Survey: Your political stance on the issues.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT
 

Nation(s) Raised In - United States
Home Nation - United States, PA
Religion - Non-Religious Christian (believe in the word, don't believe in church)

Gay Marriage - The Government should have no legal definition of Marriage, and the definition of marriage should be left to individuals. Meaning, it should be illegal for the government to make a law that has to do anything with marriage, allowing or forbidding.
Abortion - Should be left to local governments. I prefer it as illegal, but I realize that to impose illegality on an entire nation as large the United States would be disastrous.
Religious Freedom - People should be allowed to practice their religion. This being said, religion should stay away from Government and power, not for the government's sake, but for the religion's sake. Power corrupts.
Religion in Government - I don't mind if people do it, just not on a federal level. If local governments want to do that, it's fine.
Drug Legality - Either legalize more of them, or make them all illegal. The system we have now, of having some recreational drugs legal and some not doesn't make much sense.
Gun Ownership - It makes sense for people in the city to own a handgun, but where crime isn't rampant it's not necessary. Ultimately though, people should never give up the right to bear arms completely. Citizens need SOMETHING in case things go bad.
Prisons - There should be two different kinds of prisons, prisons for rehabilitation, and prisons for incarceration. The goal of a prison is not to punish, but to protect society from the individuals who commit crimes. Those who commit crimes that pose no danger to others (using illegal drugs/prostituion) should be sent to rehabilitative prisons, whereas those who commit larger crimes (murder) should be locked up as long as is necessary for the government to be sure that they are no longer a danger to society. For some individuals, they may never be deemed no longer a danger to society.

Free Market vs. Regulation: How much do you value a free market?
Government Ownership: The more it controls the means of production, the more it is now responsible for the economic effects of involvement in the economy. I have nothing against a government that runs a business, but since a government is essentially a monopoly, it must make up for the effects a monopoly has on the economy somehow.
Taxation: All taxes must be approved by the citizenship (by some majority). Any taxation that is involuntary is stealing. Federal taxation should be at a minimum.
Welfare Programs: Welfare should be given if at least one member of the family is willing to work some kind of job that has been sought out for them, if they are currently unemployed and destitute (impoverished).

National relations with the mean and rich - Ignore them, get what you need from yourself, or better countries.
Military Spending - Enough to defend yourself. This country does not need to invade anyone, but needs enough to retaliate.
WMDs - Ultimately necessary only because others have them. Everybody needs guns if at least one person does.
Interventionism - Imperialism in general is a bad thing, and the rights of smaller countries must be respected.

Clean/Sustainable energy - Necessary, not only for environmental health, but to make a country self-sustainable. The less reliant a country is on the global economy, the better.
Pollution Regulation - Necessary to protect ourselves from living in waste.
Resource Conservation - Necessary for the same reason as my reason for Clean/Sustainable energy
Endangered Species - It is up to the human race what gets to live and what dies off. The human race has no responsibility to keep other species alive, unless the species is necessary for human survival.

Nation(s) Raised In - USA, southern.
Home Nation - Same as above
Religion - Atheist

---

Gay Marriage - Full marriage rights for all. All couples get the same treatment in the eyes of the law.

Abortion - Legal. Always. No conditions, no parental approval.

Religion - Theocracy = bad. Religious views influencing laws = bad. Religion is fine for personal lives, but not for political decisions.

Drug Legality - Legalization. Hell, you can tax drugs too if you must. The people get what they want, debt gets lessened... win-win

Gun Ownership - Any non-felon should be able to own weapons, and carry small ones in public. You may need a special permit for explosives, but anything else goes.

Prisons - Should be handled on a person by person basis. Some don't need to be there at all, some need less harsh treatment, and some need a bullet in the head.

---

Free Market vs. Regulation: Free market with bare minimum regulations to prevent monopoly.

Government Ownership: The government, as an entity, should own nothing but the capitol building.

Taxation: Low taxes, at a flat rate (after a few cost of living exemptions are made.) The rich should pay, in theory, the same percentage as the poor.

Welfare Programs: Those unable to work may be temporarily provided for, but I'm not the biggest fan of even that much welfare. Those permanently unable to work, or unwilling to work... they get nothing.

---
National relations with the mean and rich - Human rights abuses = "I want nothing to do with you."

Military Spending - Just like all other spending, keep to a bare minimum.

WMDs - We have enough already.

Interventionism - No. Just no.

---

Clean/Sustainable energy - Meh. I like solar and wind power, but it's not that big of a concern to me. In any case, it's none of the government's business, although I would like private companies to work on a way to fuel my car without paying premium gas prices.

Pollution Regulation - Yet again, bare minimum. No spewing cyanide into the air, but factories are going to produce some smoke.

Resource Conservation - This is quite possibly the least important issue on this whole list to me. I don't care.

Endangered Species - If we drive something to near extinction, we need to at least get a few of them to put in a habitat or something. If it happens without us though... let nature take it's course.

Nation(s) Raised In - Australia.

Home Nation - Australia. However, my partner is American and I have spent some time there and feel a strong affinity for it, too, and it's likely that I'll end up living there after certain laws change.

Religion - Raised Catholic, now atheist.

Gay Marriage - Full marriage equality. I'm okay with civil unions/registered partnerships, say, for people who want their relationship recognised by the government but have an objection to getting married, but this should be available for both straight and gay people and should not be an outright substitute for marriage of any kind.

Abortion - Legal in all cases unless the baby's development is too far along, in which case I think it should be restricted to when the health of either the mother or the baby is at risk.

Religious Freedom - Constitutionally protected freedom of religion and freedom from religion.

Religion in Government - Should not exist. A theocracy is the polar opposite of a free society. People should have the right to worship in any way they want, as long as it doesn't interfere in anyone else's life.

Drug Legality - I can't morally oppose legalising drugs when I've seen first hand how much destruction alcohol can do. I'd rather make everything legal and shift to a system of harm minimalisation and rehabilitation than criminalisation and punishment for addicts. No one deserves to be punished for hurting only themselves.

Gun Ownership - I hate guns but I hate even more the idea of only the government and criminals having guns. Everyone should have the right to self protection.

Prisons - I believe the purpose of prison should be to rehabilitate and reform people rather than lock them up in a drug and rape den and let them rot. Reforming prisoners is going to make them a lot less likely to continue to be criminals and the country will be safer for it.

Free Market vs. Regulation - I'm very pro-free market. The problem with the capitalistic systems we see around the Western world is that they're not free markets, they're controlled by the government and regulated in such a way as to make it very easy for the super wealthy elite to get away with a lot more than other business owners or regular everyday citizens. Having a truly free market is a much fairer way to go, with no weaseling out of punishments for wrongdoings and bribes and bailouts.

Government Ownership - Minimal. There are some things that probably shouldn't be privatised though, and selfishly I love my country's publicly funded broadcaster.

Taxation - Well I'd want it to be as low as possible but definitely enough to cover the physical and social infrastructure we need.

Welfare Programs - No one should ever have to worry about being homeless or dying from lack of healthcare. We should have a safety net to provide the necessities for people who've fallen on hard times or are disabled, and welfare should also take into account programs to try to get people back on their feet and back into the workforce as quickly as possible. If we tried hard enough we could probably eliminate the phenomenon of long term unemployed people without just cutting off their support and kicking them out the door to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps. I am absolutely against "middle class welfare" like help for home buyers, cash payments for new mothers, subsidised home improvements, etc.

National relations with the mean and rich - Keep the relationship civil but only deal with them if we have to. Offer asylum to the citizens they're oppressing.

Military Spending - Only the bare minimum.

WMDs - I have the same opinion of WMDs as I do of gun ownership. If it's fair for one country to have them, it's fair for all countries to have them. Unlike guns, however, I think eventually it will be possible to at least mostly eliminate them.

Interventionism - If they're not posing a threat to anyone, mind your own business.

Clean/Sustainable energy - Forget about clean energy, sustainable energy is a must, all the coal and oil is going to run out one day and we have to be prepared. Most sustainable energy is clean anyway so it solves both problems.

Pollution Regulation - The problem with pollution is that it affects more than just the land that you own, it can destroy land and property owned by other people, too, so I think pollution regulation is a necessity.

Resource Conservation - This is something the free market can take care of on its own. As a resource becomes more rare it will become more expensive, to the point where it will be less expensive to research for/use an alternative.

Endangered Species - I'm pretty indifferent about endangered species. They should absolutely be prevented from being killed by people, and I think NGOs who try to protect them and boost their numbers are very admirable, but if an animal does go extinct it's not the end of the world.

Danny Ocean:

Society: Centre Left/Left
Economy: Centre-Left
Foreign Relations: Centre-Left
Environment: Centre-Left
Overall: Moderate Liberal

When the revolution comes, you'll hardly be a collaborator. On the other hand, you'll probably agree in theory with their ideals. So good news is that no matter who wins, you won't be thrown against the wall. Bad news is that you'll never be able to capture the hearts, minds, and naughty bits of the attractive and inebriated at parties.

VoidProphet:

Society: Centre Left/Left
Economy: Centre-Left
Foreign Relations: Centre-Left
Environment: Centre-Left
Overall: Moderate Liberal

When the revolution comes, you'll hardly be a collaborator. On the other hand, you'll probably agree in theory with their ideals. So good news is that no matter who wins, you won't be thrown against the wall. Bad news is that you'll never be able to capture the hearts, minds, and naughty bits of the attractive and inebriated at parties.

Hah. That's what you think!

Very entertaining. Thank you. :)

Additional note about the thread in general: I want to make clear I never expected this kind of response. Evidently, I'm not as intelligent as I like to think. Though it's a low bar, that.

Rekh:

Society: Left
Economy: Far Left
Foreign Relations: Moderate/Centre-Left
Environment: Left/Far Left
Overall: Keep those rocks out of my glass house.

"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye." -Mathew 7:3-7:5, almost certainly speaking through time and space to the WBC.

Your country has its problems, and you aren't even looking at someone else until you've fixed them. It's going to be a long hard road from where you are to where you want to be, and you probably won't make it in your lifetime. But you'll always have something to fight for, and fellows beside you to help along the way.

VoidProphet:

Society: Left
Economy: Centre-Left/Left
Foreign Relations: Left
Environment: Left/Centre-Left
Overall: Pissed-Off Liberal

You know that old stereotype about conservatives being grumpy old men and liberals being compassionate youth? Fuck that. You don't believe in liberal policies because you feel an all-encompassing love for humanity, you believe in liberal policies because they work and sometimes you need to make personal sacrifices to ensure a better world... If only these lazy motherfuckers could understand that, we'd all be able to move on! Good news is that no one will ever call you a stereotype. Bad news is that your 'fellow' left-wingers are for the most part either disdainful, confused, or scared of you.

Course, that can have comedic value all by itself...

Thanks =)

Read that out to my housemates, they all laughed. Pissed-off is certainly a fair description.

Death_Korps_Kommissar:

Society: Left
Economy: Left/Far Left (Limited Info Available)
Foreign Relations: Centre-Left
Environment: Left/Far Left
Overall: Casual Liberal

You're not what most people would dub 'politically minded', but you're not exactly ignorant either and have put together opinions from what you've heard. Good news is that you can defend your beliefs in a bar room argument, bad news is that you'll find yourself outmatched by someone who spends more time around politics. Probably someone who actually agrees with you: Political people can be assholes that way.

VoidProphet:
Nation(s) Raised In - The place(s) you spent more than two years up to age 16 in: Canada

Home Nation - Which country you think of when you think 'home': Canada

Religion - What is and was your religious standing? Agnostic Atheist with strong inclinations towards Buddhism and Confucianism.

Gay Marriage - Full marriage, civil unions, or abolition? How strongly do you think this view should be enforced?

Pro-Gay Marriage. As an Agnostic Atheist and Secular Humanist, I see absolutely no reason to deny this. As for to what extent, I would prefer full marriage (in the U.S.), but traditionalist religious individuals (studs) seem to be making that nearly impossible in the U.S.. So I would advocate in terms of the U.S. universal civil marriages for everyone, and the term "marriage" alone would be left completely benign of all legal definition so those that wish to go an extra religious mile with it can do so without infringing on others. Canada wise, Gay Marriage isn't even an issue.

Abortion - Should it be legal, and on moral or practical grounds?

Pro-choice until third trimester, and then I would be Pro-life (with the exception of third trimester complications that are severe enough to affect the mortality of the mother, that is). So, fully legalized. At least, until we can rework the adoption system to work far, far better than it does now.

And in terms of morality? Morality does not enter the equation with me when dealing with abortion. The entire matter is one of purely pragmatic nature, to me. Also, fuck hypocritical Pro-Lifers.

Religious Freedom - Should your country encourage all religious worship, the worship of only one religion, or discourage it entirely? How strictly should this be enforced?

Yes, my country should encourage (read: allow, not positively, politically advocate) all religious worship, both monotheistic and polytheistic, as it does already. This should be enforced to the point where people are criminally injured for their faith, or by their faith, and then secular society steps in.

Religion in Government - Should the government be allowed to make religiously-based decisions, particularly when the people voting for them share the same views?

A religious politician can certainty make decisions in which are influenced by his/her religious leanings, but organized religion (religious leader) can never intermix with this and directly control the process of legislation or parliament.

Drug Legality - Harsher punishments, keep it the way it is, regulate some or all the same as alcohol and tobacco, or complete legalization?

Get rid of the War on Drugs entirely, stop jailing first time marijuana offenders, and only go after drugs such as Heroine, Cocaine, LSD, etc as being criminalized drugs. Cigarettes are heavily restricted for anyone below the age of 18 (anyone caught trying to buy cigarettes below the age of 18 is fined, but not imprisoned), and adults may purchase them with proper I.D. as they wish (I would prefer cigarettes simply did not exist in society, but regrettably the only thing to do is try and enforce as much negative stigma as possible towards them at children below the age of 18, to prevent future use).

As for alcohol, same restrictions as cigarettes.

Gun Ownership - How much firepower is unnecessary?

Personally, I loathe guns (during a time of war, however, I may be more pragmatic about the issue), and I would not want them around in my society (infact, most cities I've been to in Canada so far are either very light in ownership of firearms, or not at all - including my hometown). However, if someone wishes to go through the proper channels in which to obtain a firearm and proves themselves responsible enough to carry such a dangerous weapon in their hands before the government and the police, then I have no right to tell them otherwise.

Prisons - As a general rule, are we being too soft, too cruel?

We need to focus more upon rehabilitation than punishment (for those that can be), and be more watchful upon corruption within the guard and administration within each jail (maximum and minimum), as well as abuse of handcuffed or strapped-down prisoners.

Free Market vs. Regulation: How much do you value a free market?

I support a free market system as being the most effective form of market we have right now, but we also need to ensure an effective safety net for those less fortunate in the system so that we do not too greatly increase the percentage of rock-bottom poverty levels in our society. Also, basic universal health care accompanied by private sector for better funded R&D and healthcare for those whom afford more, more public shelters for the homeless in protection from the harsher elements (winter, storms, etc) and more effectively regulated Food Safety and Water sanitation sectors, both private and public.

Government Ownership: Beyond regulation, how much of the means of production should the government have complete control over?

I still haven't completely figured this out yet, beyond basics such as universal healthcare, food, water and public shelter for the povertized (private sector counterparts to exist with some government regulation as they do now).

Taxation: Do the fat cats control too much of your nation's wealth? Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his own brow?

I would support a more comprehensive tax upon the most wealthy percentage of society, yes. However, not enough that it forces those in the merely "wealthy" category to want to move out of the country and outsource their means of production, either. That is economically detrimental to the common citizen.

Welfare Programs: How much (If any) should go into supporting the poor, and where?

I support Welfare programs, but we need to sorely revamp the Welfare system so that notably lazy slobs and leeches cannot so blatantly waste the money given to them on non-essentials as they do now. Or, simply take them off of Welfare and allow them to suffer accordingly, if they won't help themselves.

National relations with the mean and rich - How do you think you should treat countries that are economically valuable, but commit human rights abuses?

Make our best efforts to ensure the most peaceful relations with these nations and ensure potential religious/political/economic hostilities are at a minimal, though always keep a healthy dose of skepticism on every action and statement you hear and deliver. Diplomats and Politicians are infamous for in-your-face bullshit, and to be naive to this does you no benefit whatsoever. (I scratch your back, you scratch mine)

Military Spending - How many aircraft carriers do you need?

Enough to provide adequate and up-to-date defensive technologies to defend one's nation from foreign threat, but otherwise it needs to be kept as moderate in spending as possible. (Granted, I live in Canada so I don't get this issue as personally as an individual whom would live in the U.S. with their massive Defense budget compared to our own)

WMDs - Excellent bark, brilliant bite, or probably going to end us in nuclear holocaust?

Probably going to end us in nuclear holocaust at some point, if we don't keep a very close reign on the potential future of a Mutually Assured Destruction scenario. I would prefer nuclear weapons kept in small quantities when directed at creating nuclear deterrents for hostile nations with them as well, and a portion set aside for possible need of celestial form interception.

Interventionism - Is it alright to tell someone what to do when they're not posing a threat to you?

99% of the time, no (so basically, ensure my own nation isn't falling into the pits before I even look at another in potential need - if they can't help themselves, then it is going to take finite resources in order to help them ourselves as well, and that is costly). The only reason I would even consider otherwise would be in the cases of mass civilian executions, and mass WMD or biological weapons production on a national scale.

(Clean/Sustainable energy - Good long-term investment, or too little return on your dollar?
Pollution Regulation - Good method of slowing the damage we're causing, or seriously wounding the economy?)

I support a more environmentally positive effort to maintain Earth's natural wonders and ensure area's in which are populated by civilian's are ensured to the best ability to be clean and sanitary for healthy agricultural and respiratory conditions. However, one must always be in the mindset to ensure that efforts in favor of environmental protectionism and the health of the market that attempts to ensure prosperity in our societies are kept in a close balance. Too far one way or the other, and you obviously get detrimental issues for everyone involved.

Nothing more I can say beyond that, at this point. Not enough data at my personal level that I can fully understand.

Resource Conservation - Are we using too much too fast, or is that hippie scare-mongering?

I believe that we are using too much, too fast, and we likely have about half a century of fossil fuel resources upon our planet left in which to sustain us. We need to strongly focus upon research into alternative forms of power, such as nuclear, wind and solar energy, but I am not entirely sure as to if we are at the "boiling point" yet or not.

Endangered Species - Do other animals have a right to exist, or is it up to us to decide who gets to live on our planet?

Very tricky issue, and I would have to say it depends solely upon the long term severity of consequences (or positives) of protecting certain endangered species, or not at all. Though for certain, we do need to ensure to heavily stem the practice of excess illegal poaching. Hunting season for intent of stemming certain populations of wildlife in order to protect local crops and human settlements, I fully support.

Bill Bread:

Society: Far Left
Economy: Left
Foreign Relations: Centre-Right
Environment: Moderate
Overall: Proletariat

You spent your early life being told what to do, but are now against authority that doesn't have your interests in mind. To some it might seem that this view conflicts with your support of government regulation, but you know better: Parliament might at times be a right bloody bastard, but you don't get any say in BP's board of directors, do you?

Nation(s) Raised In - USA Grew up in the NE, but been in the SE since college.

Religion - Jeiwsh

Gay Marriage - No problem with it.

Abortion - No problem as long as its not late term without a medical reason like danger to the mother. I think many people SHOULD be having abortions, who don't want kids. Just do it early.

Religious Freedom - Worship however you like UNLESS that religion infringes on others freedoms. THEN its dangerous.

Religion in Government - Never had a problem with the Christian slant to the govt. Technically its unnecessary, but I really don't see how it negatively effects anyone. Christmas is fun.

Drug Legality - Make it legal, then tax the hell out of it. Also, allow doctors, hospitals and insurance companies to refuse treatment for any negative consequences due to them. You want to smoke crack. Well, if you OD, you're SOL. Sorry sucker. Have lung cancer due to smoking for 40 years. ^&$*#(# you too. Don't smoke. Let people do whatever they want to themselves, but there has to be consequences. Spending 100s of thousands of tax dollars to keep some loser alive in a hospital who abused his body, is a complete waste of money.

Gun Ownership - Its fine the way it is, except for better background checks.

Prisons - Make prisoners more useful by doing manual labor for the govt. Its amazing how much can be fixed with able bodies. We have 1000s. USE THEM!! Execute people immediately in obvious cases of murder where the evidence is solid. You get on tape with witnesses robbing a bank and shooting some tellers...sorry, no point in going to trial for that. Execute him the next week. Get caught with a few heads and limbs in your basement and you've made videos or journals talking about how you did it...shoot him tomorrow=)

Free Market vs. Regulation - Free market with proper regulation. Obviously, there has to be minimum standards for food, labor laws, ect. The better companies should come out ahead due to running themselves better than the next guy.

Government Ownership - Minimal

Taxation - As low as it needs to be.

Welfare Programs - As minimal as possible with better check & balances. You should never be able to LIVE off of the rest of society, except for extreme circumstances. No more free rides.

National relations with the mean and rich - If a country wants to abuse its people, you shouldn't have to deal with them.

Military Spending - In todays world, carry the biggest stick. Whatever is necessary to kill your enemies, you need.

WMDs - In todays world a necessity. If they could ALL completely disappear tomorrow, FANTASTIC. But thats not reality. If one country has the ability to destroy you, you better have the same ability to destroy them too. Otherwise, what are you going to do to stop them?

Interventionism - We should stay the hell out of other people's business UNLESS its a security matter. If whatever they're doing damages us, then it is OUR business.

Clean/Sustainable energy - As long as its economically viable. No point in using technology that doesn't actually save anything. Needs more research though. The sooner we get off oil the better, but cutting corners and RUSHING to do it, is just stupid.

Pollution Regulation - Who wants to live in a giant smog? Regulation needs to happen to a point where it doesn't retard progress.

Resource Conservation - Economics. Same as above.

Endangered Species - Depends on the species and what its death means to an ecosystem. I couldn't care less about one less species of rat that looks like any other rat. If killing it however has a trickle down effect, then you have to be careful. You don't prevent a power plant or bridge from being built because it might wipe out a special rabbit with spots. You also don't go killing off whales or elephants because you THINK their balls or tusks and tail fins help you get an erection. Thats just %$^#*&#@* up!

The questions are a bit Americanised, which is ironic since the OP's Canadian. Things like gun-control and religion in politics are not really issues in, for instance, the UK because there is general unanimous agreement on these topics. It's like me making a questionare and asking if your are a republican or a monarchist, or if support European integration or not. I suppose i'm nit-picking though, i can still provide an opinion.

Nation(s) Raised In - The place(s) you spent more than two years up to age 16 in: UK

Home Nation: Britain, England, or most specifically the North-West England.

Religion: None, agnostic atheist.

Gay Marriage: Government should recognize homosexual marriages and civil partnerships, up to specific Church if they provide services for gay-couples. (But i am a bit unsure on that issue)

Abortion: Legal, although perhaps limit abortion up to 16-18 weeks as i think proper brain development kicks in at around 20 weeks.

Religious Freedom: Well, i quite like how we do things in the UK with regards to religion, but if i had to picky i would support a secular state which protected religious freedoms whilst also ensuring that religion does not influence politics. (Similar to French Laicte)

Drug Legality: Legalise some of the lighter drugs, and then regulate and tax the hell out of them. Then extend prison sentences for those still dealing in illegal drugs.

Gun Ownership: Keep it tightly regulated, but allow private ownership of certain firearms.

Prisons: Greater emphasis on reform, and make sure prisoners learn skills desirable for employment to reduce chances of re-offending.

Free Market vs. Regulation:
Ideally, a government would encourage a free-market where it is of most economic and social benefit, and also use regulation to minimise the less desirable affects of the free-market economy.

Government Ownership: Depends on the type of service really. Things like public transport could be shared between state and the private sector, but other things like emergency services should be state owned. I'm in favour of a flexible system of private and public ownership. I like the model the BBC has- it's not owned by the state, but is funded by TV licenses. Perhaps a similar principle could be applied to other services.

Taxation: A multi-tiered tax-system where you pay a greater percentage of your income in tax the more you earn.

Welfare Programs: Financed on the principle of one, providing a basic safety net for everybody, and two, encouraging upward social mobility.

In dealing with economically useful dictatorships: I wouldn't sell them arms, but i would otherwise economically trade with them and apply pressure to democratise where possible.

Military Spending: Enough to fulfill ones defensive needs, and enough to engage in military operations abroad with the company of allies or the UN.

WMDs: Unless it looks like there is a real risk of invasion, there is no need to have a costly nuclear deterrent. The money would be better spent on aircraft carriers and troop equipment.

Interventionism: If a country is invading another country, or a dictatorship is committing genocide against it's own people then yes intervention would be justified. Ideally, intervention would be done via the UN.

Energy: Combination of reliable nuclear power and innovative and clean renewable energy sources. Regulation to protect the environment.

Resource Conservation: We need to become more efficient, so a state should actively promote resource efficiency and re-cycling in the environment.

Endangered Species: Well, i would hold that nature deserves protecting and preserving for it's own sake. It's like a piece of priceless art, you would protect it from destruction for the appreciation of future generations.

The Gentleman:

Society: Left with Moderate spots
Economy: Left
Foreign Relations: Moderate
Environment: Centre-Left
Overall: Cultured

You've seen your fair share of this planet, and have come to the conclusion that stability is the most important modifier to overall success in a nation. In a couple decades you might find the world is beginning to more and more resemble a place that can work, or if it doesn't you might just end up moving to the country that has it closest to "Right" if you haven't already. Good news is that you'll always have personal anecdotes as to why your opinions are valid. Bad news is that some people don't care about personal experience, and may even consider you a snob for mentioning it.

Nation(s) Raised In - Midwest United States. More specificlly, Michigan
Home Nation - Northeast United States
Religion - Non-theistic naturalism with some Jain elements

Gay Marriage - Full, but don't force churches to comply. Legal only
Abortion -Legal. After witnessing the horror that has been inflicted on foster care children.. it would have been humane for them never to have been born. Lacking language by four along with extremely strange behavior. The period of learning went and the poor kid will be at the bottom forever. He likely won't even get through middle school....

Religious Freedom - Total freedom
Religion in Government - Complete seperation
Drug Legality - No punishment. Their punishment will be the damage they inflict on themselves.
Gun Ownership - Free to own what you want.
Prisons - Too cruel. Besides, it costs as much a year at harvard to send someone to prision for a year. The people have nothing to do but watch TV and play some limited sports. It is psychological torture and only makes people worse. Unable to re-adapt to life. And in prision for the worst things. Best to rehabilitate

Free Market vs. Regulation: Mixture. Regulation to protect, but not to burden. Too much regulation can prevent things from happening. Farming is being weighed down by too much silly regulation. You can't even slaughter your own cows.
Government Ownership: Government should control no production
Taxation: Progressive taxation spreads the burden based on how well you are getting by. Those that are better off can afford to contribute more. But keep things efficient
Welfare Programs: Welfare when people can't make enough to get by. Encouragement and employment tools for those on welfare. However, if you have a mental or physical disablity that prevents you from working, you should be able to stay on it until you can work again.
National relations with the mean and rich - How do you think you should treat countries that are economically valuable, but commit human rights abuses?
Military Spending - I believe in humanitarian aid. Millitary goes against my Jain principles. But others need a security blankets and I'm all about compromise, so enough funds to defend ourselves without any pre-emptive strikes.
WMDs - The WMDs we have help keep the world peaceful. I don't think anyone is stupid enough to fire one. Keep them from falling into terrorist hands.. Basiclly a bully-proof vest
Interventionism - Only non-violently.. except to enforce a ceasefire
Unions- Serve a necessary purpose.. but there needs to be some checks. Teachers and public employees get ridiculous benefits. Salaries? no. But can retire too soon. So keep them small.

Clean/Sustainable energy -Necessary. We are but a part of nature and thus must not conflict with it. We must even find a way to restore the damage we have done.
Pollution Regulation - Stop pollution and even reverse it
Resource Conservation - We have no right to use up the earth's resources. Read Ishmael for my policies on this.
Endangered Species - All life has a right to live. And with evolution.. we might not be the only intelligent species to form. There might be another intelligent species in the process of evolving as we speak. We must protect the world around us so it can become great. For it is from what we come from and we owe our existance to the earth.

EDIT: I know. Extreme left. But i'm in a bad mood tonight and don't feel especially like compromising at the moment.

Najos:
Here ya go. Again...maybe I am narcissistic.

Society: Left with Right spots.
Economy: Centre-Left
Foreign Relations: Centre-Right
Environment: Centre-Right
Overall: Power to the People

You don't want the government telling you what to do, but you don't mind letting them keep the big boys in check. That goes internationally too: You don't feel the need to tell anyone how to run their country, but you'd like enough firepower to ensure no one tells you how to run yours. The good news is that you can't be reasonably called arrogant, but the bad news is that you will be disagreed with in at least one area by pretty much everyone.

Hader:
Busted this out typing with one hand and bandaging a bloody cut on my face/neck at the same time.

Society: Centre-Left
Economy: Moderate
Foreign Relations: Centre-Left
Environment: Centre-Left
Overall: Open Minded

Your views are fairly fluid, and you're not beholden specifically to any one set of principles. You are somewhat left-of-centre now because that seems the best method, but would be happy to hear the arguments from more liberal or conservative sources. The good news is that you're something of a crowd-pleaser: It's hard to get pissed off at someone who's so open minded. Bad news is that you won't feel the thrill of revolutionary zeal, though if you've never experienced it you might not consider that so bad...

VoidProphet:
Society: Left with Moderate spots
Economy: Left
Foreign Relations: Moderate
Environment: Centre-Left
Overall: Cultured

You've seen your fair share of this planet, and have come to the conclusion that stability is the most important modifier to overall success in a nation. In a couple decades you might find the world is beginning to more and more resemble a place that can work, or if it doesn't you might just end up moving to the country that has it closest to "Right" if you haven't already. Good news is that you'll always have personal anecdotes as to why your opinions are valid. Bad news is that some people don't care about personal experience, and may even consider you a snob for mentioning it.

That is disturbingly accurate as to how I feel. Do I know you in real life?

VoidProphet:

Hader:
Busted this out typing with one hand and bandaging a bloody cut on my face/neck at the same time.

Society: Centre-Left
Economy: Moderate
Foreign Relations: Centre-Left
Environment: Centre-Left
Overall: Open Minded

Your views are fairly fluid, and you're not beholden specifically to any one set of principles. You are somewhat left-of-centre now because that seems the best method, but would be happy to hear the arguments from more liberal or conservative sources. The good news is that you're something of a crowd-pleaser: It's hard to get pissed off at someone who's so open minded. Bad news is that you won't feel the thrill of revolutionary zeal, though if you've never experienced it you might not consider that so bad...

I have never been one for affiliating myself with any part of the spectrum either. So forgive me if I ignore that part. :P

Though I guess that is accurate enough for me. Oh well

The Gentleman:
That is disturbingly accurate as to how I feel. Do I know you in real life?

I doubt it: I only have one international mate, and he's not particularly politically aware.
I simply gathered from your vagueness on Nations Raised that you spent most of your younger life travelling, and that since you didn't put down a home nation (But still listed 'London' as your location in your profile) you don't consider any country home. Most politically aware people are either patriots or dissatisfied with their nation, which doesn't really apply to people lacking one. So if you're not basing your political beliefs on your satisfaction (Or lack thereof) with your nation's political environment, you'd get them from comparing all the different methods you've seen.

Or you know, luck of the Irish. Sometimes the blood comes through for me.

VoidProphet:
Questions

Nation(s) Raised In - The place(s) you spent more than two years up to age 16 in.

The USA exclusively.

Home Nation - Which country you think of when you think 'home'.

The USA.

Religion - What is and was your religious standing?

Agnostic atheist, and somewhat anti-theist.

Gay Marriage - Full marriage, civil unions, or abolition? How strongly do you think this view should be enforced?

Full marriage, though it doesn't necessarily have to be called that. This view is correct, and should be enforced as harshly as any other civil rights laws.

Abortion - Should it be legal, and on moral or practical grounds?

It should be legal at any time before viability. Once the baby is able to live on its own, aborting it is murder. Any time before that, though, is fair game. This is my moral view.

Religious Freedom - Should your country encourage all religious worship, the worship of only one religion, or discourage it entirely? How strictly should this be enforced?

The country should allow the freedom to worship however one wishes, up to the point where that worship violates any other law. This should be enforced strictly, as it is one of the more basic civil rights.

Religion in Government - Should the government be allowed to make religiously-based decisions, particularly when the people voting for them share the same views?

Absolutely not. Even if there are no dissidents, religion would have no place whatsoever in government. In an ideal society, legislators wouldn't even take into account any of their personal religious principles.

Drug Legality - Harsher punishments, keep it the way it is, regulate some or all the same as alcohol and tobacco, or complete legalization?

I would sooner repeal the second amendment than deregulate weapons. The fewer guns, the better.

Gun Ownership - How much firepower is unnecessary?

None. If you come up against someone who's armed, you're fucked anyway. There's no sense in adding a second gun to the equation.

Prisons - As a general rule, are we being too soft, too cruel?

Too cruel, too inefficient. The prison system should be rehabilitative rather than retributive. Punishing people who are obviously already very anti-authority only leads to resentment towards the system. Instead, we need to fix people.

Free Market vs. Regulation: How much do you value a free market?

I don;'t advocate government control of corporations, but there needs to be heavy regulation of the private sector. The corporations are only interested in one thing--profit. The more free the market is, the more free they are to fuck over the working class.

Government Ownership: Beyond regulation, how much of the means of production should the government have complete control over?

I'm not very comfortable with giving them any. As long as the private sector is sufficiently regulated, there doesn't really need to be a government takeover of the means of production.

Taxation: Do the fat cats control too much of your nation's wealth? Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his own brow?

Tax a lot, and tax the rich much more than the poor. They can afford it. Also, "sweat of his brow"? If we're going by that logic, the poor should have all the money and the rich would get the appropriate pay for pushing money around and screwing over his employees.

Welfare Programs: How much (If any) should go into supporting the poor, and where?

Enough to give everyone an equivalent to a living wage. Everybody has a right to free basic food, clean water, basic shelter, and medical care.

National relations with the mean and rich - How do you think you should treat countries that are economically valuable, but commit human rights abuses?

The government should do no business with them. The private sector's dealings with them should be tightly restricted.

Military Spending - How many aircraft carriers do you need?

I think you can probably cut our current military budget into a fourth of what it is now (talking about the US). Our military should focus on prevention of attacks rather than interference with other countries.

WMDs - Excellent bark, brilliant bite, or probably going to end us in nuclear holocaust?

Mutually assured destruction still holds true. I'd keep a large enough stockpile to strategically strike many key sites of potential enemies, but not enough to destroy the world ten times over.

Interventionism - Is it alright to tell someone what to do when they're not posing a threat to you?

To denounce them, sanction them, and publicly call them out? Absolutely. To actually go in with military forces? Absolutely not.

Clean/Sustainable energy - Good long-term investment, or too little return on your dollar?

I'm a fan of nuclear power. Not exactly renewable, but efficient. I think it should be our main source, with other renewable sources supplementing it.

Pollution Regulation - Good method of slowing the damage we're causing, or seriously wounding the economy?

More regulation? Sounds good to me. I'm quite certain companies can afford to change their ways.

Resource Conservation - Are we using too much too fast, or is that hippie scare-mongering?

There needs to be a lot of encouragement of renewing our resources. I won't say we should legislate it until the situation is more dire than it is.

Endangered Species - Do other animals have a right to exist, or is it up to us to decide who gets to live on our planet?

We should keep the ecosystems of the world in balance and free from invasive species if possible, but there's no point to keeping alive endangered species. Over 99.99% of all the species in history are extinct. It's just natural.

Kortney:

Society: Left
Economy: Far Left
Foreign Relations: Centre Left
Environment: Moderate (Limited Information Available)
Overall: Stitched Heart

You naturally care about other people and their problems but are willing to pick your battles: You can't feed the poor if you lose all of your trade income by economically sanctioning everyone and their dog. Sacrifices have to be made, but hopefully you'll be offered a better choice one day. Additionally you recognize the key ethical fact that, whatever your moral obligations to some things, personal choice is the foundation of a free society and you have to allow others to make decisions you wouldn't. This means that while you'll often disagree with people, your respect of their opinion will keep them from holding it against you.

Alright, first page done, and I need a break. Going to write down the numbers, relax for a little while, and finish the rest before the end of the day.

Seriously, VoidProphet: In your summaries you really sound like one of those personality tests you can find in abundance on the Internet. Not that thats a bad thing, mind you. You are really doing a good job in writing them and I really appreciate the effort you are putting into this. Kudos to you!

VoidProphet:
snip

Alright, for the lols and the ego boost, here's mine:


(To spoil the spoiler: I'm a total raving liberal. :p)

Nation(s) Raised In - United States
Home Nation - United States
Religion - Athiest, but confirmed episcopalian
Gay Marriage - It's not the role of government to regulate marrige. Priavate institutions may marry whomever they please.
Abortion - It's a scientific matter. Scientific studies should confirm to the best of their abilities when conciousness is formed, and abortions should be prohibited beyond that point.
Religious Freedom - Complete religious freedom.
Religion in Government - Never.
Drug Legality - All drugs should be 100% legal and not regulated.
Gun Ownership - No citizen should be proclaimed dangerous before they commit a crime. Gun ownership should be enabled at any level to the fullest extent unless the individual has a criminal record, mental illness, or proclivity to violence.
Prisons - They need more funding, and less focus on involuntary rehabilitation programs

Free Market vs. Regulation: 100% free market
Government Ownership: They should only produce military and law enforcement hardware
Taxation: Taxation should be 100% voluntary. The government should be funded by tax donations, contract stamps, fines, and a few other innovative indirect and voluntry taxes.
Welfare Programs: None.

National relations with the mean and rich - Keep them at arms length, encourage free trade.
Military Spending - Should be 50% or more of the nation's budget.
WMDs - Absolutely necesary for national security.
Interventionism - Not unless a direct threat is posed.

Clean/Sustainable energy - It's fine as long as the government doesn't support it.
Pollution Regulation - None, only government hurt the economy in the long run.
Resource Conservation - Free market takes care of it.
Endangered Species - Should only be established through voluntary means, no government regulation.

Nation(s) Raised In - Nowhere, really. Born in England, lived in Czech Republic immediately post-Soviet, Russia as Putin was starting up, France in early 2000s, then Kenya for seven years. Now I am in the United States of America (a year so far).
Home Nation - France.
Religion - Catholic. Like to think I'm a traditionalist.

Gay Marriage - Opposed to legal recognition of any kind, on religious grounds. I could go in further detail, but I've argued it enough in my life and there is extensive Catholic literature on the subject.
Abortion - Opposed to it (on mainly religious grounds - also some personal ones), even in cases of rape, incest, or when the life of the woman is threatened.
Religious Freedom - I am in favor. People can worship whoever they want. However, if your religion is repugnant to Reason and to Humanity (human sacrifice for example), or is a money-making cult (Scientology?), then I would prefer some restriction. Essentially a fairly standard idea of freedom of religion
Religion in Government - The State should not interfere in religious and moral affairs, just as religions should not interfere in the secular and political affairs of the state. I do believe the two should cooperate though, seeking understanding for the benefit of both parties.
Gun Ownership - I'm all for people owning guns. In urban areas, it should limited to handguns (and at most a shotgun or something), while in more rural areas, a more expansive arsenal (rifles, etc.) should be allowed. But I am against people owning military-style and military-grade weapons, such as grenades, assault-rifles, machine guns, and the like. Of course all owners must receive a permit, on a waiting list, with a background check and maybe a psychiatric evaluation.
Drug Legality: Against it generally, but in favor of its use in approved medical situations. I am generally against it because I see any need to explore consciousness through use of substances that alter your perception of reality as weak. I say the same for drinking to get drunk (so in that vein am not against moderate alcohol consumption or smoking - though I do not smoke myself and am a teetotaler). I just see it as irresponsible and foolish.
Prisons - Fine with the status quo on this one.

Free Market vs. Regulation: I am fine with Capitalism, just not all-out extreme capitalism. Communism is right out, and some elements of socialism are fine. Overall though, I stay out of economic matters, because as long as we're not extreme about it either way, I prefer to leave it to the economists.
Government Ownership: I personally am undecided on issues like health-care, but believe the government should own utilities, etc. As far as production of material items goes, I'm generally in favor of small businesses or corporations doing that. Again, economics is not a large issue for me. Although I am against excessive corporatism, and prefer small businesses.
Taxation: I am in favor of medium tax rate. Two digits, but preferably no higher than forty percent? Re: economic views.
Welfare Programs: I'm all for individual and organizational-based charity, but I feel that the real solution to poverty is governmental-based. But you need poverty and poor people to sustain the government and the economy. So I guess I'm undecided.

National relations with the mean and rich - Depending on the severity of abuses, we should either work with them or shun them. If it gets really out of hand, then diplomacy, and maybe eventually intervention, should play a role.
Military Spending - I think France has a fairly reasonable military budget. Overall though, I think it should be a priority, but not overdo it like America has.
WMDs - I'm in favor of limited possession. Deterrents work, as we've witnessed, although I think we'd all feel safer with less of them around.
Interventionism: See the first one in this section. If the situation is really extreme, we should do something. If you're outright slaughtering people or committing genocide for example. However, I do not think suppressing rebellion or riots/protests as necessarily bad. Of course, when the rebellion is something I would view as favorable, then I am on its side. Pragmatic, I suppose.

Clean/Sustainable energy - I'm in favor of research, but it should play second-fiddle to more pressing concerns, such as social, political, and diplomatic issues.
Pollution Regulation - No-one likes pollution, so let's keep the world as clean as we can. I am however, not in favor of destroying industrial progress and proliferation. So, as clean as we can for as long as we can, essentially.
Resource Conservation - I believe we should be far more cautious with our use of resources, but I trust we will develop more efficient technologies to reduce use or develop and discover new means of providing energy.
Endangered Species - Well, I wouldn't say it's up to us to decide who lives or dies, but we have the priority, I say. It is a shame if an endangered species vanishes, but it happens, and as long as we can remember it, I'm willing to accept it happening.

Reposting from the other thread, and filling in the blanks.

Nation(s) Raised In: Canada
Home Nation - Canada
Religion - Jewish (and I'd like to see you explain how your asking this relates to the political left/right assessment you are trying to do)

Gay Marriage - Full marriage, civil unions, or abolition? How strongly do you think this view should be enforced?

No reason they shouldn't be allowed to marry, assuming of course the laws are opened up to "any two or more adults". No idea what you mean by "how strongly" this view should be enforced.

Abortion - Government funded and available freely. I believe this both based on my personal experience, and religious law.

Religious Freedom - Should your country encourage all religious worship, the worship of only one religion, or discourage it entirely? How strictly should this be enforced?

A country shouldn't encourage religious worship at all. It should however be tolerated and laws should be made protecting religious and cultural beliefs that cause no harm to others (for example no anti-turbin laws)

Religion in Government - Should the government be allowed to make religiously-based decisions, particularly when the people voting for them share the same views?

The government shouldn't consider religion. But of course politicians are humans and get their beliefs from many sources, including religion. Polticians voting as their constituants want is generally the correct thing to do.

Drug Legality - Harsher punishments, keep it the way it is, regulate some or all the same as alcohol and tobacco, or complete legalization?

Either ban tobacco and alcohol or legalize (and regulate) weed. Not convinced any other drugs should be legalized at this point. "Harsher punishments" is far too complex a question to answer in less than a full essay because different drug crimes have different sentancing.

Gun Ownership - How much firepower is unnecessary?

For the public? No handguns. Hunting rifles have their place. Nothing heavier.

Prisons - As a general rule, are we being too soft, too cruel?

Once again, way too complex. It's not a black and white issue, we can be both.

Free Market vs. Regulation: How much do you value a free market?

I'm sensing a pattern here. Once again, people do PhD's on this. Generally a free market makes sense, but there are times when regulation is a must (just look at the difference between Canadian and US banks to see how much a few more regulations helped keep Canadian banks alive)

Government Ownership: Beyond regulation, how much of the means of production should the government have complete control over?

Government ownership of what? Anything? Well they need to own the armed forces. Beyond that, they should own or deeply regulate the key services that keep the juristiction going. What those services are depend on the level of government, but we are in general terms talking about things like power, water, roads, etc.

Taxation: Do the fat cats control too much of your nation's wealth? Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his own brow?

WAY to complex once again. Some people who are rich manage to avoid paying their fair share through excellent use of legal tax loopholes, but in many cases the middle and upper class pay too much. The tax act needs a clean wipe and everyone's pet tax loopholes (frankly more often put in to seem to be helping the poor than the rich) need to all go so that there is a fair progressive tax system.

Welfare Programs: How much (If any) should go into supporting the poor, and where?

How much by what measure? What do you mean where?
There should be welfare to act as a safety net for those in need. It should however not be a safety net. If I am to look at the current welfare system in my province, the amount paid to recipiants should go up, but large numbers of people bumming on the system should be removed.

National relations with the mean and rich - How do you think you should treat countries that are economically valuable, but commit human rights abuses?

Depends on the nature of the abuse. Some of what is considered "human rights abuses" is none of our bloody business, other things we should be going to war with them over.

Military Spending - How many aircraft carriers do you need?

I need 12 for my own personal use.

As for my country, we don't have any, and the military doesn't want any. I trust their judgement on this. They do however need some serious equipment upgrades in other areas.

WMDs - Excellent bark, brilliant bite, or probably going to end us in nuclear holocaust?

Was that a question?

Interventionism - Is it alright to tell someone what to do when they're not posing a threat to you?

See my answer to your question on human rights.

Clean/Sustainable energy - Good long-term investment, or too little return on your dollar?
Pollution Regulation - Good method of slowing the damage we're causing, or seriously wounding the economy?

It CAN be a good investment, but much of what is promoted currently is counter productive crap (for example legislating CFL bulbs instead of conventional bulbs in my province - great, lets use toxic material that can't be safely disposed of to protect the enviornment instead of waiting 5-10 years for the real replacement tech, LED bulbs, to be ready for home use).

Resource Conservation - Are we using too much too fast, or is that hippie scare-mongering?

Depends on the resource.

Endangered Species - Do other animals have a right to exist, or is it up to us to decide who gets to live on our planet?

No animal as a "right to exist". It is however wise not to wipe out species without cause.

Again? Okay then.

Nation(s) Raised In - Eastern United States
Home Nation - U.S.
Religion - Was Baptist now Athiest

Gay Marriage - Full marriage. As I said before, don't see the a problem.

Abortion - Perfectly legal. When there are no more unwanted babies on this world I might care more. Maybe.

Religious Freedom - You can worship what you want as long as it doesn't advocate killing or maiming others.

Religion in Government - Only the Supreme Court should deal with this. Other areas just use religion to piss around other issues.

Drug Legality - Make most of them legal. Keeping drugs illegal causes more problems in the long run since you can't control their quality, origins, or what the money goes to. Also, they're putting to many people behind bars over this crap. Only ban crystal meth because that mess is dangerous to your health and leaves behind too many poisons.

Gun Ownership - People can own guns but obtaining them needs more thorough tests. Banning guns just means more people getting killed by machetes or whatever else.

Prisons - Anything below homicide is too harsh. These folks just need rehabilitation and more education. Some cases of homicide are also too harsh (self defense/ defense of loved ones). People who kill another person for petty reasons get life without question. People who kill multiple people like a game get the death penalty. I have no tolerance for mass murderers.

Free Market vs. Regulation: I support more regulation. By keeping people from cutting corners/pulling bullshit deals you save more money and support a healthier market overall by avoiding catastrophe.

Government Ownership: Control most if not all good production. People pull disgusting crap when given leeway. That's the whole reason most of those agencies came to be in the first place.

Taxation: People can get rich but you will pay more taxes. Makes a bit more balance in the long run. I've never been fond of people giving themselves raises when they were given money to save the company as a whole.

Welfare Programs: Welfare, homeless shelters, school programs in areas with heavy poverty, food stamps. I don't believe much of the budget goes to these areas anyway and getting rid of them will only cause more crime and grief.

National relations with the mean and rich - Sometimes you have to trade with such people. Just hope they lighten up or their people stand up to it eventually.

Military Spending - Moderately low. All should be focused on home security (mostly black markets and gangs) and very fragile areas that we have close economic relations to.

WMDs - More dangerous than they're worth. Get rid of them.

Interventionism - Sometimes. Especially if they've turned into total lunatics towards their own people and calls for intervention ring true.

Clean/Sustainable energy -Excellent long term investment. Leads to more jobs that will have a definite need and lessens dependence on dangerous areas.

Pollution Regulation - Important not only for health reasons but for stability of the very land we live on. How would you feel about losing your house over some mining company pulling highly destructive bullshit? Losing entire types of food because the land is too shit to produce anything?

Resource Conservation - Some things we are using too fast. Fresh water and gaseous hydrogen comes to mind. The usable amount is surprisingly low for how common such things sound. Plus, it'll be a bitch to find alternative production of highly needed substances/elements in the future.

Endangered Species - Animals live in a tight nit system. Even the most seemingly insignificant ones hold a big purpose in the ecosystem. Killing off anything causes serious problems. Anyone in Maryland can attest to the pacmen in deer form.

Ah whatever Ill do this since I have a bit of time.

Nation(s) Raised In - Texas (ok USA)

Home Nation - Texa...I mean USA (inside joke)

Religion - Southern Baptist (which basically means I am free to interpret the Bible however I want because we aren't exactly big on organized religion).

Gay Marriage - Undecided at the moment but I do not think civil rights are being violated because people at the same gender can't marry each other. I believe gay people should be able to get all the same rights and benefits as a married couple but by definition they can't get married (unless a gay guy marries a lesbian...that I have no issue with). From a legal standpoint I respect the right of the people of each state to decide the issue for themselves. The Federal government has no Constitutional authority on this issue. If they want to give benefits to married couples thats fine but they have to give those benefits to anyone that the state says is married.

Abortion - Abortion, like Capital Punishment, should only be used in a worst-case scenario and then only with careful consideration. Women have the right to choose what they want to do with their own body. In my opinion this right is exercised about 9 months before the birth. Contraception and birth control are one thing but when you actually have a human being forming in your womb its not your right to decide if they live or die unless your life is at stake as well.

Religious Freedom - People should have the freedom to worship however they darn well please. So long as they are not advocating violence against anyone they have the right to freedom of religion.

Religion in Government - Thats a tricky one. A decision can be inspired by religion but the government should not pass laws or adopt policies solely on religious grounds. Humans are not capable of running a working Theocracy.

Drug Legality - Don't really have strong views here but I oppose attempts to legalize drugs. To me that just sounds like we are giving up and besides there is no good that can come from doing drugs.

Gun Ownership - Everyone should have the right to keep and bare arms but you are responsible for how they are used. I am not a big fan of restricting gun rights but I think its reasonable to do background checks and mental health checks before allowing someone to buy a firearm.

Prisons - No strong opinion on this. If you break society's laws you face punishment. Prison is just one of the punishments you can face.

Free Market vs. Regulation: My ideal economic system is free market capitalism with some regulations for quality control and to encourage competition (help small businesses compete with huge corporations so they have a fighting chance). Also I agree that some social programs would be necessary to help the elderly or the disabled but in terms of unemployment benefits I like the plan Germany has, a short term government program that makes you take job training and then makes sure that you are actively looking for a job. Unless you are disabled somehow you should not be getting welfare for an indefinite period of time.

Government Ownership: Government interference in the economy beyond the regulations and quality control measures mentioned above is usually a bad thing.

Taxation: People should not be punished for financial success but people also have to pay their fair share of taxes. Taxes should not be used to cover budget shortfalls. Taxes should only be imposed with the consent of those who will be taxed (either direct or indirect consent) and then only because the government is providing a new service or extending an existing service. If you find that a program cannot be fully funded then you should cut the program. If people don't want you to cut the program then they should be willing to pay higher taxes to pay for it.

Welfare Programs: Not a big fan of welfare programs but some are necessary but mostly on a short term basis for those capable of helping themselves.

National relations with the mean and rich - This is a complex question and I would not be comfortable answering it in general, only on a case-by-case basis.

Military Spending - This is different for different situations in different countries. All world powers should have some ability to project their power (seriously Europe, 2 aircraft carriers minimum for each of you). I think America can afford to cut down on its number of carriers, perhaps making sure we have more than the next 3 largest navy's combined to ensure we always have an edge.

WMDs - Nuclear weapons are (with two exceptions that the Japanese are very familiar with) primarily diplomatic tools. Diplomacy with nations who are not your friend typically requires a big stick and there is no bigger stick than a Nuclear weapon (also they are the contingency plan in the unlikely event of alien invasion). Bio and Chemical weapons I am generally opposed to but for tactical reasons not ethical reasons. There doesnt really seem to be much of a point to using them on the battlefield and I consider them to be weapons of terrorism more than weapons of war.

Interventionism - Every nation has a right to look after their own self interest. If you have power you and you alone get to decide how you are going to use it. If other nations don't like it, they will let you know one way or another and you can deal with any consequences there. Flexing diplomatic muscle usually comes with a price so its best to be courteous to all and interfere little unless the opportunity is too good to pass up. As for war itself, you shouldn't go around looking for a fight but if one has been picked already you should not run from that fight. Peace at any price is a foolish notion. Peace is good and all but freedom is worth far more than peace.

Clean/Sustainable energy - When they can make an alternative fuel source that is more efficient and reasonably priced I will be among the first to buy a vehicle that uses it. Until then we have to make the most of what we have.

Pollution Regulation - Not destroying the environment is an obvious policy but there does come a point where the economic price is simply not worth paying. When you won't build a solar farm in the desert because you are concerned about the habitat of some of the wildlife...thats a bit crazy. My general rule of thumb is that all reasonable steps should be taken by companies and individuals to try and do their best to not destroy the environment but protecting the environment should never come before all other interests. Sort of a case-by-case basis on this one.

Resource Conservation - If we run out of a resource we will have to adapt or find another one. Thats simply how our species works. Do what is necessary and prudent, always be flexible.

Endangered Species - No species has the right to exist, not even humans. Life is (as far as we can tell) a rare phenomenon in our Universe and the only way life can survive is to be tough enough to survive in an environment. If a species cannot adapt then it may not survive. This is as much true for humans as it is for polar bears (quite frankly I do not see the logic in trying to save a species that has been known to actively hunt humans if the opportunity arises). Now that being said we should use prudence and reason. Hunting animals to extinction is usually not a good idea but if an animal can't survive changes in its environment (including changes caused by the introductions of humans to that environment) then perhaps they are not meant to survive. As I said, no species has the right to exist, the ones that exist do so because they have the ability to survive and adapt (or because God thinks they are amusing).

I think this questionnaire is rather Americocentric.

I'm certainly somewhat bemused by grading people left-right, because - depending on how it's done - it really looks more like grading a degree of association with the Democratic or Republican party. I consider many of these issues neutral in absolute terms of left/right, merely that they happen to be associated with the left or right in the USA.

Narcissism huzzah! That took a while. Hope I gave you some valuable input

I will be finishing these sometime this week, but not today. Sorry for the delays, but as it turns out my work schedule just got considerably busier and honestly I don;t have the energy to be arsed right now. Sorry.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked