Your Political Allignment

[HorizonTal]

I know it has already been done, I have even voted in Voidwalker's poll.
But this is more precise! It's not just a matter of Left and Right, it's even a matter of statism and liberalism, of activism and passivism, of race.

Here is a little chart
note that some movements are not in the chart, because they don't depend by these four factors.

Some videos to form your political ideas

http://youtube.com/watch?v=bzqSzbrtTao

http://youtube.com/watch?v=coDu95PuGDk

http://youtube.com/watch?v=9JdnF6HUo5s

http://it.youtube.com/watch?v=0m1VsFOUePw

 

[The_wand_mirror]

I am nothing of these. =p

 

[HorizonTal]

Then what are you? what did I forget?

 

[The_wand_mirror]

Then what are you? what did I forget?

I have no idea how you should call it.

But i believe that for the start, that all religion should perish before we can live in peace. If that is what you want.

 

[HorizonTal]

"and the heavens shall tremble" !...
that's a cultural position, not political.

 

[Zombie]

I think it's pretty much obvious what my political status is.

 

[The_wand_mirror]

"and the heavens shall tremble" !...
that's a cultural position, not political.

Mh? ''And the heavens shall tremble'' is the slogan from diablo 3... ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

 

[HorizonTal]

"and the heavens shall tremble" !...

here I quote your signature, which even being a sentence from Diablo 3 matches perfectly with your disappointment for religions

that's a cultural position, not political.

in this sentence "that" does not refer to your signature, but to your previous post:

I have no idea how you should call it.
But i believe that for the start, that all religion should perish before we can live in peace. If that is what you want.

This post expresses a cultural position, not a political one.

I hope I have answered to your question marks

 

[brad.dude03]

... I don't see why you should make a poll. There are HUNDREDS of different political philosophies. I also fall into none of these.

You forgot Libertarian by the way. There are those of us that don't think Capitalism should be abolished, blah blah blah, but aren't war mongering monster-truck-driving rednecks either.

 

[TheDivineBoss]

I doubt that the average user will even understand those verbs.

<-- Dutch Patriot.

 

[Zombie]

You forgot Libertarian by the way. There are those of us that don't think Capitalism should be abolished, blah blah blah, but aren't war mongering monster-truck-driving rednecks either.

WoW, that's a way of describing.

There are also a lot of different political systems in different countries that never appear in any others.

 

[brad.dude03]

Yes, things like Communism, for example, are different in each different instance of implementation. Russian Communism is different from Chinese Communism is different from Cuban Communism, etc.

 

[Japut3h]

You should have put "Not specified - you don't give two craps about politics and world arrangement as long as they don't affect you negatively"

 

[DrazharLn]

I would simplify that to "Self intrest".

 

[HorizonTal]

I would simplify that to "Self intrest".

That's the upper central square: "Individualism".
In the poll I didn't put it: who isn't interested in politics, and only thinks of himself isn't politically important. Unless he becomes a powerful man >COUGH<Berlusconi>COUGH<.
Generally these people are liberals ("ok, let's keep capitalism, let's go on like this, I don't care") or Anarchist ("Do whatever you want but don't bother me with shit like laws, work or ideals")

... I don't see why you should make a poll. There are HUNDREDS of different political philosophies. I also fall into none of these.

You forgot Libertarian by the way. There are those of us that don't think Capitalism should be abolished, blah blah blah, but aren't war mongering monster-truck-driving rednecks either.

I made a poll to see your main "allignment". I only put the main alternatives, you are right, there are hundreds of different political philosophies, but I think all of them can be considered sub-classes of these. Except for The Fourth International, which is a sub-class itself, the most rilevant among them (that's why I put it even if it's not a "main" philosophy). Libertarianism is an extreme form of liberalism mixed with anarchy. In the chart it would be situated in the upper white rectangle (then over the chart itself!) containing the writing "Autonomy". A libertarian, according to me, should choose the "liberal" option, he's an extremist liberal. The world is slowly falling (rising?) to Anarco-Capitalism, we just have to wait. The '68 has been the first step, students all over the world started considering Rules and Hierarchies, the base of States, an enemy. The Corporations are getting stronger than nations, soon they will annihilate governments or use states as empty puppets for their purposes (perhaps this is their strategy, and that's what they are doing).
May fascists and national communists preserve the states! May the internationalists keep control on the proletarians, ready to fight these huge enemies, the corporations! May anti-capitalists realize what's happening! May communists realize that the '68 has been a TRIUMPH! Not a defat, for Capitalism! May fascists realize who is the real enemy! The real big obstacle!
uuh! I'm done. I said it all. Obviously if you are a libertarian, may states kiss your ass.

 

[Super-Sheep]

I see this thread as a big joke so...

n4ZhI!!!!1
Mah race shall rule and all human beings will be slain!

 

[brad.dude03]

Uhm, Libertarianism is not that at all. It's more Capitalism, with an emphasis on freedom rather than money.

 

[Hakeem]

Anarchy: The one that looks bad on paper, but works well in implementation.

 

[The_wand_mirror]

This post expresses a cultural position, not a political one.

I hope I have answered to your question marks

Yeah right, but what if i aint anything of that list.

 

[Mor)L(unE]

I believe in the strength of men and moral, it just is kinda dead right now

 

[HorizonTal]

I believe in the strength of men and moral, it just is kinda dead right now

romantic people like you are conservators if they believe in democracy, fascists if believe that a charismatic leader, a hero shoul guide your nation.

 

[Moontraveler]

Chaotic Evil. Smaller government, pure capitalism.

 

[annoying]

What we should do:
All human being would be happier if we had smaller communities that are self-sufficient; they grow their own food, and manufacturing everything they need by themselves, thus eliminating import/export and allowing the human race to survive.

If this is not implemented, people in poor countries will try to grow food for a growing population, barely surviving themselves, and exporting a lot of it to buy necesary stuff. Globalisation creates an illusion that the Earth can provide more than it actually can. We already consume more than the Earth can really provide.

But if we create small communities that are selfsufficient, the problems will not occur, because we have a better idea of what the Earth can take, and we won't wear her out.

My idea of the future if nothing is changed, just for fun:
World wide starvation, because of the ever-growing population and the egoistic rich people that have all the food. Then, RIOT of course, and CHAOS. We can't just keep going as we do.

 

[boomwolf]

I say ban everyone who vote the last option.

Liberalism wins the day, because it allows you do to whatever you want at long you don't hurt others. once you root out the corruption in the system, you get the perfect administration.

Commys are fullish to believe that "equal to all" will EVER work. the human nature makes you want more. more wealth, more power, more food. and screw whoever you don't like, they are none of your interest. only few truly cares about others, most of the human race is selfish.

Anarchism wont work because organizations tend to be formed by people that want to have order in life, generally everyone. it starts as familiy, later on tribes developed, then city's, and then nation. people WANT to be part of a bigger group, and that goup must have somebody in charge of making the rules.

 

[MySpaceBarBroke]

I say ban everyone who vote the last option.

Sure thing.

Liberalism wins the day, because it allows you do to whatever you want at long you don't hurt others. once you root out the corruption in the system, you get the perfect administration.

Yeah. Now all we need to do is develop a stable explanation for what constitutes hurting others, develop a magical law enforcement system, and find out what to do if we get invaded.

Commys are fullish to believe that "equal to all" will EVER work. the human nature makes you want more. more wealth, more power, more food. and screw whoever you don't like, they are none of your interest. only few truly cares about others, most of the human race is selfish.

It can work. Your government is just going to have to rule with an iron fist.

Anarchism wont work because organizations tend to be formed by people that want to have order in life, generally everyone. it starts as familiy, later on tribes developed, then city's, and then nation. people WANT to be part of a bigger group, and that goup must have somebody in charge of making the rules.

In that logic, an anarchy is the biggest group ever.

 

[HorizonTal]

How can people be protected by Mafia in anarchy? People will "spontaneously revolt"?!?
I think not. Omertà would be the ruin of this non-society.

Commys are fullish to believe that "equal to all" will EVER work. the human nature makes you want more. more wealth, more power, more food. and screw whoever you don't like, they are none of your interest. only few truly cares about others, most of the human race is selfish.

If the party orders you to share your money, you share your money. Else it will provide!

 

[Hakeem]

Liberalism wins the day, because it allows you do to whatever you want at long you don't hurt others. once you root out the corruption in the system, you get the perfect administration.

But you need to keep it out, which is where people fail.

Commys are fullish to believe that "equal to all" will EVER work. the human nature makes you want more. more wealth, more power, more food. and screw whoever you don't like, they are none of your interest. only few truly cares about others, most of the human race is selfish.

I'm pretty sure evolution says otherwise.

Anarchism wont work because organizations tend to be formed by people that want to have order in life, generally everyone. it starts as familiy, later on tribes developed, then city's, and then nation. people WANT to be part of a bigger group,

In an anarchy, we have world peace, because there is no war. In an anarchy, we are finally all united under "humanity" again. As MSBB said, it's the biggest group of all.

and that goup must have somebody in charge of making the rules.

Why is that? The way I see it, as long as you don't get to the "making the rules" part, you have anarchy.

 

[brad.dude03]

Wouldn't there be more war than ever? Under anarchy isn't everyone just looking out for themselves? So when their interests conflicts with another person's, bam: conflict?

Correct me, please.

 

[Razorbrain]

isnt DICTATORSHIP or something like that a political allignment?

like "then who thinks that the society would be better of with him or herself as a leader with full power"?

 

[HorizonTal]

isnt DICTATORSHIP or something like that a political allignment?

like "then who thinks that the society would be better of with him or herself as a leader with full power"?

You're a fascist.
Or a left-fascist if you want to kick the butt of some corporations.

 

[Razorbrain]

im not saying i was

im was just asking if you might have forgotten one

 

[HorizonTal]

I am the wise one. I nevre make mistkakes.

(The only thing which is sure about fascism is the refeuse of democracy, then if you don't like it, you perhaps are one of them.)

 

[Masiah]

Oh, not again a thread about this!! *Looks right and left looking out for Teh_Ephy, Arvedui and brad.dude3*

 

[Teh_Ephy]

Using the provided descriptions of each "alignment" (Neutral good ftw!) I voted myself as a Nazi because I have a superiority complex as well as a large ego. And then something as easy as "My race WTFPWNS your races" is an option for something like this. Got rice, bitch? Also, glory/honour and your homeland should be the among the most important thing. If not Nazi, I would go with Conservator, except the general public is generally a bunch of morons, so I'd prefer a republic over a true democracy. At any rate, all of that isn't as important as the next part of my post:

I [HIGHLIGHT]nevre[/code] make [HIGHLIGHT]mistkakes[/code].

Gwahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahaha
Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha...
Ha...

I lol'd, in case anybody couldn't tell.

 

[Arvedui]

As for me, I've been thinking about flaming this topic since it was started, but I'm not going to.
I put LIBERAL then supporter of Capitalism and globalization, who is sure that the world is working pretty well, and will improve with time.

The options are very limited and that was the only one that seemed decent at the time. Though I despise Globalization and am an Isolationist.

Oh well. That's all I'm gonna say.

 

[Masiah]

I will not vote any of them because what I think about society differs from everything but is similar to all of them at the same time. I base my ideals on the following ideas:
1. Individual profit is a direct consequence of social wellnes.
2. Society must be based on human nature so humans do not feel restricted by it.
3. Technology is a very important part of society and humanity, as some jobs, problems and physical limitations restrict human nature, so they science should be able to solve this inconveniences.
4. Modern morality stops science from developing at a greaters speed, so scientist should be free from any legal or moral limitations in progress's sake. Globally, all traditions and cultures should be analised and the inecesary descarded.
5. For the achievement of the improved society, a leader or group of leaders must rise to lead humanity to it's goal and after achieving it, resign and enjoy what humanity and nature have to give. No leaders or governments are needed when human nature takes control.
6. History has teached us that all Utopies are unachievable, but if we keep this as a goal, the only act of advance towards it will improve us and our society.
7. There are many ways of achieving it, some better than others, but all should be considerated.

 

[Voidwalker]

Whoever thinks that "citizens will behave even without laws" seriously needs to get in touch with the world.

 

[Masiah]

Most acts which can be qualified of "misbehaving" are just uncessary social limitations. Real acts that really are negative are just a result of a conscience that could not resist the pressure of modern life. This is one of the factors that must be eliminated. A human under pressure does not behave like a human.

And I have had more than enough contact with the world, thank you. I never said they weren't going to be laws, they will just be like human nature desires.

 

[Hakeem]

Wouldn't there be more war than ever? Under anarchy isn't everyone just looking out for themselves? So when their interests conflicts with another person's, bam: conflict?

Conflict is not the same as war, I don't expect two people to kill themselves over a piece of conflicting candy. Even the things people would kill each over would not result in a war, because war is large scale, and the people of the anarchy know that any group with rankings of varying power corrupt.

Modern morality stops science from developing at a greaters speed, so scientist should be free from any legal or moral limitations in progress's sake.

Then I will become a "scientist" for the sake of putting myself above the law.

Come to think of it, and I'm not sure about this, I just thought of it,
When a man makes laws, there is inevitably someone above them.

 

[Masiah]

Then I will become a "scientist" for the sake of putting myself above the law.

Come to think of it, and I'm not sure about this, I just thought of it,
When a man makes laws, there is inevitably someone above them.

If the researches you will do as a scientist benefits humanity and the progress to achieve the natural society, go ahead. If no, you would not be considered a scientist.

Of course there is something above us. Human nature.

 

[brad.dude03]

Yeah, but if you have hundreds of thousands of minor conflicts resulting in death, over objects, territory, etc, well, that's quite the toll nonetheless.

 

[Masiah]

Since when territory belongs to us, humans? And some people kill because they really have to.

 

[Voidwalker]

Since when territory belongs to us, humans?

Territory started belonging to humans the very day humans started building houses. CORRECTION! Since we started claiming caves for ourselves and/or our clans.

Most acts which can be qualified of "misbehaving" are just uncessary social limitations. Real acts that really are negative are just a result of a conscience that could not resist the pressure of modern life. This is one of the factors that must be eliminated. A human under pressure does not behave like a human.

And I have had more than enough contact with the world, thank you. I never said they weren't going to be laws, they will just be like human nature desires.

Perú, February 5th 1975: Just ask anyone what happened that day in that place and you'll know why there cannot be a self-ordered society without the coertive element of, in this case for example, police. Búscalo por Internet si quieres.

 

[Hakeem]

Of course there is something above us. Human nature.

Reread, "someone" not "something". I meant there will always be some person above the laws.

Yeah, but if you have hundreds of thousands of minor conflicts resulting in death, over objects, territory, etc, well, that's quite the toll nonetheless.

Just because there are no laws does not mean people cease to be people. Like I said, I wouldn't kill you over a piece of candy, that's just stupid, I'd really only kill you if you killed someone. I'm pretty sure we wouldn't be killing each other over small things, and I'm pretty sure evolution backs me up here.

 

[brad.dude03]

Hmm, I suppose I have been letting delusions control my opinion of Anarchy.. it wouldn't be total chaos after all.

 

[Arvedui]

Anarchy is anarchy. So ok, the majority of people will not kill rape murder and straight up fuck the world, but some people will. Some people do now. As has been said, people do not stop being people.

Ok, people are not going to kill over territory/race/religion. Oh oops, forgot about Kashmir. Damn forgot about Darfur. Oh, Rwanda too. Oops, forgot about almost every war in human history.

 

[Teh_Ephy]

Ideally, anarchy would be great, because everybody would be on equal footing. The problem is, everybody isn't, and almost certainly never will be.

 

[MySpaceBarBroke]

Since when territory belongs to us, humans?

Since humans discovered that they could do whatever the fuck they wanted with the land around them, and nothing could pose a heavy enough threat for them to care. Irresponsible? Perhaps. But they have sharp fangs, we have spears, tribes, and guns. If the apocalypse happens anytime soon, however, I have a vivid image in my head of the Native Americans saying "We fucking told you white men. This land is not your property."

 

[HorizonTal]

Ideally, anarchy would be great, because everybody would be on equal footing. The problem is, everybody isn't, and almost certainly never will be.

Criminal organizations cannot be stopped in anarchy. Also a rich person could hire a killer to kill a poor craftman, and nobody will punish him.
There must be someone who grants security. Someone who grants equity.
A State. (And a State which does these things, cos mine, for example, doesn't)

 

[Teh_Ephy]

Criminal organizations cannot be stopped in anarchy. Also a rich person could hire a killer to kill a poor craftman, and nobody will punish him.
There must be someone who grants security. Someone who grants equity.
A State. (And a State which does these things, cos mine, for example, doesn't)

Well, if there are "criminal organizations", then there can also be organizations that oppose them. Anarchy does not mean no structure, it means that structure is not provided by a higher authority. Also, that poor craftsman's buddies would probably gang up to punish the rich person, or a bunch of poor people could gang up on the rich person. You don't seem to realize that things never work just one way. Extreme wealth versus an extreme lack of wealth, however, is one of the reasons people aren't on equal footing.