Philosophy that undergirds your politics?

[Bandit3 the Worker]

What personal philosophy provides the basic support for your political views?

For me, the basic truth that all people are endowed with fundamental human rights is the basis for my political views. It is an endowment provided not by the government but by nature. As humans, we are supposed to be guardians of these basic rights, and we must strive to build a society where these rights are forever respected. Those who choose not to fulfill this duty are turning their back on what nature has designed them to do.

These rights include but are not limited to freedom of speech, economic justice, and the right to be treated equally on the basis of color.

I wonder how some goofball like Bush or Pat Robertson would answer this thread.

[Bono]

That initiating agression is always immoral.

[Emsworth]

I hold that the People hold certain fundamental and basic rights, and that any legitimate government's chief aim must be to protect the enjoyment of those rights. These rights include both social and economic freedom: neither should be regulated by the government unduly.

[jokerman]

That it's the government's purpose to promote the common good of the people at any means necesary.

[John Dibble]

I hold that under the People hold certain fundamental and basic rights, and that any legitimate government's chief aim must be to protect the enjoyment of those rights. These rights include both social and economic freedom: neither should be regulated by the government unduly.

^^^^

Same. However Bandit's sounds somewhat similar, there is still an essential difference - he seems to believe in positive rights, or claim rights, while we do not. I only believe in negative rights, or liberties.

[John Dibble]

That it's the government's purpose to promote the common good of the people at any means necesary.

Dangerous philosophy. Communism is based off the concept of 'the common good' you know, and the 'by any means necessary' is even more dangerous.

"In the name of the common good, the government will regulate the diet of every citizen in order to maximize health."

[WiseGuy]

For social and economic policy, it's the belief that the Government that rules least rules best, and that the State governments are a better vehicle for stuff like Social Security because they are inherently closer to the People.

For foreign policy, it's the belief that the United States has the right to protect it's self from foreign foes.

[Max Power]

That it's the government's purpose to promote the common good of the people at any means necesary.

*cough* Nazism *cough*

[Protect Trans Hoosiers]

Economic policy: Freedom from state control and freedom from corporate control will always be in conflict with one another.  Finding the appropriate balance between the two maximizes freedom for the individual.

Social policy: People should be permitted to live, love, and worship (or not worship) however they wish, as long as it does not cause undue harm to the life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness of others.  However, social institutions should not be reinvented.

Foreign policy: The Cold War is over.  Strategic mucking about in the affairs of other nations now causes more harm to the US than good.  We should no longer interfere in the natural development of other nations unless there is a direct threat of force against the United States, or there is broad international support for taking an action.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Creation of a New Moral Order based on co-operation, helping and respecting others etc.

[KEmperor]

That it's the government's purpose to promote the common good of the people at any means necesary.

Pure evil.

[Hitchabrut]

It is the right of every man to pursue his ambitions, if moral, to any limit which he sets, and for the government to save him from facing an unpleasant afterlife.

[John Dibble]

It is the right of every man to pursue his ambitions, if moral, to any limit which he sets, and for the government to save him from facing an unpleasant afterlife.

How can government save you from facing an unpleasant afterlife?

[Protect Trans Hoosiers]

It is the right of every man to pursue his ambitions, if moral, to any limit which he sets, and for the government to save him from facing an unpleasant afterlife.

How can government save you from facing an unpleasant afterlife?

It can if you're Muslim.  Seriously.

[jokerman]

That it's the government's purpose to promote the common good of the people at any means necesary.

Dangerous philosophy.

Dangerous, indeed, to enemies of the state and of the grand vision.

[Emsworth]

That it's the government's purpose to promote the common good of the people at any means necesary.

Dangerous philosophy.

Dangerous, indeed, to enemies of the state.

The state exists to serve the people: not the other way around

[jokerman]

That it's the government's purpose to promote the common good of the people at any means necesary.

Dangerous philosophy.

Dangerous, indeed, to enemies of the state.

The state exists to serve the people: not the other way around

What?  My philosophy is to promote the common good of the people, not for the people to serve the government.  Of course there will always be some who stand in the way, but if the government deals with them to advance the people's interests I don't see that as oppression or tyranny.

[Emsworth]

My philosophy is to promote the common good of the people, not for the people to serve the government.

I suppose that this is the fundamental difference between libertarians and statists: the former value individual rights, while the latter value the common good at any cost.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's the part of the philosophy that I feel is dangerous. Of course, it is oppressive to require some individuals to sacrifice their rights for others.

[Gabu]

I suppose that this is the fundamental difference between libertarians and statists: the former value individual rights, while the latter value the common good at any cost.

I value both, which underlies my personal philosophy: that individual rights advance the common good far more than any heavy-handed government could.

[jokerman]

My philosophy is to promote the common good of the people, not for the people to serve the government.

I suppose that this is the fundamental difference between libertarians and statists: the former value individual rights, while the latter value the common good at any cost.

I would agree.  I would put it  though, as:  The main difference between libertarians and statists is that libertarians support the right for a few people to drag down society as a whole, while statists value the welfare of society.  When you commit a crime, you go to jail.  Criminals are a minority we are sacrificing to protect people as a whole.  This is simply a greater degree of that.  And, like the criminals, we are not punishing anyone for anything they have no choice in.  Everyone has an opportunity to be a productive member of society.

[Emsworth]

When you commit a crime, you go to jail.

That's not a feature unique to statism. It is a central tenet of libertarianism as well: if you commit a crime, you violate the rights of someone else, and you must therefore be punished.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But we disagree there again. A libertarian believes that the best way to promote the welfare of society is through individual freedom. A statist believes that the best way to promote the welfare of society is through government.

[JohnFKennedy]

Of course there will always be some who stand in the way, but if the government deals with them to advance the people's interests I don't see that as oppression or tyranny.

Weyhey! Tyranny of the majority!

How exactly do some stand in the way?

If, for example a company wishes to buy a group of houses and all bar one owner decides they want to sell to this company but the one owner is blocking the deal as the company say it is all or nothing, would the state then be justified in forcing the one man to sell his house because others want him to? That would be in the interest of the majority but it would also infringe upon his rights to property.

My main problem with the tyranny of the majority shows up my views to be similar to Emsworth's. If the state does what it decides is in the interest of society, it effectively means that nobody really has any rights as the state can take away anything it wants if it deems that to be in society's interest - this ideology turns everything into privileges rather than rights - life is a privilege, liberty is a privilege and the pursuit of happiness if a privliege.

I don't think that this statist ideal really grants everybody the opportunity to be a productive member of society as there are always preconceptions and if a majority feel one individual to be dangerous, they can be locked up in "the public interest" - that hardly grants them an opportunity to be a productive member of society.

I personally agree with Emsworth - inalienable human rights are at the heart of my political philosophy.

[jokerman]

Of course there will always be some who stand in the way, but if the government deals with them to advance the people's interests I don't see that as oppression or tyranny.

Weyhey! Tyranny of the majority!

How exactly do some stand in the way?

If, for example a company wishes to buy a group of houses and all bar one owner decides they want to sell to this company but the one owner is blocking the deal as the company say it is all or nothing, would the state then be justified in forcing the one man to sell his house because others want him to? That would be in the interest of the majority but it would also infringe upon his rights to property.

No, not necesarily.  Would it be in the interest of the people for companies to be able to un-justly grab up property?  No.  I may be a statist, but I'm not a fascist.

[JohnFKennedy]

Of course there will always be some who stand in the way, but if the government deals with them to advance the people's interests I don't see that as oppression or tyranny.

Weyhey! Tyranny of the majority!

How exactly do some stand in the way?

If, for example a company wishes to buy a group of houses and all bar one owner decides they want to sell to this company but the one owner is blocking the deal as the company say it is all or nothing, would the state then be justified in forcing the one man to sell his house because others want him to? That would be in the interest of the majority but it would also infringe upon his rights to property.

No, not necesarily.  Would it be in the interest of the people for companies to be able to un-justly grab up property?  No.  I may be a statist, but I'm not a fascist.

How about if it wasn't a company but the state?

[jokerman]

Of course there will always be some who stand in the way, but if the government deals with them to advance the people's interests I don't see that as oppression or tyranny.

Weyhey! Tyranny of the majority!

How exactly do some stand in the way?

If, for example a company wishes to buy a group of houses and all bar one owner decides they want to sell to this company but the one owner is blocking the deal as the company say it is all or nothing, would the state then be justified in forcing the one man to sell his house because others want him to? That would be in the interest of the majority but it would also infringe upon his rights to property.

No, not necesarily.  Would it be in the interest of the people for companies to be able to un-justly grab up property?  No.  I may be a statist, but I'm not a fascist.

How about if it wasn't a company but the state?

Depends on the conditions.  Most likely, no, because the government could choose to build somewhere else.  However, if it was imparative for the building to be placed there, then I would say perhaps yes.  Of course, the owner would be fairly paid.  Still, I would object to it 90% of the time.