• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What is the core of your beliefs?

Aunt Spiker said:
But what's funny is that it's just a true sentiment.
Click to expand...
Its an opinion, laden with subjective values, not a truth.
Nothing -necessiates- that those who have give to those that have not.

But, in that, you're right -- its all about implementation - voluntary charity from the individual or forced redistribution by the state.
 
Hoplite said:
I was asked an interesting question today; in one sentence, how would you describe the core idea that your political beliefs rest on?

It seems fairly easy on the surface but it really does make you have to sort of stop and think. Digging down and finding the first brick that makes up the building of your political beliefs isnt easy. I'm curious how people on here might answer the question.

After some considerable thought, I responded by saying I felt there was something fundamentally wrong with a world where one person can afford more of anything than he could ever even hope to use and someone else cant afford to feed themselves.
Click to expand...

Consistent standards of interaction between the authority and those subject to the authority.
 
Balance, equality, and fairness. Especially fairness. Along with these, I believe that any rules/laws/restrictions to citizens should be looked at intelligently, especially those that are voted in by the will of the majority.
 
Korimyr the Rat said:
Society is an organic whole whose parts must work together in harmony in order to prosper and thrive.
Click to expand...

That's all a bit James Lovelock. As a fascist, I assume you believe that individual and minority rights are subordinate to the overall interests of this greater, to my mind mythical, social organism. Would that be a reasonable assessment?
 
Andalublue said:
That's all a bit James Lovelock. As a fascist, I assume you believe that individual and minority rights are subordinate to the overall interests of this greater, to my mind mythical, social organism. Would that be a reasonable assessment?
Click to expand...

Yes, it would be. The individual and the minority cannot exist outside the State, and serve no purpose outside the State, so it would be ludicrous to speak of them having rights that are contrary to the State's purpose.
 
Korimyr the Rat said:
Yes, it would be. The individual and the minority cannot exist outside the State, and serve no purpose outside the State, so it would be ludicrous to speak of them having rights that are contrary to the State's purpose.
Click to expand...

I kind of assumed that that would be your position. I might think it inhuman, but I would never accuse you of being inconsistent.

I think there is a huge difference in believing in the existence and importance of society and its symbiotic relationship with the individuals and with the communities that comprise it, and believing that this society somehow has a raison d'être in and of itself; one that maybe in some way in conflict with the interests and wellbeing of those constituent individuals and communities. There may be conflict within society, between different interests, but, I would argue, there can be no conflict between a society, as some reified entity, and the very building blocks which make it up.
 
When are you going to change your lean to Socialist Hoplite? Are you working and contributing significantly to the tax base yet, or are you still in that mode where your total tax burden is so small that you haven't sacrificed nearly enough to attempt a personal stance on such issues that is actually formed via experience?

Core belief of the day?
Life is short, I'm going to ride it for all it's worth, lead, follow, or get out of my way...please, thank you.
 
Last edited:
Mach said:
When are you going to change your lean to Socialist Hoplite? Are you working and contributing significantly to the tax base yet, or are you still in that mode where your total tax burden is so small that you haven't sacrificed nearly enough to attempt a personal stance on such issues anyway?

Core belief of the day?
Life is short, I'm going to ride it for all it's worth, lead, follow, or get out of my way...please, thank you.
Click to expand...

DP can't conceive of the idea that socialists, communists or anarchists exist, hence there are no 'lean' options for anything more left-wing than 'very liberal', which to my mind isn't left-wing at all. Go figure!
 
Andalublue,
Undisclosed is entirely appropriate in the case you describe.
To my specific point, a socialist choosing the centrist label, is still the issue.
 
Mach said:
Andalublue,
Undisclosed is entirely appropriate in the case you describe.
Click to expand...
No, it's not appropriate at all. It might make some people more comfortable to believe that the entire political spectrum is encompassed between centre-right and far-right, but that isn't how the World sees things.
To my specific point, a socialist choosing the centrist label, is still the issue.
Click to expand...
In a fairly large proportion of the World socialists ARE the centrists. Conservatives are on the right and communists and anarchists are on the left. It all depends where you place your centre, and we are not about to agree on that, I sense.
 
Andalublue said:
There may be conflict within society, between different interests, but, I would argue, there can be no conflict between a society, as some reified entity, and the very building blocks which make it up.
Click to expand...

Think of a brick wall. If a brick is out of place, the wall is weakened and may fall. If that brick insists on being out of place, can it still be called one of the building blocks of the wall?
 
Your life is not my fault nor my responsibility
 
Trying to condense beliefs into a single sentence comes at the cost of accuracy, but for simplicity: Practical solutions trump ideological chest-beating.
 
SE102 said:
It would be a sentient brick and we would have to respect it as such. :lol:
Click to expand...

As much as I respect anything else that threatens the integrity of the State.

:kitty:
 
Whatever best elevates society as a whole into better holistic well-being, and furthers the positive expansion of human ideas and consciousness.
 
I'd say that's actually a fairly typical attitude for a Fascist to take.
 
Korimyr the Rat said:
Think of a brick wall. If a brick is out of place, the wall is weakened and may fall. If that brick insists on being out of place, can it still be called one of the building blocks of the wall?
Click to expand...

I see the analogy, but it's not a good one. Society is not a brick wall, it doesn't have the same properties, function or nature. Society is not monolithic; you may wish to see it as such, but I don't, and it isn't. In a previous post I thought about using an analogy depicting society as a body with communities and institutions as organs and individuals as cells. I wrote a whole post, reread it, and trashed it because 'society' is not analagous to biological organisms, bits of masonry or pieces of engineering. Please explain your position further in substantive, not metaphorical, terms.
 
Small-government socioeconomics and militant democratic peace theory; an ecocentric libertarian who wants universal human rights before world peace or fiscal solvency.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom