Political identification. Watch

Poll: How do you self-identify?
Left-wing Anarchist (anarcho-communist/syndicalist) (3)
5.88%
Communist (1)
1.96%
Socialist (10)
19.61%
Social democrat/left-wing liberal (8)
15.69%
Centrist (10)
19.61%
Conservative (8)
15.69%
Libertarian/right-wing liberal (9)
17.65%
Fascist/neo-Nazi (2)
3.92%
Right-wing Anarchist (anarcho-capitalist) (0)
0%
LeCapitalist
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#1
How do you self-identify politically?
0
reply
paul514
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#2
Report 4 years ago
#2
Common sense


Posted from TSR Mobile
2
reply
username878267
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#3
Report 4 years ago
#3
Liberal Social democrat
0
reply
LeCapitalist
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#4
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#4
(Original post by paul514)
Common sense


Posted from TSR Mobile
No such thing. Pervasive political disagreement rules out any "common sense" political philosophy. All political philosophies are controversial and therefore not commonsensical.
1
reply
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#5
Report 4 years ago
#5
(Original post by LeCapitalist)
How do you self-identify politically?
I'm a combination of classically liberal and neo-conservative.
0
reply
gundog48
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#6
Report 4 years ago
#6
Individual liberty first, governance should be mostly oversight of corporations to prevent them from harming us all through environmental damage, monopolies or excessive influence.
0
reply
paul514
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#7
Report 4 years ago
#7
(Original post by LeCapitalist)
No such thing. Pervasive political disagreement rules out any "common sense" political philosophy. All political philosophies are controversial and therefore not commonsensical.
Nah most decisions to be made are common sense
0
reply
LeCapitalist
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#8
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#8
(Original post by paul514)
Nah most decisions to be made are common sense
I don't understand what this even means. A stance on politics, a political philosophy, is a comprehensive view on how the state ought to be organised (or whether it ought to exist at all), it's not a "decision". Whatever view you have is going to be controversial or else political disagreement wouldn't be as pervasive and intense as it currently is. On one issue in particular there might be broad consensus and thus we might be able to identify a "common sense" view on one issue but political labels, as I said, connote comprehensive political philosophies.
0
reply
paul514
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#9
Report 4 years ago
#9
(Original post by LeCapitalist)
I don't understand what this even means. A stance on politics, a political philosophy, is a comprehensive view on how the state ought to be organised (or whether it ought to exist at all), it's not a "decision". Whatever view you have is going to be controversial or else political disagreement wouldn't be as pervasive and intense as it currently is. On one issue in particular there might be broad consensus and thus we might be able to identify a "common sense" view on one issue but political labels, as I said, connote comprehensive political philosophies.
The same philosophy doesn't work on every decision to be made be it economic, social, defence etc.

Hence why I said common sense.

You should have end goals for situations and make common sense decisions on how to get to them.

So for example if we wanted to be an export nation (I know haha) we would need a weaker currency than we currently do and take the pain that comes with that in the interim rather than flip flopping as changes like that do not come easily.

I'm not advocating that just using it as a straight forward example of common sense


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
jape
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#10
Report 4 years ago
#10
Libertarian


Posted from the TSR app - no updates since 2013!
1
reply
LeCapitalist
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#11
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#11
(Original post by paul514)
The same philosophy doesn't work on every decision to be made be it economic, social, defence etc.

Hence why I said common sense.

You should have end goals for situations and make common sense decisions on how to get to them.

So for example if we wanted to be an export nation (I know haha) we would need a weaker currency than we currently do and take the pain that comes with that in the interim rather than flip flopping as changes like that do not come easily.

I'm not advocating that just using it as a straight forward example of common sense


Posted from TSR Mobile
Again, a political philosophy is a comprehensive view on whether the state ought to exist and if it ought to exist what shape it ought to take. That's what Libertarians, socialists, anarchists, etc propose -- different views on the function of the state. None of them is common sense or uncontroversial (which is why people disagree about it so much) and your view, whatever it is, on the role of the state, is, I guarantee, quite controversial and not at all common sense.

Proof: state what you think the role of the state ought to be and you'll find many people who don't agree with you and don't think what you propose is "common sense" ('cos as I said, there's no such thing as "common sense" political philosophy).

. It doesn't matter what happens IF the UK wants to be an "export nation". In order to even get to that question you need to have a theory of the state (the nation state). A) Why even think that nation states ought to exist?
B) Why become an export nation? the answer might be because we believe we will be more prosperous. That's a controversial view, it's mercantilism which classical political economists like Adam Smith combated.
C) Why even think that the nation state ought to have a single national policy with respect to exports? why not let each individual export as much as she wants and import as much as she wants?

Those questions need to be resolved and for that to happen, you FIRST have to have a clear view on the role of the state. You first need to put forward a political philosophy.

The hypothetical question you posed above makes sense only to a statist. And statism is not at all a "common sense view" according to many anarchists, libertarians, conservatives, etc.

State whether you think the state ought to exist and if so what functions it ought to have and why. That would be a political philosophy and as I said, I guarantee it's going to be controversial.
0
reply
paul514
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#12
Report 4 years ago
#12
(Original post by LeCapitalist)
Again, a political philosophy is a comprehensive view on whether the state ought to exist and if it ought to exist what shape it ought to take. That's what Libertarians, socialists, anarchists, etc propose -- different views on the function of the state. None of them is common sense or uncontroversial (which is why people disagree about it so much) and your view, whatever it is, on the role of the state, is, I guarantee, quite controversial and not at all common sense.

Proof: state what you think the role of the state ought to be and you'll find many people who don't agree with you and don't think what you propose is "common sense" ('cos as I said, there's no such thing as "common sense" political philosophy).

. It doesn't matter what happens IF the UK wants to be an "export nation". In order to even get to that question you need to have a theory of the state (the nation state). A) Why even think that nation states ought to exist?
B) Why become an export nation? the answer might be because we believe we will be more prosperous. That's a controversial view, it's mercantilism which classical political economists like Adam Smith combated.
C) Why even think that the nation state ought to have a single national policy with respect to exports? why not let each individual export as much as she wants and import as much as she wants?

Those questions need to be resolved and for that to happen, you FIRST have to have a clear view on the role of the state. You first need to put forward a political philosophy.

The hypothetical question you posed above makes sense only to a statist. And statism is not at all a "common sense view" according to many anarchists, libertarians, conservatives, etc.

State whether you think the state ought to exist and if so what functions it ought to have and why. That would be a political philosophy and as I said, I guarantee it's going to be controversial.
Essay zzzzz


I already answered you


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
United1892
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#13
Report 4 years ago
#13
(Original post by LeCapitalist)
How do you self-identify politically?
Liberal Socialist
0
reply
username878267
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#14
Report 4 years ago
#14
(Original post by Rakas21)
I'm a combination of classically liberal and neo-conservative.
Liberal? Your social views fit in nicely with the BNP.
1
reply
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#15
Report 4 years ago
#15
(Original post by Bornblue)
Liberal? Your social views fit in nicely with the BNP.
The BNP support gay marriage? The BNP support higher immigration? The BNP support a legal sex industry?
1
reply
Handles
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#16
Report 4 years ago
#16
Social democrat, but in the modern sense of the word. I don't wish to replace capitalism with socialism like some "social democrats" would, but I believe that there are significant flaws in the capitalist system which can be addressed via socialist ideals. For example, I'd like to see more co-operative businesses in the hope of encouraging a greater distribution of wealth. I also believe that we're relying too much on "quarterly capitalism" and that the government may need to step in to change that soon. (That being said, I'm not entirely sure how that would be achieved.)

I would describe myself as quite socially liberal, too. I support the legalisation of marijuana and similar drugs (along-side the decriminalisation of possession of other drugs); I'm in favour of legalising assisted dying (though that's unlikely to happen now, sadly); and I'm mostly in favour of legalising sex work.
0
reply
username878267
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#17
Report 4 years ago
#17
(Original post by Rakas21)
The BNP support gay marriage? The BNP support higher immigration? The BNP support a legal sex industry?
More your approach on thinking that non-whites will 'destroy the social /ethnic fabric of this great country' or whatever you wrote. And your views towards Muslims.
Very bnp ish.

Then there's the support for bombing anyone you don't like and your belief in eugenics and that those with certain conditions should be persuaded not to have children.
0
reply
ChaoticButterfly
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#18
Report 4 years ago
#18
(Original post by Bornblue)
More your approach on thinking that non-whites will 'destroy the social /ethnic fabric of this great country' or whatever you wrote. And your views towards Muslims.
Very bnp ish.

Then there's the support for bombing anyone you don't like and your belief in eugenics and that those with certain conditions should be persuaded not to have children.
I dunno, liberals of old were really into eugenics and that kind of thing.
0
reply
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#19
Report 4 years ago
#19
(Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
I dunno, liberals of old were really into eugenics and that kind of thing.
Yeah. I could definitely vote for some Victorian Liberalism.
0
reply
The Dictator
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#20
Report 4 years ago
#20
Wow, a lot of libertarians on TSR. I'm surprised.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Would you turn to a teacher if you were being bullied?

Yes (47)
26.11%
No (133)
73.89%

Watched Threads

View All