Thread: What Politcal Ideology Are you?-Intelligent Debate time!

Originally Posted by Atras

You must have misread it. It says that regulations restrict business, which means thats what the people who believe this think. Which means regulation is bad. I don't think I was clear enough.

Ah, it seems I did. I would've worded it differently.

Because its happened before and now. When corporations are allowed to do whatever eventually one will become powerful enough to become a monopoly. Once that happens no one can compete with them which destroys capitilism.

Can you show either negligible or no government involvement with these corporations?

Also corporations will do anything in its power to make money. They will destroy the environment, they will harm peoples lives through toxic chemicals, they will go abroad and have people work for them in factories with terrible conditions with little pay. Etc etc.

The argument normally goes that the invisible hand of the free market will not allow corporations to do this, but the problem is most people don't know what corporations do. So the invisible hand won't work if people don't know theres a problem.

Suppose a free market in a given area exists, and that corporations will indeed do anything in their power to make money. What benefits would arise from destroying the environment, which is necessary to their existence (I assume you're speaking of lumber companies, fisheries, etc.) or harming potential/actual customers via toxic chemicals?

The sweatshop issue a bit stickier, but not difficult to understand. Those of us who live in first or even second-world nations tend to consider third-world working conditions/wages as terrible, but look at it from an economic point of view. One tends not to build a third-world industry (if it could even be called that) into a first-world industry in a short span of time because one would go bankrupt attempting such a plan. Capital accumulation, which is necessary for any sort of advance in living standards, doesn't happen overnight. Think of how long it took most of the world to rise out of agrarian economies and into a modern or even semi-modern industrial one. Then compare that, albeit on a smaller scale and relatively shorter time span, to these countries that have sweatshops. The ascension from "sweatshop" to just a regular shop can be a slow process. However, it is necessary.

So not only is it a matter of time, it's a matter of capital. Which is better for those who wish everyone live at modern living standards: actually allowing the poor to have some semblance of a job which may get better overtime due to capital accumulation and the growth of industry, or having the poor starve? If you want to support third world countries, don't advocate for foreign aid or protest sweatshops, buy the cheap shirts and jeans. Not only will the sweatshop owners benefit, but the workers will as well. And think of the businesses that show up around those factories as well. If even a hint of profitability shows up in a third-world country, someone may bite and invest as well.

The argument normally goes that the invisible hand of the free market will not allow corporations to do this, but the problem is most people don't know what corporations do. So the invisible hand won't work if people don't know theres a problem.

Therefore the only way to prevent corporations from doing these things is regulations. ANd regulations don't destroy capitilism. They just change the playing field.

They may not destroy capitalism, but they destroy the notion of laissez faire capitalism, which is what we're talking about. As a digression, in corporatism (state-capitalism), regulations are harmful in many ways. For one, corporations are easily able to lobby for regulations in order to shut out competition. That is one way how real monopolies form. Smaller or less-successful companies may not be able to afford to comply with regulations; for example, let's say some environmental regulation is passed. The big corporation(s), which may have wanted the regulation in the first place, may be able to pay the, say, $50,000,000 necessary to comply with the regulation without breaking a sweat. However the small corporation(s) don't have it so easy.

Edit - holy fuck that was longer than I expected.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Can you show either negligible or no government involvement with these corporations?

Google was made for a reason.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Suppose a free market in a given area exists, and that corporations will indeed do anything in their power to make money. What benefits would arise from destroying the environment, which is necessary to their existence (I assume you're speaking of lumber companies, fisheries, etc.) or harming potential/actual customers via toxic chemicals?

By destroying the environment I mean doing things that are easy and more profitable that destroy the enviornment. For example dumping waste in rivers because its cheaper than disposing of it properly, or pollution because its much cheaper than going green, or like you said lumber companies deforesting, fisheries, oil companies, etc etc. Destroying the environment doesn't affect them directly so they do it. Its called externalities, we have to pay the cost not them. About harming potential customers, like I said before, most people don't know that companies do this, let alone could even trace it if they tried considering that no one knows where the true origin of anything is anymore or even cares. And it benefits corporations that do this because whatever they are doing that is harmful is cheaper which helps their bottom line.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

The sweatshop issue a bit stickier, but not difficult to understand. Those of us who live in first or even second-world nations tend to consider third-world working conditions/wages as terrible, but look at it from an economic point of view. One tends not to build a third-world industry (if it could even be called that) into a first-world industry in a short span of time because one would go bankrupt attempting such a plan. Capital accumulation, which is necessary for any sort of advance in living standards, doesn't happen overnight. Think of how long it took most of the world to rise out of agrarian economies and into a modern or even semi-modern industrial one. Then compare that, albeit on a smaller scale and relatively shorter time span, to these countries that have sweatshops. The ascension from "sweatshop" to just a regular shop can be a slow process. However, it is necessary.

Your misunderstanding what goes on. Companies go to these third world countries and offer an oppurtunity for jobs. People go to take this oppurtunity excecpt they find out that they are working in terrible conditions getting 5 cents an hour. Buying their products does not help them because no matter what 5 cents an hour will never be a living wage. What this does is it makes third world countries dependent on these corporations for everything, but you have to realize why the corps are there in the first place. They are there because the people are willing to work for nothing. Once they find another country or area that is willing to work cheaper, they leave. Once they leave, they leave the area in complete desolation because they made them dependent on them, and then left them with nothing. The corporations do not cause growth in these countries, they build a system that is already bad and then let it collapse making everything worse than it was before they came. You are comparing this to the industrial period of america but the reason conditions got better here was because of gov regs; unions, demands for higher wages, better working conditions, etc. But in the third world countries there is no one to enforce that. The corporations do not belong to that country therefore the government cant force laws upon them, and if they try they will simply leave and go somewhere else where they can get cheap, unchallenged labor.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

They may not destroy capitalism, but they destroy the notion of laissez faire capitalism, which is what we're talking about. As a digression, in corporatism (state-capitalism), regulations are harmful in many ways. For one, corporations are easily able to lobby for regulations in order to shut out competition. That is one way how real monopolies form. Smaller or less-successful companies may not be able to afford to comply with regulations; for example, let's say some environmental regulation is passed. The big corporation(s), which may have wanted the regulation in the first place, may be able to pay the, say, $50,000,000 necessary to comply with the regulation without breaking a sweat. However the small corporation(s) don't have it so easy..

Environmental regulations don't mean pay 50 million dollars. They mean cut down on a certain thing that is hazardous that they are doing, for example cutting down on emissions. Always depends but small businesses would not be affected by this because they are small, whatever they are doing shouldn't need to be as regulated because its not making as much of an impact. Obviously regulations would need to be designed to not crush small businesses and regulations themselves should be designed to not allow large businesses to become too large.

Originally Posted by Atras

Google was made for a reason.

So use it. If we're talking about what corporations do in a free market you should demonstrate that the conditions corporations now operate under emulate a free market.

By destroying the environment I mean doing things that are easy and more profitable that destroy the enviornment. For example dumping waste in rivers because its cheaper than disposing of it properly, or pollution because its much cheaper than going green, or like you said lumber companies deforesting, fisheries, oil companies, etc etc. Destroying the environment doesn't affect them directly so they do it. Its called externalities, we have to pay the cost not them. About harming potential customers, like I said before, most people don't know that companies do this, let alone could even trace it if they tried considering that no one knows where the true origin of anything is anymore or even cares. And it benefits corporations that do this because whatever they are doing that is harmful is cheaper which helps their bottom line.

I wonder how much of this is due to pollution regulations as well as the tragedy of the commons, not to mention limited liability. Again, up to you to show how much government involvement exists within a current industry/corporation.

Your misunderstanding what goes on. Companies go to these third world countries and offer an oppurtunity for jobs. People go to take this oppurtunity excecpt they find out that they are working in terrible conditions getting 5 cents an hour. Buying their products does not help them because no matter what 5 cents an hour will never be a living wage.

One question I want to ask is: why are these people taking the opportunity to accept the job? In many of these countries, the alternative would be to live in destitute poverty for a long period of their life, so the answer should come naturally and obviously.

I addressed the wage issue, albeit insufficiently. Buying their products does indeed help them mainly because it allows wages to rise because the marginal productivity of labor increases. The companies are able to invest in capital goods, meaning worker productivity rises accordingly. I don't even think I need to mention the benefits of what competition does here.

What this does is it makes third world countries dependent on these corporations for everything, but you have to realize why the corps are there in the first place. They are there because the people are willing to work for nothing. Once they find another country or area that is willing to work cheaper, they leave. Once they leave, they leave the area in complete desolation because they made them dependent on them, and then left them with nothing.

Why do you think they "depend" on corporations? I alluded to the answer in the first part of this post. It's because their typical alternative is returning to the agrarian society when subsistence is everything. It's either that or prostitution and crime. That's why investment is so important in these cases. If all a company gets is the stagnating the wages of their workers because people refuse to buy from sweatshops and instead "buy local," or because there's some protectionism going on, it's no wonder why they close up shop and move on to greener pastures.

The corporations do not cause growth in these countries, they build a system that is already bad and then let it collapse making everything worse than it was before they came. You are comparing this to the industrial period of america but the reason conditions got better here was because of gov regs; unions, demands for higher wages, better working conditions, etc. But in the third world countries there is no one to enforce that. The corporations do not belong to that country therefore the government cant force laws upon them, and if they try they will simply leave and go somewhere else where they can get cheap, unchallenged labor.

I'm comparing the growth of third-world economies into developed economies with the industrial revolution as a whole, not just the United States. However, it was capital investment that lead to higher wages and better working conditions. Most of the typical wage-raising, condition-improving solutions people have actually risk hurting the workers, usually by raising wages above their productivity (meaning, if continued long term, the company is setting itself up for bankruptcy), as well as having workers laid off to comply with regulations (mentioned below).

Environmental regulations don't mean pay 50 million dollars. They mean cut down on a certain thing that is hazardous that they are doing, for example cutting down on emissions. Always depends but small businesses would not be affected by this because they are small, whatever they are doing shouldn't need to be as regulated because its not making as much of an impact. Obviously regulations would need to be designed to not crush small businesses and regulations themselves should be designed to not allow large businesses to become too large.

Using $50,000,000 was an obvious exaggeration, but complying with regulations doesn't simply mean "cutting down a certain thing that is hazardous." It costs money as well. Sometimes, and especially in cases of lobbying, the larger corporations are able to comply, and the smaller ones can't. Hence, competition decreases. Even if smaller companies can comply, it usually comes at the cost of higher prices or decreased wages, or even laying people off. Also note that we are discussing the effects of regulations now, not what they ought to be.

Corporations do not improve conditions or make wages higher for people in third world countries, that goes against the reason they are there in the first place, for CHEAP labor. If you don't believe me, do your own research. Watch the movie the corporation.

Originally Posted by Puffin

Looks like I chose the fourth option... Along with everyone else.

IMO and from what I've heard, our government (Canada) spends way too much on the military, and were in Iraq for way too long. We have practically no useful green laws.

Canada's defense budget is one of the lowest in the world per capita and we were never in Iraq...


As for political ideologies I'm somewhat of an idealistic communist/practical socialist; although in recent years, I've learned to take advantage of whatever political system be in place how I see fit... This capitalist-socialist potpourri we have going in North America is just a loophole haven that advantages the resourceful.

I can't agree with any of these options. I'll just tell you what I believe.

Gold Standard and representative money. We have lost over 97% of our dollar's value since the creation of the Federal Reserve in the United States.

Taxes should pay for the basics: Infrastructure, a SMALL amount to defense (No unprovoked wars!) by small I mean about 10% of what we are spending now, and the rest of the "budget" will go to internal affairs.

Healthcare should be made competitive by legalizing Health Savings Accounts (taking power from the HMOs, which were actually endorsed by Congress before they became "too big.")

People should be free to use whatever drugs they wish in the PRIVACY of their own home. They should have consensual sex with whomever they wish. it is their private right.

Taxes should be low on all, controlled on a state and local level by levies and state congresses.

The government is there to protect the people, keep courts and the law fair, and prevent intrusions of privacy. (Basically... let's look at the Constitution, and see what THAT says. That's how I view my government.)

Economy will be guided by the free market. The free market produces what consumers demand. If a company fails, it fails. Success should not be punished by increased taxes.

Well I suppose I'm closest to option 4 but not close enough so didn't vote for it.

I am a Nationalist, (ethnic nationalist not civic). I generally agree with 'White Nationalists' but that's more of an american thing and irrelevent, so I am a British Nationalsit/Ethnic Nationslist.

Bascially my views are.

Anti Immigration, Anti European Union, Anti unrestricted capitalism. I reject the notion of equality (but support Equality of opportunity) and therefore am opposed to affirmative action(positive discrimintion) as I see it as just another form of discrimination. I support environmental protection, would like to encourage investment in science and technology. I am also opposed to foreign aid, and also opposed to using the military for uses other than defeneding the UK.

While I support freedom of expression, the media is such a powerful tool that I beleive in its increased regulation to prevent the kind of degenerate filth that dominates the like of MTV these days from ruining the social fabric anymore than it already has. The state media in the UK are ideologically biased enough let alone the private media.

Ask me anything else you would like to know.

Originally Posted by Thatperson

Well I suppose I'm closest to option 4 but not close enough so didn't vote for it.

I am a Nationalist, (ethnic nationalist not civic). I generally agree with 'White Nationalists' but that's more of an american thing and irrelevent, so I am a British Nationalsit/Ethnic Nationslist.

Bascially my views are.

Anti Immigration, Anti European Union, Anti unrestricted capitalism. I reject the notion of (equality) but support Equality of opportunity and therefore am opposed to affirmative action(positive discrimintion) as I see it as just a form of discrimination. I support environmental protection, would like to encourage investment in science and technology. I am also opposed to foreign aid, and also opposed to using the military for uses other than defeneding the UK.

While I support freedom of expression, the media is such a powerful tool that I beleive in its increased regulation to prevent the kind of degenerate filth that dominates the like of MTV these days ruining the social fabric anymore than it already has. The state media in the UK are ideologically biased enough let alone the private media.

Ask me anything else you would like to know.

Interesting, can I ask you why are you anti-immigration? And why do you reject the notion of equality?

Also I completely understand why you think there should be some regulations on tv, MTV is pretty low and makes society look stupid, but once you start censoring stuff, you start going down a dangerous road. It may just be minor censoring of MTV, but then that will lead to minor censorship of something else, and then something else, and then before you know it everything is being censored. Its a certain freedom that we should have. And everyone has the option to not watch MTV or anything they don't like, and they have the option to think for themselves. Once you start censoring things, it may get far enough to where say any media that opposes the government will be censored. Then you've entered dangerous waters.

Originally Posted by Thatperson

I am a Nationalist, (ethnic nationalist not civic). I generally agree with 'White Nationalists' but that's more of an american thing and irrelevent, so I am a British Nationalsit/Ethnic Nationslist.

So...white people are better?

Well thank god we have social media now, hopefull the dominance of other mainstream media outlets will start to fall.

I am anti immigration for several reasons, it's bad for the economy, bad for wages, bad for housing, bad for resources, bad for racial tensions, the list goes on. I reject the notion of equality because its is false and unnatural. I agree with equality of opportunity, but when you go down the road of equality it leads to discrimination.

If one organisation's demographics do not reflect the nation as a whole then that organisation will be pressured into including lower quality members for the sake of 'equality'. Some natural tendancies just make things happen. If Women tend to make the best candiates in a certain roles, or men, or blacks, or whites then so be it. But when one assume we are all equal then one will wonder why certain organisation have a demogrpahic bias, and will try to force this to reflect the nation as a whole.

Public bodies should take on the best candiate for the job regardless of any other factors.

In response to Blueline, I don't really understand your question. Could you please be a bit more specific.

Originally Posted by Thatperson

In response to Blueline, I don't really understand your question. Could you please be a bit more specific.

Well what do you mean when you say you "generally agree with 'White Nationalists?'"

When I say I generally agree with White Nationalists I mean my ideology is pretty much 'White Nationalism' although I am also opposed to white immigration which many white nationalists are tolerant of. By white nationalism I mean basically I wish to stop almost all immigration and wish to encourage repatriation (voulantarily and financially assited) of non-whites in european nations to their native homelands. White nationalists also tend to be socially conservative which I am also.

Originally Posted by Thatperson

When I say I generally agree with White Nationalists I mean my ideology is pretty much 'White Nationalism' although I am also opposed to white immigration which many white nationalists are tolerant of. By white nationalism I mean basically I wish to stop almost all immigration and wish to encourage repatriation (voulantarily and financially assited) of non-whites in european nations to their native homelands. White nationalists also tend to be socially conservative which I am also.

Why?

Well as I said in my first post, I am opposed to immigration for a myriad of reasons, many european nations are already too overcrowded so we have no need for more migrants. If there is to be any immigration at all then it should be white, otherwise the first world nations will start to resemble third world nations. Whilst it is of little interest to me, i would also support black nationalists or any other (insert race here) nationalists.

Foreign aid is basically just throwing tens of billions of pounds down the drain. The european union is also the same as throwing tens of billions down the drain, and a loss of national sovereignity that comes with it.

Originally Posted by Thatperson

If there is to be any immigration at all then it should be white, otherwise the first world nations will start to resemble third world nations.

The economic status of nations is predicated on what the predominant skin color is?

I'm really not understanding any of your reasoning other than racist undertones.

Although the highest voted (4th) option does not adequately describe what I like, it is generally my ideology.

Basically
Fairly high taxes, so that the state can offer equal opportunities for everyone, although not to the point where the state decides everything for you. Socialist-liberal, I guess you can call it.

Originally Posted by Thatperson

Well as I said in my first post, I am opposed to immigration for a myriad of reasons, many european nations are already too overcrowded so we have no need for more migrants. If there is to be any immigration at all then it should be white, otherwise the first world nations will start to resemble third world nations. Whilst it is of little interest to me, i would also support black nationalists or any other (insert race here) nationalists.

Foreign aid is basically just throwing tens of billions of pounds down the drain. The european union is also the same as throwing tens of billions down the drain, and a loss of national sovereignity that comes with it.

I agree with Blueline. What does it matter whether they're white or black. And black people isn't what makes a nation third world. What makes a nation third world is underdevelopment, extremely high levels of pollution, a developing industry, low-moderate economies, low per capita gdp and gdp, improper sanitation, extreme poverty, etc... A nation can be 100% black and still be developed (although no such country exists), so I do not see why black immigration would make a country resemble third world nations.

You guys are talking to a far-right conservative. You can keep asking for further clarification, but the answers will keep making no sense.

Ah, I believe I'm more of an option 4.

Large government working for the people. So basically a lot of economic restriction with little personal restriction. Or democratic - socialist - libertarianism.

Anyway, my belief is that the gap between rich and poor is beyond ridiculous. I have to admit I'm extremely well off. My family primarily made up of engineers and businessmen makes probably over 100 000 yearly. And yet it sadends me to see people in complete states of poverty. My belief is that everyone in a modern nation should have money because I can definitely see that the difference between $100 million and $1 million for one individual is not that great, yet that amount could lift hundreds if not thousands out of poverty.

In terms of military, useless. Wars are a complete waste of resources. A country should only have enough military infrastructure to defend itself.

However, if utopian ideologies worked I would be a Marxist. Honestly, the idea on paper is amazing. Everyone is equal and there isn't such thing as currency. However, as we know what happened to communist Russia, this ideology doesn't work because of human greed. It is the human mentality itself of 'needing things' which renders this idea pointless. However, perhaps in the future humans will have the capacity and knowledge to overcome this and this idea can actually be implemented properly. (:

Curious to know what other people's ideologies are and why. If you don't know, take this test here

Originally Posted by Heavy Sleeper

You guys are talking to a far-right conservative. You can keep asking for further clarification, but the answers will keep making no sense.

By the way, I'm not trying to be offensive or anything but I would love to know your economic status, just out of curiosity.

Anyway, when it comes to people with different ideologies I think that people should look at the similarities and work together instead of looking at differences and fighting about it.

Originally Posted by Quantiq

By the way, I'm not trying to be offensive or anything but I would love to know your economic status, just out of curiosity.

My economic status?

Well, my family is neither poor, nor wealthy. We're more somewhere in the middle. I wouldn't say we live 'comfortably' exactly, but we get by okay. Why do you ask?

Yep, that's me. Disgusting, isn't it?

Spoiler for My Chart:

http://politicalcompass.org/facebook...5.12&soc=-4.62
http://politicalcompass.org/images/axeswithnames.gif
http://politicalcompass.org/images/i...ionalchart.gif

I'm close to gandhi and right with the Dalai Lama. Wooot! . Something must be wrong here lol... I do respect that most of my ideas are going to take a collective transformation of consciousness though...it is for sure not going to happen over night. Is going to take much, much effort. We will get there though!

Originally Posted by Heavy Sleeper

My economic status?

Well, my family is neither poor, nor wealthy. We're more somewhere in the middle. I wouldn't say we live 'comfortably' exactly, but we get by okay. Why do you ask?

I ask because I have a friend who believes that there is a correlation between economic status and political ideology. I don't know many people who are really conservative so I thought I would ask. Sorry if it was a bit personal by the way.