Gyroscopic Investing

On another thread the question was raised about political bias on the board. And while I suspect most PPers lean at least somewhat right, I am guessing there is a lot of variation. So I thought Id try and get a snapshot of where the forum stands politically. I tried to offer as many options as I could think of without veering into the obscure.

I wonder how many other votes there will be for that last one? 

Pointedstick wrote: I wonder how many other votes there will be for that last one? 

Simonjester wrote: that's a tough poll question, i feel like a combination of two or possibly three of those is needed to suit my views, libertarian, anarchist and old right all apply in some ways....

I feel your pain. There are two that I feel comfortable with. Maybe I should let people vote twice  :-)

If Salvador Dali were a member, he would be upset that "Anarcho-Monarchism" isn't mentioned anywhere.

I wish there was a choice that said: "I don't think that the government should kill people, especially its own citizens."

To me, killing people is the highest expression of coercion, and obtaining a monopoly on coercion is typically one of the government's principal objectives.

edsanville wrote: If Salvador Dali were a member, he would be upset that "Anarcho-Monarchism" isn't mentioned anywhere.

I think I could get behind Anarcho-Monarchism.

I'm a Pisces

edsanville wrote: If Salvador Dali were a member, he would be upset that "Anarcho-Monarchism" isn't mentioned anywhere.

I self identify as a libertarian monarchist. But I didn't want to get too crazy with different choices. And I haven't even voted yet. Still torn between Old Right and monarchist.

Ok, I need an explanation from those stating "monarchist."  What's that about?

EDIT:

What I meant to say here, but didn't because of being only about half awake was that I'm curious how such a thing as "libertarian-monarchism or anarcho-monarchism" would function in the real world.

Like a butterfly who breaks from the swarm.

RuralEngineer wrote: I'm curious how such a thing as "libertarian-monarchism or anarcho-monarchism" would function in the real world.

Oh, I don't think my politics have to function in the real world!

I realize my politics will never be adopted so why would they need to function?  I feel absolutely no need to compromise and so will lobby and vote society as far my direction as I possibly can. 

My ideal:  No government needed, wanted or existing.

But pragmatically I realize that the world today might require government.

My pragmatic position:  Absolute minimum government -- any increase would require a super majority of eligible voters.  I think we would start to reach this by setting the 2014 federal budget to the inflation adjusted 1900 budget and let the voters vote every November for any increase beyond the inflation adjustment.

Which should one choose for Imperialist?

jacob_h wrote: Which should one choose for Imperialist?

Probably Neo-Con, Neo-Lib, or Far Right.

In what universe would Nixon be considered a neo-liberal?  Wasn't he virulently anti-liberal, effectively the creator of the modern Republican party as an unholy alliance between traditional fiscal conservatives (no liberals there), redneck "Dixiecrats" (no liberals there), and the "Christian right" (let me think ...  right, no liberals there either).  Indeed, didn't he run AGAINST George McGovern in 1972 who might be considered an archetype of neo-liberalism?

Pointedstick wrote:

jacob_h wrote: Which should one choose for Imperialist?

Probably Neo-Con, Neo-Lib, or Far Right.

Far left works too. I should have added Stalin as an example.

rickb wrote: In what universe would Nixon be considered a neo-liberal?  Wasn't he virulently anti-liberal, effectively the creator of the modern Republican party as an unholy alliance between traditional fiscal conservatives (no liberals there), redneck "Dixiecrats" (no liberals there), and the "Christian right" (let me think ...  right, no liberals there either).  Indeed, didn't he run AGAINST George McGovern in 1972 who might be considered an archetype of neo-liberalism?

Prior to our current POTUS, Nixon was the most liberal president excepting only LBJ.

Busing
The EPA
Price and Wage controls
Manipulation of the Federal Reserve to keep interest rates way low.
OSHA
Nixon was the first President to seriously propose national universal health insurance.

The list just goes on and on...

RuralEngineer wrote: Ok, I need an explanation from those stating "monarchist."  What's that about?

EDIT:

What I meant to say here, but didn't because of being only about half awake was that I'm curious how such a thing as "libertarian-monarchism or anarcho-monarchism" would function in the real world.

Classical European conservatism, Toryism, legitimism is based on the belief that all legitimate authority derives from God, a strongly stated position in both the Old and New Testaments. Further that sacramental divine right monarchy is the only Scriptural and Christian form of government. The latter position is more closely associated with Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and High Church Anglicans than the more low church type Protestants.

While monarchism grants authority (how much is a source of endless debate) to the sovereign, the powers of the monarch are greatly constrained by immemorial tradition, the aristocracy and the Church. In practice nations during the ancien regime had miniscule governments compared to modern day liberal democracies. Point in fact as long you paid your taxes (ridiculously small compared to modern taxes), didn't engage in treason or sedition, didn't openly attack the established church and refrained from violating those laws protecting persons and property universal to every orderly society, you could spend your entire life with little or no contact with the government.

Big government statism; thy name is liberal democracy.

Ad Orientem wrote:Prior to our current POTUS, Nixon was the most liberal president excepting only LBJ.

Remember, Nixon came from <gasp> California!

Ad Orientem wrote:

Pointedstick wrote:

jacob_h wrote: Which should one choose for Imperialist?

Probably Neo-Con, Neo-Lib, or Far Right.

Far left works too. I should have added Stalin as an example.

I'm not so sure.  The Soviets tended to consider themselves anti-imperialist, IIRC, and thought that they will liberating people and spreading the "worker's paradise" to them and most certainly not colonizing them in a capitalist expansion like the Imperialists did.  The Soviets deposed and murdered the Romanovs, Russia's imperialist ruling family.  Stalin himself had the title of Premier and not Tsar (Tsar -> Czar -> Caesar, meaning Emperor of Rome). 

Now, Peter the Great is an example of a Russian Emperor.  He believed that he was spreading a high culture to the peoples under his rule, and that is mostly what he did.  Uncle Joe, on the other hand, had a fondness for killing (see Holodomor).

To me, the difference between an Imperialist and a Communist is the difference between building a house and destroying it through neglect.

Simonjester wrote: i think it depends on whether you are talking about philosophical Communism or the reality of Communism, the reality of the ruling elite and party members seems very imperialist in practice, i think if you do a comparison of any "isim" dispensing with philosophy they spout and the reasons they claim justify their actions, and discuss only the organization and actions of their system they are all virtually indistinguishable.. tyranny is tyranny and tyrants all behave in a manner similar to other tyrants..

Ad Orientem wrote: Classical European conservatism, Toryism, legitimism is based on the belief that all legitimate authority derives from God, a strongly stated position in both the Old and New Testaments. Further that sacramental divine right monarchy is the only Scriptural and Christian form of government. The latter position is more closely associated with Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and High Church Anglicans than the more low church type Protestants.

While monarchism grants authority (how much is a source of endless debate) to the sovereign, the powers of the monarch are greatly constrained by immemorial tradition, the aristocracy and the Church. In practice nations during the ancien regime had miniscule governments compared to modern day liberal democracies. Point in fact as long you paid your taxes (ridiculously small compared to modern taxes), didn't engage in treason or sedition, didn't openly attack the established church and refrained from violating those laws protecting persons and property universal to every orderly society, you could spend your entire life with little or no contact with the government.

Big government statism; thy name is liberal democracy.

I'm familiar with monarchism from a historical perspective, I'm more interested in how a "anarcho-monarchism" or "libertarian-monarchism" would function.  For example, supposing that one tried to implement a modern monarchy, and assuming that authority was still derived from a divine mandate, who would select the monarch?  The church?  Which one?  All the European monarchies I'm familiar with are historical hereditary remnants.  There's no provision for selecting these people, it's all carry over from hundreds of years ago.

A libertarian monarchy wouldn't seem too problematic; it's just advocacy for limited government, with the limited government being a monarchy rather than a democracy, right?

Anarcho-monarchy seems more interesting in its philosophical construction given that its constituent words are mutually exclusive.

I could maybe understand how monarchy has a certain persuasion (which you articulated quite well, Ad Orientem).  But aren't you giving up the ability to worship as you choose, and picking up dreadful wars of succession?  I mean, maybe during the time monarchy was popular, we didn't have "big government".  (And that may just be because it hadn't been invented yet.)  But we did have basically constant warfare.

Question: Reagan is a neo-con?

What choice would goldwater be?  And if the answer is neo-con are you saying there is no difference between Reagan, goldwater and the recent Bush/rove folks?

Pointedstick wrote: A libertarian monarchy wouldn't seem too problematic; it's just advocacy for limited government, with the limited government being a monarchy rather than a democracy, right?

Anarcho-monarchy seems more interesting in its philosophical construction given that its constituent words are mutually exclusive.

Well, assuming you could find someone of sufficient moral fiber to resist the temptation of power, a benevolent dictatorship where said dictator has agreed to use his defined and limited powers to preserve freedom for the citizenry could certainly be interesting.  I think the main stumbling block for monarchies historically is the hereditary aspect.  Passing a political position to the the favorite misbegotten progeny yielded results even worse than our current system of parties and primaries.  After all, Nero would have had a hard time getting elected to anything.