nofollow">araba resimleri</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12177833.post-1162168825183672522006-10-29T16:40:00.000-08:002006-10-29T16:40:00.000-08:00sh,I completely agree with you that it makes no se...sh,<BR/><BR/>I completely agree with you that it makes no sense to accept one particular idealogy simply because one agrees with a majority of the ideas. But there are infinitely many idealogies out there, including ones that "correct" the parts that you find distasteful in the others. And in any case, if you know what things you agree with and what things you don't, that list <B>is</B> an idealogy, even if a name for it is either unknown to you or nonexistent. I think it's useful to be able to classify yourself as well as you can because it can be useful for discussing ideas with others. But at the same time, I think a <B>huge</B> problem in the world today is that people find an idealogy that they agree with partly, but then <B>fully accept</B> the rest of it. An example would be the types of people who don't like to see the government give out money to people who refuse to work, so they classify themselves as a conservative. But as a "conservative", they end up voting for republicans, and in doing so they support illegal wars, hands outs to the rich, and the restriction of freedoms, simply because they feel so strongly in that one part of the idealogy and refuse to look for a different idealogy that better suits their beliefs.<BR/><BR/><B>But then you have the problem of figuring out if something failed, for example, due to minor errors in implementation or due to fundamental flaws of ideology. And some of these have never been tried in the real world on any kind of significant scale at all</B><BR/><BR/>I totally agree. Figuring this out is even more difficult when people blindly ascribe to idealogies and when they are only aware of a small set of idealogies and believe that one of them must be completely right. When you've got people who think that criticizing corporate rule could mean that the homeless guy under the bridge is going to get a full share of their paycheck, then any sort of good evaluation of a political or economic system is damn near impossible to make.Deltahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15708796218860983185noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12177833.post-1162167502989071832006-10-29T16:18:00.000-08:002006-10-29T16:18:00.000-08:00mookie,If you are saying that allowing the individ...mookie,<BR/><BR/>If you are saying that allowing the individual groups of workers to have control over their respective means of production is potentially problematic, then I'd say I have to agree. There seems to be no good argument for why a group of say, coal miners, should "own" the coal mines. It makes most sense to me for them to belong to the entire community. So in that sense I associate with the terms libertarian socialist and libertarian communist. However, I would certainly accept worker-owned industries as a step towards society-owned ones.<BR/><BR/>I hadn't read about eco-socialism before, and had never heard of the term 'watermelon' before in that context. In some sense many of these idealogies really run together. If one of the primary characteristics of a eco-socialist is that they <I> believe that capitalism is inherently harmful to society and the environment due to waste, pollution, and overconsumption</I>, then I think almost the entire political left would agree.<BR/><BR/><B>It may be that these ideas are just mental masturbation, and our actions are more determined by the monkey within us than by conscious thought</B><BR/><BR/>I think for actions that must be made quickly, then yes, concious thought likely doesn't come into the picture and our actions are based on either our instinctive feelings on the issue, or (if we've thought about it on a previous occasion) then they would be based on whatever conclusion we came to at that time. But I think conscious thought can certainly affect future actions. Also, if people profess to be a particular idealogy, attempting to remain in accordance with that idealogy might make the person act "better" than they otherwise would.<BR/><BR/><B>Either way, it would be nice to have more people contribute, even if it is to respectfully disagree. Freethought means being open to the possibility that one's own ideas and beliefs are wrong. Engaging our minds with new ideas is better than rehashing the same ones over and over again</B><BR/><BR/>I agree, the more the merrier. My views have changed drastically over the past 5 years, and because I recognize how wrong I used to be, I have little confidence that all my current views will remain untouched over time.Deltahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15708796218860983185noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12177833.post-1162148677972732462006-10-29T11:04:00.000-08:002006-10-29T11:04:00.000-08:00It may be that these ideas are just mental masturb...It may be that these ideas are just mental masturbation, and our actions are more determined by the monkey within us than by conscious thought. In which case, professing to be of any ideology would be useless, unless it happened to be the ideology that most reflected our inherent behaviour. But this raises further questions like, "is this act moral because it is in accordance with my nature? or is this my nature because i do it?"<BR/><BR/>Not only that, but humans are very malleable, and have been known to change over time. Goals and starting points cannot be fixed if they hinder these changes.<BR/><BR/>I see there have been 4 votes for capitalist libertarianism yet don't see many such folks commenting at this site. Could be the poll is accessed somewhere else. Either way, it would be nice to have more people contribute, even if it is to respectfully disagree. Freethought means being open to the possibility that one's own ideas and beliefs are wrong. Engaging our minds with new ideas is better than rehashing the same ones over and over again.Mookiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04796691428737135749noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12177833.post-1162056113772718922006-10-28T10:21:00.000-07:002006-10-28T10:21:00.000-07:00I don't normally think of myself as subscribing to...I don't normally think of myself as subscribing to any particular ideology or a school of thought. At least, I don't when it comes to politics. I can see the pros and the cons of many of them and it makes it hard to swallow any one of them entirely. Some of them I reject outright: Christian Democracy, Fascism, Islamism, Nationalism. Some of them I am very suspicious about: Communism, Communitarianism, Conservatism, Capitalist Libertarianism. Some of them are pretty much already parts of today's world: Feminism, Green Politics, Liberalism, Social Democracy. The rest of them seem to have some very admirable ideals and goals, but lack any clear vision on how those goals and ideals can be brought to life in a practical and meaningful ways: Anarchism, Socialism.<BR/><BR/>And I think you are absolutely right when you say that everyone believes that their ideology is one of liberty, freedom, and fairness. And this makes it hard to judge any of these ideologies based on their stated goals alone. It is the end result of implementing them in the real world that shows what they "really are." But then you have the problem of figuring out if something failed, for example, due to minor errors in implementation or due to fundamental flaws of ideology. And some of these have never been tried in the real world on any kind of significant scale at all.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12177833.post-1161966740091989272006-10-27T09:32:00.000-07:002006-10-27T09:32:00.000-07:00I chose socialism because it stems from the ideas ...I chose socialism because it stems from the ideas of Marx. Anarchy was also a choice, but I believe the emphasis on worker control of the means of production is the source of political and economic power, and the main cause of social inequality. Anarchism would be a result of sharing the means of production.<BR/><BR/>I also believe that socialism/anarchy are the two most likely systems to cater to the environment, and would have happily chosen green politics on top of anarchy and socialism. Check out:<BR/>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecosocialism<BR/><BR/>and<BR/><BR/>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_economicsMookiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04796691428737135749noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12177833.post-1161965083743420432006-10-27T09:04:00.000-07:002006-10-27T09:04:00.000-07:00bernarda,Sorry about that. I was in a crunch for ...bernarda,<BR/><BR/>Sorry about that. I was in a crunch for time last night and just grabbed the descriptions from wikipedia. The problem is twofold I believe. First, some of these idealogies overlap as you see(at least their definitions given). Socialism=Anarchism=Communism (from this definition at least). The second problem is that just about <B>everyone</B> believes that their idealogy is one of liberty, freedom, and fairness. I could modify the definitions to conform to my idea of what the differences between all these idealogies are, but many would be described by negative characteristics that an advocate of that idealogy might not see. For example, a statist communist might say that anarchism is a petty bourgeois idealogy that opposes the only means for worker liberation. Or I might say that in liberalism you will not get fair and accurate elections with a truly functioning democracy <I>unless</I> it is anarchistic. <BR/><BR/>So for this reason, I was hoping that people could vote with what they best identify with, judging not necessarily from what the definitions are, but based on their other connotations of the word. In any case, I edited the definition of socialism. Thanks for the comment.Deltahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15708796218860983185noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12177833.post-1161961041221587752006-10-27T07:57:00.000-07:002006-10-27T07:57:00.000-07:00I thought about voting until I read some of your d...I thought about voting until I read some of your definitions.<BR/><BR/>Socialism, "Socialism refers to a broad array of doctrines or political movements that envisage a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to social control."<BR/><BR/>You say "a broad array", yet on anarchism you present it as one thing.<BR/><BR/>For me, there is no contradiction between socialist "subject to social control" and anarchism. So how could I choose between the two?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com