What is the politically ideology you most identify with?

?

milquetoast libertarian-minarchist-nightwatchman with extra nationalism
served america pretty well before FDRs new deal. better than communism which i guess is the opposing ideology because muh freedom, muh individualism, muh self actualization, muh guns

Classical Marxism

Nationalist, anti-migration socialism.

Yeah, no. How does your minarchist state keep foreigners out? By indoctrinating the people with nationalist memes? How do you do THAT without a massive public school system, something no libertarian of any kind should support?

border control is part of the protection provided by the state

National Maoist Capitalist

they starve to death and killed by furred raiders

So you just stop everyone? Or do you allow "tourists" into your state?

Kek. I guess that's fair enough, few people would even want to move to a GENUINELY libertarian "state".

Classical liberalism with a tinge of fascism. You may think its contradictory, but my way of thinking is that everyone will contribute to the nation in their own way without state interference.

>but my way of thinking is that everyone will contribute to the nation in their own way without state interference.
What makes you think this? Have you ever read any books?

>20 replies
>no radical centrism

Unironically radical centrism.

Specifically this weird nationalist, constitutionalist social democracy variant.

What's centrist about any of that you tard?

sauce on the image?

Google "radical centrism" friend.

The entire idea of radical centrism is that you reject existing political ideologies in favor of a evidence based, policy by policy approach.

For example, I'm anti-immigration, progun, favor a larger welfare state, higher military spending, strong unions, more abortion, paid maternity leave, daycare and college to get middle class birth rates up.

That's just pragmatism or real politik, why make up a nonsense term for it? A radical centrist should be someone committed to the "middle way" between extremes, not someone who adopts nothing but extreme positions.

American Conservitarianism. The state should be a accountable and act as a peer to the people. It has legitimate functions such as protecting citizens from threats inside and out and, but it should not exceed those constraints, lest it fall into tyranny.

if there's no reason to suspect the immigrant has any intention to harm the country or the native-born then that person would be permitted. no reason to worry about undesirables because of the lack of a welfare state and the complete freedom to associate

That's where the "radical" comes from.

You adopt radical positions, it's just that you adopt both radical left wing and radical right wing positions depending on what you think will work.

So you will be over-run by third worlders "visiting" as "tourists" and then setting up parallel societies inside your country, and eventually voting themselves a welfare state and anti-liberal policies. Good job.

>That's where the "radical" comes from.
Radical means "from the root", a radical centrist would go to the root of centrism, which is to be between the extremes, not "balance out" one extreme with another. We literally already have a term for your position, real politik, the one you have chosen simply shows that you don't know what words mean, because it doesn't etymologically mean what you want it to mean.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_centrism

Veeky Forums is a radical centrist board.

You just post here.

>voting

I didn't dispute that stupid people use this term, I simply pointed out how stupid you are for doing so.

Oh your libertarian state will be a dictatorship, will it? Explain how that works.

>The "radical" in the term refers to a willingness on the part of most radical centrists to call for fundamental reform of institutions.[3] The "centrism" refers to a belief that genuine solutions require realism and pragmatism, not just idealism and emotion.[4]
I mean holy shit, how fucking retarded is this? Do these autists seriously believe that ANYONE thinks they adopt views because of "idealism and emotion" rather than "realism and pragmatism"? This is like calling yourself a "rationalist", it's so retarded it physically hurts.

Based on this article, you "people" should call yourself "radical pragmatists", not radical centrists. And why is this article part of the series on liberalism? This whole "ideology" is a shitshow.

I mean it's not my first choice but hey I won't argue with the results.

Also dairy subsidies, and legal permission to put hormones in cows. You might want o tell people about this so men can drink something else, goats milk maybe.

Anarchism, because i believe the majority of people are fundamentally good and capable of self-organization and that power corrupts.

What about the 10% or so who AREN'T good? What about the psychopaths and the narcissists? What about the conmen and the false prophets, the populists and the charlatans? We don;t have a state and laws because most of us couldn't get along just fine without it, we have one to protect ourselves from the predators and parasites who would run rampant without one.

>get rid of the state
>group of people form a militia
>conquer land because they have more guns
>user becomes feudal serf to new warlord
wew anarchism is full on retarded

traditionalist (and traditional catholic), bit of a perrenialist as well
let me live alright thanks

>What about the 10% or so who AREN'T good? What about the psychopaths and the narcissists?
theyre going to have to find something else to do now that there isnt a government.

OP didn't ask what i thought would work, he asked what i identify with.

>OP didn't ask what i thought would work, he asked what i identify with.
>identifying with things that you know don't work
for what purpose?

What they will do is whatever they feel like doing, because there is no state to stop them. Want to become a travelling serial killer? No FBI or even cops to track you down. Want to set up a cult so you can fuck lolis? No state to stop you, and people joining a cult of their own volition doesn't violate the NAP. Want to get together with a bunch of like-minded psychopaths and set up a state? Let's hope those disorganized collective of farmers know how to shoot!

Market Liberal
Main argument is pic related

National socialism.
Most honest and Germanic.
That people have to believe lies to believe it.

This is so retarded. Why do you identify as an Anarchist if you know it can't work? Literally why? This is like an atheist identifying as a Catholic.

>pic related
Technological progress?

because no government can ever actually work so why not pick the one that embraces the messiness of humanity?

>What is the politically ideology you most identify with?
Parliamentary monarchy as a means of governance and Mosleyism as an economic doctrine
>Why?
Because democracy is a false god, in America specifically. We have 2 political parties who's beliefs are fairly opposite one another. Every 8 years (generally speaking) a member of the opposite party of the current president is brought in. The first things he does is undo everything, or most of, what the current president accomplished. He then puts into place his own policies. Then when a member of the opposite party gets back in, he undoes everything that president did. It's a vicious cycle and, ultimately, a cycle that doesn't allow any true advancement. How can a nation advance if it's stuck in a vicious cycle of factional warfare? From the dawn of time up until very recently humans have governed themselves via monarchies and it's worked so well because monarchies offer a realistic and humanistic view on governance. Humans, both consciously and subconsciously, look for a single strong leader in times of crisis and that has historically been a monarch. We are still hard-wired from our primitive days to follow one strong leader, a monarch. Democratically elected presidents are never in office long enough to fulfill that primal desire to follow and look up to a strong leader regardless of their strengths.
>What are your main arguments against the opposing opinion?
Already said ^

>Huey Long
my

n
i
g
g
e
r

>Maoist Capitalist
?

>because no government can ever actually work
this has literally never happened successfully

EVERY
MAN
A
KANG

exactly, western democracies are crashing all around us and they're like UH BUT THEN THERE WILL BE NO POLICE as if the police arent just writing tickets and shooting people.

Enabled by capitalism's constant push for competition and innovation. Also note how the trend changes in the 1970s when GATT was pushed and worldwide market liberalization begun, poverty starts going down faster after that point.

How could you have a society that doesn't have some sort or mechanism to stop others from imposing their will on you?

>aren't just writing tickets and shooting people
Even in fucking america that's not all they do, you idiot.

Georgist-Distributist.

My brother

oh my god senpai please don't mad at me i didnt mean to (you) you
meant for

No problem

how do you have it now? do you have it now? the law is just pieces of paper and the government just an idea.
the fact that democracies can kinda work at all means that self-organization is possible, anarchism is just that next step in democratization.

An anarchist society has no laws? You can do whatever you want, at all times? There is no community that creates general rules and then enforces them?

>anarchism is just that next step in democratization.
anarchism is an unstable equilibrium, it has no self defense mechanism against external influence or internal decent. It will fail as soon as someone decides, hey that looks like a neat place to invade. Or hey what if me and some friends get together to enforce out will on others.

>as if the police arent just writing tickets and shooting people
the EDGE

Unironically real politik

>We have 2 political parties who's beliefs are fairly opposite one another. Every 8 years (generally speaking) a member of the opposite party of the current president is brought in. The first things he does is undo everything, or most of, what the current president accomplished.
Yeah, that explains why Obama pulled out of Afghanistan and why Carter undid the War on Drugs.

societal norms create unwritten rules everywhere.
self-organization is already happening everywhere all the time.

when a US state decides to reclassify marijuana as legal thats because societal norms have finally broken down the government to see the world the way society has been seeing it... when the federal government still says its illegal anyways but cant actually do anything to stop it, because it would have to be in an endless war with it's own population.... well anarchism already exists in a sense, it's just bogged down by governments.

>What is the politically ideology you most identify with?
Corn subsidies
>Why?
So I can overproduce corn to inefficiently turn it into ethanol and have it added to gasoline even though it is bad for cars and flood the Mexican market with cheap corn, so the farmers become unemployed and come to the US to work on corn farms and other things.
>What are your main arguments against the opposing opinion?
Corn tastes good.

Very much and unironically THIS.

Constitutional stratocracy

In other words, Starship Troopers.

This is why Marxist anarchism is the only anarchism that makes sense. The material conditions need to change in order to facilitate anarchism. You can't just go full anarchism without the material realities to support it.

It has no state. It has lots of armed neighbors.

>Stratocracy

Wait, under an anarchist system I can own as many funs as I want and liberals won't try and take them away from me?

>This is why Marxist anarchism is the only anarchism that makes sense. The material conditions need to change in order to facilitate anarchism. You can't just go full anarchism without the material realities to support it.
Even if one lived in a utopia with unlimited resources there would still be people who want to assert control over others via a state for non-materialistic reasons.

It sounds like mob rule to me. No courts, no laws, some guy gets accused of pedophilia and next thing you know the angry townsfolk lynch him without even bothering with a trial.

...

in an anarchist world you can just form a pro-pedo community.
if you survive multiple generations without the kids coming back round to murder everyone then it proves there was nothing wrong with pedophilia and your societal norms can grow and expand.
think of it like how the states are considered experiments except even more of them... or like memes.

So then why should I even want anarchism? I mean, from the perspective you just gave me, states are basically the experiment that the vast majority of people decided they wanted and thus now we have states. I know I certainly do.

...

To a much lesser degree and people would have a much lesser reason to go along with them and farm more capability to oppose them.

Who said YOU should want anarchism?

democratic confederalist/municipal libertarian

I'm a firm believer in democracy being part of everyday life. Bookchin and Ocalan's vision combines the idealism of town-centred planning with the pragmatism of needing to align in confederacies for issues that require national attention.

...

socialist.

Sharing is a good thing and the only way that communities can develop equitably.

Anarchism is an ideology that can only exist if the vast majority of people want it to. If you're the only person who wants anarchism then it's not exactly a feasible ideology.

So you're everyone? If everyone else but you wants it who gives a shit about your feelings?

>If everyone else but you wants it
That's a nice fantasy, but the vast majority do want it. Since we live in reality, you have to try to appeal to the vast majority of people who do want the state to exist.

>What is the politically ideology you most identify with?
National Socialism (notice space)
>Why?
Because foreign migrants are coming here in the thousands wreaking havoc on the streets and living off welfare while the rich live in secluded areas far from the reality they forced unto us.
>What are your main arguments against the opposing opinion?
Your nation is essentially a big family so it only makes sense to look out for each other and to be careful around strangers.

It is illegal in the United States to sell milk from cows treated with hormones.

Authoritarian capitalism

British fascism, Mosley was right about everything

We talking Pinochet or modern day China?

Then why TF do they put it on every bottle like they are saving the world for not doing it.
Consumer marketing pls go

Same here buddy.