Politically what do you consider yourself?

[dichotomy]

I’m a socialist right winger, in favour of benevolent dictatorships.

 

Nah! Democratic Socialist Greenie (idealist:embarass:).

[Severian]

The trick is finding reliable values that work for the common good of everyone.

 

I am a Christian, so I think my values are considerably different from a lot of people here.

 

But I don't think 'values' as such are the issue: our state should have laws and policies which help people life the lives they want to live, as long as what they want doesn't impact too negatively on the lives of others.

 

So if I think your particular lifestyle choice is 'immoral', then it is my right to hold and state that opinion, publicly if desired. But it is not my right to restrict your 'immoral' act (as long as it doesn't impinge on the rights of others).

 

As an example, in the religious sphere (since I mentioned I was a Christian), I had dinner with Charles Taylor (the philosopher) a few weeks ago, and he made the point to me that the US constitution guaranteed the freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. A state that is supportive of (moderate and constructive) religious beliefs, whether they are Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Atheist or whatever, is preferable to a state that divorces itself from all religions.

 

Strangely enough, this leads me to have some unusual positions. For example, I don't believe that the state has a right to judge others, since judgement is only the right of God, but I do support the death penalty (though not in its current form) because I think it is beneficial to society as a whole.

[ydoaPs]

I am a Christian, so I think my values are considerably different from a lot of people here.

 

But I don't think 'values' as such are the issue: our state should have laws and policies which help people life the lives they want to live, as long as what they want doesn't impact too negatively on the lives of others.

 

So if I think your particular lifestyle choice is 'immoral', then it is my right to hold and state that opinion, publicly if desired. But it is not my right to restrict your 'immoral' act (as long as it doesn't impinge on the rights of others).

 

As an example, in the religious sphere (since I mentioned I was a Christian), I had dinner with Charles Taylor (the philosopher) a few weeks ago, and he made the point to me that the US constitution guaranteed the freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. A state that is supportive of (moderate and constructive) religious beliefs, whether they are Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Atheist or whatever, is preferable to a state that divorces itself from all religions.

 

Strangely enough, this leads me to have some unusual positions. For example, I don't believe that the state has a right to judge others, since judgement is only the right of God, but I do support the death penalty (though not in its current form) because I think it is beneficial to society as a whole.

3tdoQr3BQ1g

In this speech(5 parts; I couldn't find a whole one), Obama talks about the role of religion in legislation. This topic is one on which with him I agree.

[padren]

Fairly libertarian but with some liberal leanings out of practical necessity. I hate the fact a community can force someone to support the local fire department and can't opt out, but doing so would be unrealistic - and in a violent world we wouldn't exist without compulsory support for a unified military.

 

I see all social programs as carrying a cost in that regard and policy makers should be very respectful of that cost and those who get cavalier about building a society in their ideal image really bother me. I do extend the idea of practical necessity as far as socialized health care though, which is far far further than most libertarians would go - the size of government doesn't really concern me as much as the ideals and goals of that government. If the cost that goes in pays for itself in increased opportunities to be individually free, I'll entertain even large government programs if they look good.

[iNow]

I am a Christian, so I think my values are considerably different from a lot of people here.

I wouldn't be so sure about that. We probably have a tremendous degree of overlap in our values... probably more alike than different. I think the primary difference is in how we describe our motivations for those values... how we explain why we have them, not that the values themselves are different (there will, of course, be some differences, but that is the case among all people).

 

Just thought I'd put that out there. I tend to think we share the vast majority of our values, and that the difference rests primarily in what we decide to describe as our motivation for holding those values.

 

 

 

As an example, in the religious sphere (since I mentioned I was a Christian), I had dinner with Charles Taylor (the philosopher) a few weeks ago, and he made the point to me that the US constitution guaranteed the freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.

And he's correct if he restricts his comments to the constitution itself, but in the more than 200 years it has existed it has been consistently interpreted in a much broader way. The primary interpretation comes from our Supreme Court, as that is their role... to define what is and is not constitutional based on the cases brought before them.

 

In practically every single case where this issue has been raised over the last two centuries, the SCOTUS has without fail erred on the side of the Establishment Clause of our First Amendment meaning that we are a secular nation, and while religious belief and practice is to be protected, it has no place in our laws or our legislation. All laws must have a relevant secular purpose.

 

In the writings of those men who authored the US Constitution, it was made abundantly clear their intent. Their words were intended to do far more than to protect peoples freedom of religion... They were also intended to establish a "wall of separation between the church and the state."

 

Offered at this link is a pretty robust and interesting exploration of these ideas, and I leave it to the reader whether or not they wish to explore them:

http://rationalrevolution.net/articles/history_of_the_separation_of_chu.htm

 

 

Either way, I just wanted to take a moment to suggest that there is likely to be much more overlap in our values than not, and also to show how Mr. Taylor was mostly correct, but with some very important supplemental details. Thanks for sharing.

[john5746]

I'm a libertarian wanna-be, but I don't trust myself - therefore I am a moderate statist.

[princess]

What am I if I want LOTS of change? That is liberal right? Far right liberal?

[Severian]

What am I if I want LOTS of change?

 

A terrorist?

[abskebabs]

A terrorist?

Hardly, terrorists are people who make systematic use of terror to coerce and bend the will of those they consider opponents.

 

I think I would be considered fairly "radical" myself on this forum, since I'm not a statist, and would like economic, as well as social freedom. However, this in no way implies I advocate violence or terrorism.

 

If your comment was a joke....great:doh:

[Sisyphus]

 

I think I would be considered fairly "radical" myself on this forum, since I'm not a statist,

 

I don't think anyone here would consider themselves a "statist" (or at least, almost nobody), unless that's just the name you call anyone who isn't an anarchocapitalist or whatever you are.

[Mr Skeptic]

I guess I am a free market libertarian/liberal. I think that a better solution to banning tobacco or corn syrup would be a tax on them which goes to fund treatment or research relating to addiction/lung disease, or obesity related diseases. Same with marijuana, it is totally irresponsible for the government to be locking people up for it. If something has negative effects on yourself or others, a tax is better than a ban since it allows individuals the freedom to do it anyways, yet not to be a burden on others. Likewise, if a company is "too big to fail", it can pay a bailout tax and then we bail it out with that money when needed.

 

Since the free market is not perfect, I believe it falls to the government to fix some of its problems such as externalities.

[dichotomy]

Hardly, terrorists are people who make systematic use of terror to coerce and bend the will of those they consider opponents.

 

That sounds like any "legitimate" war.

 

The Yanks where considered terrorists by the British back in the war of independance days. It all comes down to perspective. Maybe terrorists generally don't control a state perhaps? Terrorist don't have massive wealth? Ahh, terrorist is just not a scientific term is it.