Philosophy that undergirds your politics?

[ATFFL]

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.

There are times they cannot choose to build anywhere else.  Say ti is a dock and to build anwyehere else is going to be ten times the cost and half the usefulness?

[angus]

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

an excellent question.  I'd like to give you an original answer, but unfortunately you've already posted what I'd answer.

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.

Well put.  I'd assume Bush and Pat Robertson would say something very similar.  As would Thomas Jefferson.  And Karl Marx and Al Sharpton for that matter.

And, as an added bonus, it's sufficiently ambiguous that one could be a libertarian, a socialist, or anything in between, and use those lines successfully to great acclaim and applause.

[AuH2O]

My views are predicated on the notion people are naturally divided and naturally form cultures, which then forms a nation-- and it is the duty of the nation to grow and prosper, but at the same time to protect the rights of its citizens, since they are the state in a sense.

The US is confused due to its short history predicated on immigration, but nonetheless culture is possible, if uneven and troubled in the present day.

[angus]

I don't think it's confusion.  We got Angela Merkel, Ariel Sharon, Jean Marie Le Pen, Vladimir Putin, and all those other nationalists all in one pot.  Imaging putting a male cat from every breed in one paper bag.  It ain't easy getting that paper bag not to rip.  No confusion there.  Just consternation.  I do think foreigners are somewhat confused about our situation (imagine Angela Merkel or Ariel Sharon or Jean Marie Le Pen trying to run our nation.  It'd be chaos.)

I had a friend in high school named Derek Peacock.  You out there Derek?  Speak up if you are, hoss.  Anyway, his dad was an old school Kentuckian, used to to say stuff like, "Hitler was a pussy.  Man, he freaked out just 'cause he had Jews to deal with.  Hell, we got Jews here.  And ns too!  Imagine what that asshole would do if he had ns to deal with."

See, I do think yanks get that.   Foreigners may not, though.  I'm not saying Mr. Peacock was a great philosopher, but he had a few profound (and profane!) things to say.  But he also beat his kids with a belt and all that.  Yeah, yeah, I know, the yuppie either accepts a person, or rejects him, in toto, without considering subtleties and juxtaposition and upbringing, but nevertheless it stands that a great deal of what has been said about the "melting pot" remains key.

Interestingly, in canada, the ideal is a "cultural mosaic"  While in the USA the ideal is a "melting pot"  In fact, astute observers, from within and without, will assure you that neither country meets its ideal goal very well, and both are somewhere in between their respective stated goals, but it's an interesting mix, no doubt. 

You're right, of course, about the USA being special.  No doubt.  But I don't think you're giving your countrymen enough credit for understanding that we are special in this regard.

[PBrunsel]

Hard work and sacrafice will give you success.

[John Dibble]

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.

And Preston shows his true nature.

[opebo]

I call it 'Subjectivism'.

[KEmperor]

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.

Now I know you aren't for real.  No sane person could possibly believe that.

[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.

Now I know you aren't for real.  No sane person could possibly believe that.

[The Duke]

Nationalism.

[opebo]

Nationalism.

Oddly enough, nationalism (besides being based on fear, hate, and ignorance), is destructive of the 'national interest'.

[Jake]

That we should work primarily for our common interests, rather than individual interests.

[MaC]

"I will not use force to accomplish my social or political goals"-copied straight from the LP membership application.

"The government that governs least, governs best"

"Force is the enemy, not George Bush"-from Harry Browne

"government, at the national level should be used for defense, protection, and delivering the mail, and nothing else"

some thoughts I have,...

[John Dibble]

That we should work primarily for our common interests, rather than individual interests.

So I take it you're a fan of communism?

[Bono]

That we should work primarily for our common interests, rather than individual interests.

So I take it you're a fan of communism?

What you didn't know that?

[Jake]

That we should work primarily for our common interests, rather than individual interests.

So I take it you're a fan of communism?

It's not a common interest to be starving in piss poor housing

[Bono]

That we should work primarily for our common interests, rather than individual interests.

http://radicalacademy.com/commongood.htm

[Jake]

Um, I don't read your long articles without commentary, summarize it and I may pay attention.

[Bono]

Um, I don't read your long articles without commentary, summarize it and I may pay attention.

The article is not long.

[John Dibble]

That we should work primarily for our common interests, rather than individual interests.

So I take it you're a fan of communism?

It's not a common interest to be starving in piss poor housing

No, but I don't see why anyone other than the people in those situations are obligated to do anything about it.

[Democratic Hawk]

Let's just say I'm a slave to my social conscience

Dave