Well the name says it all.

Before I say what I prefer, I would like to say that I'm all for democracy and all that, but I would really prefer Volataire's Enlightened ruler, who is bound to a form of constitution. This may be for me because I see most people as born hypocrites and etc.

I'm a liberal I guess. I am a strong believer in democracy, and I try to understand the viewpoints of as many different sides as possible. I dont like to see prejdice or discrimination, which is why I would say I'm a liberal.

Syndicalism. A mix between socialism, communism, and anarchy. Gotta love it.

My own. Let's leave it at that.

I am not a follower of anything but by what empirical evidence we have and with a realistic point of view I think a social liberalism is the best we can aim for as things are now. IE a capitalistic market economy with a rather large state presence in areas like health care, education and so on. Kinda like we have now but actually working. Hmmm, perhaps I am a true idealist after all.

I believe in the Democracy as it had first appeared in Athens, where people were participating in the commons and had real and valid saying.
Furthermore the control over the people who ruled was tighter and more strict. But this is a debate that need time and space...

I'm a supra-identicist rightist-constructivist.

Try saying that three times fast!

I believe in a socialist state with democratically-elected leaders, a small military, and big budgets for environmental protection, healthcare and the like.

Constitutional Libertarianism.

Repeal the 16th and 17th ammendments. Shrink the government back to the standards of the preamble of the US Constitu and return to "states rights" meaning something. Allow the free market to determine the value of a commodities (including human resources), and stop passing laws that enforce morality and social engineering.

Have I managed to cross at least one belief of everyone who posts here?

I'm not sure I even understand all the terms that you have used to describe the political structures you favour. I believe in the power of the capitalist market economy but that's not really a political structure. I don't mind the Mixed Member Proportional voting system we have in NZ but I'm not sure if that is a political structure / ideology either.

Constitutional Libertarianism.

Repeal the 16th and 17th amendments. Shrink the government back to only provide for what is stated in the preamble of the US Constitution ("We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.") and return to "states rights" meaning something. Allow the free market to determine the value of commodities (including human resources), and stop passing laws that enforce morality and social engineering. Basically, I want the Federal Government to stop sticking its nose in everybody’s business, and go back to what the founding fathers intended.

Mr. Wolf...

I am impressed. Prior to your post, I would have sworn that I was the only member of these boards who whould advocate a reduction in the Federal Gov't, and a cessation of Gov't programs!

Can any member of these boards honestly defend the stance *cough-Chandos-cough* that our founding Fathers desired the massive, bloated and swollen beast that has become the current tax and spend US government?

I, like always when I read Alley posts, was not intending to reply to this, but the last two posts (Darkwolf and Hacken Slash) really surprised me with their beliefs. They sound, to me, suspiciously like the pre-secession US South (Antebellum period) with the State's Right's theory of government (Basically, the states created the Government, and since a thing created can never be greater or as great as its creator, the states had the right to just say no to anything that the Federal Government did). This is oversimplified, if you want a lengthier explanation, look it up or PM me.

Such beliefs would most likely lead to another period of segregation or outright slavery in some areas of the rural South. I wonder how one can miss the historical beat-downs that this ideology suffered, if one has any significant knowledge of American History (Where the ideology was originally formed, I think).

And, on topic, I generally favor a constitutional Meritocracy, as long as it starts out with people of merit to appoint the successors. With that being unlikely, I find myself agreeing on a general basis with the conservatives and occasionally with the liberals. Depends on the issue.

@ Mithrantir
Athenian democracy does sound pretty neat. (Of course, Plato hated it.) I would extend it a bit, including universal sufferage :)
Also, communities in Iceland and early Germany had some remarkably egalitarian self-government. Let's not give the Greeks all the credit.

@Darkwolf
I had to look up those Amendments...I'm a poor citizen; all I know are the 13th and 18th ;)
I understand how you might not like Income tax, but what's wrong with having senators?

I've been everything from a Anarchist to a Capitalist. Right now I am unsure. I mean, if you have a country with enough money to go around, then does it really matter what kind of government you have? I guess I tend to lean towards Liberal or Socialist, but I hate beaurocracy.

Can any member of these boards honestly defend the stance *cough-Chandos-cough* that our founding Fathers desired the massive, bloated and swollen beast that has become the current tax and spend US government?I'll give you one founding father who desired all this, and more - Alexander Hamilton. My hero!

You've got me there, Grey. Hamilton stands out from the Founding Fathers in his support for a strong, centralized Federal Government...but I can't help but think that if your hero saw this list (http://www.ulib.iupui.edu/subjectareas/gov/docs_abbrev.html) , he would sadly shake his head and walk away.

Darkwolf - Sounds pretty much like you and I politically live in the same neighborhood.

Hacken Slash - There are a few of us wanting to put the government in the dryer and leave it on "shrink" for a few cycles.

Chevalierianism.

I'll give you one founding father who desired all this, and more - Alexander Hamilton. My hero! What happened to Lincoln, Grey? That would put the Republicans on your list of villians, especially Aaron Burr. There was another who supported a strong central government, and who disliked the whole states' rights argument - George Washington. Of course, Hamilton had been Washington's aide-de-camp in the Continental Army. But let's begin with an anecdote, a piece of instant history, if you will, about THE Founding Brother - Washington. He and Hamilton, in their service to their country, came to see first hand the vileness of the states' rights issue.

Half-naked, shivering and straving most of the time, the Continental Army had secured the freedom for the ungrateful states. Almost all of the soldiers had not been paid for years, or given worthless paper (Continental currency). But they fought with their hearts anyway, always loyal to Washington, the one man who held the Revolution together. At the end of the war, with freedom secured, they had hoped to go home with a bit of coin in their pockets from the "grateful" states, so that they could begin their lives again in some way. Instead, they were sent home penniless. Washington had put his honor on the line time and time again, convincing the army that the states would come through in the end for them.

But the states knew their rights: By what right did Washington demand payment for the army? There was no central power that could demand payment from them, they argued. The army should be disbanded at once and sent home. Thus, many of the soldeirs left Washington's camp, feeling betrayed by Washington and their "country." But a handful of officers stayed behind to honor Washington with a farewell dinner. Washington entered the scene, and when he saw the faces of his men, his eyes welled with tears. His hands trembled as he picked up his wine glass. The officers wept at the sight of their leader so distraught. Finally, Washington broke down, unable to continue, and after embracing each of his officers in turn, left the dinner, unable to continue. He wrote of the states, rebuking them: "Now I know the true meaning of ingraditude."

Washington's argument had been that there was no more important work for the government than for it to craft America into a unified country, not a mere confederation of states. His opponents in this undertaking were Jefferson, Madison and the rest of the Republicans. As a result the Founding Brothers divided themselves into politcal parties. It is very inaccurate to speak of the Founding Brothers as if they somehow agreed on how the government should be crafted in its final form.

If Jefferson's document is the Declaration, then certainly Washington's is the Consititution of the United States. It was fitting that Washington was the first to fix his signature to the document. Over the remaining years of his political career, Washington was to fight the Republicans tooth-and-nail for a stronger central government. In the end, it ruined his relationship with Thomas Jefferson. John Adams, who was also marginally a Federalist, missed out on the crafting of the Constitution, since he was away in Europe. It would have been interesting if he had been a partner in its crafting, because of his knowledge of the workings of government and, his own document, the Consitution of Massachusetts, is still a political touchstone in the brilliance of its design.

If the large Federal Government of today proves anything, it is that Washington, Hamilton and Adams have won out, while Jefferson and Madison are on the "losing end." Of course, this is a broad generalization. But that the Republican party of the 21st Century is the party of huge, big-spending government, only adds further injury to Jefferson & Company. **** (see note)The recent medicare drug bill is proof of where our current leaders are right now in their "thinking." A 5oo billion dollar giveaway to corporate America is only the tip of the iceberg. There was also the power politics involved: even conservatives were threatned into its passage by Shrub and his cronies. The House Ethics Committee is currently investigating Tommy Thompson and Scully for offering bribes, (oh, donations) and when that didn't work, then threatening some conservative Republicans with their seats if they did not "go along" with Shrub and his minions.

That is what passes for the "free market" in Shrub Land. The drug companies have over five hundered lobbyists in Congress. That's one for every congressman! Corporations would bum-out if there ever was such a thing as a "free market" in this country. That would mean that they could no longer mooch off the government and the American taxpayer - that there would be no more corporate welfare is something all of the Founding Brothers could agree on. But even the instances of such utter bribery and corruption that pervades Congress and the White House today would probably drive an honest and honorable man such as Washington to despair of his creation. It's been 10 years since the Republicans took the reins of government, which begs the question: Was it worse or better during the Democratic Congressional years? Or Presidents: Nixon, Reagan, Bush and Shrub? FDR, Truman, JFK, Johnson, Clinton? In the end the structure is not as important as the basic honesty and decency of the men who hold power. If Clinton and Shrub are dismal failures, Washington and Adams were not. Just a few good, decent men, with perhaps a touch of brilliance thrown in, can make a difference, regardless of which party or "political stucture" they belong to.

*** As Vimes has pointed out, the Republican party of today is not the same as the one of the 18th Century. My larger point was that the Federal government has most of the power, while the states have diminished, which was the opposite of the situation in Jefferson and Washington's day. Sorry I was not clear on that issue. It's only ironic that Jefferon's and Shrub's parties share the same name. Jefferson would have been horrified by Shrub's use of Federal power, (Unpatriotic Acts) while Washington would feel much the same as a result of Shrub's "foreign ambitions."

[ May 02, 2004, 16:56: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

I'd just like to make an observation about your post, Chandos: You fail to mention that yesteryear's "Republicans" (Democratic Republican Party) are today's Democrats. You're implying that the noble Washington, Hamilton, and Adams were a part of some anti-today's-republicans party... they were not.

Just felt that anyone with little knowledge of US History should take that post with a grain of salt.

Edit: Chandos, they were definitely against the Democratic Republicans. I agree with you. The Democratic republicans, if you remember, "evolved" into today's Democratic party. They are by no means related in anything but opposition to today's Republican party. I felt that this was implied in your post, although others may not feel so. I'm sorry that I was rude, but I became miffed at (Again, this view is limited to mine, as far as I know) the vaguely propagandalike nature of the post. It looked to me like you were trying to imply that the Democrats (Democratic Republicans) of the 1790's and early 1800's are the Republicans of today. I had posted this to qualify the impression that one unversed in US history would possibly receive: That the "Republicans" in your post are, in fact, the "Republicans" as they know them. <End Edit>

Also edited for rudeness and spelling.

[ May 02, 2004, 08:42: Message edited by: Slith ]

Vimes - Thanks for putting some words in my keyboard for me, about the "evil Jefferson." Washington, Hamilton, and Adams belonged to the Federalist Party, and as such, they were opponents of the "Republicans." I suggest you do a bit of research on your own and you will discover this to be the case. But I do admit that I consider Washington to be a "noble man." Although I am an admirer of Jefferson also for different reasons.

Oh, and feel free to proffer your lofty advice on how anyone's posts should or should not "taken" by anyone who will listen, as we live in a "free country." Edit: (line removed upon second thoughts by the author).

Edit: I have to post my reply here, since I can't reply to my own post. It was not my intention to draw any parallels at all between the Republicans of today and those of the late 18th century. They were very different, as you point out. I was attempting to make the point that loyalty to a political party has some serious downsides. And that the person behind the ideology was far more important than to which party he/she belonged. I apologize for any misunderstanding. Note: I added your very valid point in a gloss on my already lengthy post.

[ May 04, 2004, 06:52: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

Chandos - Both Hamilton and Lincoln are my heroes. Both men had the Vision (capital "V") of a united, urban America that was powerful, progressive, and prosperous. Both were fierce abolitionists (Hamilton long before abolitionism was "cool") who believed that a unifying American identity could apply to people of any race. And both had the wit and will to use military might, legal force, and financial instruments to make that vision a reality.

Both, in short, believed that America had a destiny as America - not a collection of American states, not even a collection of American citizens, but a nation that could stand alongside the graying empires of the Old World and be great and glorious and good.

Grey - Agreed, and well said! Are you sure you're a conservative? It is a strange "meeting place," where a proud conservative and liberal can agree so profoundly.

What I dislike about Hamilton though is that he was an admirer of England in the late 18th Century, (in itself certainly not a bad thing). But in the post Revolutionary days England was still an enemy of America, and it bothers me a bit that he met in secret with English agents behind Washington's back. Jefferson knew pretty much what was going on with Hamilton, and I think John Adams did also. Both men felt that Hamilton was an "intriguer" and I somewhat agree. But if someone other than Washington had been involved -a man so honest and forthright - it would not have been such a dark stain on Hamilton's character, IMO.

Although Adams was a man of solid integrity, I think Jefferson was as close to an "intriguer" as Hamilton ever was. Both were complex men, of true genius, and I think in their minds the ends justified the means, something neither Washington nor Adams would have agreed with.

Edit: We may really differ on the "military might" agenda though. Washington was absolutely right when he warned his countrymen of "foreign ambitions," and, IMO, he would have been horrified by America's ambitions in the Middle East. He would have never seen Saddam, and the Iraqi people, as a responisiblity of the American people, IMO. Sorry, Grey, I couldn't resist. :shake:

[ May 04, 2004, 06:53: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

like Xei Win Toh said, "my own"

I must admit: I don't know a hell of a lot of American society. I know that I live in Belgium and the political system licks balls. No really, just come and see, a country so small, with such a diversity of political beliefs. It's plain pathetic.

As for myself, I think a presidential state is the most accurate in ruling a country. A king does nothing, and a dictator has too much power.

I am politically inept. :heh: