Post: #1

After seeing some of the threads on the presidential election and reactions to the recent shootings the last couple months, I'm curious where RVF falls on the political spectrum. I made enough options to capture more nuanced views.

Post: #2

Surprising. From most of the content I always got the impression of a conservative bent. Nice to see it's more balanced than I thought.

Post: #3

I HATE the labour party [ALP] and Julia Gillard.

http://www.killyourdarlingsjournal.com/a...y-to-hate/

8 months and counting........

"Lifes about, shooting your load"

Post: #4

I am just about the epitome of a Libertarian.

I am also shocked that through 18 votes there hasn't been any love for Noam.

Post: #5

Someone give a cliffs notes version of "Left-libertarian (Chomsky)".

Post: #6

(12-17-2012 08:53 PM)Anon-A-Moose Wrote:  Surprising. From most of the content I always got the impression of a conservative bent.

Really? I've always been amazed how liberal leaning the members of a forum that totally buys into evolutionary psychology are, considering that evo psych basically destroys so many of the foundations of liberal ideology.

Post: #7

(12-17-2012 09:30 PM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  Someone give a cliffs notes version of "Left-libertarian (Chomsky)".

Very limited government in the form that we know it today, but a much stronger individual say in the work environment. Also, no private property rights for anything other than a private abode or possessions. Basically, you can't own a business.

It completely ignores human nature and the true inequality of us as individuals. It is still far more of a competent theory than what the average socialist brings to the table though.

Post: #8

I would classify myself as a Libertarian-Communitarian, and that's not an option in the above poll.

Post: #9

Apolitical. I might aspire to be a sneaky Machiavellian who says and does what helps him get places, but in reality I don't have the drive and ability to lie to do it. So I just keep my mouth shut and focus on my goals.

Or to put it another way, "politics" only makes sense to me in the context of gaining some benefit by espousing something. Power, social status, money, pussy, or the warm glow you get from winning an online argument. But I don't judge espousing any form of political philosophy to be as beneficial as other uses of my energy.

If you become "the man" by organising the local Obama meetup, then that's the value you gain. If you like the adulation you get from owning some gun rights forum, more power to you.

Post: #10

I can't really categorize myself. I'm fairly left-leaning economically, but on things like feminism, gun-rights, illegal immigration, male/female roles, same-sex marriage, crime, the death penalty, et al I'm more in agreement with the right.

Post: #11

I'm finding it hard to align myself with any political party, I'm not sure where I am, I don't vote for any of the parties in the UK because they are all practically the same. I hate socialism but I'm not keen on facism either. I think Game and the evolutionary psyche behind it has really changed my views, my main belief at present is that no-one is equal and inequality needs to exist for human society to profit as a whole.

Post: #12

I voted "liberal" because most of my views concerning laws, economy, religion, contraception, abortion, guns, gay rights and etc. place me squarely into that camp. However, my views on sexuality are definitely very far to the right, as with most RVF members, and I also support the death penalty. So the issue is muddled.

But basically speaking, I'm a liberal, yes. I'm sure it's a huge surprise for many people who expect someone who criticizes women for being sluts and destroying marriage to simultaneously support gay marriage, fiscal stimuli, strict separation of church and state, right to abortion and etc.

Post: #13

I avoid the ambiguity of labels.

Post: #14

Chomsky is not a libertarian with the possible exception of his isolationism.

Post: #15

(12-17-2012 09:30 PM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  Someone give a cliffs notes version of "Left-libertarian (Chomsky)".

They're kind of like the hippie-ish or punkish wing of liberalism. They're big peaceniks (think Ron Paul foreign policy) and believe in a lot of "social justice" stuff, but they're also anti-authority as well. They believe in an end-game where we all learn to just get along and smoke pot together without the need of a government.

beta_plus Wrote:Chomsky is not a libertarian with the possible exception of his isolationism.

I wouldn't call him one either, but usually people who follow him consider themselves a version of libertarian.

Post: #16

I am surprised by the results of this poll, usually most well informed straight guys are libertarian. To the liberal/socialists out there, what lead you to hold these beliefs?

Post: #17

Yeah, I predicted a majority would be in the libertarian or conservative camp.

Post: #18

(12-18-2012 12:06 PM)n0000 Wrote:  I am surprised by the results of this poll, usually most well informed straight guys are libertarian. To the liberal/socialists out there, what lead you to hold these beliefs?

I think all those labels are just a divide and conquer technique by the PTB. They don't want us looking where the money actually goes, because people would change it.

I don't believe in these labels, no thinking person's ideas are reducible to one word , but if you must I'm a librul on SocSec because it reduced elderly poverty by a huge amount.

However, I'm a big hawk on immigration-- only proven high achievers.

Ironically, part of why I think this is I was in a Social Security office with my foreign girlfriend and I saw all these uneducated-looking immigrants there that did not look like they were going to add a lot to the culture. But then, one of my my European grandfather was probably practically illiterate, and I've got a doctorate so maybe it's not so simple.

Post: #19

Take this test and it will tell you your political leaning

http://www.politicalcompass.org/index

Post: #20

(12-17-2012 10:50 PM)Samseau Wrote:  I would classify myself as a Libertarian-Communitarian, and that's not an option in the above poll.

You have said this before. I am not sure I understand how those two things can co-exist. Libertarian and communitarian are usually used to denote opposite ends of a spectrum.

If I remember correctly, you've written that communities should be free from too much central authority, but should be free to impose rather strict norms on individuals within that community. If that is correct, where is the libertarian part? Is it that people are free to move from one community to another if they wish?

Post: #21

(12-19-2012 08:03 AM)j r Wrote:  

(12-17-2012 10:50 PM)Samseau Wrote:  I would classify myself as a Libertarian-Communitarian, and that's not an option in the above poll.

You have said this before. I am not sure I understand how those two things can co-exist. Libertarian and communitarian are usually used to denote opposite ends of a spectrum.

If I remember correctly, you've written that communities should be free from too much central authority, but should be free to impose rather strict norms on individuals within that community. If that is correct, where is the libertarian part? Is it that people are free to move from one community to another if they wish?

Exactly. So although my libertarian-communitarian model would allow racist communities to exist, it would never allow them to own slaves.

Post: #22

(12-19-2012 02:26 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(12-19-2012 08:03 AM)j r Wrote:  

(12-17-2012 10:50 PM)Samseau Wrote:  I would classify myself as a Libertarian-Communitarian, and that's not an option in the above poll.

You have said this before. I am not sure I understand how those two things can co-exist. Libertarian and communitarian are usually used to denote opposite ends of a spectrum.

If I remember correctly, you've written that communities should be free from too much central authority, but should be free to impose rather strict norms on individuals within that community. If that is correct, where is the libertarian part? Is it that people are free to move from one community to another if they wish?

Exactly. So although my libertarian-communitarian model would allow racist communities to exist, it would never allow them to own slaves.

If you really wanted this outcome, I think it could be just called libertarianism and could be acheived by contract. You could buy a bunch of land and sell lots off to people with the contractual stipulation that they not sell it or rent it to certain types of people. I think this was common in the early 1900s until the law changed to make the clause in the contracts invalid. I am all for letting people try to set up little enclaves governed by whatever creative contracts they can come up with. I think it would lead to lots of innovation and certain communities having certain distinct feels to it. A person founding a town could stipulate what style of building was desired, how the street plans were to be laid out and could mold the town contractually. If people wanted this type of arrangement they can move there, if not they could go somewhere else. I think a really great way to live would be a village like the hill towns in Italy. They were made in an era when the street plan sprang up organically and was not centrally planned and in general do not allow cars to pass through. The result is a very walkable town that in which everything you need is less than a 15 min walk away.

Post: #23

I don't mind if the forum's fairly conservative, as long as it doesn't seep into non-political discussions. I cringe every time I see a "that's that liberal agenda" type stuff. But it's fairly rare, we've generally had quite productive posters and good moderation.


Nice to know I stand somewhere between Ghandi and Stalin.

n0000, I can't speak for everyone who has more liberal beliefs. I don't believe that money should be the 100% basis of society, which seems to be a very strong conservative mindset. Things like parks, education, having a subsistence level of food housing and medical care, those are things that are beyond money. The side effects of not having basic subsistence, the effects of people lashing out at society for it, are much more expensive (I can personally attest having seen it). It costs $60,000 a year to incarcerate someone in a low security prison, but not even half that to feed/clothe/house them. Nothing fancy, but subsistence.

I'm a strong social conservative--two-parent homes, white picket fences, no children from what isn't a long-term, stable relationship (usually marriage, not necessarily). I do support gay rights and marriage, but I don't think they should have children--not because they're bad or immoral, but because of the way children need to have gender roles in the house to adapt to the outside world. Needless to say I don't support feminism. Women need men. Men need women. Women who say they don't need men delude themselves, and few hardcore feminists die happy.

But, on the other hand, it's the job of the government to support the people. It is "by the people, FOR the people". The success of a government is not the title it carries, the terms applied to it, but its success is the quality of the greater society it supports and the ability it has to help the people who it serves. Government serves people. The economic conditions and trends are destroying the middle class, the concentration of wealth is not sustainable. Declining middle class + a rapidly diminishing original populace group = social unrest. Since the welfare capitalism model has been uprooted (labor markets are a race to the bottom--see: china, india, taiwan, malaysia, etc.), since the workers have little bargaining power now due to unions being either overly inflexible or destroyed, the only OPTION available is for redistribution of wealth. The only other course of action is to let them all sink into poverty, so they can wind up destructive (see: any former blue collar American city). The morality of it is open for debate--should the rich keep their earnings as they're "earned" even if not always by fair means and equal work, or should they redistribute?--but the basic fact that a functioning middle class is necessary for a modern, functioning society is undeniable.

Capitalism needs someone to reign in the destructive tendency of companies. Companies are designed to make money however they can. Corporations and businesses exist in the bigger scheme not to make money, but to provide products for a working class to buy. Their competition should be at each others expense, not that of their own revenue base or of greater society. Even with feminism, even with rampant female consumption and a consumerist society, we're still gradually slowing. The system is growing sclerotic, it's dying, because there's tons of marketing and advertising, and people cannot afford to buy everything. That's all inherently self-destructive, and makes the labor market a prisoner's dilemma. Other powers need to be there to counteract the destructive effects--labor unions to help the workers get rights/stability/fair pay, government to prevent companies from doing immoral or destructive acts otherwise. And if another nation offers dirt-cheap labor which undermines this, we don't need to be doing business with them. Especially since cheap labor nations like China DON'T have a consumer class who you can market as effectively to, because they DON'T HAVE MONEY. So, if you're going to lose a high-stakes game with them, why play?

That's my line of thought. I hope it sheds some light on my views at least, maybe some other people have the same feelings. I think people generally trend politically towards whatever gives them the best deal at that point in their life, though, whether they're aware of it or not.


Also i do like sameau's idea about small sectarian communes. For groups that don't fit in with "regular" society, I think that's the best option. If someone's a white power skinhead, radical feminazi, hardline communist, anarchist, etc, give them all a small little area to call their own, let 'em do as the please, and just tell em not to cause any trouble outside their realm. Voluntary isolation with limited contact with the world should be more acceptable. You can come in and buy stuff and trade, but feel free to be relatively isolated--almost like the Amish.

Post: #24

(12-17-2012 09:30 PM)Katatonic Wrote:  I am just about the epitome of a Libertarian.

I am also shocked that through 18 votes there hasn't been any love for Noam.

Noam doesn't need our validation to be a player: