Poll & Discussion: RPF Members' Political Stances

[LimitedGovernment]

I want to see where people fall on a number of questions. One of the best options seems to be a generalized poll, because it allows for anonymity.

I'd appreciate it if those who don't mind explaining their answers would do so.


Clarifications

You're only allowed so many characters for poll options. Here are some clarifications:

"Non/religious purposes" includes printing "In God We Trust" or "There Is No God" on currency, establishing religious symbols as part of monuments to fallen troops, placing stone tablets with religious inscriptions in public courthouses, making "God Is Not Great" an official part of public education curricula, leading a public school classroom in prayer as an educator, using public funds for any of these kinds of purposes, etc.

"A christian" was not an option due to space limitations and the fact that almost everyone votes for Christians to take office.

"A muslim" means voting for someone who self-identifies as muslim; not someone who will make policy based on his/her interpretation of the books often referenced by the Islamic faith.

Look up "Scientology" if you don't know what it is.

"Scientific consensus" means the general consensus of professional researchers in a given field. For example, there is a scientific consensus among psychologists that both biology and social experiences that predispose one to having a mental disorder must be present in order for mot disorders to occur.

"Ideological principle" means a Kantian style adherence to an idea - such as "No tax must ever be applied to anyone who is a US citizen".

"Unreliable" means that most science is based on false premises or is undertaken with methods and/or instruments that are fundamentally flawed to the point that researchers cannot reach accurate and precise conclusions of sufficient worth to be the foundations of policymaking.

"Scientific communities" refers to professional groups such as the American Psychological Association and its subset "Division" groups - which may include communities that disagree with broad APA policies. The key point of importance is that the community in question must be the experts on the direct field in question.

"Some rights granted are by governments" means that not all rights worth making policy on are so-called "natural rights", and may be revoked. This may include rights like "the right to free speech inside governmental buildings" or "the right to affordable health care" or "the right to a trial process that is completed within half a year" or "the right to not be bankrupted largely as a result of judicial fees".

"No rights are granted" means that the only rights that exist are so-called "natural rights" like life, freedom from harm, and individual liberty. They may or may not include property rights, as those may be considered rights granted by governments.

 

[Seraphim]

Keep tax/inflation funded policy the hell out of my life. Period. It is a policy of socialized theft.

That will be all.

 

[LimitedGovernment]

My responses

1) I'm all for candidates who would vote for complete equality in civil liberties and internet freedom, even if I hate their positions on spending or disagree with them on where tax dollars are raised and end up.

2) I'm a supporter of the intent behind Roe v Wade - that personhood is too complex to rule on, and that viability is the next best alternative.

3) We should have civil marriage equality. Ideally, we'd get it and then people would vote to change the name of the legal status from "civil marriage" to "civil union", merge the law with current civil union protections, and thus get rid of the whole "What is marriage?" issue.
http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Debate:_Civil_unions_vs._gay_marriage
http://www.glad.org/uploads/docs/publications/cu-vs-marriage.pdf

4) Public means that it belongs to everyone, which means that no one has a right or privilege to use the space or authority to prop up their private worldviews. I don't want some group to use public resources or offices to say that dogs should have personhood rights, either. The only exception is dedicated "public forum" zones - in which case there has been a public agreement to open up a selected space for equal and open advocacy for private beliefs.

5) Again, private worldview beliefs have no place in the permanent public sphere.

6 & 7) Yes and yes. I don't care about your private worldviews if they don't affect your policy decisions.

8) No, only because I believe that every Scientologist I've paid attention to seemed willing to scam other people or put their club's members ahead of other, deserving people.

9) Scientific consensus is the only thing that makes sense to me. Where there is no consensus, we should follow the general scientific method, Socratic method, discussion with others who know the issue, discussion with those who disagree with us, and personal reflection to make our decisions.

10) Ideological motivation is dangerous, because adherents are rarely open to honest discussion, in my experience.

11) Coalitions are beneficial - and sometimes necessary. If we could get 20 neocon and 40 big government socialists to join 5 limited government advocates in working to repeal all indefinite detention laws or lower taxes on people making less than 50k per year, I'd absolutely be in favor of it.

12) I'm anticipating that I'll vote for Johnson this year for that reason.

13) Distrust of scientific methodology and results is dangerous to our future health, prosperity, and morality. I'm a strong advocate for careful review of scientific work - which is a different thing from distrusting it fundamentally.

14) Only a little less disturbing than the idea that people distrust scientific work is that some people distrust scientific communities. That's worse than saying that people distrust charity groups, which don't have peer-review processes, internal ethics watchdogs, or regulations like scientific groups do. It worries me that some people are so strongly anti-science. I can kind of understand their feelings if they haven't ever done professional research work or only get their news from sources with an anti-science slant, but it still amazes and worries me.

15) This often seems to be the flip-side of anti-science groups. Complete general populism is, I think, a terrible thing. If people were really informed enough to be able to make the best decisions for themselves, I don't think we'd be in this mess. I don't want any "average joe" or "career politician" running the country. Good statism relies on good statesmen, which I don't think many "average joes" would become. Eliminating the state altogether is foolish, I think. I'd rather see a generally statist system and a generally populist system operate in two separate regions in the same territory than fully abolish one or the other, because I'd never want to live in either at their extremes, and I think it'd be harder to have one become an extreme with the other's example so close by.

16) I do believe that some rights are granted by governments, and can - and sometimes should - be revoked. Free speech over most - not all - public media or on public lands is one of these things. For example, I don't want someone being "free" to slander people whenever and however they like on public radio frequencies, but I also think that there should always be some channels for pubic dissent and personal opinion. I do believe that the right to life is an automatic right for persons - which is why the definitions of "person" and related concepts are so important.

17) As noted above, I do believe that some rights are granted.

18) I already commented on civil marriage rights. I'm also in favor of net neutrality - at the least for subscribers who buy non-premium packages. Yes, that infringes on private business operations. Yes, I think it's a worthwhile infringement. I feel the same way about other public services that have a broad userbase. If a business is a private club (only open to members), they can do whatever they want.

19) I'm generally certain that I want to see the property tax abolished.

20) Absolutely not. Equality and privacy are key.

 

[LibertyEagle]

This smacks of data mining. I do not suggest answering such a poll put up by such a new forum member.

 

[LimitedGovernment]

This smacks of data mining. I do not suggest answering such a poll put up by such a new forum member.

Oh dear gods. How many of your posts have I responded to thoughtfully? How many times have I posted my money bomb donations here?

-Flabbergasted-

 

[LimitedGovernment]

Bumping for more responses/discussion. Thanks to those who have contributed so far. Some of the current results were unexpected.

 

[pcosmar]

Skewed poll is skewed.

Thinks poll creator does not understand.

 

[The Gold Standard]

The only policies I support are the end of all of the current policies and not replacing them.

 

[LimitedGovernment]

Skewed poll is skewed.

Thinks poll creator does not understand.

How about some elaboration?

 

[LibertyEagle]

Skewed poll is skewed.

Thinks poll creator does not understand.

+1

 

[pcosmar]

How about some elaboration?

It's in your name.

but not in your poll

 

[LimitedGovernment]

It's in your name.

but not in your poll

What, exactly, are you saying? That the poll is bad because I didn't include an option stating "Limited government" - even though people have different ideas of what "limited government" is?

I'm really not understanding what you're after.

 

[pcosmar]

I'm really not understanding what you're after.

Limited Government. a very limited government.

Your poll is all about expanding government. to either provide or deny.

 

[LimitedGovernment]

Limited Government. a very limited government.

Uh-huh... and I only had 20 spaces available to write a small amount of text, and certain questions that I wanted to ask due to their relation to views that I've seen some people espouse here. That's why I asked people to elaborate/comment in posts, rather than just vote in the poll.

Do you understand my reasoning?

 

[pcosmar]

Do you understand my reasoning?

NO.
Do you understand Limited Government?

 

[LimitedGovernment]

NO.
Do you understand Limited Government?

According to the definition of it, yes. Your idea of it? That totally eludes me.

 

[DerailingDaTrain]

According to the definition of it, yes. Your idea of it? That totally eludes me.

Your poll asks what you would like the government to give or deny. That's not limited government.

 

[Sola_Fide]

My responses

1) I'm all for candidates who would vote for complete equality in civil liberties and internet freedom, even if I hate their positions on spending or disagree with them on where tax dollars are raised and end up.

2) I'm a supporter of the intent behind Roe v Wade - that personhood is too complex to rule on, and that viability is the next best alternative.

3) We should have civil marriage equality. Ideally, we'd get it and then people would vote to change the name of the legal status from "civil marriage" to "civil union", merge the law with current civil union protections, and thus get rid of the whole "What is marriage?" issue.
http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Debate:_Civil_unions_vs._gay_marriage
http://www.glad.org/uploads/docs/publications/cu-vs-marriage.pdf

4) Public means that it belongs to everyone, which means that no one has a right or privilege to use the space or authority to prop up their private worldviews. I don't want some group to use public resources or offices to say that dogs should have personhood rights, either. The only exception is dedicated "public forum" zones - in which case there has been a public agreement to open up a selected space for equal and open advocacy for private beliefs.

5) Again, private worldview beliefs have no place in the permanent public sphere.

6 & 7) Yes and yes. I don't care about your private worldviews if they don't affect your policy decisions.

8) No, only because I believe that every Scientologist I've paid attention to seemed willing to scam other people or put their club's members ahead of other, deserving people.

9) Scientific consensus is the only thing that makes sense to me. Where there is no consensus, we should follow the general scientific method, Socratic method, discussion with others who know the issue, discussion with those who disagree with us, and personal reflection to make our decisions.

10) Ideological motivation is dangerous, because adherents are rarely open to honest discussion, in my experience.

11) Coalitions are beneficial - and sometimes necessary. If we could get 20 neocon and 40 big government socialists to join 5 limited government advocates in working to repeal all indefinite detention laws or lower taxes on people making less than 50k per year, I'd absolutely be in favor of it.

12) I'm anticipating that I'll vote for Johnson this year for that reason.

13) Distrust of scientific methodology and results is dangerous to our future health, prosperity, and morality. I'm a strong advocate for careful review of scientific work - which is a different thing from distrusting it fundamentally.

14) Only a little less disturbing than the idea that people distrust scientific work is that some people distrust scientific communities. That's worse than saying that people distrust charity groups, which don't have peer-review processes, internal ethics watchdogs, or regulations like scientific groups do. It worries me that some people are so strongly anti-science. I can kind of understand their feelings if they haven't ever done professional research work or only get their news from sources with an anti-science slant, but it still amazes and worries me.

15) This often seems to be the flip-side of anti-science groups. Complete general populism is, I think, a terrible thing. If people were really informed enough to be able to make the best decisions for themselves, I don't think we'd be in this mess. I don't want any "average joe" or "career politician" running the country. Good statism relies on good statesmen, which I don't think many "average joes" would become. Eliminating the state altogether is foolish, I think. I'd rather see a generally statist system and a generally populist system operate in two separate regions in the same territory than fully abolish one or the other, because I'd never want to live in either at their extremes, and I think it'd be harder to have one become an extreme with the other's example so close by.

16) I do believe that some rights are granted by governments, and can - and sometimes should - be revoked. Free speech over most - not all - public media or on public lands is one of these things. For example, I don't want someone being "free" to slander people whenever and however they like on public radio frequencies, but I also think that there should always be some channels for pubic dissent and personal opinion. I do believe that the right to life is an automatic right for persons - which is why the definitions of "person" and related concepts are so important.

17) As noted above, I do believe that some rights are granted.

18) I already commented on civil marriage rights. I'm also in favor of net neutrality - at the least for subscribers who buy non-premium packages. Yes, that infringes on private business operations. Yes, I think it's a worthwhile infringement. I feel the same way about other public services that have a broad userbase. If a business is a private club (only open to members), they can do whatever they want.

19) I'm generally certain that I want to see the property tax abolished.

20) Absolutely not. Equality and privacy are key.

Wow.

 

[LimitedGovernment]

Your poll asks what you would like the government to give or deny. That's not limited government.

By whose definition does limited government mean that the government cannot provide programs for the benefit of society or create documents that state that all people have fully equal rights? Certainly not mine. Certaintly not whomever contributes to Wikipedia: "Limited government is a government in which anything more than minimal governmental intervention in personal liberties and the economy is not generally allowed by law, usually in a written constitution."

Do also note that I have as an option the belief that all rights are inherent: "Someone who believes that no rights are granted"

Edit:

"Rights" in that case being whatever you personally think "rights" consists of.

 

[KingRobbStark]

There sbould be an option of "Would you vote for a decentralized government?"