classical_hero
In whom I trust
For me it is social issues that drive me the most. Being a social conservative.
What motivates you politically?
- Thread starter Smellincoffee
- Start date
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Out of interest, how do you distinguish "social" issues from presumably "non-social" issues?
The problem for politicians is that they're not playing just for you - they're playing for vast and increasingly diverse constituencies. Hypocrisy and obfuscation are pretty much obligatory in modern politics, especially where first-past-the-post electoral systems prevail.
Education. More money, obviously. Reducing class sizes is a no-brainer. But we also need to find better ways to monitor, encourage, and spread good practice. Reversing the trend towards ever greater levels of bureaucracy and paperwork should also be a priority. Teachers teach better when they're not stressed and exhausted.
rugbyLEAGUEfan
Deity
Will do , but usually I like to do so every second Thursday so may take a week or so. But the first name that comes to my head is Rolls Royce.
I don't know if you guys do it differently in Australia or the UK, but usually the term social issues excludes class issues, and probably encompasses things like support/opposition on gay marriage, pro-life or pro-choice, the role of religion in society, and stuff like that.
madviking
north american scum
Me and my crazy rights-based philosophy. 
The other 2 majors are American.
Angst
Rambling and inconsistent
I motivate myself by knowing that we can welcome our children to a better world, a world that they may actively be a part of. I value peace and gentleness. I value that the trees are still there. I value that everyone, no matter the origin, may better itself through music, arts and education and are safely protected by our justice system. I value that life is sacred. And I value that the Danish welfare state attempts to take care of all of the above.
Quackers
The Frog
I thought you were amoral ? How can you value things if you do not have a moral code which you can compare? How can you be for all those things and maybe even an anti-american bigot without a benchmark of ethics? (I'm not trained in philosophy so i may be making an error here).
CELTICEMPIRE
Zulu Conqueror
Abortion, for me is the single most important issue in US politics.
Is for a lot of people. That's what's crippling the country.
GhostWriter16
Deity
This, and religious freedom. I very much desire to keep the church out of the state, but I think its even more important to keep the state out of the church. (Not that I'm choosing one or the other, I'm fightin' both
)Economic issues are also quite important to me, as are less government control over petty things.
Gay marriage is really one that I've become disillusioned with compared to other conservative people I know. I'm still ideologically opposed, but I do think certain social conservatives overplay it. And I get a bit annoyed with how Evangelical churches tend to overplay gay issues as compared to other sins. It seems almost too convenient to me.
Angst
Rambling and inconsistent
Crossthread, but I'll bite. I won't answer too much because I don't think it suits this thread. You can continue to ask me in the other. Also, sorry if any of my arguments don't make any sense in your English ears, again: English isn't my first language. So if you understand something wrong, I can explain it, but in the other thread, please.
A moral system isn't necessary for some action to be nice. The whole point of the other thread was that morality shouldn't be used to legitimize anything at all.
One moral system might be similar to, but not equal to, one social system, which I think is the problem here, leading to a misreading of my post. Morality is much more similar to religion (Also a social system, also nonequal), and most importantly, morality is much more similar to the bad parts of religion, such as dogma, just pain and one right way. We're assuming the abstract definition of religion here, of course, I'm not bashing any in particular. An assumed moral system means impractical rational values of good and evil applied inappropriately onto our world, which doesn't work with only one moral system, and if one mixes and matches several assumed moral system to suit their own needs, it isn't valid legitimization to any action whatsoever. Morals aren't needed, I don't use them.
"I think we should build a road from the town to the hospital to easen the transfer of sick people, allowing them to be cured."
"Uh-huh. What moral legitimization do you use for that proposition?"
"I don't know and don't care. It will be better for all of us with those roads."
There's a difference between being amoral and antimoral; I'm merely acting as if morals don't exist, since I don't see the necessity of morals to act, and I don't see the necessity of morals for nice things to exist. Good things exist neatly by themselves without any kind of second-hand subjective analytist moral system to dictate the goodness of these things. For example, again, when I buy my girlfriend ice cream, I don't do it to be a good person, I don't need any moral system for the "good act" to exist, I don't do it for any good whatsoever, I do it because ice cream is nice.
Pragmatism isn't a moral system either, even though it's part of many. I don't see why I would need morals to take care of trees (That look pretty and make us breathe) and I don't see why I would need morals to support my nation's prosperous socialist policies. See, I don't choose to support the Danish welfare state because "It's the right thing", I do it because "It works best."
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
GeorgeOP
RF Bleachers
The new deal was a giant ponzi scheme. It was going to collapse at some point.
I usually vote against the worst candidate.
Smellincoffee
Trekkie At Large
My approach to politics emphasizes the well-being of people: I believe politics should be about creating the best possible world for everyone. As I said before, I consider myself a social democrat, but I'm strongly influenced by anarchist or left-libertarian thinking. The ideal world for me would be one in which people were free to live their lives, but where their rights are protected more by social mores than laws...where people are protected from being abused or diminished not by fear of reprisal, but out of a sense of morality that comes from living in a society where mutual respect reigns.
This is part of the high-mindedness I referred to in my original post. In practical matters, I am increasingly concerned with how we are going to address the matters of food, transportation, housing, and energy in the 21st century. I believe it is foolhardy for us to base our economic foundation and our livlihood on the use of finite resources like coal, natural gas, and oil. Dependence on oil is especially foolish, and so I am passionate about our minimizing our use of it. I do mean minimizing, and not just by switching to cars using some magical alternative to gasoline. I mean overturning sprawl, which has defined US urbanism for a half century. We need communities which are walkable again, and we shall tie those communities together with efficient transit -- like trains and tramlines.
Even if peak oil were not an issue, we would still have to reverse sprawl and return to walkable cities with transit, because we cannot sustain the sprawl we do haves. Suburban municipalities do not generate enough tax revenue to pay for their roads and pipes, let alone the police, fire, health and post services needed to cover their expanses.
I believe also that a return to traditional urbanism is not only financially more viable, but will make Americans happier as a people. We will no longer be spread out and isolated; we will no longer be dependent on cars and forced to spend our lives in traffic jams. We will be more self-reliant, living in a world which makes sense and can be sustained over the long term,
This is part of the high-mindedness I referred to in my original post. In practical matters, I am increasingly concerned with how we are going to address the matters of food, transportation, housing, and energy in the 21st century. I believe it is foolhardy for us to base our economic foundation and our livlihood on the use of finite resources like coal, natural gas, and oil. Dependence on oil is especially foolish, and so I am passionate about our minimizing our use of it. I do mean minimizing, and not just by switching to cars using some magical alternative to gasoline. I mean overturning sprawl, which has defined US urbanism for a half century. We need communities which are walkable again, and we shall tie those communities together with efficient transit -- like trains and tramlines.
Even if peak oil were not an issue, we would still have to reverse sprawl and return to walkable cities with transit, because we cannot sustain the sprawl we do haves. Suburban municipalities do not generate enough tax revenue to pay for their roads and pipes, let alone the police, fire, health and post services needed to cover their expanses.
I believe also that a return to traditional urbanism is not only financially more viable, but will make Americans happier as a people. We will no longer be spread out and isolated; we will no longer be dependent on cars and forced to spend our lives in traffic jams. We will be more self-reliant, living in a world which makes sense and can be sustained over the long term,
Lord of Elves
Suede-Denim Secret Police
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2009
- Messages
- 6,976
Some kind of nationalism. USA #1
LucyDuke
staring at the clock
Self-interest.
Why? Are you planning to have one, or do you just want to prevent someone else from having one? Aren't there far more pressing issues at hand?
To answer each question posed by the opening post:
I am motivated politically by a desire for a better world. I want what is best for humanity. I desire a truly free, peaceful and prosperous world. Yes, that may sound cliche, but it is what it is.
The changes that I would like to see are drastic and far-reaching. The implementation of a worldwide communist society though anarcho-communist means.
I am most concerned about the continued existence of capitalism and the state, both of which perpetuate the exploitation of the vast majority for the benefit of the minority and ultimately at the detriment of humanity as a whole.
If I was running for office, the first thing I would do would be to figure out who hypnotized me into doing so. I would then proceed to end my involvement in bourgeois politics.
I am motivated politically by a desire for a better world. I want what is best for humanity. I desire a truly free, peaceful and prosperous world. Yes, that may sound cliche, but it is what it is.
The changes that I would like to see are drastic and far-reaching. The implementation of a worldwide communist society though anarcho-communist means.
I am most concerned about the continued existence of capitalism and the state, both of which perpetuate the exploitation of the vast majority for the benefit of the minority and ultimately at the detriment of humanity as a whole.
If I was running for office, the first thing I would do would be to figure out who hypnotized me into doing so. I would then proceed to end my involvement in bourgeois politics.
