[futuremental]

I'm interested to see what other people believe politically because I feel I'm a little out there even for INFP's.

On social issues, I'm very libertarian (do whatever drugs you want, but be careful) except on abortion. Very pro-life.

On fiscal issues, I'm extremely conservative. I just don't understand how we can have such a broken system.

And on international relations, I think that we should try to maintain our role as the only superpower because I think we act justly as opposed to the other options. As a result, I think we occasionally have to 'kill one to frighten a thousand,' but that should only happen very infrequently. I'm very realpolitik. Didn't support either war in Iraq or Afghanistan once I realized how ineffectively they were run.



So, I feel I'm pretty anomalous for the NF group. I really do believe that the least harm for the greatest amount of people should be the goal - but I think that people often get distracted and think that they can do 'good' with government. And that really doesn't work. People just need to be left alone.

Hopefully this doesn't get really angry, I'm just honestly curious.

[Raichan]

I'm interested to see what other people believe politically because I feel I'm a little out there even for INFP's.

On social issues, I'm very libertarian (do whatever drugs you want, but be careful) except on abortion. Very pro-life.

On fiscal issues, I'm extremely conservative. I just don't understand how we can have such a broken system.

And on international relations, I think that we should try to maintain our role as the only superpower because I think we act justly as opposed to the other options. As a result, I think we occasionally have to 'kill one to frighten a thousand,' but that should only happen very infrequently. I'm very realpolitik. Didn't support either war in Iraq or Afghanistan once I realized how ineffectively they were run.

So, I feel I'm pretty anomalous for the NF group. I really do believe that the least harm for the greatest amount of people should be the goal - but I think that people often get distracted and think that they can do 'good' with government. And that really doesn't work. People just need to be left alone.

Hopefully this doesn't get really angry, I'm just honestly curious.

Just wondering about your views.. (in relation to international politics) just curious, can you elaborate more on what do you mean by only superpower?

'I really do believe that the least harm for the greatest amount of people should be the goal' - do you take a consequentialist approach? There's a philosopher Singer who talks about consequentialism.

[Dolorous Haze]

I presume this is about the US? Since I'm not American, I probably shouldn't answer....but I will anyway.

Abortion really is the only view that I don't have a solid opinion on. You have to think of the rights of the unborn child as well as the mother. I think that women who want an abortion should be counselled before hand to make sure it's what they want and they should also receive therapy afterwards, as abortions are psychologically damaging. The only problem is, I'm not sure if there'd be time before an abortion to receive adequate counselling.....Also, it should only be used in certain situations...I mean there are stupid adults who don't practise safe sex because they can always just get an abortion. That is ridiculous.

I don't know much about the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan, so I'll keep my mouth shut on that.

One thing I don't understand - why are so many Americans getting angry about "Obamacare"? Do they realise that they're the only developed country in the world without universal healthcare? Do they not realise that they're are children with leukemia who's parent's are unable to afford treatment or that they're are people with infections that are easily treated but they end up getting limbs amputated because they are too broke to visit the doctor? If the US does introduce "Obamacare" their country won't turn into some Communist state. Besides, it's proven that universal healthcare actually saves money in economies in the long run.

I don't know much about American politics, but it seems that both parties try to be the opposite of each other. If Obama announces a new bill or something, Romney will immediately go against it. It's the democrats on one side and the republicans on the other. It's like "oh if you support this, you're a Democrat, if you support that, join the Republicans...it discourages free-thinking. Personally, I think there should be new parties. (Rant over.)

[Mattylad]

I can't really comment on much of what you said, abortion is something that I'm on the fence on. It's pretty much the right of the mother vs the right of the unborn child.

In Britain there has been the proposed Lords reform, if anyone in Britain would like to comment on that? (I assume it's open to other political discussions outside of America?)

[abigaleblues]

I don't know, this thread seems to be a slippery slope. I'm not quite sure why you consider to be all that "out there" with your philosophy, seems pretty standard to me.


If this is truly just an honest inquiry, then I'll share my views. If this is an outlet for a political debate, then I'll probably be disappointed, as my system of logic has been considered a bit "out there" as well.


I am pro-choice. I view abortion as a medical issue, not a moral one.


I don't think that politics, or any institution, has any real benefits to helping society. So conservative/liberal, doesn't matter to me.


Of all institutions, I believe the monetary institution to be the most harmful. (money = evil, essentially)


I am very interested in the ideas of Peter Joseph and Jaque Fresco, although sceptical of how a resource based economy could be implemented.


I am an anti-theist, following in suit with ideas of Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins. I do not believe in God or a higher power, but I do believe religion to be harmful in many regards.


My views are controversial, yes, but I've come to these conclusions based largely on how money and resource distribution has ruined and silenced many groups of people. I too subscribe to the idea of live and let live, but it won't happen so long as people still think it's okay to throw around terms like "superpower". Sorry. That's like saying, I'm all for freedom for everyone! As long as we have the most. Doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

[futuremental]

I was referring to political views in a more broad sense.

RE: Obamacare. It's a 2700 page bill that does NOT fix many of the major issues with healthcare. Conservatives/libertarians in the US want to have states push forward healthcare reform. The 'every other industrial nation' argument doesn't really ring true with me. I mean, didn't other people's parents say, "If everyone else was jumping off a bridge, would you too?" Personally, I think a few simple reforms would 'fix' healthcare to a very large extent, but Obamacare did none of the ones I wanted and a lot of really bad policies (plus, no one is still aware of how it will be implemented). Remember, we have 350 million people or so. Devising a healthcare system for all of those at once seems like a bad idea. We should have done tort reform, etc. Personally, I support the idea of giving people money to buy private healthcare insurance (including reforming Medicare like this). Because otherwise you have to move to a system similar to the NHS where a procedure is evaluated by a government official or doctor and then accepted or rejected. I'd rather that patients could choose different plans that fit their needs specifically. I'm not the biggest Mitt fan, but I will say that he appears to be a pragmatic technocrat and has a very moderate, bipartisan record. That's a good thing.

Just trying to present why Americans don't like Obamacare. Also, it was passed in a backroom maneuver against the will of the people (60% still do not support it).

As for foreign policy, I believe that post-Cold War we were the only superpower in the world. We let that erode away very quickly and I would have preferred to maintain our dominance while pushing for liberalization of trade, the spread of constitutional democratic republicanism across the globe, and reducing exploitation, etc. I think it's highly likely that if the USSR had won, there would have been far worse consequences for the world. The same holds for if China takes pre-eminence.

Does that make sense? As for Singer, I'm not aware of his consequentialist theory, but I do know we disagree on quite a lot of things. I find him quite distasteful, actually.

[futuremental]

Thank you @abigaleblues

I won't respond and explain my views unless you were asking, which I don't think you were, right?

I'm actually just curious. : )

[abigaleblues]

@futuremental

Nope, just a meeting of the minds if you will :)

Everyone is different. To each his/her own.

[bigtalljay]

Well...

My opinions in the political arena might be difficult to explain because I don't have many hard and fast stances on things. In general, my views would be very similar to that of a libertarian, where the influence of the government is reduced.

With a lot of issues, there may be a perceived divide between how I feel about it in a moral/personal way, and how I suggest the government should handle it. I suppose I have begun to separate the two, where earlier in life I may have tangled them up.

For instance, the idea of abortion breaks my heart, because whether or not you believe that is a person yet, the fact of the matter is that a person is being denied the chance to live. Does this mean it should be illegal? I don't know, really. This issue has been beaten into the ground for so long that I have basically given up on it. I feel like putting the responsibility of the decision on individuals is probably the best thing. Whether it is legal or not will not stop or perpetuate it.

See where I'm going?

As for most drugs, I personally choose to abstain (yes, I partake of alcohol and caffeine regularly), but I feel that usage or non usage should be a choice of an individual, not a moral standard dictated by the government.

Lines do have to be drawn, and there are actions that are clearly harmful to others (murder, rape, theft, destruction) and have to be dealt with. Depending on your views, there could be overlap with abortion.

I personally feel that most things the government touches break. Our financial system is regulated (poorly) by our government, and a hands-off and free market approach makes the most sense to me.

I dislike the idea of military involvement and world police types of actions. I believe troops and defense efforts belong on home base.

To sum up mostly everything I've said, I like the idea of a world where more responsibility is placed on individuals. It's far to easy get comfortable within the constructs of laws and regulations and completely miss the point of what it means to be human to each other. Our actions have to be considered on a personal/contextual/moral level before being caught up in whether it is legal or not. It's a heart thing for me.

It's an Fi, versus a Te style of government. :)

[RabbitHeart]

I'm pretty Pro-Choice on the abortion issue. Even though I don't think I could personally have one, I don't condemn people who have or who would. Sure, it should not be used as birth control regularly (I find that heartless and cruel) and I do have some sympathy for the fetus, but I think the mother of the child will likely be more traumatized by having the child and possibly raising a child when she's not prepared to than the child will be. Simply because their brains aren't fully developed at the time that abortions are legal. (I know this is something you could argue, and I'm totally open minded and not an expert, but that's my some-what oversimplified logic.)

Unfortunately picking and choosing who can have abortions will allow someone with legitimate circumstances to fall through the cracks, so it must be legal for nearly everyone.

I don't think the U.S. should be quite as involved in Afghanistan and Iraq as they are. It's all very tough for me to make legitimate opinions about, because of all the misinformation and the apparent sneakiness of the government. It's not so simple that they can just pull out and leave, though, and I hate when people act like it is. (We've already kind of put ourselves in both places as the support system, right or wrong. Most troops should leave, though.)

I'm definitely liberal socially and pretty confused fiscally, but overall I tend to be a bit more conservative in that arena. Capitalism seems to just... work. (Especially in such a large country like the U.S.) Don't hit me! (Or take my NF card.)

Politics aren't my favorite and I don't plan to vote this year. There is just no one I feel strongly about. I'm more concerned about social issues. For example, I did go and vote against Amendment One, here in North Carolina, a couple of months ago.