Which political ideology best describes you?

When I say distribution problem I am criticizing capitalism and how the global econmoy works and fails to distribute food to meet every single human's need. Plodding along means finding a way to ensure those needs are met, markets and capitalists be damned.

Yay, I'm finally the evil right winger for once ^.^

Christ, you actually came out with a human nature argument. YES, we deny human nature. IT'S NOT A THING.

Perhaps a quote from someone more experience in argument:

"To look at people in capitalist society and conclude that human nature is egoism, is like looking at people in a factory where pollution is destroying their lungs and saying that it is human nature to cough." - Andrew Collier

I would call myself a social democrat: someone who supports a mixture of socialism and capitalism. Countries like Norway can show how truly outstanding the result can be.

I think that the Nordic countries -- particularly Sweden -- have pretty much the best political model in the world. A free market combined with a strong welfare state and excellent public services. People are willing to pay high tax when they know their money is actually being spent to benefit the country as a whole. Their public education and healthcare is outstanding, they are culturally diverse and the class divide is minimal. Most importantly, they are some of the happiest people on earth. Equality is not beyond reach in a neo-liberal state -- as long as you have a government who truly cares for their people.

I would identify mostly as a Social Democrat advocating some elements of Socialism; I do however think that left-wing politics have been usurped by quite frankly - wimps. Political correctness and a sense of almost snobbery has a tight control over the left in Britain, the refusal to tackle immigration, support military use and somehow still manage to support the EU is an embarrassment. The Green Party are a perfect example of this. To regain control of the electorate, the left in Britain must both appeal but also accept the problems of those suffering and not dismiss them as racist lunatics - something that unfortunately Nigel Farage managed to suss out.

I'm a social capitalist. For me, life is less about having an economy that tries to be the very best in the world, but more about what can the money buy, the quality of life that you have (a big un), how we treat our very poorest, the sick and the disabled

"The third way" seems quite aligned with my views on things.

There was plenty of violence committed in pre-state societies and pre-capitalistic societies, so it's simply not the case that crime is the sole result of capitalism.

I agree that violence would be severely curtailed in a society without poverty, inequality and oppression in general. It won't be eradicated by any means, however. Human nature isn't solely egoistic: we have moral intuitions that allow us to behave ethically towards those close to us; and we have the capacity to reason which allows us to extend this ethical behaviour to all sentient beings. However, to deny that there is such a thing as human nature is to deny the preponderance of scientific findings - we're not a blank slate at birth. All in all, there would have to be some system in place to deal with it which at the same time doesn't involve the resurrection of the state.

You can't mix socialism and capitalism. Socialism is fundamentally opposed to capitalism by definition.



Seriously, the class divide in Sweden and other Nordic nations is not minimal, I have no idea why anybody thinks that.

This "perfect" society is built upon capitalism and hence the exploitation of labour and imperialism as any other, and cannot survive. Even ignoring the practical impossibility of the situation, morality does not end at a nation's border, and if you think that the happiness of one group of people is justification for the exploitation of another, I have nothing else I can say to you.



What are these "some elements of socialism" you desire?



I have a better idea. How about instead of simply treating the very poorest kindly, we ensure they AREN'T POOR?

a) capitalism is the only society in which violence could prosper?

b) violence would be totally eradicated?

Seriously, the class divide in Sweden and other Nordic nations is not minimal, I have no idea why anybody thinks that.

This "perfect" society is built upon capitalism and hence the exploitation of labour and imperialism as any other, and cannot survive. Even ignoring the practical impossibility of the situation, morality does not end at a nation's border, and if you think that the happiness of one group of people is justification for the exploitation of another, I have nothing else I can say to you.

They can still adopt.

You will always have poor people, even if they live in "relative poverty"

Wow. And I thought you were a decent poster.
You want to try and persuade people who are so unfortunate to have a horrible condition that they shouldn't have kids?
Leave those views in 1940s Germany where they belong.

Nothing 1940's about it, how many people abort a disabled baby. All I'm doing is going a step further.

I see nothing at all wrong with encouraging the creation of superior genetic stock.

This. Makes me think of the quote from Enemy at the Gates: 'We tried so hard to create a society that was equal, where there'd be nothing to envy your neighbour. But there's always something to envy.'

Equality can never exist. There will always be somebody who's opinion will be more respected, who's naturally more intelligent ECT..

We're a species which dominates everything we touch, I don't know why people think its not in our nature to try dominate each other.

I don't know , you tell me...
Do disabled people not deserve to be born?
Sounds quite like a 'master race ' to me . So only gnetically perfect people should reproduce?
Blonde hair blue eyes?

Plenty.

Its not about deserving, its about whether those with severe conditions will ever live a normal life (walking, talking, there enough to engage with people), for those in a wheelchair or retarded that's probably not the case.

I'm not suggesting we go for such shallow attributes, but we are reaching a point where genetic engineering is possible and for severe incurable diseases its logical to discourage them.

So you're massively against assisted suicide on ground of morality yet are massively for killing off disabled children before they're born.

Pretty much sums up the right.

I dunno, the left have a bit of a monopoly on abortion rights for women.