Political Beliefs

[nemoudeis]

I'm a moderate reformist socialist (I don't think revolution is going to lead us everywhere).
I think State is here to protect people against war and crime, but also against disease, poverty and unemployement. Why ? Because State's goal isn't to make profits at any cost (like a corporation) and isn't going to sacrifice safety to make money (in theory). Plus State is more efficient than individuals because it has a larger sight of society and its problems, in my opinion. Of course, I'm talking about a non-corrupted State.

Oh, and I think that whatever your political belief is, sex is a natural need. So I think the huge majority of people on earth does watch porn/masturbate. Even if this majority doesn't admit it.

[BlueLight]

I'm a moderate reformist socialist (I don't think revolution is going to lead us everywhere).
I think State is here to protect people against war and crime, but also against disease, poverty and unemployement. Why ? Because State's goal isn't to make profits at any cost (like a corporation) and isn't going to sacrifice safety to make money (in theory). Plus State is more efficient than individuals because it has a larger sight of society and its problems, in my opinion. Of course, I'm talking about a non-corrupted State.

Oh, and I think that whatever your political belief is, sex is a natural need. So I think the huge majority of people on earth does watch porn/masturbate. Even if this majority doesn't admit it.

In theory this is great way of thinking about the state. however more than once has the state proven that it needs accountants.
The state isn't here to make a profit but than again neither is a cooperation. The people running or own the cooperation want it to make money and that's the reason why it makes money, the state is run by people who more than once used there knowledge of what laws are going to be passed to make a profit in the stock market. I believe recently a law was passed to stop this abuse.

The larger something is, the less control you have over it. Nearly true about anything until you find a more effect way of control.

God damn you and your not-corrupted state clause... Now my whole argument is stupid!

[talin]

The best leader for an uncorrupted state is someone who cares not for their own wealth and fame but instead cares about the well being of the people. The problem is that they don't care about their own wealth and fame and thus, do not try to gain the wealth and fame that gives other, more power hungry candidates a HUGE advantage. We need to make a collation of charity and public aid benefactors and have them all get behind one person whom is found to be selfless and moral when they think no one is looking (provided they can convince that person to take office) and then have that group simply send him a list of all the problems that are plaguing the people so he can fix them.

I'm thinking separating internal leadership and external leadership might be a good idea too so that one can focus purely on keeping the inside fixed up while the other deals with all the politics and outside problems but I'm still not sure.

[montesat]

Democratic Monarchist; One Man(or Woman), Many votes, Few Rules.

[Zeus Kabob]

I've got an easier solution, Talin: make a system in which helping people is rewarded. Then we don't have to find selfless people.

As an aside, I feel that selflessness is a sign of mental sickness. Why would it make sense not to worry about oneself? That's all you have! As Descartes said: "I think, therefore I am", not "They think, therefore I am".

[talin]

true but while I'm not saying perfect selflessness is what is needed, the job of leading people (IMO) is looking out for THEM! Do you want you leader to be out for himself half the time and leaving you hanging so he can get ahead in the world? In the world of politics, almost every decision you make determines the fate of millions whether in your country or in someone elses. If the person leading can't be their looking out for HIS PEOPLE EVERY TIME then he is failing at his job. So yes, while you are representing (acting in the interest of) your people, you are expected to think in the terms "They think, therefore I am." At the end of the day when you get some down time, you can act in your own interest but not while you're controlling my fate and the fate of millions.

[GoRepeat]

I've got an easier solution, Talin: make a system in which helping people is rewarded. Then we don't have to find selfless people.

As an aside, I feel that selflessness is a sign of mental sickness. Why would it make sense not to worry about oneself? That's all you have! As Descartes said: "I think, therefore I am", not "They think, therefore I am".

Wasn't it "They think, therefore they demand I give them my money" ?

Democratic Monarchist.... what a strange concept... all I can think of is that Monty Python scene "I'm your King!" "Well, I didn't vote for you!" "You don't vote for Kings!"

Also, government entities (with the exception of working capital funds) are non profit; so it is kind of already how it works. Funds are established based on budget determined in the previous fiscal year based on revenues. But they have to "break even" by the end of the next cycle. In the case of federal entities, if a surplus is remaining, it has to be returned to the US Treasury... it isn't like if they don't spend your taxes they get to keep them.

[Renara]

My main belief is that politics is bollocks

That said, I of course vote and have my own political views. My main one being that I wish we could develop a system that wasn't so backwards; on the face of it the job of a politician is to simply represent the views of his constituents, but this almost never happens, as it's very rare to get independent candidates through in any democracy, which means it's always party rule in practice. The problem of course with this being that what the party wants goes across for everyone; there's no middle ground.

We need some way of streamlining referendums, especially with current technology it should be easy. This way we could actual leave the politicians for the bigger, more critical (i.e - time sensitive) issues, and let people vote on the less immediate problems. This way we could actually get policies that we want, not what the parties want. If this is unlikely, then what is needed are parties that are actually less extreme; too many democratic governments are essentially two-party systems in practice, and this is no good if the parties are basically opposed, as they just waste all their time constantly undoing each other's work, rather than finding sensible compromises. It's this idea that one party must rule and dictate what everyone does, rather than really being any true representation for the other parties until they eventually manage to get in and do all the same things, it just wastes a ton of time and money.

I guess I'm liberally minded; I believe in government reform to get the people more involved in decision making processes, more weight given to the demands of individual constituencies as opposed to party-rule, and also some kind of balance, so we can have streamlined spending, but also important social projects as well. What I'd also love are more politicians who are able to look at the big picture; it is the job of a government to make unpopular decisions if they are in the public interest, not to pander to people in the short-term in the hope of getting re-elected.

[montesat]

I've got an easier solution, Talin: make a system in which helping people is rewarded. Then we don't have to find selfless people.

As an aside, I feel that selflessness is a sign of mental sickness. Why would it make sense not to worry about oneself? That's all you have! As Descartes said: "I think, therefore I am", not "They think, therefore I am".

Actually, the correct translation is supposed to be "I doubt therefore I am." Anyone can think but not many bother to doubt and re-evaluate the information.

[wolf_demon]

It is not what you believe that makes you more driven to porn. Heck, China is one of the largest consumer of porn in the world. As for me I'm independent. To me both parties are morons at times I don't agree with either fully. Also, why is compromise such a bad word in this day in age. It gets more crap down, nowadays we get alot of empty suit in the Congress and Senate.