# Personality Type and Political Affiliation



## Harley (Jul 5, 2009)

I fall into the "I don't give a shit about politics" camp. It's always the same bs, just recycled over and over ad nauseam.


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

I have never understood why the *Centrist* Party was never introduced in this.  As an ISTP they have me pegged pretty much correctly.


----------



## djf863000 (Nov 7, 2009)

I am a middle ground. Centrist on one quiz, and it swings from right to left wing depending on which quiz I take.


----------



## Jorge (Aug 5, 2009)

I call bullshit.

Every description I've read for INTP's always states that INTPs are heavily inclined to the left. The perfect example is Albert Einstein, who was a radical leftist. No wars, no imperialism, mostly chaotic... Whoever typed those people as INTPs are wrong, and more than likely, did not use Form M. That, or they weren't tested at all, and they just asked for their personality type and people said INTP... There are a lot of people out there in the internet who are not really INTP, but they just think it'd be cool if they were one.


----------



## iceman44 (Nov 11, 2009)

I'm an ENFJ conservative democrat.:wink:


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

Jorge said:


> I call bullshit.
> 
> Every description I've read for INTP's always states that INTPs are heavily inclined to the left. The perfect example is Albert Einstein, who was a radical leftist. No wars, no imperialism, mostly chaotic... Whoever typed those people as INTPs are wrong, and more than likely, did not use Form M. That, or they weren't tested at all, and they just asked for their personality type and people said INTP... There are a lot of people out there in the internet who are not really INTP, but they just think it'd be cool if they were one.


On a communist/anarchist forum I'm a member of, there's been a couple of MBTI threads and most of us seem to be INTPs, or at least INTs.


----------



## Jorge (Aug 5, 2009)

And to be honest, ALL of the ENFP's I've met are right-winged or conservative.


----------



## Ventricity (Mar 30, 2009)

i´m socialist. heavy state control, fat taxes, healthcare for everyone. people are too easily influenced by populist opinions and too narrow minded to think about consequences on a larger scale than their noses. i don´t even think republican free market capitalism is theoretically justifiable in a world run by people where everyone is fundamentally selfish.


----------



## Persephone (Nov 14, 2009)

I'm Moderate Libertarian. I'm pro-gay rights, pro-choice, pro-feminism, anti-war, very pro-freedom of speech, anti-death penalty, pro-secularism, anti-racism, but I think "talking" should only go so far. I appreciate that Obama is trying to be accommodating, but I hope he'd know when to stop, when (if) the time comes. I despise having my liberties infringed on, but I'm not stingy about having my phones tapped by the government. What care I if a bunch of people I'd never know, who'd never know me, listen to my phone conversations? It wouldn't mean anything to them. I believe that welfare and capitalism should be balanced, and too much welfare produces laziness and lack of incentive to work, and too little creates societal problems. I hate collectivism, especially when the government and society try to tell me how I should live _my_ life. As long as it's not taking away from your salary, stepping on your foot, trespassing on your property and killing people, leave me alone, damn it. I believe in whatever produces the most pragmatic results with respect to a balance with liberty, and it strikes me as strange that so many INTJs are conservative. We're ultimately different people, I guess.


----------



## Pied Tubist (Nov 10, 2009)

I've been an Independent, a Republican and now I just consider myself a Populist who's fed up with all of it. I guess that would be "other". If I could do one thing to change the world, I'd outlaw political lobbyists which would probably tick off a whole bunch of people, but I think we'd end up living in a better world.


----------



## Slider (Nov 17, 2009)

MyName said:


> There are plenty of "loudmouth" liberal pundits. I'd say being boorish is more of a political pundit thing than a left/right thing.


 
Activists tend to be more left.


----------



## 0 1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 34 (Nov 22, 2009)

I am left-center... really I like the ideas of the Libertarian party, but I have to be realistic about things, so really a third party with no chance of winning the presidency is not an option for me.

I'm not surprised that Introverts are more right. It's a long-term/short-term thing.

I took the test. I got this:

*Economic Left/Right: 1.75 (right)
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.18 (libertarian)

so... I'm pretty much straight center.
*


----------



## Cormeister (Nov 24, 2009)

defnitely makes sense that ISTPs are mostly "middle of the road"
I have my own political views that often conflict with the main stream system


----------



## Wanderling (Dec 27, 2009)

skycloud86 said:


> I'm very much to the left. I'm pro-gay rights, pro-choice, anti-capital punishment, anti-war, anti-monarchy, anti-racist, pro-feminist etc.


Same. I'm interested in the forms of anarchism that are on the Left of politics. I consider myself a Left-Libertarian/Libertarian Socialist, but I'm also a bit of an Eco-Socialist (ie interested in environmentalism).


----------



## SilverScorpio17 (Nov 13, 2009)

I think of myself as a liberal/libertarian. 
Libertarianism would be the ideal for me, but I know that's probably not going to happen, so liberalism is the next best thing.


----------



## Dooraven (Dec 9, 2009)

I'm a moderate social libertarian but I adhere to the school of Keynesian economics. Which would make me a centre-left libertarian, which is pretty much the Democratic Party in the US. The Liberal Democratic Party in the UK and I suppose Labour here in New Zealand (though I like our current National/Conservative PM)


----------



## Cookie Monster (Nov 6, 2009)

Naydra;141834it's generally known that the right-wing are mostly the "loud and in-your-face" types ([I said:


> especially[/I] in the US I would say). Just think Bill O'reilly, Hannity, that fat guy radio personality who is rather popular in the US (can't remember his name: Rombough, Limbough, something like that lol), Giuliani, etc.


Ugh, Rush Limbaugh. I can't stand the man. I mean, there is conservative, and then there is Limbaugh...more like Limberger (sp) cheese because his politics absolutely reek LOL. 

I don't know if I am too late, but I would say that I am a moderate (I think that should be a choice). I don't really tow any party line whole-heartedly. There are things each one does that I agree and do not agree with. But if I had to choose, I would say Not Political. 

One thing I was surprised about was the amount of INTJ repbulicans...most of the INTJs I know are democrats lol.


----------



## Rogue Eagle (Oct 14, 2009)

wow, quite a big turnout for INFPs to say "we don't really care too much"


----------



## Marco Antonio (Nov 25, 2008)

What kind of Political affiliation is that, that proposes only the most intelligent people should be able to vote and that most of the people should pay attention to other things they are good at?
It was proposed by that guy whose IQ is over 200 and is a bartender, or something. yeah i vote for that guy...


----------



## Dooraven (Dec 9, 2009)

Marco Antonio said:


> What kind of Political affiliation is that, that proposes only the most intelligent people should be able to vote and that most of the people should pay attention to other things they are good at?
> It was proposed by that guy whose IQ is over 200 and is a bartender, or something. yeah i vote for that guy...


Opposite of Populism would generally be considered Republican, but considering the current base of Limbaugh worshipping Tea Party Conservatives, I'm thinking Democrat or none at all.

Seriously, where have all the smart young conservatives gone to? How come they're seriously dwindling in numbers? This is a general trend in most countries but especially in America.


----------



## VenusMisty (Dec 29, 2009)

Libertarian ENTP here.


----------



## cb23 (Dec 31, 2009)

it depends on what news station u tune into most or what radio personality you listen to. the media, to a large extent, shapes public political opinion.


----------



## perennialurker (Oct 1, 2009)

MBTI: INTJ

Social Issues: Ultra Conservative

Foreign Policy: Old School Realist

Economic: Pragmatic/ Neoclassical

Domestic Policy: Statist or Progressive Authoritarian (think Lee Kuan Yew)


----------



## Decon (Dec 9, 2008)

iNFj

Techno-progressive.


----------



## Karen (Jul 17, 2009)

Mainly liberal, but don't believe in any political party.


----------



## picablue (Jan 10, 2010)

I'm an INTJ

I'm a bleeding heart liberal. Seriously.


----------



## Marino (Jun 26, 2009)

Update:

I am no longer a libertarian. I am a Panarchist.






Panarchism is a political philosophy emphasizing each individual's right to freely join and leave the jurisdiction of any governments they choose, without being forced to move from their current locale. 

DePudyt, a proponent of laissez-faire economics, wrote that "governmental competition" would allow "as many regularly competing governments as have ever been conceived and will ever be invented" to exist simultaneously and detailed how such a system would be implemented. As David M. Hart writes: "Governments would become political churches, only having jurisdiction over their congregations who had elected to become members.






I am with Stefan Molyneux. NO coercive, violent tumor is better than a "minimal-sized" one.


----------



## backwards (Mar 17, 2009)

I like freedom. Lots of it. I don't like democracy though because it is unavoidable that if personal freedom ever would become a reality, the masses would vote it away in a democracy. At the same time it's unrealistic to believe a dicator or elitocracy or aristocracy wouldn't be corrupted. (The idea of aristocracy is appealing though :wink Personally I prefer extreme personal freedom over welfare (as long as there are public schools) (the idea of all the lazy/stupid people that wouldn't make it speaks to me). 

Since I know this won't come true for a long time (at least not before people realizes they won't get there pensions (approximate 2030 in Sweden)) instead I vote for the party with best plans for the infrastructure. Me like infrastructure - read transportation. Sadly most parties in Sweden is against proper infrastructure - read *highways* (loud and increases pollution), *ordinary ways* (loud, increases deaths in traffic(in Sweden the government had a so called "Zero kills in trafic-vision"*) and increases pollution), *railroads* (destroys eco systems), *subways*(expensive and unnecessary for todays estimated commuting (calculated 30 years ago)), *bridges*(expensive and threat against eco systems), *tunnels*(expensive and threat against eco systems),* busses* (disturb traffic), *ferries* (pollute). I really hate environmentalists...

I really hate socialists to. They don't want it equally good for everyone. They want it equally bad for everyone. A good example is health care. Sweden have the worlds highest marginal taxes** paying healthcare for everyone. Still people can't stand that well paid parents is allowed to pay for private practice for their children (a private hospital for children was started last year which enraged the masses). (And do you really think people would pay for private practice if the free healthcare was good? There is an 8 month quee to get an MRI and 4 - 6 months quee to see a psychiatrist when mentally ill. There's a loooooot of suicides in that quee...)

Even the party furthest to the right in Sweden is more socialist and left than the democrats (pro abortion, pro gay marriage, etcetera). 

At least we have free speech even though there's a growing opinion against it (makes me sick). It's funny though because they usually belong to the parties claiming to be the most liberal. My plan is to become an ambassador in a free country and then defect.:happy:

So do this classify as "Other"?

*They dropped it last year after ten years of trying to make the roads safer by lowering speed limits
**A fun example: if you make 1 000 000 SEK your employer pay 300 000 in social fee (you really make 1 300 000 but it designed so it won't look as bad). You then pay (municipal, average in the country)32% tax on the entire salary. For everything above 367 000 you pay an extra 20%(state tax) and on everything above 526 200 an additional 5%
1 300 000 - 300 000 - 320 000 - 126 600 - 23 690 = 529 710 or 59,3 % tax :dry:


----------



## Kysinor (Mar 19, 2009)

Apolitical. 

I can understand the advantages and disadvantages of each of the different sort of political philosophies I think to a certain extent. 

If I had to chose I would chose a context-sensitive personal eclectic approach where the integrity / honesty of the individuals in control / authority would be a significant factor taken into consideration.


----------



## TaylorS (Jan 24, 2010)

I'm a Left-Libertarian, Also known as a Libertarian Socialist



> *Left-libertarianism* (sometimes synonymous with *left-wing libertarianism* and *libertarian socialism*[1][2]) is a term that has been used to describe several different libertarian political movements and theorists.
> 
> Left-libertarianism, as defended by contemporary theorists such as Peter Vallentyne, Hillel Steiner, and Michael Otsuka, is a doctrine that has a strong commitment to personal liberty _and_ has an egalitarian view concerning natural resources, believing that it is illegitimate for anyone to claim private ownership of resources to the detriment of others.[3][4] Some left-libertarians of this type support some form of income redistribution on the grounds of a claim by each individual to be entitled to an equal share of natural resources.[4] Social anarchists, including Murray Bookchin[5], anarcho-communists[6] such as Peter Kropotkin and anarcho-collectivists such as Mikhail Bakunin, are sometimes called left-libertarian.[7] Noam Chomsky also refers to himself as a left libertarian.[8] The term is sometimes used synonymously with libertarian socialism[9] or used in self-description by geoists who support individuals paying rent to the community for the use of land. Left libertarian parties, lacking in example yet not Green or social democracy, share with "traditional socialism a distrust of the market, of private investment, and of the achievement ethic, and a commitment to expansion of the welfare state."[10]
> 
> ...


----------



## Persephone (Nov 14, 2009)

Left-Leaning, Moderate Libertarian  Wow. I seem to be breaking the INTJ trend, don't I? On INTJ forum, there seems to be more Democrat INTJs. If I were American, I would agree with the Democratic party more, but I doubt I'd register. Ambivalent on immigration, anti-racial profiling (that includes profiling me as an Asian and thus requiring higher SAT scores from me, or reverse affirmative action), pro-gay, pro-choice, anti-gun, anti-death penalty, anti-Bush's foreign policy, etc.


----------



## ImbecilicSage (Apr 29, 2009)

Naydra said:


> It's not a US thing.
> 
> I don't know what Azrael means exactly, but it's generally known that the right-wing are mostly the "loud and in-your-face" types (_especially_ in the US I would say). Just think Bill O'reilly, Hannity, that fat guy radio personality who is rather popular in the US (can't remember his name: Rombough, Limbough, something like that lol), Giuliani, etc. The only Democrat that I know of who's a bit "in-your-face" is Al Franken. There might be others like him, but for the most part American pundits of right-wing persuasion are usually (but not always of course) the eminent practitioners of "loud-makes-right."


All that's way too true .

To answer the OP, I usually define myself as moderate, but whenever I take political compass tests or anything analogous I end up defined as very liberal. I used to be a pseudo-socialist, and I'm very critical of close-minded takes on religion, or people believing tradition should be valued for its own sake, so that probably would be logical enough anyway.


----------



## Molock (Mar 10, 2010)

I'm a social democrat (not to be confused with democratic socialist), an environmentalist, and an INTP. I've considered many different systems but none of them make as much sense to me as social democracy.


----------



## danicx (Dec 5, 2009)

ENTP & libertarian-ish but fairly disenchanted in general. I think this thread should be an ongoing poll! Somehow.

But hooray for health care today.


----------



## garthachov (Mar 21, 2010)

pretty intresting...seems like a lot of introverts seem to lean towards the right...


----------



## fn0rd (Mar 21, 2010)

ENTJ - Anarcho-Capitalist

Socially - Ultra Liberal
Fiscally - Ultra Conservative


----------



## Viola (Mar 21, 2010)

This INFJ is definitely political and not republican. I'm not registered with a political party, but I align myself with the Green Party.


----------



## Maiden (Mar 19, 2010)

I'm liberal about most issues but I'm conservative about a few issues.


----------



## TaylorS (Jan 24, 2010)

fn0rd said:


> ENTJ - Anarcho-Capitalist
> 
> Socially - Ultra Liberal
> Fiscally - Ultra Conservative


Ah, a ENTJ Randoid sociopath? How typical. :tongue:


----------



## iDane (Mar 25, 2010)

Interesting.

I am an INFP Libertarian


----------



## ShadeOfGrey (Mar 10, 2010)

I, as many other INTP, find myself freedom-loving. But unlimited freedom can, paradoxically, lead to limited freedom for some. The ultimate-freedom policy of Anarcho-Capitalists creates a society based on "the law of the jungle"; eat or be eaten, own or be owned. To me it is not enough that everyone is allowed to be successful, everyone must be given a fair chance too. I am too empathetic to want all my freedom; I could not accept it with a clear conscience if I knew others suffered from the system I myself benefited from.

Also, I don't like centralisation of power as abundant power corrupts the human being (we have all seen it). This applies for both economic and political power and this is why I am a Libertarian Socialist (I remembering scoring something like this: Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6, Left/Right: -7)
Libertarian: no/little concentrated political power, Socialist: no/little concentrated economical power.


----------



## Vanitas (Dec 13, 2009)

I think I found the (slightly?) more correct way to refer to my political preference; Secular Conservatism.


----------



## badzee28 (Mar 7, 2010)

I'm a slighly right libertarian. Ron Paul is my man, haha


----------



## Enkidu (Apr 19, 2010)

I'm Green or anything in that vague category. Surprised by the poll, though. Thought most INTJ-types fell in the Libertarian section (??)


----------



## kibou (Apr 22, 2010)

asbreathingflows said:


> Interesting - introverts tend to be more republican than extroverts, judging more republican than perceiving (actually not that surprising considering right-wing politics tends to focus more on tradition and the maintenance of long-standing institutions), feeling is pretty much 50/50 but thinking is significantly more republican (not so much the ExTx's but all the IxTx types really buck the trend) and there doesn't seem to be a correlation between intuition or sensing.
> 
> Didn't expect the introverts to be more right-wing... weird...


Hmm, I dunno about that, for example, while ESTJ is more conservative, ENTJ is more democrat.

Interesting that ENFP comes out with the most Libertarians (you would think a T type would win on that one, maybe ENTP or INTJ).


----------



## Mutatio NOmenis (Jun 22, 2009)

Weird, I thought that more INTP's would be democrats. I guess that there would be more INTP democrats, seeing as democrats are better leaders and actually do good instead of consistently spreading death and poverty. Everyone knows that Republicans only help the rich and consistently fuck everything up. I am a moderate leftist socialist.


----------



## kibou (Apr 22, 2010)

Yeah, true.


----------



## Mutatio NOmenis (Jun 22, 2009)

^Andrew Johnson was a Democrat, and he run a budget surpluss. Bill Clinton ran a budget surpluss. George Bush, of course, had to go ruin it.


----------



## thestrangewarrior (May 5, 2010)

I'm ISTJ and I don't know where I would fall. I have no major political affiliation. The closest would be either libertarian or center, but even that is a stretch. That would be the best definition. Politics isn't what I'm really about anyways.


----------



## NiDBiLD (Apr 1, 2010)

I guess I would count as a socialistic anarchist / syndicalist.


----------



## Raindrops (May 2, 2010)

Middle (slightly to the left) libertarian :happy:


----------



## VivaCohen (Jan 8, 2010)

I'm an INFJ and very, very Liberal :tongue:


----------



## mezzoforte (May 9, 2010)

ESTP! I'm moderate with a slight liberal influence.


----------



## wjs (May 6, 2010)

i call myself either a progressive or simply a leftist

never a liberal though


----------



## ArielG (May 13, 2010)

I am ISFJ and apolitical. Lately I am interested in monarchy.


----------



## Jonny0207 (Apr 27, 2010)

I'd expect S'es to be more center and N's more extreme


----------



## ArielG (May 13, 2010)

I can definitely see that, Jonny.


----------



## Herias (Jul 12, 2010)

ISTJ and conservative.


----------



## Valdyr (May 25, 2010)

INTJ here. My political ideology might be described as "democratic eco-socialism with market elements," though the extent of said market elements and the extent of the democratic process are two things I'm still heavily in the "toying with ideas" stage.

My model would require a more fundamental restructuring of our government (US for me) than could simply be achieved through having individuals in office within the context of the current system, so out of practical necessity I tend to support the Democratic party (if only to counter the Republican party) as well as democratic socialist and green/environmentalist causes when possible.

While economics and political structure I see as scientific and I consider there to be a legitimate debate concerning such matters, I find it very hard to find legitimate defenses of conservative positions regarding LGBT rights, the environment, secularism, etc. 

Going into observation/mockery mode for a minute, I notice among my fellow INTJs who are conservatives that they try to defend the position by arguing that it is the "rational" and "realistic" view, while their detailed views on specific issues reveal a sort of pseudo-logic based off of false perceptions of both reality and their own overall logicality. Typically they espouse social positions which are unfeeling to the point of being psychopathic (our innate weakness for compassion having taken a wrong turn perhaps), and on matters of fact and theory use very little real logic, but rather rationalization for selfish, unrealistic, or uninformed views. And our (INTJs) natural propensity for self-confidence shows its bad side here as they do not consider any possibility they're wrong.

In short, while there are possible exceptions as my sample size is hardly large enough, most of the conservative NTs I see, especially conservative INTJs (who I have the best understanding of, considering I am an INTJ) seem to display characteristics of an "xNTx gone bad."

Suffice to say, I find how individual psychology potentially influences political and philosophical views fascinating.


----------



## kibou (Apr 22, 2010)

I wonder if the exaggerated unempathic views come from a weakly developed tertiary function...Fi is in 3rd position for INTJs, so theoretically a lot of INTJs (more mature ones) should have incorporated this aspect into their politics. It's one of the reasons why I find it fairly easy to talk about politics with INTJs.

Also interesting to note that introverted sensing is the demonic 8th function for INTJs.


----------



## Jacinto (Jul 18, 2010)

I'm ENTP and Liberal/Libertarian. People should be able to do pretty much whatever they want(except for hurting other people as long as they do not aprove of it, obviously) without a government interfering. However I do think that some welfare is acceptable, and I think that we all can gain from that.
Call me a hypocrite.

Also note that I am from Sweden, and here we all love welfare. We are programmed since birth. I am sorry for this.


----------



## SenhorFrio (Apr 29, 2010)

I'm disappointed that INFP got mostly not political..I myself am a Communist


----------



## Rogue Eagle (Oct 14, 2009)

SenhorFrio said:


> I'm disappointed that INFP got mostly not political..I myself am a Communist


Only a world of INFPs could make communism work


----------



## Neon Knight (Aug 11, 2010)

I am about as far left as you can get but I am also looking into anarchy as well at the moment. I guess you could label me anarcho-communist. I am socially extremely liberal and fiscally conservative. If we have to ahve a government at all I would spend taxes differently than people on the right that's the only difference, like things that leftists care about like a proper functional safety net and not bombs, wars, etc. and no cuts to wealthy...you get the idea


----------



## Jason104 (Sep 18, 2010)

im about as far right as possible..... minimal government control means more jobs .... and freedom and ummm less taxes .


----------



## snape (Oct 8, 2010)

I am INFJ. I hold no political affiliation and I am leaning slightly left but not always. I am studying politics and government on my own so I can be more knowledgeable.


----------



## SuperDevastation (Jun 7, 2010)

Though I don't care much for politics, I've taken several political quizzes to find out more about myself and the result I got on most of them was republican and 1 or 2 results saying libertarian-conservative.

I'm pro-gay rights (though to a lesser degree than the Democrats/Liberals) Pro-life, Pro-death penalty (for only the worst criminals) Pro-war, anti-racist, anti-feminist (just the extreme feminists) Anti-gun control, and Anti-drug legalization (except for medical purposes)

And though I'm a republican for the most part I shower once every 3 days, sometimes 4, and let my hair grow out, like a hippy. And of course, I'm very independent-minded and free spirited like pretty much all istps.


----------



## Humilis Curator (Feb 26, 2010)

Heh, I remember that poll, looks like I was only INFJ to vote libertarian.


----------



## Jason104 (Sep 18, 2010)

too many liberals here :sad:


----------



## minavanhelsing (Aug 31, 2010)

I'm an INTJ Democrat...leaning towards Socialist, except my realistic view of human nature leads me to believe that a Socialist society would ultimately fail. I've always been and will always be liberal on issues of a social nature (Human rights, etc.), but I'd say that if not for my childhood, I'd probably take a more conservative view of government. One can't grow up dirt poor with a disabled parent on social security and vote Republican, it seems. :crazy:

My friends are mostly liberals, too---because I tend to butt heads with staunch conservatives who can't put their politics aside and discuss something else with me. (I know a few.) I've noticed some interesting relationships between poltics and personality type, lately.

INTP: Very, very liberal. Probably one of the most socially liberal people I know. Atheist, in favor of marijuana, same-sex marriage, dropping the drinking age, etc. She hates group-think and any attempts to impose the same subjective set of values on an entire group of people. I agree with her in a lot of ways...I just also believe that the government has a responsibility to protect the ignorant masses from thing that have scientifically been proven to be harmful. Church and state, though? Separate, please.

ENFP: Democrat. Probably not as liberal as my INTP, but physically angered by the thought of social injustice. It upsets her that groups try to opress one another and/or violate one another's rights. She believes in the government's responsibility to the people, but is always careful to look at the constitution and see when the government is overstepping its bounds, even if it is for the good of the people.

ENFJ: Democrat, bordering on Socialist. Upsets my ENFP by trying to convince her that socialism is viable. He thinks she's a pessimist, and she's exasperated that he doesn't know how the system would be abused. I pointed out that if we got a hundred people like him together, socialism would work just fine. He is devoted to the welfare of people and the community, hates corporations and "big brother", especially when they take advantage of the individual to further their own wealth. He believes, like all of the above people, in complete religious tolerance and believes that religion causes more problems than it solves by promoting conflict. Is on the road to becoming a lawyer and attempting to fight corporate evil.

ESTP: Democrat--possibly more conservative than the above. I haven't discussed politics with him at length, but I know that he's an advocate of social tolerance and enjoys mocking many conservative policies in his spare time.

...Wow, I _do_ have some Republican friends (the religious ones), but I just don't discuss politics with them. :crazy: I've made some friends who take a socially liberal and governmentally conservative view, and this usually results in spirited debate about whether or not their politics are self-serving and selfish. If they have a Thinking preference, we usually come out of this energized, with a few of both of our points given sound blows...Feelers...yeah, we don't talk much afterwards.

Anyway, a question...Did anyone see anything type-related about the ENFP and ENFJ? xD I'm trying to figure out why they fight so much over comparatively small things when their politics really are very similar.


----------



## Seeker (Aug 12, 2010)

I'm an ENFJ, and I'm a liberal---but not an ACLU liberal. I tend to vote Democratic or green party. I believe that campaign reform is the most important issue in politics and the most neglected. Liberal or democrat I believe that our society is driven by ads and television commercials. People want a pill that will make them happy, a drink that will make them skinny, and a politician who has a magic wand solution that will fix everything. Then when that guy gets elected and doesn't fix everything right away, they are unhappy with him, whichever party he belongs to. And they buy into all the sound-bites in the ads rather than examining the issues. 

I believe in the Constitution and the bill of rights. But I don't think one-sided slopes exist in nature or in politics. Rather I believe that all rights are in balance with other rights and that we are reaching for the Apex of a multi-sided slope.

I believe in social services and have even worked for a social service agency. I believe in taxes to fund government and am somewhat socialistic. I also believe that both parties spend in an inefficient manner.

I think discrimination abounds in our society and that we need to be vigilant in countering it. Gays should be able to marry. Minorities who have suffered discrimination should have programs to help give them a leg up. Women still need an ERA. 

I'm a feminist and for me that means that things traditionally viewed as feminine are not weaker or lesser. They are simply viewed that way by our society and shouldn't be. I think that our children are the most important asset in our society and that the people who care for them and teach are performing the highest and most difficult role and should be valued more.


----------



## Darner (Apr 20, 2010)

Hahaha, ISTPs are middle of the road  So us with the "I don't care" attitude.


----------



## SeekJess (Nov 1, 2009)

wow from what i skimed it looks like esfps's and estj's had the most republican tendencies. i need to find me a sexy ESTJ then!


----------



## cheezey (Aug 27, 2010)

Rogue Eagle said:


> Only a world of INFPs could make communism work


Ain't that the truth!

I've leaned to the left when it comes to politics. Not quite to the communism level though lol 

When it comes to who I've actually voted for in the UK national elections I actually voted more for the person who was standing locally as an MP than because he was of a particular party. I suppose I'm quite fortunate to be able to vote for someone who is independently minded, one of the few politicians I've seen who seems to have any scruples, and or believes in standing up for something he believes in. That kind of personal integrity is something that transcends what party they represent, and is something I can't help but admire greatly.


----------



## Jason104 (Sep 18, 2010)

well the political scale is simple extreme left is communism and there is no extreme right because the republic right is perfect. 

except anarchy is extreme right sometimes:mellow: so to be a liberal is literally spitting in the face of any of the founding fathers and to all you liberals YOU CANT TAX YOUR WAY TO BEING SOME SORTA EUROPEAN UTOPIA WE CANT AFFORD TO SCARE AWAY THE RICH PEOPLE BY TAXING THEM duh


----------



## dude10000 (Jan 24, 2010)

Conservative. 

Kill the bad guys, set markets free, and culture, not counterculture.


----------



## Jason104 (Sep 18, 2010)

yep you got it right now its time to go back to the 50s:wink:


----------



## topgun31 (Nov 23, 2010)

ENTJ

Politically Independent. Idealistically Libertarian. Realistically, I favor a Republic-style government (NEVER a pure democracy), but a mixed Keynesian/Austrian style economic system. Anything but supply-side "voodoo" economics. 

However, I am a strong supporter of scientific progress, creativity, and personal responsibility.

My priorities? I'll support any policy that will:
1) Bring down national and personal debt to fiscally sustainable levels. 
2) Reform the outdated educational system to promote creativity, innovation, and is grounded on how humans learn (NOT political B.S. like teachers' unions)
3) Encourage scientific progress.


----------



## StandingTiger (Dec 25, 2010)

It seems the ENFPs are the most likely to be libertarians. That seems about right, although I would expect far higher than 5%.


----------



## Jason104 (Sep 18, 2010)

um im an estp and my personality desires truth and the correct way of doing something so im 16 and started liking the daily show and i wasn't in any political party but jon stewart made me hate republicans and glenn beck but i really didn't know the difference between liberal and conservative .... then i started watching fox news tosee why they are so evil and now im an extreme republican becuz they have it right:wink:


----------



## MechaGeek (Jan 3, 2011)

minavanhelsing said:


> Physically disabled people with autoimmune disorders can't provide for themselves, nor can their minor children. =/ Personal experience. To that end, I'm in favor of government health insurance programs for the _children_ of disadvantaged families, like the Healthy Families program. It's saved my life a couple of times.
> 
> Of course, you are correct in that it's desirable for everyone involved to get as many people working as possible. Say, you have a bunch of able-bodied people who simply don't have the skills to do what needs to be done in their area...I concede that it would be a huge waste of resources just to send them a check.


While I certainly think assistance for those victim to factors outside their control should receive assistance, that's not typically the scope of Liberal policy nor what's objected by Conservatives. Where people like me get angry is things like unemployment where the government will enable/condone its citizens to be moochy lazy asses. My own mother abused this system herself (I don't talk to her for this amongst other reasons). You don't need people on welfare/unemployment AT ALL in a good economy if you're at all motivated. Liberals don't create good economies, they create environments that breed dependency.


----------



## Philosophaser Song Boy (Jan 16, 2011)

Libertarian... the end.


----------



## tenthousandopenbooks (Jan 25, 2011)

MechaGeek said:


> The article I posted where a liberal representative wanted to make the names of Firearm owners public is oppressive and dangerous. If I was a criminal, I would certainly look up who doesn't have guns before breaking into a house. In addition to that why does being a firearm owner preclude your right to privacy?


Congratulations, you'd make a great criminal. I didn't advocate this bill. It's also not liberal policy (typically).



> What legitimate use are highcap mags? OK, what illegitimate use of high cap mags are there? As far as I'm concerned, there are illegitimate uses of firearms, the magazines are inconsequential. Essentially what your argument is is that people don't NEED highcap mags... so it should be banned. OK, I think of several things that people don't need. No one needs to own 150 cars like Jay Leno, we should ban that right? No one needs to have more than 5 gallons in their gas tank since they can go to the gas station, we should ban that?


It's not about people simply not needing high capacity magazines. Does Jay Leno use his 150 cars to kill as many people as possible? No. Do I think having 150 cars is stupid? Yes. Do I think the government should ban it? No. Also, it's not liberal policy.


> Secondly, this type of legislation is completely ineffective. I'll instruct you on some gun laws if you're not familiar (for CA):
> 
> 2. CRIMINALS DO NOT OBEY THE LAW. Do you disagree? If a criminal is going to use a gun to shoot people, he can EASILY modify or purchase illegally high capacity magazines. In fact, I was at a gun show recently and every other station was selling "repair kits" that allow you to take your 10Rd limit mags and convert them to their 'original' capacities. Requires 2 parts.


No, I don't disagree. That's why I don't advocate banning guns. Also, thank you for teaching me this info, this is what I'm talking about.


> 3. They serve a legitimate defense and sport use. In shooting competitions where scores are based on your ability to hit X targets the quickest... reloading times of milliseconds do make a difference as an example. Hell, it's simply convenient no to have to load as often at the range. For home defense use, you never know if it'll be that last 5 bullets is needed to take the threat down. When you're defending for your life you keep shooting until there is no possibility of the threat continuing to be a threat. Those 5 bullets can be the difference between life and death.


First, I don't care about shooting competitions. I'm not going to ignore some possibly dangerous consequences because some people want to compete with guns. On the other hand, your home defense argument is pretty sound. It occurred to me before I asked you about "legitimate" uses for the magazines.


> 5. Guns don't kill people, people kill people.


By this logic, we should allow bombs on airplanes, too. After all, it's not the bomb's fault, but the carrier's.


> Anyway, most gun enthusiasts or anyone remotely familiar with firearms would not refer to a magazine as a 'clip.' It's bad form to use that terminology. What's several clips worth of ammo? Couple hundred rounds? I'd say that's a far cry from proficient, but maybe you really are a natural. That said, proficiency is not simply being able to hit a single ratty hole at 30 yards all in the 10 zone. Shooting is an art.


Never said I was a gun enthusiast. I am, however, "remotely familiar with firearms". I also never claimed proficiency. I can't tell if you're trying to be as snide as you sound here, but give me a break. I'm not someone who is interested in guns (or gun laws, as I said). I gave my friend an honest try by coming up to the range with him and shooting a few dozen rounds of ammunition, but I didn't think I'd have to worry about my terminology when discussing it. I'm not a gun enthusiast.

If guns = personal liberties = guns to you, that's your concern. But there is much more to this debate than gun control, which most politicians, regardless of party, leave well-alone.


----------



## MechaGeek (Jan 3, 2011)

Woah there, are you implying people that own guns use them to kill as many people as possible? I will tell you without a doubt that banning cars would save many more lives than banning guns even if the gun ban was 100% effective. Same goes for cigarettes.

You said you don't care about competitions? That's part of going to the range, depending on the range. I wasn't aware shooting competitions were not a legitimate sport? Nor I was I aware you were in the authority to determine what a legitimate use of a firearm is. Anyway, if you accept that high capacity magazines are OK for home defense, you have to understand that becoming proficient with high cap mags also means USING them in a sport/recreational manner. The dynamic of having a certain amount of bullets dynamically affects the guns use. The offset of weight, knowing how many rounds you have left, procedures, etc. etc. all change when you change variables. If you are familiar racing a pinto that doesn't mean you can jump into a sports car and win races. Some of the skills translate, but the dynamics change. 

Last I checked, you only need a box cutter to crash a plane (perhaps even less). Airport security is completely inept/ineffective.


----------



## tenthousandopenbooks (Jan 25, 2011)

MechaGeek said:


> Woah there, are you implying people that own guns use them to kill as many people as possible? I will tell you without a doubt that banning cars would save many more lives than banning guns even if the gun ban was 100% effective. Same goes for cigarettes.


Nope, extended magazines. And yes, banning cars and cigarettes would save more lives. Definitely. I'm talking about principle.


> You said you don't care about competitions? That's part of going to the range, depending on the range. I wasn't aware shooting competitions were not a legitimate sport? Nor I was I aware you were in the authority to determine what a legitimate use of a firearm is. Anyway, if you accept that high capacity magazines are OK for home defense, you have to understand that becoming proficient with high cap mags also means USING them in a sport/recreational manner. The dynamic of having a certain amount of bullets dynamically affects the guns use. The offset of weight, knowing how many rounds you have left, procedures, etc. etc. all change when you change variables. If you are familiar racing a pinto that doesn't mean you can jump into a sports car and win races. Some of the skills translate, but the dynamics change.
> 
> Last I checked, you only need a box cutter to crash a plane (perhaps even less). Airport security is completely inept/ineffective.


I didn't say anything about being an authority on legitimate sports or firearm uses. I said I'm not going to ignore possibly violent consequences based on what people use in a competition. For instance, if the NFL came right out and (finally) required that all of its athletes kill at least one person off the field, it wouldn't make me look the other way on murdering people. I understand people use guns for sport. What I'm saying is that is not a factor in what I consider for legislation.

Again, you sound highly knowledgeable about guns. That's good. I trust you'll be a safe gun owner.


----------



## MechaGeek (Jan 3, 2011)

So, are capacity limits still common sense legislation?

I'm still curious as to your comments on Suzanne's presentation when you're available to view it.


----------



## tenthousandopenbooks (Jan 25, 2011)

MechaGeek said:


> So, are capacity limits still common sense legislation?
> 
> I'm still curious as to your comments on Suzanne's presentation when you're available to view it.


I respect you taking this argument this far based on one faulty statement. It shows debate-balls.

I admit it was hasty, bad word choice on my part. Common sense was a bad way of describing it. "Worthy of debate" is probably how I would rephrase that.

Please, let me reiterate: Gun legislation is about the last thing on my mind in real terms.

I still plan on watching the video when I get home. I hope to learn something good from it.


----------



## MechaGeek (Jan 3, 2011)

tenthousandopenbooks said:


> I respect you taking this argument this far based on one faulty statement. It shows debate-balls.
> 
> I admit it was hasty, bad word choice on my part. Common sense was a bad way of describing it. "Worthy of debate" is probably how I would rephrase that.
> 
> ...


I found a number of what I believe faulty statements. What spawned the others was that one though. Stating that something is "common sense" tends to imply it's incontrovertible. I'll accept that it was a genuine mistake.


----------



## MechaGeek (Jan 3, 2011)

Premium G said:


> Libertarian... the end.


What does this mean?


----------



## tenthousandopenbooks (Jan 25, 2011)

MechaGeek said:


> I found a number of what I believe faulty statements. What spawned the others was that one though. Stating that something is "common sense" tends to imply it's incontrovertible. I'll accept that it was a genuine mistake.


And I thought a lot of what you said was republican catchphrase bullshit. I'm trying to come to an amicable agreement here.

I watched your video. I'm touched by her story. However, I already believe in concealed carry with a CCP. Her story wasn't entirely convincing on extended magazines and assault weapons, but it is very unfortunate that the gun laws in Texas of all places exacerbated this situation. I plan on getting a CCP myself in a year or two.


----------



## MechaGeek (Jan 3, 2011)

tenthousandopenbooks said:


> And I thought a lot of what you said was republican catchphrase bullshit. I'm trying to come to an amicable agreement here.
> 
> I watched your video. I'm touched by her story. However, I already believe in concealed carry with a CCP. Her story wasn't entirely convincing on extended magazines and assault weapons, but it is very unfortunate that the gun laws in Texas of all places exacerbated this situation. I plan on getting a CCP myself in a year or two.


I'm far from a republican. As mentioned, I'm all for individual liberties. For example, I'm all for the decriminalization of drugs, pro gay-rights, believe wholeheartedly in the separation of church and state, woman's right to choose, etc. but also want minimal government, conservative spending, opposed to blanket governmental entitlements(handouts), etc. 

"Assault weapons" are tools like anything else. They're not any more or less dangerous than any other gun in lawful hands. You have to remember that the only people shooting up schools are criminals, laws don't stop criminals, they merely provide a grounds for the judicial system to prosecute/imprison. I will tell you though I would prefer an "assault" weapon in the hands of a law abiding citizen than even so much as a knife in the hands of a criminal.

People that obey the law obey the law, they're not the ones you need to fear. Think of the person you respect most having ANY kind of weapon in his/her possession, are you afraid of them using it maliciously? How about someone that deeply threatens you? I'll tell you he/she has no problem using illegal weapons/means against you if it comes to it. The ones you need to fear are the criminals and they're the ones that don't give a rats ass what's written in the books.... and they prove that time and time again.


----------



## Philosophaser Song Boy (Jan 16, 2011)

MechaGeek said:


> What does this mean?


Sorry, i just got excited when I saw this topic.

I mean that to me, Libertarianism is the answer, and that is all. It was more of an overzealous answer, as I understand that one way is not the complete answer.

On a side note, did anyone read the bullshit Huckabee had to say about Natalee Portman and single moms. He sounded like he knows what its like to be a single mother, and he lost all of the small bits of respect I had for him after he came out with those statements.


----------



## MechaGeek (Jan 3, 2011)

Premium G said:


> Sorry, i just got excited when I saw this topic.
> 
> I mean that to me, Libertarianism is the answer, and that is all. It was more of an overzealous answer, as I understand that one way is not the complete answer.
> 
> On a side note, did anyone read the bullshit Huckabee had to say about Natalee Portman and single moms. He sounded like he knows what its like to be a single mother, and he lost all of the small bits of respect I had for him after he came out with those statements.


Ah, k. I couldn't tell if you were proclaiming the Apocalypse from following Libertarian ideas, stating that the issue need not be debated with 'those' people, etc.


----------



## nádej (Feb 27, 2011)

i'm an ENFP and i'm a democrat, although that's more due to this two-party system (in the U.S.) than anything else. i'm simply a liberal, but i care about politics and what happens in and to the government and it seems that to do anything effective here one must be attached to either the democrats or the republicans.

i'm very much for a multi-party system and proportional representation. there is so much variance within each party here in the US, and so much polarization between the two, that it seems everything is just a fight and a back-and-forth. i feel like we'd get a lot more done if we'd just let the diversity come to the top and balance everything out a bit.

anyway - most ENFPs and INFPs i know are democrats, which is saying a lot because i'm in a heavily republican area.


----------



## Emerson (Mar 13, 2011)

Far far far far left libertarian, INTJ. How's that work?


----------



## Sea Anenome (Mar 11, 2011)

I'm a "very liberal" INTJ. I'm registered with the Green Party, but am a "yellow dog" Democrat when voting for State and National offices (e.g. Governor, Senate, House, President...) because, unfortunately, third-party candidates aren't electable at those levels...yet.


----------



## MechaGeek (Jan 3, 2011)

Emerson said:


> Far far far far left libertarian, INTJ. How's that work?


Libertarian typically means advocating individual liberties. Left politics don't typically coincide with that. Nor does extreme right, FTR.


----------



## tenthousandopenbooks (Jan 25, 2011)

It's possible to be a left- or right-leaning libertarian.

Take this test: The Political Compass - Test

It abandons the Left-vs-Right political continuum for a little more dynamic analysis of the spectrum.


----------



## MechaGeek (Jan 3, 2011)

tenthousandopenbooks said:


> It's possible to be a left- or right-leaning libertarian.
> 
> Take this test: The Political Compass - Test
> 
> It abandons the Left-vs-Right political continuum for a little more dynamic analysis of the spectrum.


Certainly, you can probably tell that I am a right libertarian (and test as such). But at the base you can't have socioeconomic liberty and whilst practicing extreme left ideals. At least, I don't think you can.


----------



## nottie (Mar 2, 2011)

katienicole said:


> anyway - most ENFPs and INFPs i know are democrats, which is saying a lot because i'm in a heavily republican area.


Haha, I'm in a very democrat area and I tend to side with republicans. Not that I always agree with them, but they don't get any representation around here.. so I tend to take that side if it comes up with friends. xD

I'm more libertarian than anything else, but they'll never get into power.  It's against the nature of libertarians to want to get into politics, I think.


----------



## tenthousandopenbooks (Jan 25, 2011)

MechaGeek said:


> Certainly, you can probably tell that I am a right libertarian (and test as such). But at the base you can't have socioeconomic liberty and whilst practicing extreme left ideals. At least, I don't think you can.


Ah, but that's only one side of it. You can't call yourself a Libertarian and advocate banning gay marriage, abortion, recreational drug use, etc. Far right and far left just don't cover it. Libertarians (at least those strictly adhering to the philosophy) support social freedom as well as economic. A true libertarian sits directly at the bottom of the political compass chart. Isn't the philosophy supposed to call for the smallest government possible with minimal intrusion into the citizens' lives? The only thing I disagree wih the libertarians on is that the free market can fix almost everything.


----------



## MechaGeek (Jan 3, 2011)

tenthousandopenbooks said:


> Ah, but that's only one side of it. You can't call yourself a Libertarian and advocate banning gay marriage, abortion, recreational drug use, etc. Far right and far left just don't cover it. Libertarians (at least those strictly adhering to the philosophy) support social freedom as well as economic. A true libertarian sits directly at the bottom of the political compass chart. Isn't the philosophy supposed to call for the smallest government possible with minimal intrusion into the citizens' lives? The only thing I disagree wih the libertarians on is that the free market can fix almost everything.


Social and economic issues overlap. For example, government aid is typically a focus of the left, it requires taxes and a determination of economic/social class with need. If you're for individual liberty and minimal government, I think it's a bit of a conflict to say that you want government to take money to distribute it amongst those of whom it deems need it more than you.

Then you have other typically left ideas such as the benefit of the collective good such as the principles of eminent domain, government provided health care, etc. etc. I don't think a 'super left libertarian' can exist since at its base, left believe that the purpose of government is to provide for the people and only by giving them authority over the people can those ends be achieved.

I think we may simply be arguing semantics and the change of colloquial definitions. For example, I would consider Hippie-left culture somewhat conservative in retrospect (Against, "The man," freedom of sexuality/self, etc. etc.). Modern left cringes as the the thought of being left alone by the government.


----------



## tenthousandopenbooks (Jan 25, 2011)

MechaGeek said:


> Social and economic issues overlap. For example, government aid is typically a focus of the left, it requires taxes and a determination of economic/social class with need. If you're for individual liberty and minimal government, I think it's a bit of a conflict to say that you want government to take money to distribute it amongst those of whom it deems need it more than you.
> 
> Then you have other typically left ideas such as the benefit of the collective good such as the principles of eminent domain, government provided health care, etc. etc. I don't think a 'super left libertarian' can exist since at its base, left believe that the purpose of government is to provide for the people and only by giving them authority over the people can those ends be achieved.
> 
> I think we may simply be arguing semantics and the change of colloquial definitions. For example, I would consider Hippie-left culture somewhat conservative in retrospect (Against, "The man," freedom of sexuality/self, etc. etc.). Modern left cringes as the the thought of being left alone by the government.


I think you might be a little (okay, a lot) out of touch with what the modern left believes. You sound otherwise educated on many aspects of policy, but your image of the progressive seems like sort of a straw man. On the political compass test, I scored in the extreme bottom left corner (liberal x libertarian). This is how most of the leftists I know believe as well. We only want to take a fair share of taxes from the richest 1%, reform tax law to fix the loopholes, keep the government out of people's personal lives/morality, and provide certain effective or beneficial economic safety nets. That's really the gist of modern liberalism, as far as anyone I know goes. I'm also considerably more left than most people I know. I don't know a single authoritarian leftist.


----------



## MechaGeek (Jan 3, 2011)

tenthousandopenbooks said:


> I think you might be a little (okay, a lot) out of touch with what the modern left believes. You sound otherwise educated on many aspects of policy, but your image of the progressive seems like sort of a straw man. On the political compass test, I scored in the extreme bottom left corner (liberal x libertarian). This is how most of the leftists I know believe as well. We only want to take a fair share of taxes from the richest 1%, reform tax law to fix the loopholes, keep the government out of people's personal lives/morality, and provide certain effective or beneficial economic safety nets. That's really the gist of modern liberalism, as far as anyone I know goes. I'm also considerably more left than most people I know. I don't know a single authoritarian leftist.


And again, I'll still contend that what you list is against libertarian principles (less the government out of ethics part). True libertarianism is 'almost anarchy.'

I view governmental 'safety nets' as spawning government dependence (I think we can agree that dependence on the government is not a libertarian principle?).

So of whom do we attribute cash for clunkers, obamacare, corporate bailouts etc.? Are those type of policies impossible to label as left or right, spawned only as one-offs of whoever dreamed them irrespective of political leaning?


----------



## tenthousandopenbooks (Jan 25, 2011)

MechaGeek said:


> And again, I'll still contend that what you list is against libertarian principles (less the government out of ethics part). True libertarianism is 'almost anarchy.'
> 
> I view governmental 'safety nets' as spawning government dependence (I think we can agree that dependence on the government is not a libertarian principle?).
> 
> So of whom do we attribute cash for clunkers, obamacare, corporate bailouts etc.? Are those type of policies impossible to label as left or right, spawned only as one-offs of whoever dreamed them irrespective of political leaning?


Helping those who cannot help themselves is not for the sake of encouraging dependence.

I don't know why cash for clusters was so bad. "Obamacare" (yawn) could have been an effective program if the Republicans and Lieberman hadn't acted like children throughout the process. Bailouts... bailouts... do you mean the disastrous bank bailouts? Where we gave the top 1% even more reward for punishing us? Bush's bailout? Or the GM bailout which was largely successful? 

I have a question: do you think that anarchy is closer to the right than it is to the left? Most liberals I know relate more to anarchism or libertarianism more than most conservatives I've even heard of. Do you disagree with the functionality of the political compass? I happen to find it pretty useful and logical.


----------



## MechaGeek (Jan 3, 2011)

tenthousandopenbooks said:


> Helping those who cannot help themselves is not for the sake of encouraging dependence.
> 
> I don't know why cash for clusters was so bad. "Obamacare" (yawn) could have been an effective program if the Republicans and Lieberman hadn't acted like children throughout the process. Bailouts... bailouts... do you mean the disastrous bank bailouts? Where we gave the top 1% even more reward for punishing us? Bush's bailout? Or the GM bailout which was largely successful?
> 
> I have a question: do you think that anarchy is closer to the right than it is to the left? Most liberals I know relate more to anarchism or libertarianism more than most conservatives I've even heard of. Do you disagree with the functionality of the political compass? I happen to find it pretty useful and logical.


I don't think the left INTENDS that government aid creates dependence. I was merely remarking that I think it has unintended consequences that the left doesn't account for. My own mother abused unemployment and then 'coincidentally' found work as the limits of unemployment came close (~2 years). In any event if you can't provide for yourself you're not my problem IMO. I'm perfectly content with letting a person who doesn't want to work for their food starve to death. I know of SO many personal cases of people 'milking' the system; people who DO NOT need aid accepting it. 

Obamacare effective? In order to be effective you'd have to pretty much say that government is responsible for the nation's health. If you put your wellbeing in the hands of government that seems to me, a very anti-libertarian principle.

I think companies should be allowed to fail. GM put itself in its crappy position with its pensions, catering to union inflated pay scales that were beyond what the market/economy would have determined appropriate and not responding to market changes. Same for Harley.

I don't think anarchy is right or left.


----------



## Vaan (Dec 19, 2010)

Im an australian so ill just post my affiliation- Labour party


----------



## tenthousandopenbooks (Jan 25, 2011)

MechaGeek said:


> I don't think the left INTENDS that government aid creates dependence. I was merely remarking that I think it has unintended consequences that the left doesn't account for. My own mother abused unemployment and then 'coincidentally' found work as the limits of unemployment came close (~2 years). In any event if you can't provide for yourself you're not my problem IMO. I'm perfectly content with letting a person who doesn't want to work for their food starve to death. I know of SO many personal cases of people 'milking' the system; people who DO NOT need aid accepting it.


No real disagreements here, people really should get their shit together. Welfare reform and oversight are important.



> Obamacare effective? In order to be effective you'd have to pretty much say that government is responsible for the nation's health. If you put your wellbeing in the hands of government that seems to me, a very anti-libertarian principle.


I'm actually surprised to hear you say this. But it's true; I wanted single-payer when the healthcare "debate" did(n't) take place. I wanted our system modeled after a more successful one. Agreed, though, not libertarian at all.



> I think companies should be allowed to fail. GM put itself in its crappy position with its pensions, catering to union inflated pay scales that were beyond what the market/economy would have determined appropriate and not responding to market changes. Same for Harley.


This is very libertarian of you. Do you always think they should be allowed to fail, regardless of job loss? That was the whole argument with all of the bailouts; no one (publicly) wanted to prop up the bastards, but no one wanted to see another depression or a much higher unemployment rate. In that respect it was reasonably successful, but the ones we bailed out took advantage of us (again) and saw record profits and benefits payouts. Policy is set up and carried out to allow them to keep doing it. Do you think the government should break up the banks? Is that beyond your idea of the government's boundaries or do you think that's a good precautionary (postcautionary?) measure?


----------



## MechaGeek (Jan 3, 2011)

tenthousandopenbooks said:


> No real disagreements here, people really should get their shit together. Welfare reform and oversight are important.


Government is simply ineffective/incompetent at administrating ANY program. I don't know the current number of people on governmental assistance, though I think we can both agree that even should the policies be stringent it would require an obscene amount of expenditure to oversee effectively. 



> I'm actually surprised to hear you say this. But it's true; I wanted single-payer when the healthcare "debate" did(n't) take place. I wanted our system modeled after a more successful one. Agreed, though, not libertarian at all.


If you think healthcare is expensive now, wait until it's 'free.' How do you think people would respond to government provided healthcare? Would related businesses simply hike prices since it's on the governments tab (the perception being an infinite ability to pay)? If such price hiking were to occur, do you then regulate how much they are allowed to charge for services/medications? If you choose to regulate services/medications, what happens when the prices charged are not enough to offset costs and operate profitably? You may try to bring up Japan (who has such a regulated system) but I'd also take a look at their national debt ratio... which is higher than ours. Granted, a lot of that has to do with Japan not having any natural resources, just remarking that their system isn't perfect. I don't like the idea of my wellbeing being in the hands of government. I'd much rather private enterprise compete to offer me the best goods and services at the best prices to overall value ratio. 



> This is very libertarian of you. Do you always think they should be allowed to fail, regardless of job loss? That was the whole argument with all of the bailouts; no one (publicly) wanted to prop up the bastards, but no one wanted to see another depression or a much higher unemployment rate. In that respect it was reasonably successful, but the ones we bailed out took advantage of us (again) and saw record profits and benefits payouts. Policy is set up and carried out to allow them to keep doing it. Do you think the government should break up the banks? Is that beyond your idea of the government's boundaries or do you think that's a good precautionary (postcautionary?) measure?


The problem I see with bank and other bailouts is that it enables the status quo to continue without consequence. IE, has GM changed ANYTHING about their problem with unsustainable pensions/UAW/Market emphasis? Have the banks revamped their lending practices in response to what they've experienced? Maybe to some degree the banks have, but I don't think they've done it to the point where they would be self sustaining if the same thing were to happen in the future. While a loss of jobs is an unfortunate way to learn a lesson along with any other detrimental implications... I think long term it's necessary to force responsibility unto every individual, every business... people SHOULD fear for their jobs, people SHOULD fear for status of the economy, people SHOULD be VERY afraid of consequences.

Let's say that I KNOW that if I lose my job for ANY reason, the government will pay me 100% of my previous earnings for 1 year. Am I afraid of losing my job? Not really. If a business were to have a prospect of 10% chance of making a fortune investing in a venture, 90% chance of failing... but if the 90% chance was backed by a government safety net, is there ANY reason to not take that risk? If you make it, you're rich! If you don't make it, you're no worse off since the people will bear the burden of your recklessness. Obviously, hypothetical and not completely the reality of the current system... but like the Laffer curve the 'best' amount of government is somewhere between having no government and 100% government everything. 

Break up the banks? No. Government stay the hell out of private business.


----------



## tenthousandopenbooks (Jan 25, 2011)

MechaGeek said:


> If you think healthcare is expensive now, wait until it's 'free.' How do you think people would respond to government provided healthcare? Would related businesses simply hike prices since it's on the governments tab (the perception being an infinite ability to pay)? If such price hiking were to occur, do you then regulate how much they are allowed to charge for services/medications? If you choose to regulate services/medications, what happens when the prices charged are not enough to offset costs and operate profitably? You may try to bring up Japan (who has such a regulated system) but I'd also take a look at their national debt ratio... which is higher than ours. Granted, a lot of that has to do with Japan not having any natural resources, just remarking that their system isn't perfect.


I wasn't thinking about Japan, more like France and Canada. Really anywhere where they're paying less of GDP for "better" quality healthcare.



> I don't like the idea of my wellbeing being in the hands of government. I'd much rather private enterprise compete to offer me the best goods and services at the best prices to overall value ratio.


While the US government might not be the most efficient or frugal when it comes to running programs, I'm happier relying on a public system that isn't out for profit. I'm much less comfortable putting my healthcare into the hands of those whose interests are to pay as little as possible for my treatment. Private companies compete for your business, sure, but health insurance now is already so heavily monopolized and expensive that we don't have any real options. It seems like when you play capitalism "right" you climb to the top and take over your industry.



> Break up the banks? No. Government stay the hell out of private business.


Some businesses need regulation if the people are to be protected. Especially in subsidized industries. I'm not going to argue against the free market to a libertarian, because I'm pretty sure we wouldn't agree any time this century. But the private sector can be counted on to take advantage of consumers or workers at any feasible turn -- it's almost inherent in the nature of a corporation. Shareholders and profit are the most important, right? Agreed that they won't learn their lesson if the government keeps propping them up, but if we could legislate better safeguards into the system couldn't we fix the problems before the crises?

Your statement is very sure and absolute: "No. Government stay the hell out of private business." Do you really mean this literally? Do you think all regulations are bad?


----------



## MechaGeek (Jan 3, 2011)

tenthousandopenbooks said:


> I wasn't thinking about Japan, more like France and Canada. Really anywhere where they're paying less of GDP for "better" quality healthcare.
> 
> 
> While the US government might not be the most efficient or frugal when it comes to running programs, I'm happier relying on a public system that isn't out for profit. I'm much less comfortable putting my healthcare into the hands of those whose interests are to pay as little as possible for my treatment. Private companies compete for your business, sure, but health insurance now is already so heavily monopolized and expensive that we don't have any real options. It seems like when you play capitalism "right" you climb to the top and take over your industry.
> ...


France. Don't get me started on them. Firstly, look at their national debt. Secondly, the citizens of France are largely retarded. For example, all of their 'protests' involve looting and destroying their own property, not doing anything about the government. I recall in France they have a clause that job security is almost 100%. Consequently, business doesn't hire (they have a super high unemployment rate... probably because you don't 'need' to work)... when a bill was introduced that would allow companies to fire, which would assist in their unemployment they're bitching about... they riot in the streets. 

I find it hard to believe that government is like a non-profit. Politicians want votes, they want power. It is NOT immune from corruption either. You think that should healthcare be completely public that a politician or other person of authority wouldn't say funnel spending to a 'friend,' hire 'qualified' people, or otherwise manipulate the system for selfish gain?

Let me pose you a hypothetical. If every individual were individually responsible, they researched companies before purchasing things from them to ensure they practice in some manner, they voted with their dollar as to what is and is not acceptable (in proxy enforcing accountability by some means), etc. etc. would government regulation be necessary? For example, let's say you don't like the conditions that a company forces employees to work under so you don't buy from them, the employees don't like it so they leave to someone else. Would government be necessary over business if everyone participated in the economy in this manner?

Do I think all regulations are bad? Not necessarily, I just don't think if people were forced to be responsible regulation would be necessary.


----------



## EmilSan (Mar 1, 2011)

Although I'm more of an XNTP, I could see INTP's (and ENTP's) being prone to Technocracy. I don't really know if this is only a hypothetical governing system, but whatever. 

en .wikipedia.org/wiki/Technocracy (Remove space after en and paste, I'm too noob-ish to post links :sad

Interesting nontheless!


----------



## Paragon (Mar 15, 2011)

INFP, and libertarian socialist. I believe in a classless, stateless society and worker's self-autonomy through democratic rule. Violent revolution is necessary, although I don't necessarily like violence.

I also think that listing political belief by party is irrelevant, because there are people like me who strongly believe in grassroots politics. Also, parties do not necessarily entail or define belief. It would be more accurate to describe the political spectrum in terms of the French Assembly of "Left/Right", which in that case, I would be "far left".


----------



## tenthousandopenbooks (Jan 25, 2011)

MechaGeek said:


> Let me pose you a hypothetical. If every individual were individually responsible, they researched companies before purchasing things from them to ensure they practice in some manner, they voted with their dollar as to what is and is not acceptable (in proxy enforcing accountability by some means), etc. etc. would government regulation be necessary? For example, let's say you don't like the conditions that a company forces employees to work under so you don't buy from them, the employees don't like it so they leave to someone else. Would government be necessary over business if everyone participated in the economy in this manner?


If we're talking in idealistic terms here, no, government regulations would not be necessary. But in an ideal world, I'd be an anarchist. In an ideal world, we'd all have a great capacity for autonomy and we'd be able to handle life without laws and taxes and even money. The same thing that brought me out of my anarchist trance from 8th grade to 9th grade is what keeps me away from libertarianism: the other people. 

People can't live without a) mistreating others for material gain, b) the gov't providing support in hard times, such as debilitating illness/injury (this happens. good god this happens.), c) destroying the environment because it's cheaper that way, d) the gov't keeping buildings and products up to code (no more codes) for our safety, for example we don't need thousands of people dying from some new drug so that people can change their purchasing and let the market slowly solve the problem when it could just be regulated and tested, e) finding the cheapest way of doing something, often sacrificing quality, safety and product longevity, f) I could go on but this paragraph is going to get hard to read.

In this hypothetical situation, you say the people research and vote with their dollar (undoubtedly terrific advice), but how deep does the transparency go? There are tons of shady business dealings and criminal happenings going on behind closed doors that we might never even know about. In this hypothetical, how much information is released for the consumers to make to make their decisions? Who enforces that these companies can't cover up every underhanded move? Probably not the government, I'm guessing.



> Do I think all regulations are bad? Not necessarily, I just don't think if people were forced to be responsible regulation would be necessary.


How can people ultimately be forced to be responsible? We live in a system where the people who are inventive, crafty, hardworking, determined, etc. can make a nice living for themselves and their families. But in this system, the people who can exploit the most people and resources, climb over the heads of their peers, and sweet talk their way into the right situations get to the very top. And then they buy the laws. Then the laws make them more money.

I'm a huge proponent of small businesses, the spirit of enterprise and creativity, investment and all of that on a certain scale. But again, it's those Other People I mentioned before, and the ones who best take advantage of us get to rule us and profit from us. That's why I strongly believe we need a strong public entity to keep everything fair. And yes, I know the government is capable of corruption. If you think I'm a supporter of the Democrats or Barack Obama (anymore), I tell you otherwise. Corruption and greed are so deeply rooted in our government that I don't even know how we'll get it back together. But it doesn't _have_ to be that way. I still have faith in government, if not our current government.


----------



## MechaGeek (Jan 3, 2011)

I think 'corruption' is like the war on drugs. Do you think we can ever make drugs go away? We can't legislate away corruption or human disregard. No one in the history of mankind has been able to do it and never will. 

About the only thing you can do is make doing good business profitable or living benevolently beneficial. In fact, I think that's the only countries don't kill each other as much as they could be; we're worth more to each other alive and trading. The level of transparency, building code specs, etc. and their degree of importance is all up to the individuals. The HUGE problem I see is that societies want to toss the responsibility of their safety onto 'someone else.' Let's ban happy meals to make kids healthier, even though that's a parent's job. Let's ban the sale of Nyquil to those under 18 to prevent OTC drug abuse, instead of making parents accountable. Let's make it so the government has to dictate what business practices will be allowed. If they fuck up we have a finger to point and I hate it. The finger needs to be pointed right back around and up the ass. =D

In either event, corruption thrives under government. Instead of millions of citizens you have 1 government you need to infiltrate if you want to resort to subversive tactics. For example, Tobacco lobbies, Alcohol lobbies, etc.

The public good from government is a farce. I'll tie in an example from a previous statement. You can smoke yourself to a cancerous death, you can drink yourself into liver debilitation and be LEGALLY be addicted to drugs. Yet, we arrest coke addicts, marijuana users, etc. etc. to place them (in certain locations) privatized prisons whom profit from keeping the most amount of people in prison. These same people are the ones advocating/lobbying for drug enforcement policies. At the same time we have alcohol/tobacco lobbies that somehow keep their products out of the control of the FDA? If that's not corruption I don't know what is but it is clear to me that even if the role of government is benevolent it cannot protect itself from corruption of the few and I don't care what kind of system you set up for it or what sort of policies you enact. (FTR, I consume no illegal drugs and no that doesn't mean I have a medical MJ card). 

I do not believe that societies or people are inherently corrupt. I believe that EVERY person is out for their own self interest (this is not corruption in and of itself). I don't do harm to others because it benefits me. I respect others because I want respect in return. I think it's this simplest, innate motivation that is overlooked. I can't have my big screen TVs, motorcycles, etc. without others.


----------



## Vaan (Dec 19, 2010)

guys, its obvious you two are getting nowhere in your arguament XD


----------



## Paragon (Mar 15, 2011)

Vaan said:


> guys, its obvious you two are getting nowhere in your arguament XD


It's not like we're on Capitol Hill protesting or lobbying or anything; they're just having a civilized discussion on merits and ideas, not necessarily action. Nothing wrong with that.


----------



## MechaGeek (Jan 3, 2011)

Vaan said:


> guys, its obvious you two are getting nowhere in your arguament XD


I don't think you understand the degree of which I love arguing.


----------



## Vaan (Dec 19, 2010)

probably as much as i do, i guess i just foresee futility before i start XD


----------



## tenthousandopenbooks (Jan 25, 2011)

Vaan said:


> guys, its obvious you two are getting nowhere in your arguament XD


Today my INFJ girlfriend told me "Okay you're right. I'm done arguing." Granted, it was a completely pointless argument. But one man's pointless is another man's *jumping off point*...


----------



## Vaan (Dec 19, 2010)

tenthousandopenbooks said:


> Today my INFJ girlfriend told me "Okay you're right. I'm done arguing." Granted, it was a completely pointless argument. But one man's pointless is another man's *jumping off point*...


lol my INTP gf said something similar to me a few nights ago, she decided she was going to debate something that ran close to my morals.... anyway i won, but i honestly didnt feel any better, because arguing is useless unless one can convince the other party that their point of view is greater. This topic is futile and neither side will win nomatter who jumps off first because thats not debating, thats just beating your chest with words ^^


----------



## MechaGeek (Jan 3, 2011)

Vaan said:


> lol my INTP gf said something similar to me a few nights ago, she decided she was going to debate something that ran close to my morals.... anyway i won, but i honestly didnt feel any better, because arguing is useless unless one can convince the other party that their point of view is greater. This topic is futile and neither side will win nomatter who jumps off first because thats not debating, thats just beating your chest with words ^^


Some people argue for fun. I like understanding why people think the way they do. It's just ammo. 

I'm not sure in what sense T-Book (his rapper name) meant "jumping off..." It could mean offing with a razor blade across the wrist, giving up and/or he could mean "jumping off point" as a way of saying 'genesis of enlightenment.'

In any event, who's to say that he might take some of my points to heart or I his? Either one of us may realize the points the other has made and come to an epiphany somewhere down the line. Debates are hardly as cut and dry as someone throwing in the towel.


----------



## tenthousandopenbooks (Jan 25, 2011)

I've learned a lot from debating people with whom I sometimes hotly disagree. Even on multiple levels, as I have to clarify my own facts and positions with research on occasion. What I'm ultimately after is knowledge or the truth, so actively seeking contrary viewpoints reinforces my own character and sense of right and wrong.

Jumping off point was an _It's Always Sunny..._ reference. But my intended meaning here was an argument that one person deems entirely trivial could be a great learning experience for another person. A interesting conversation can sprout from any little point someone makes that can be controverted or debated. Maybe it's just an introverted thinking thing :laughing:


----------



## Vaan (Dec 19, 2010)

so the reference wouldnt be arhuing it would be conversing, an exchange of ideas, a debate is primarily designed to change the opinion of the opposer or to convince them that their arguament is wrong, true it can help you make sure that your points are solid however you should already have that knowledge before you start debating otherwise you will inevitably lose, correct?

(notice how im debating too now ^^, but im too lazy for evidence gathering so im just using my logic)


----------



## tenthousandopenbooks (Jan 25, 2011)

Vaan said:


> so the reference wouldnt be arhuing it would be conversing, an exchange of ideas, a debate is primarily designed to change the opinion of the opposer or to convince them that their arguament is wrong, true it can help you make sure that your points are solid however you should already have that knowledge before you start debating otherwise you will inevitably lose, correct?
> 
> (notice how im debating too now ^^, but im too lazy for evidence gathering so im just using my logic)


Keep in mind, this isn't the debate forum. We're discussing political philosophy. And if I remember correctly, we were in fact going through and pointing out logical flaws or inconsistencies, or offering alternative perspectives. If coming up with a response to a viewpoint I had not previously considered means I didn't know what I was talking about, I guess I'm a loser.

Then again, this isn't the debate forum.


----------



## Vaan (Dec 19, 2010)

the debate forum is basically the bawww forum ^^


----------



## MechaGeek (Jan 3, 2011)

So anyway, I'm waiting on a response. Did I win? =D


----------



## tenthousandopenbooks (Jan 25, 2011)

MechaGeek said:


> So anyway, I'm waiting on a response. Did I win? =D


No. In fact, you lost. :laughing:

Okay, our conversations are starting to cut into my work productivity for real.



Seriously, though, your last post didn't have anything I greatly disagree with. I would say most of your philosophy is a little bit idealist, because people can't handle the kind of responsibility libertarianism/anarchy/fewer regulations would require. I'm supremely confident in my own ability to handle my shit, but the interactions between various segments of society makes a relatively substantial government necessary (in my opinion). I agree with you on drug prohibition and prohibition in general, but I don't think it necessarily relates congruently back to regulatory policy. You never did give me a solid answer on positive regulations. For example, do you think that businesses would willingly curb pollution and environmental damage in the absence of regulations? Or maybe you don't value the environment or pollution control like I do. I think it's a very important issue to address anyway.

I guess my main issue with free market ideas is that it requires businesses to be responsible. I have seen too many cases of corporations running amok and stomping all over the consumers and supposed laws because it's profitable, fairly easy and I don't know, maybe they don't have a conscience? It's like in the Industrial Revolution. They put small children to work in life-threatening conditions because it ultimately benefited the entrepreneurs and their companies. Did they not know it was wrong? That's how I see unrestrained capitalism. Plus, people don't vote with their dollar. At least not the masses. If Wal-Mart is outsourcing production to Asia and paying substandard wages and benefits to its employees here and abroad, but the goods are oh-so-cheap, where do you think the masses are going to get their goods? There it is again: the PEOPLE are DUMBASSES. I keep a close eye on what I buy and from where I buy it. You probably do too. I'm sure Mom and Pop appreciate it.

If all those people made decent wages (I would like to hear what you think of minimum wage. I had a ridiculously vapid discussion with a "Republican" on here a week or so ago about it but I gained no insight), maybe they could afford to buy products from reputable dealers. But even if they did have the money, my bet is that they'd just spend it where most convenient or for the best value. They don't look for the responsible businesses. Responsible businesses usually develop a small and loyal following, and that is deserved, but being responsible is simply not enough to bring in most people.


----------



## MechaGeek (Jan 3, 2011)

By your own admission corporations trample all over law. They find the loopholes or manipulate the law itself to their gain. I can't think of ANY law that PREVENTS anything. As I mentioned earlier with regard to criminals and law... criminals whether they be wearing gang colors or business suits have no problem breaking the law. The only thing the law does is provide a grounds for judicial prosecution.

Unless you're contending that you can write/enforce policy without loopholes or free from corruption? In which case I'd have to question which of us is the idealist here, hah!

With regard to 'positive' policy. Firstly, I'm going to contend that Global Warming is not a problem. I believe local POLLUTION, toxic waste/refuse, etc. is a problem, but the planet isn't getting any hotter due to humans. In any event the US is small in comparison to the rest of the world's emissions... so any local policy is going to be COMPLETELY ineffective on a global scale. If you think that other countries will follow the US by example... well we come right back to who's the idealist here? =D. 

So, curbing pollution... if it was perceived to be an issue, would be up to the citizens to say "Pollute less or we stop buying." How effective, if practiced, do you think that would be? If say, by people didn't want the cost of their goods and services to increase to offset the increased operational costs of operating while polluting less. Then, society has made a conscious decision that the cost/benefit ratio doesn't exist. The current system we have now is a small interest group perceives a problem (Al Gore for example) says that 'this is an issue' and feeds information to win voter approval for measures... measures that are ineffective ultimately and represents a blown of scale of small interest. Granted, I can't expect EVERYONE to know that there's an issue with something so these groups bringing forward concerns is perfectly fine.... but it's not infallible. 

Let's say you passed a law that says Company X can only pollute Y amount. Company X breaks off into two companies, aside from the name there's no real net difference in output. You found a loophole. Are we then to legislate that company X and new Company Z are not allowed to have financial relationship? Let's do that, now company Z merges into competitor company SZ. You've made no difference and all you've succeeded in doing was legislating nothingness. This is ALL removed when you remove the profit motive to practice these loopholes.

I love walmart actually and I work for a small OEM computer company (10 people). If the people of walmart want higher wages they'll refuse to work there unless their demands are met. Alternatively, people can refuse to shop there. The fact that people DO shop there and people DO work there means that they are content with the status quo. It is a MINORITY interest for the status of walmart workers. 

(I think I have an obsession with the Laffer Curve)

Anyway, like Laffer Curve I view motivation as between 'Don't Care At All' - 'I'll die/kill myself/kill someone" if ___ doesn't happen. Every motivation falls between that scope. For example, I think the Chinese choose to live under communist oppression. My friend argues that they don't choose to, but they do because they'll otherwise be killed or their families suffer. Conscious decision, they value their lives more than their freedom OR they like it/OK with it. They weighted both ends of the scale.

I oppose minimum wages. All it does is raise the base of cost and expense increases to compensate. Take a look at all states with higher minimum wages vs those with lower... generally the cost of goods/services are higher in high min. wage states. Only one factor, but an important one.


----------



## crazitaco (Apr 9, 2010)

a mostly republican infp
go figure. (i think im a rarity)
i partially blame (can't think of a better word) my uber republican #AP US history teacher, although I can't really because we have to read an uber liberal biased textbook, (the american pageant anyone?). so i think it seems fair i get to hear from two VERY different views on history


----------



## tenthousandopenbooks (Jan 25, 2011)

MechaGeek said:


> By your own admission corporations trample all over law. They find the loopholes or manipulate the law itself to their gain. I can't think of ANY law that PREVENTS anything. As I mentioned earlier with regard to criminals and law... criminals whether they be wearing gang colors or business suits have no problem breaking the law. The only thing the law does is provide a grounds for judicial prosecution.


And in the libertarian dream land, there is no need to prosecute companies because they simply don't do anything wrong? Our society runs by rule of law. Do you not have faith in that system anymore? The law acts as a deterrent. It doesn't prevent what it's against completely, but it definitely causes people to think twice before crossing that line. 



> Unless you're contending that you can write/enforce policy without loopholes or free from corruption? In which case I'd have to question which of us is the idealist here, hah!


No, but that's what we're working toward, isn't it? We try to make good laws. The fact that corporations can basically buy legislation isn't helpful, but that's not inherent in the system. It's just another problem to fix. Citizens United was a great step backward.



> With regard to 'positive' policy. Firstly, I'm going to contend that Global Warming is not a problem. I believe local POLLUTION, toxic waste/refuse, etc. is a problem, but the planet isn't getting any hotter due to humans. In any event the US is small in comparison to the rest of the world's emissions... so any local policy is going to be COMPLETELY ineffective on a global scale. If you think that other countries will follow the US by example... well we come right back to who's the idealist here? =D.


First, don't build up a strawman T-book. I never said anything about any other countries following our policy (which does happen anyway [yay coercion]), but why does that let us off the hook for doing the right thing? We love to act on principle, and this would be a good one.

Second, you're going against scientific consensus regarding climate change, so I don't really know what to say about that. What good are the experts if you don't listen to them? We should certainly question them, but when the consensus is that strong, I don't know.

And the USA's emissions are small, comparatively? How do you define small? What statistics are you looking at? We're certainly improving our standards, but by all statistics I can see, we're still number 2 behind China. If you have different research I'd like to see it.



> So, curbing pollution... if it was perceived to be an issue, would be up to the citizens to say "Pollute less or we stop buying." How effective, if practiced, do you think that would be? If say, by people didn't want the cost of their goods and services to increase to offset the increased operational costs of operating while polluting less. Then, society has made a conscious decision that the cost/benefit ratio doesn't exist. The current system we have now is a small interest group perceives a problem (Al Gore for example) says that 'this is an issue' and feeds information to win voter approval for measures... measures that are ineffective ultimately and represents a blown of scale of small interest. Granted, I can't expect EVERYONE to know that there's an issue with something so these groups bringing forward concerns is perfectly fine.... but it's not infallible.


Are each company's pollution tactics public record or something? Let's even leave carbon emissions out for a second, and look at more concrete pollution. If a company is dumping copious amounts of waste into a nearby water source, do we wait for someone to notice and bear public witness and convince everybody it's a problem, then wait for the people to change their purchasing habits to put the squeeze on the company? Why can't we just say "Don't dump trash here or there's a million-dollar fine" and then send people to monitor it?



> Let's say you passed a law that says Company X can only pollute Y amount. Company X breaks off into two companies, aside from the name there's no real net difference in output. You found a loophole. Are we then to legislate that company X and new Company Z are not allowed to have financial relationship? Let's do that, now company Z merges into competitor company SZ. You've made no difference and all you've succeeded in doing was legislating nothingness. This is ALL removed when you remove the profit motive to practice these loopholes.


There will always be profit motive to do the wrong thing. Taking away pollution standards isn't going to make companies stop polluting. It will just stop the worst ones from having to deal with loopholes. And the companies that were not going through all of this trouble might have less reason to keep their own pollution levels under control.



> I love walmart actually and I work for a small OEM computer company (10 people). If the people of walmart want higher wages they'll refuse to work there unless their demands are met. Alternatively, people can refuse to shop there. The fact that people DO shop there and people DO work there means that they are content with the status quo. It is a MINORITY interest for the status of walmart workers.


I despise Wal-Mart and think they represent the terrible unbalanced situation we have here. They outsource, the underpay, they dodge taxes by donating to themselves, and they stay up at the top. They have an incredibly efficient and successful business model, but at what cost to decency? People don't have the option of just refusing to work places these days. There aren't enough jobs out there. With employment this high, I doubt anyone with a job is going to resist this when they need money for shelter, food, healthcare, etc. for themselves and their families.



I don't know about all of this laffer curve business, but I do know that companies like Exxon Mobil set up shop in other countries and pay income taxes there, but not here. Tax dodging is one thing, but this takes it to a new level. Record profits yet the taxes are just oh-so-high. We really oppress the super rich here, don't we. So much that they're forced to avoid paying even a single dollar of income tax in the US. $15 billion elsewhere, but none here. Our legislation is already so friendly to corporate interests, I don't know what the laffer curve could even teach us about the situation. Should we be even nicer to the corporations?


----------



## MechaGeek (Jan 3, 2011)

The only way law is a deterrent is if they believe they will get caught. Murderers don't "think twice" about committing murders because they don't think they're going to get caught. I don't imagine "thinking twice" applies to even 'lesser' white collar crimes. Pay off enough elected officials and other entities and you won't. I have 0 faith in the efficacy of government to control everything.

I hardly consider global warming a 'consensus.' In fact, if 1 person amongst the community challenges it, it's not a consensus. If you believe Al Gore is benevolent... I'd like you to explain why he pollutes more than anyone else, stands to profit from global warming policy and buys 'carbon credits' of which proceeds are funneled right back to him? Here's an interesting article about one such challenge to global warming within the scientific community. 

DailyTech - Top Physics Professor Resigns From Post, Denouncing Global Warming "Fraud"

I'm not against "climate change." In fact, I think the climate is changing, just HUMANS didn't do it. I like how in every report about global warming causing emissions water vapor is conveniently left out?

On the GLOBAL scale, the US isn't enough to cause GLOBAL difference. Let's assume for a second global warming wasn't a 100% farce... you'd need the WHOLE WORLD participating for it to be managed effectively. Not happening, why should we bear the burden and reap no rewards?

You said it yourself, people weigh the options and choose work over unemployment.

All the Laffer Curve says is that somewhere between 0% tax rate and 100% tax rate is a rate that allows the government to get the most amount of revenue. 0% government gets nothing, 100% government gets nothing because no one will work for free. That's all that it says. It does NOT specify what the ideal amount of money for a certain system to intake is, nor if the government needs the most amount of revenue in order to operate.

Multi-national corporations are all part of the national economy. Their oil is taxed at the pump and other means. I don't necessarily consider multi-national companies who operate in more than one country tax dodging. At the base I think you'd have to consider them like a foreign business. We can't make foreign businesses pay US taxes. Why should a US company operating out of country be forced to pay income/profit based taxes? Should they be paying local taxes, US taxes, etc. all at the same time? I don't think we can legislate that they not pay taxes in their respective countries of operation.


----------



## PAdude (Mar 18, 2011)

INXX

Republican: Though I don't believe in everything they stand for, I far prefer it to the democratic party.

I know this is an off topic rant, but two groups of people who I hate the most are belligerent atheists and belligerent theists. I think religion and non-religion both influence our government far too much.


----------



## MechaGeek (Jan 3, 2011)

PAdude said:


> I know this is an off topic rant, but two groups of people who I hate the most are belligerent atheists and belligerent theists. I think religion and non-religion both influence our government far too much.


Atheism is the new religion. atheists.org - Donations are tax deductible, they've paid for billboards that are anti-theistic, they're recruiting/indoctrinating... It's the religion of non-religion. Not all Atheists, granted.


----------



## magister343 (Jan 3, 2011)

I'm an INTP whose idiosyncratic political views generally align best with Geo-Libertarianism.


----------



## cottoncandy468 (Mar 26, 2011)

I'm an Independent... I don't completely trust the Republicans or the Democrats even though they both clearly have some strengths that could be valuable assets. Bush had good intentions taking charge of some situations and trying to get many things straightened out, but the economy began to fail appallingly around the time interrupting the lives of many of his own people, which is a questionable quality. Clinton on the other hand was charismatic, though he had a deal of slip ups and mistakes in his personal life that a responsible leader should be more careful not to get sucked into but the economy was more stable. I guess leaders are no less human than the rest of us when it comes to not being perfect so often its hard.


----------



## Lord V (Oct 31, 2010)

INFP progressive, right here.


----------



## Cleo (Jan 31, 2011)

I am mostly democrat. I am suprised to see so many thinkers being democrat. I imagined them to have more of that tough love attitude, which seems to be the republican way. I also thought I would see more feelers being democrat.


----------



## triumphator (Apr 3, 2011)

Fiscal conservative, social liberal and ISTJ. Makes sense, right? I'm controlling about money and I don't care about anyone's business. Hah!


----------



## missIrreverent (Apr 3, 2011)

I can't say I'm surprised at how many INFP's said they were "not political"...


----------



## Valdyr (May 25, 2010)

UPDATE: INTJ, communist (Marxist-Leninist).


----------



## Mutatio NOmenis (Jun 22, 2009)

INTP Socialist


----------



## Coburn (Sep 3, 2010)

ESTP. Conservative all the way.


----------



## athenasgriffin (Jul 15, 2011)

INFP--Libertarian

I _really_ don't like being told what to do.


----------



## Lucretius (Sep 10, 2009)

INTP - classical liberal?
That's the closest label I can come up with, but maybe someone else can do better.
I am *pro *free speech, gun rights, LGBT rights, animal rights, church/state separation, abortion/contraception, capital punishment, ambivalent towards AA. I consider myself more of a capitalist than a socialist. In terms of foreign policy, I am probably something of a Wilsonian idealist.


----------



## chasingdreams (Jul 16, 2011)

I'm an INFP.

Anyways, I'm very liberal, and I'm prochoice. However, I'm not very political, as both the Democrats and Republicans seem to be all the same at the end. The government in my opinion is filled with lies, and secrets they wish to keep from the public's eyes. Me being affiliated with either one of them, or in politics in general, in my view is a waste of time.


----------



## How Do You KNOW (Jan 9, 2011)

I've finally decided to go with minarchism. I was researching something about anarchy and I happened upon the word. Not knowing what it was, naturally, I went to Google for a definition. It interested me and, after hours of research, I decided that I wasn't neutral anymore. Although, I'm not an activist. I really couldn't care much less about what type of government I live under, but if I could choose, it'd be minarchism. For those of you who are looking at the word like I was, here's a link.


----------



## Ephemerald (Aug 27, 2011)

INTJ/INTP - Was a liberal, next a libertarian, then a socialist, and now I've stopped caring.


----------



## Chela (Aug 17, 2011)

This is very off topic, I apologize. @Ephemerald you are just kicking "INTJ" stereotypes in the butt haha!! You feel sunny you have a sweet avatar hahaha. Again, very off topic but I wanted to share my observation =)


----------



## clicheguevara (Jul 27, 2011)

I'm not sure of my type (ISFP? INFP? INTP?) but I'm a social democrat.


----------



## Perhaps (Aug 20, 2011)

INTJ. Socially liberal, but I find politics very tedious at the moment, so I don't particularly care.


----------



## Spades (Aug 31, 2011)

I don't follow American politics as I'm Canadian, but it bothers me that INTJ scored so high on Republican, when I am as far liberal socially _and_ economically as it gets.


----------



## Perhaps (Aug 20, 2011)

Spades said:


> I don't follow American politics as I'm Canadian, but it bothers me that INTJ scored so high on Republican, when I am as far liberal socially _and_ economically as it gets.


To be honest, that surprised the hell out of me. I was expecting the exact opposite.


----------



## Spades (Aug 31, 2011)

Action Potential said:


> To be honest, that surprised the hell out of me. I was expecting the exact opposite.


Exactly. Shouldn't INTJ's need for improvement and innovation play some role? Perhaps it was mistyped ISTJ's.. I'll just go with that =)


----------



## Lucretius (Sep 10, 2009)

Yeah honestly, I'm very suspicious of these statistics, because the majority of INTPs I've met have been some kind of libertarian, and yet it's _zero _on the OP...


----------



## Falling Leaves (Aug 18, 2011)

My ISTP political affiliation? They're all idiots...


----------



## MartyMcFly1 (Nov 14, 2010)

Azrael said:


> Yeah honestly, I'm very suspicious of these statistics, because the majority of INTPs I've met have been some kind of libertarian, and yet it's _zero _on the OP...


Many ISTJ's mistype themselves as INTP's.


----------



## Doom (Oct 25, 2010)

INFJ.

I don't like the tactics most hard core leftists use, I find some of their beliefs to be extremely low and down right dirty. I find some of their thinking out right retarded and their rational seems extremely flawed but probably the most the laughable aspect is the whole moral high ground belief that they seem to have combined with their smug attitude which leads them to outright stupid beliefs.

The extreme right how ever is just plain embarassining and I believe they are holding society back as a whole, what isn't "Right" is Wrong? Ah no thank you. The behaviour of some Extreme Right wing groups I've had contact with is extremely childish and more often their reasoning is pathetic and at times they act no different from the people they are supposedly meant to be against.

This is more or less directed at people on the extreme ends of the spectrum, I have varying degrees of each side depending on the individual subject to label myself as one side or the other so I'd say somewhere along the lines of Centrist.


----------



## Destiny Lund (Sep 2, 2011)

ENFP here, I'm borderline ISFP though.

I'm moderate, I lean SLIGHTLY more toward Republican. They're all hypocrites though. It's all about choosing the lesser of evils.


----------



## asleep_awake (Nov 2, 2011)

I'm really surprised to see INFPs as the only group with "not political" at the top! I'm so strongly concerned with social justice and making big changes. I guess lots of INFPs must channel their idealism into activities that are apolitical.

Anyway, I'm super liberal and I lean libertarian socialist. I'm active in feminism, anti-racism, animal rights, and anti-death penalty/prison reform. 

I don't have any faith or trust in politicians or government employees. My political concerns are issue-based rather than party-based or candidate-based.


----------

