What is the core of your beliefs?

[Arcana XV]

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.

At the core of my political stance are: individual freedom, personal responsibility, a strong local government, very limited federal or central government and the responsibility we all have to provide a basic safety net for the truly destitute.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

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.

If I let you take away my analogies, next you'll be taking away my guns, my jobs, and my women. I won't stand for it.

:kitty:

Okay. What kind of animal is a human? It is a primate, an opportunistic pack predator. The natural order of the human being, contrary to the speculation of the liberals, is to belong to a pack with subordinates to command and superiors to obey. Humans instinctively crave this order, and will create it for themselves in institutional settings that do not provide it for them. Belonging to the pack is life, and being excluded from the pack is not only death, it is a horrible slow death. A pack needs a strong leader and a common culture to hold it together. When two or more packs are close together, there are only three possible results: one drives off the others, one exterminates the others, or they sort themselves out and form a nation. A nation needs all of the same things as a pack, but it is larger; it is larger than any conceivable pack, and thus the leader and the culture that hold them together must be even stronger. A nation requires institutions that support the leader and enforce the culture; a nation requires the State.

The State is the ultimate expression of the tribal instincts of the human animal. It is the source of law, the power of the leader, and the glue that binds many humans and many packs into a single nation. Anything that challenges or undermines the supremacy of the State threatens to tear the nation asunder, replacing a strong singular State with smaller, weaker fiefdoms that more easily fall prey to neighboring nations. In order for the State to be strong, every person must support the State; every person must adore the Leader. Anything that acts as though it were above the State, outside the State, or against the State must be destroyed.

And, of course, the Leader and the State must deserve this devotion. They must act for the goodwill of the nation. They must be benevolent to their own people. They must institute and support mechanisms within the State that strengthen the people and strengthen their devotion to the State. The Leader must love the State and love the people as the people must love him.

 

[FederalRepublic]

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.

In a word, Justice.

 

[ecofarm]

Many claim to desire justice, equality or to help the destitute. Many of them, when confronted with real suffering, abject poverty and even worse - political and ideological bankruptcy accompanied by genocide and starvation are asked "shall we invade and install some sort of democracy?" and are quick to reply "no, they like it the way they have it, leave them alone you warmonger".

Sure, people want to help the poor - as long as it only costs a crappier car or a couple beers. For people who are truly suffering (the likes of which a westerner can hardly imagine let alone experience), there's no charity, no blood and no commitment to a brighter tomorrow. God forbid a lazy bum sleeps with only one blanket in the grand ole US of A, but screw liberating the oppressed.

We cannot end poverty or enjoy world peace until naked state tyranny is a thing of the past. Frankly, I don't know how we can sleep at night.

 

[spud_meister]

When was the last time the US invaded a country to liberate the people from an oppressive regime?

 

[ecofarm]

When didn't a US invasion result in liberation? I guess Vietnam... any others?

We can argue about intentions all day and I can quote Bush saying that we go to war with Iraq to liberate the people from terrible oppression. Then you can claim that it was only rhetoric and everyone ignored it and it doesn't count.

Or, we can look at results and see what was done in every modern war.

 

[spud_meister]

Vietnam War, Korean War, Gulf War, Bay Of Pigs Invasion (by proxy anyway). Just to name the recent ones, but in each one of these cases, the reason for the invasion was to either stop the spread of a rival ideology, or because an ally was invaded, never to free an oppressed people.

 

[ecofarm]

I already mentioned Vietnam, largely considered a geographic failure.

The rest of your examples merely display ignorance.

South Korea??
Kuwait was liberated from Saddam (too bad a king was put back on the throne but still).
Bay of Pigs was not a US invasion (granted, Kennedy was a scumbag). Even if it were, the clear objective was liberation.


Anyway, enough with your BS about intentions. Pretty much everywhere the US military goes (excluding Vietnam), freedom follows. That fact trumps any anti-American spin.

stop the spread of a rival ideology

Yes, tyranny. Specifically, communism for the most part. A bit of fighting against fascists and a smattering against theology and there you have it... liberation.

 

[FederalRepublic]

Many claim to desire justice, equality or to help the destitute. Many of them, when confronted with real suffering, abject poverty and even worse - political and ideological bankruptcy accompanied by genocide and starvation are asked "shall we invade and install some sort of democracy?" and are quick to reply "no, they like it the way they have it, leave them alone you warmonger".

Sure, people want to help the poor - as long as it only costs a crappier car or a couple beers. For people who are truly suffering (the likes of which a westerner can hardly imagine let alone experience), there's no charity, no blood and no commitment to a brighter tomorrow. God forbid a lazy bum sleeps with only one blanket in the grand ole US of A, but screw liberating the oppressed.

We cannot end poverty or enjoy world peace until naked state tyranny is a thing of the past. Frankly, I don't know how we can sleep at night.

I understand what you are saying here. A drive through the streets of Port Harcourt is an eye-opening experience for an American...

That aside, democracy is not the answer, and neither is invading to take down bad governments. Unless the oppressed are willing and able to stand on their own, there will always be another Mugabe. It might sound like a contradiction in terms, but there can never be peace in the world unless we are all willing to make war to defend our legitimate rights.

 

[ecofarm]

You have a better answer to tyranny than democracy (representation, liberal, western, blah blah blah whatever - you get the term)? Do tell.

It sounds to me like you think isolation is the answer, as if the oppresed are equipped to just 'take care of themselves or tough crap'. In a few cases, isolation might be a decent answer; however, it is never the best answer and it should not be policy as classic conservatives (and heartlessly nationalist socialist pacifists) would like.

 

[spud_meister]

I already mentioned Vietnam, largely considered a geographic failure.

The rest of your examples merely display ignorance.

South Korea??
Kuwait was liberated from Saddam (too bad a king was put back on the throne but still).
Bay of Pigs was not a US invasion (granted, Kennedy was a scumbag). Even if it were, the clear objective was liberation.


Anyway, enough with your BS about intentions. Pretty much everywhere the US military goes (excluding Vietnam), freedom follows. That fact trumps any anti-American spin.

You didn't invade South Korea, you invaded the north, and it's still a dictatorship, and again, you invaded Iraq after liberating Kuwait, and it was still a dictatorship.

I'm not being anti-American, though nice to see how quickly you jumpp to that conclusion, and I'm not saying you haven't liberated anyone, I'm saying the reasons for invading are never altruistic, and are never about freeing people, Look at the two wars currently happening, Iraq was 'cause of suspected WMD's, and Afganistan was for the War On Terror, completely irregardless that these were two of the most oppressive regimes in power.

Yes, tyranny. Specifically, communism for the most part. A bit of fighting against fascists and a smattering against theology and there you have it... liberation.

You mean like backing a dictator against a democratically elected government? (that was Vietnam) The wars in the Cold War were fought to stop Communism, not 'cause it would lead to oppression, but 'cause it was Russian.

 

[ecofarm]

I'm not being anti-American, though nice to see how quickly you jumpp to that conclusion, and I'm not saying you haven't liberated anyone, I'm saying the reasons for invading are never altruistic, and are never about freeing people,

Whatever, loser.

 

[Patria Antiqua]

Liberté, égalité, fraternité

 

[Wiseone]

Perspective is everything.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Thou hast issued a dare so deep it plungeth the darkest fear unto myne heart. :roll:

So you are saying you are one who would infringe on my rights?

 

[spud_meister]

Whatever, loser.

:blah::blah::blah::blah::blah:

 

[Leo]

I will respond to the OP on the personal level with this quotation from Hamlet (the Bard says it better than I ever could):

This above all: to thine own self be true,
And it must follow, as the night the day,
Thou canst not then be false to any man.

And on the societal level; this quote from Karl Marx:

From each according to his abilities,
to each each according to his needs.

I don't believe in deluding myself, or anyone else, and I do not like society which is based upon power and greed.

 

[FederalRepublic]

You have a better answer to tyranny than democracy (representation, liberal, western, blah blah blah whatever - you get the term)? Do tell.

It sounds to me like you think isolation is the answer, as if the oppresed are equipped to just 'take care of themselves or tough crap'. In a few cases, isolation might be a decent answer; however, it is never the best answer and it should not be policy as classic conservatives (and heartlessly nationalist socialist pacifists) would like.

Yeah. There's no point in destroying an oppressive government and then simply instituting democracy. Without a good legal framework, those in the majority will simply force their will on the minority. There's no point in trading the tyranny of one group for the tyranny of another. Like I said before, there's always another Mugabe.

 

[Cephus]

When was the last time the US invaded a country to liberate the people from an oppressive regime?

When was the last time the US *SOLELY* did that? Can't think of a time. It's always been to satisfy personal or political goals and if we liberated a couple of people, so be it. No country acts out of purely altruistic intentions.

 

[ecofarm]

Liberating people helps US security. Even understanding this, thus eliminating the altruistic motives, liberation has always been on the agenda in US wars. Often, as politics would have it, we choose between the lesser of evils. We must also consider the notion of priorities. If the sole reason for invasion were liberation, the US could find itself at war in North Korea, with little hope of a stable democracy or enconomic participation of infrastructure building by the population. We cannot afford to go broke fighting in nK while we have economic warfare with China, liberation operations in the mideast and development projects worldwide. By invading Iraq, we were able to remove a genocidal dictator and nation build in a country of some infrastructure and resources. Recognizing such real-world limitations and considerations defeats the lame argument "then why not invade North Korea?".

Facts are, the US liberates in its wars. The US (in modern warfare) does not take land, install colonies or extort resources by force. The idea of the US as some kind of empire is entirely rhetoric, and any notion that war is profitable must be met with hard numbers regarding the cost and impact on the economy (let alone the lives of good and brave citizens). We leave places better than we find them and we don't take stuff for renumeration.

Further, we should recognize a change in US foreign policy since (at least) 9/11. US policy in the mideast was to suppress regional influence through destabilization; thus, we funded the losing side in a constant game of justifying the lesser evil option. Destabilization met globalization and the game changed. The US now engages in long-term stability projects that are for more costly but arguably far more ethical. Given the actions of a democratic administration as well, this policy is not likely to change anytime soon.

For better or worse, we nation build now. Comparing past US foreign policy, or using it to justify anti-US rhetoric today is no more than removing historical context to demonize a group. From the "genocide" of Native Americans to the "war crimes" of the merciful bombs, context is swept aside in an attempt to equate the US with terrorist-supporting oppresive regimes. We hear about how great China is and how Iran has every right to spread the darkness of theology across the region beneath the protection of nuclear weapons.

If anyone, in the history of our selfish species, has ever fought for the good of others, it is the US military. Let's hope it never let's us down and let's do our best to make sure that freedom rings with shock and awe.

To Iran, before it is too late!

 

[Ikari]

Liberating people helps US security.

No it doesn't. We were more "secure" when Saddam was in charge of Iraq. Liberating people is not the job of the US government. Less you want to show me where in the Consitution the government is mandated to protect and proliferate the rights and liberties of all the people of the world.

 

[reefedjib]

No it doesn't. We were more "secure" when Saddam was in charge of Iraq. Liberating people is not the job of the US government. Less you want to show me where in the Consitution the government is mandated to protect and proliferate the rights and liberties of all the people of the world.

It is when it meshes with our national interests.

 

[ecofarm]

No it doesn't. We were more "secure" when Saddam was in charge of Iraq.

Are you telling me that Iraq is more of a threat to domestic, regional and world peace today than it was under Saddam... or do you believe that the boogyman got bigger?

Liberating people is not the job of the US government. Less you want to show me where in the Consitution the government is mandated to protect and proliferate the rights and liberties of all the people of the world.

I believe it is our moral obligation as free men. I am allowed to have beliefs that are not written specifically in the constitution (and bible), right? Or is it "in the bible or constitution or geet out!" What happens if we find a really good idea that is not specifically in the Constitution? Forget it?

What about the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights? I don't like the UN much either, but we agreed to that part. What exactly our obligations are under that agreement is up for debate, of course.

 

[Ikari]

Are you telling me that Iraq is more of a threat to regional and world peace today than it was under Saddam? Or do you believe that the boogyman got bigger?

Iraq under Saddam was zero threat to the United States. There was nothing he could do to us. Now it's a hot bed of terrorist activity and has cost us thousands of American lives. Of course we were more secure before. Saddam never would have gotten thousands of us. Or is reality something you have a problem with?

I believe it is our moral obligation as free men. I am allowed to have beliefs that are not specifically outlined in the constitution (and bible), right? Or is it "in the bible or constitution or geet out!"

You can believe in anything you want. I'm saying that it's not our job and the government has not been empowered with that ability.

 

[Ikari]

It is when it meshes with our national interests.

Military force is only properly used in response to attacks against our sovereignty.