What Is Your Political Philosophy?

I don't mind practicing watching really hot chics get used; and claiming that counts if there are any "quotas" involved. Thank goodness for a modern Information Age, if I just want to watch.

 

Lol..the leftwing left this board because they won't admit they're wrong....that's like the hateful loser guy who,says women leave him because they don't like the truth. Maybe they left because of the irrational hate for liberals and obama? Maybe they didn't value your opinions? The worst insult is indifference and that seems what they did and you can't see that.

 

Anything is possible, but I first noticed this phenomenon in play back in 2007 when conservatives finally began abandoning a major commercial forum simply because they could no longer loyally support G.W. Bush or automatically issue endless excuses for his decisions and conduct as president while still possessing respect for themselves as posters; and it looks to me that we are now seeing the same thing happening in regards to Obama and the bulk of his more introspective supporters.

They are dropping out of posting on most of the -- more or less -- nominally politically neutral political forums simply because they can no longer auto-issue endless excuses for his decisions and conduct as president while still possessing respect for themselves as posters. Of course it's the same as with the conservative posters of 2007, in that only they really know why they dropped out. All an outsider can do is notice a pattern and generate some speculation regarding the same. (Shrug) But you never really can know.

 

Talking about the FAIR Tax?

 

Why? Just because you wouldn't dare shop on the sabbath?

 

There is no such Thing as a "fair" tax under any form of Capitalism where one should be taxed what one is worth.

 

This is why there is over 10,000 pages of tax code, deductions, loopholes, etc. A flat tax takes the same percentage from everybody. If you make more, you pay more. If you make less, you pay less.

 

Ecoanarchist, but very, very moderate. Anarchist in the sense of favoring governments that avoid having a leader other than for ceremonial purposes, and leaving most decisions to the people that live within the society. I don't have to explain the eco part.

The only problem with my philosophy is how expensive referendums are, and how people are reliant on fossil fuels and therefore see green politics as an excuse to "tax people to death", which I find to be a fallacious claim.

Also I think that Obamacare, as you guys in the U.S. call it, (this forum is too dominated by U.S. politics, and because of that I made no progress on getting my thread, one where I wanted to submit because of a game I want to make, to pass.) I find that it has potential to not be as costly as its opposition claims. Canada did it, after all, and doesn't suffer from any ill effects. Also one has to take into consideration that healthcare is expensive, and you can never predict when or where you would get injured or infected with a disease, and it is very difficult to prevent unless using that medium. To not have protection against bankruptcy caused by the need for medical treatment is like flipping a coin every day hoping every single time it lands heads. Risk of being put into a position of need for welfare drops dramatically if you can eliminate the most common and unpredictable dangers to your well-being.

Anyways, if you hate Obamacare then you must certainly not want to go to Canada.

 

That happens now. And, now, some peole don't have enough capital worth to be taxed. I believe we should be simplifying our public policies. Why not end the capital gains distinction whenever the unemployment rate is above three percent?

 

Flat tax with no deductions, credits, loopholes, tiers, etc. That means all income taxed at the same rate. Can't get more simple than that. This way, we don't need the IRS, at least most of it. This would stop most of the fraud and abuse.

 

I believe simply ending the need for an income tax would be better. Simplification can do that.

 

How would that be done?

 

Why not end our wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror; and simplify with market friendly solutions that can utilize existing infrastructure.

 

I'm talking about our tax system.

 

Socially, I am liberal. I support individual rights as long as they do not hurt others. I am also patriotic, but not in an aggressive nationalistic manner which holds no self-criticism. A patriot is able and ready to see and point out the fallacies of his own nation, as well the fallacies of other nations against his. As far economy goes, I am a libertarian ( free market FTW ) but as far as education, health care and social security go, I am a complete statist in those regards. An ideal economy for me is the one with a free market which is lightly taxed on small and middle businesses, while big companies are taxed somewhat more, but still low to the middle level. Those low taxes can supply the demand for public education, public health care and social security as long as the market is free and prosperous. There are certain regulations of the market that are needed, but they can be accomplished even by public-private partnerships.
As for foreign policy goes ( regarding my country - Serbia ), I'm pro West, pro EU, anti NATO ( military neutrality is the way to go. We're sick of wars ) but also I do like to see more cooperation with Russia, China and many 3rd world countries. Ideally, Serbia should be one of the leaders of some sort of Balkan economic union within the EU ( much like BeNeLux ). It would be some sort of a workers union for the small member states which would strengthen us all.

 

So am I; did you know Only a warfare-State requires direct Tax on Incomes.

 

We could probably do that if we scale down our government to that required by the Constitution.

 

Sure; why not "starve the beast" and end our wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror.

 

My political beliefs are very simple. I believe in a gov't by and for the People, which actually represents the best interest of the People, instead of special interest elite factions. And so I do not believe in the current oligarchy. As I said, a very simple belief, philosophy.

In having this philosophy one could say that I agree with Thomas Jefferson and the Revolution of 1800. Which I would bet no one here knows a thing about. For you were educated our in our educational system on behalf of the oligarchs.

 

How do you stop capitalists from practicing capitalism under any form of capitalism? In my opinion, simply solving simple poverty can do more than any amount of regulation.

 

I am conservative-moderate fiscally and moderate-liberal socially. I am most conservative on education issues and most liberal on gay rights.

 

I believe we should solve simple poverty on an at-will basis instead of wasting our tax monies on a War on Poverty.

 

Especially since poverty is at record levels. More people on welfare and food stamps than ever before, and a labor participation rate that is at an all-time low.

 

There is a flaw in this argument. The 9th Amendment protects the unenumerated Rights of the Person but many of our statutory laws violate those unenumerated Rights. For example many of our laws of property violate the "natural (inalienable) right of property" of the person but few are aware of that. Let me provide an example of that.

The right of property to the land is a "natural (inalienable) right" of the person (http://www.constitution.org/jl/2ndtr05.htm) but like all inalienable rights it is not transferrable to another person.

So while the individual can establish a Right of Property to Land based upon their personal "sweat equity" (i.e. "physical labor" under John Locke's arguments in the link provided) that Right of Property to the Land cannot be transferred to another person. The "statutory laws" allow the "ownership" to be transferred but not the "Right of Property" that is dependent upon the labor of the person (and not the labor of machinery).

So I can purchase land, like the house I own, based upon statutory law but I don't have a "Right of Property" related to it unless I actually exert my own personal and physical labor to establish that Right of Property to the land that I own based upon statutory law. Lacking that "physical labor" I never establish the Right of Property related to the land. If I am in "statutory control" without a "Right of Property" then I've violating the Right of Property of the People (or "common" as expressed by John Locke).

I bring this up because I read an article where the top 10 land owners have statutory ownership of roughly 400,000 acres on the average and there is no way on Earth that they can physically work 400,000 acres every year nor can they establish that they require 400,000 acres for their basic survival and comfort which is all that the "natural (inalienable) right of property" allows. They literally own too much land under our statutory laws, they don't have a Right of Property to that much land, and the statutory laws that allow it violate the Right of Property to Land for all other individuals in society.

We can extend this same protection of the Right of Property as it applies to "under-compensation for labor" where the compensation does not provide a "liveable wage" as the Right of the Person is that their physical labor is equal to their "survival and comfort" (according to Locke's arguments for the Right of Property). Under compensation in employment is a violation of the Right of Property of the Person. That Right of Property protected by the 9th Amendment but the 9th Amendment is not being enforced.

We can also note that our immigration laws violate the Right of Liberty of the Person also protected by the 9th Amendment. That is why Jefferson, Madison, and Washington all made statements supporting the "Right of Immigration" to America or as Jefferson expressed it the "Right of Expatriation" where government could not violate the Right of the Person to immigrate from one country to another. "Social-conservatives" and "liberal-unions" often like to mention "Liberty" but they expressly oppose the "Liberty of the Person" when they oppose free and open immigation based upon rationalizations of "economic protectionism" for the United States.

The 9th Amendment is the most important Amendment to the US Constitution but it is the least enforced Amendment to the US Constitution.

 

What does this have to do with what we are talking about?