What political ideology are you and why?

[SayGen]

Unless that homosexual has siblings with children in which case there is extra help to care for offspring without the added burden of more children. so 1 benefit and 0 downsides. And even without siblings not having children is not a major downside given genetically similar humanity is. There's also studies that point to heighten fertility in siblings and family of homosexuals. At least the first one should be blindingly obvious to anyone who's aware ant's exist. Though I guess this get's back into the issue of you thinking that evolution has anything to do with the individual.

If evolution is the result of thousands of years of traits being passed down then obviously individuals, who can't live more than a century, don't evolve. Evolution is about changes in gene frequency of populations over time, even at the smallest scale this requires at least one generation. Individuals do not evolve.

ETA: Also while there is evidence of some hybridization between us and Neanderthal's most evidence says we evolved from a separate species with a common ancestor.

Individuals don't evolve, they live (procreate) and die. Species and populations evolve.

You are misusing the term individual.

What you should say is, "An individual doesn't evolve" An implies a unit of 1. 1 person does not evolve. Individuals evolve.

The best an individual can do is 'adapt', which isn't the same thing as evolution.

Sorry for nitpicking, but I was confused on your statement till just now.

in regards to homosexuality:

A homosexual doens't care for siblings alone, a hetrosexual can do that as well. There is no difference there.

There is no actual advantage where a homosexual > hetrosexual.

A hetrosexual does have 1 situation that makes him superior to the homosexual--procreation.

Not sure about that heigtened fertility of siblings and families of homosexuals since the largest groups of fertility can be expressed in terms of those who have proceated which would imply in order; Arabs, Spanish(who are majority Catholic), Mormens, Catholics(non-Spanish).

[sologdin]

am not a geneticist, but did not realize that homosexuality = sterility?

[Horza]

If true, this means I know people who don't exist.

[Rorshach]

Are they welsh, by any chance?

[Ordos]

I thought about starting a thread but then thought this thread was OK. Last year the government of Indonesia temporarily suspended direct elections for regional and local leaders. In January direct elections were restored. At the time I campaigned to bring back direct elections and gathered my thoughts in an essay. I did a local radio interview and even spoke at the local university.

This essay I wrote shows that I am a big supporter of democracy especially at the local level. I reveal at least some of my political ideology in it so I thought I might share it here.

I must say I'm proud of what I put together in the essay so here it is:

On September 25^th 2014, the Indonesian Parliament (the outgoing one and not the recently elected parliament it should be pointed out) voted to end direct elections for all regional and local leaders. That means all governors, bupatis (district head) and mayors are chosen by regional and local legislatures instead of directly voted in by the voters. The arguments for this move were that the elections were too expensive and corrupt. While the system had flaws, ending direct elections is not the proper way to deal with the problems. This is a direct assault on our democracy and must not be tolerated.

So what are the arguments for direct elections for regional and local leaders? First is that this is not a parliamentary system. In a parliamentary system, the head of government is also a member of the legislature as are all his cabinet members. This is a government led not by a single person, but a general consensus. It is not the case here. Here it is only the members of the legislature choosing their political friends to fill the post of Governor, Bupati or Mayor.

Second is that Indonesia’s political system is already centralized in terms of power and decision making. The rules that are in place to register political parties make it extremely difficult to register a new party unless you have a lot of money. The parties are also seen as vehicles to move the agendas of individuals rather than a group of people forming a consensus on policy. For example Gerindra is a party set up to advance the agenda of Prabowo Subianto. PDIP is a party set up to advance the agenda of Megawati Sukarnoputri. Too seldom do you hear of the good work being done by individual party members at the local level. To end direct elections for regional and local leaders would be to concentrate power into even fewer hands and there is less opportunities for ordinary and well-meaning people to participate in the political process. Already there are too few elected offices at the local level. Here in Tomohon all the district heads and lurahs are appointed. The traditional hukum tua (village head) that are directly elected no longer exist in Tomohon after our previous mayor ended that tradition in the village of Kayawu and appointed a lurah (Javanese neighborhood administrator).

Third is that the local level is where democracy and political participation can truly make a difference for the betterment of communities. Local politicians live among us and can easily be contacted and see directly what life is like for their voters. They are responsible for managing specifics like repairing potholes or garbage collecting. National politicians are far away and are voted in by more people so there is less of a direct connection with the people in their communities. Because they are serving the national interest, it is not often clear what they are doing for their local communities. If you wanted to enter politics to raise the standard of living of your community, the best way is at the local level.

The main problem with having the legislature choose the governor, mayor or bupati is that the political parties choose who will lead the government even if their chosen candidate is generally unacceptable to the voters. After a legislative election is held, the election of a new mayor is already a forgone conclusion. Here in Tomohon where there is a strong presence of Golkar party support, the Golkar party will always be in a position of choosing the next mayor and they may choose whomever they want no matter how corrupt he/she may be.

The real reason for this move by parliament is self-serving rather than in the interest of the voters. President Joko Widodo won the 2014 presidential election but the opposition coalition of political parties known as the Koalisi Merah Putih (red and white coalition) that supported presidential candidate Prabowo Subianto have the majority of seats in parliament both in the outgoing and incoming parliaments. The move was supported by the Koalisi Merah Putih for political manoeuvring against the newly elected President. Doing this, they can have the majority of regional leaders from the opposition. It is already well known that Parliament is one of the most corrupt and inefficient political institutions in Indonesia so it should come to no surprise that they would do this.

Former President Yudhoyono stated before he left office that he supports direct elections for regional and local leaders but with the condition that the vote rigging must be dealt with first. Ironically at this stage I agree with him although direct elections should not have ended in the first place. It is true that even with direct elections, they were far from free and fair. This comes to the root of the overwhelming majority of Indonesia’s problems: corruption. There is no magic bullet for stamping out corruption. Former President Yudhoyono took a step in the right direction with forming the corruption eradication commission known as the KPK. However government can only do so much. It cannot be stamped out without the participation of ordinary people. Ordinary people of all backgrounds must first look in a mirror. What bribes are you receiving or forced to pay? If you for instance are forced to pay a bribe to move forward an administrative procedure or to get a job, don’t stay quiet about it. Report such incidents to your elected officials. If cases of corruption are observable, you must call out elected and unelected officials on their lack of fighting corruption. Do not let them make anti-corruption slogans during an election campaign and then do nothing during their five years in office.

Do not accept gifts for your vote either. Instead, keep asking specific questions on how the candidates will raise your standard of living. People must understand that elections are not about festivals where they are given free t-shirts, rice, cooking oil and money. It is a time when you choose the people you believe will work hard to raise your standard of living in the long term.

Democracy is something very close to my heart. I urge all my fellow Indonesians to contact their elected officials and tell them that they will only vote for candidates in the next election that openly state they will bring back direct elections for regional and local leaders. However former President Yudhoyono was right that corruption must be dealt with first. So we must all continue to put pressure on President Joko Widodo to stamp out corruption. If you can afford it I would urge you to protest in Jakarta. Demand an end to corruption and a return of direct elections for regional and local leaders. There are already legal challenges to this in the courts and many regional leaders have spoken out against this move by Parliament. We must add further pressure to the government.

[Larry of the Lawn]

You are misusing the term individual.

What you should say is, "An individual doesn't evolve" An implies a unit of 1. 1 person does not evolve. Individuals evolve.

The best an individual can do is 'adapt', which isn't the same thing as evolution.

Sorry for nitpicking, but I was confused on your statement till just now.

in regards to homosexuality:

A homosexual doens't care for siblings alone, a hetrosexual can do that as well. There is no difference there.

There is no actual advantage where a homosexual > hetrosexual.

A hetrosexual does have 1 situation that makes him superior to the homosexual--procreation.

Not sure about that heigtened fertility of siblings and families of homosexuals since the largest groups of fertility can be expressed in terms of those who have proceated which would imply in order; Arabs, Spanish(who are majority Catholic), Mormens, Catholics(non-Spanish).

Why is the willingness to procreate seen as an advantage when humans are in absolutely no danger of going extinct? I mean, I could just as easily argue that if we reduced the population worldwide by 80% that we could all live like royalty. The entire premise of your position isn't objective. You're attributing a value to a certain characteristic and claiming it's the metric that matters, when it isn't.

[Disturber of Peace]

A social animal can use its homosexual tendencies as an extra tool to gain dominance in the hierarchy of its sex and that can be valuable during the mating season.

[straits]

Extremists are controlling the militaries, therefore the societies.

I think you are mistaken about the people fighting against tyranny in the Middle East. The may have a few people rise up now and again, but all are silenced through intimidation and violence.... because of religion, and the people love their religion so much over there, they really don't care if a few homosexuals or dissenters are killed by it. You're also mistaken if you think the people that hold the power over there haven't made religion THE system to keep their power. It's called a Theocracy.

It's fine that you think I am mistaken about people fighting tyranny in the Middle East. I wasn't stating my opinion on it. The Arab Spring was a huge movement against tyrannical governments and that's a fact. Many Arab countries had dictators of some shape or form, so you can't make the claim that "they keep voting the extremists back into power".

Tell me where the moderate majority is when they are silent in almost all of the cases where the extreme minority exploits their power.

The majority, moderate or not, live their lives relatively unhindered by the extremists, and are content with the status quo if it means not dying, and having some chance of upward mobility.

Believe it or not, this is how the majority in a country like the US lives as well. Except an armed uprising in the US would be put down before it starts.

They just haven't got enough people on board tofight against the system over there yet.

There is no single system governing the Middle East. Sectarian violence happens across ethnicities and beliefs within Arab/muslim populations. The Middle East has been a mess since the Ottoman empire fell - back when French and British powers attempted to play etch-a-sketch with the Arab provinces. It would be misleading to claim that the Sykes-Picot was the only cause for chaos in the Middle East, but it did mess the place up thoroughly.

American presence isn't helping either. Us being there just compounds the problem imo.

American presence is solely there to further America's profit. Nations aren't altruistic.

[TerraPrime]

Re: SayGen

Please stop talking about evolution like you know anything about it. You don't. But if you do want to continue to talk about it, start a new thread. This thread is about political ideologies.

Thank you.

[Weeping Sore]

am not a geneticist, but did not realize that homosexuality = sterility?

If true, this means I know people who don't exist.

Are they welsh, by any chance?

So since my dad is gay, that makes me Welsh. How do I claim my citizenship?

[OrangeStallion]

well i thought this thread was about why we're certain political ideologies.

I'm a libertarian because I believe in a cohesive philosophy of freedom of individuals, abiding by the non-aggression principle, and negative rights.

Meaning a right is something you are allowed to own and not have it taken, as opposed to you have the right to demand and be given something that was somebody else's.

Live and let live libertarians. But somehow everyone hates us.

[TerraPrime]

Live and let live libertarians. But somehow everyone hates us.

It is hard to imagine why, and yet, here we are. It must be a tremendous burden on all the Libertarians to be so misunderstood, all the time. But keep the good fight going - the movement needs you.

[peterbound]

well i thought this thread was about why we're certain political ideologies.

I'm a libertarian because I believe in a cohesive philosophy of freedom of individuals, abiding by the non-aggression principle, and negative rights.

Meaning a right is something you are allowed to own and not have it taken, as opposed to you have the right to demand and be given something that was somebody else's.

Live and let live libertarians. But somehow everyone hates us.

They hate us because of many of our practitioners unwilliness to compromise on essential functions of government. Unfortunately there needs to be some government regulation on certain aspects of our daily lives, and ultimately, trade. Many think that a free market will win all, but fail to take into account various other factors that lead to ruin.

The republicans co-oping the term doesn't help either.

[OrangeStallion]

It was the republicans that soiled the white cloak of liberty.

Ideally, I'm an anarchist, but I can be content with limited government. But I will not vote republican.

They =\= us

[Shadow Queen Medea]

I don't think most people hate libertarians. They just disagree with some of their political views. I respect everyone's political views unless they are fascists, because fuck fascists....even though fascists might not identify themselves as fascists (the Nazis called themselves socialists). Everyone else is fine in my book. Disagreeing doesn't mean you hate someone. I believe we need much more political debate in the world, and especially the U.S. (where I live), because it's almost looked down upon to identify yourself with any political party now. Civil discussion is what ultimately leads to compromise.

I disagree with libertarians based on one major issue. They want small government. Small government might work in some parts of the world, or under certain economic models, but I don't think it's a good idea for the States. The U.S. are a capitalist system, first and foremost. Capitalism even trumps Democracy in our current state. I think if you limit government even more than how much it has been limited by the corporate state since the 50s, then what you will ultimately have is a Plutocracy. We are seeing the beginnings of it emerging already. Big Business is out of control, and in control of much of our government as it is. Personally, I would much rather be ruled by regulated government officials than an unregulated Plutocracy. They will throw away rights to privacy and labor, monitor every post we make on online social sites.... and if they don't like anything they see, good luck getting a job anywhere. Not that the government hasn't already taken the first steps to making that a reality, it's just that corporation don't have to follow any rules like the government does if they take over. And I can't think of a bigger nightmare than corporate-run mercenary armies, herding and killing the poor or civil demonstrators and having no repercussion for it.

It may sound like I'm describing some kind of dystopian future out of a book or movie, or something, but a lot of the building blocks are already put in place for such an event to actually happen within a couple of decades. Maybe sooner, if we get more elected officials sympathetic to Big Business and corporate-run tyranny.

[The Fallen]

Just wanted to add that homosexuals have always existed among us, thus they've also evolved right along with us. And of course, they can procreate just like the rest of us.

<End of derail.>

[sologdin]

I'm a libertarian because I believe in a cohesive philosophy of freedom of individuals, abiding by the non-aggression principle, and negative rights.

Meaning a right is something you are allowed to own and not have it taken, as opposed to you have the right to demand and be given something that was somebody else's.

setting aside the failure to problematize 'ownership' and that individualism is an untenable abstraction, my impression of 'negative' rights is that they don't exist in a vacuum away from correlative duties, which duties almost always are non-negative. (it is kinda weird to state that one doesn't 'believe in' non-negative rights, no? i mean, they exist; they are creatures of law, which is the only measure of rights?)

here's an example of how a strictly negative rights only perspective is aporetic and accordingly impracticable: i have a property in fee simple absolute in the suffolk fens, to which my title is clear, but then some mooching parasite looters attempt to adversely possess it by squatting thereupon openly & notoriously. thse looters happen to be state actors, so i can invoke the negative right associated with no taking of private property by the state. i can't resort to unlawful self-help because, despite my collection of firearms and third reich iconography from gun shows, i am unable to defeat the army, so i file my action for ejectment, demanding court access to establish their removal from the property as a matter of my right. this action, however, is a demand for something and is accordingly non-negative; i don't ask the state to refrain, but ask for a judgment. even were the judgment itself negative somehow, i still must then ask the state to enforce the court's judgment, pretty plainly also non-negative, insofar as i am the one calling in jackboots to eject the other jackboots.

negative rights only is one of those liberal slogans that sounds slick, i think, but turns out to make the most pelagian of utopian assumptions. i like the enthusiastic optimism, unless of course it's all just a cynical cipher for feudalist reaction, as in hayek and ayn rand.

[OrangeStallion]

I'm not a randian by any means

[OrangeStallion]

But of course our philosophies will never match up. But that's ok.

In my ideal world, you can have people live with you the way you like as long as it's not imposed on the unwilling :)

[Larry of the Lawn]

I'd rather have to pay a state for 'protection' than a mafia or corporation; at least in a democracy, you have some input into how the state operates. If my neighborhood is run by some organized crime figure, I'm totally at their mercy. That's the difference. I mean shit look at the incarceration industry in the US.