You still have to have a basic philosophy as to why you do what you do, how you think people should interact. Or maybe you dont. Thats ok and says something too.

__________________
"To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his father has acquired too much, in order to spare to others who (or whose fathers) have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, "to guarantee to everyone a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."

-Thomas Jefferson

Well in that case as brilliantly wrote by Jefferson:

I believe in personal responsibility. That a nation is built on the collection of the actions of it's individuals, not the other way around.
Imperator made a comment that stuck with me - something like this "some people want equal suffering for all, if one person has more than someone else....something must be unfair, so let's take what he has and give it to the other". There are many who truly believe this.
I do not.
Without exception, I believe people should be rewarded according to the value they offer...in whatever form that takes. At the same time, also without exception, I do not believe people should be rewarded for acting irresponsible or lazy, or simple y refusing their responsibilities.
As a course of any society, a safety net should absolutely be provided for those who fall victim of circumstance so they may get back on their feet to contribute to the society as they did before.
Providing that net indefinitely, is an insult to the entire society and flies in the face of even a child's sense of right and wrong.

__________________

The government cannot give without first taking.

How does being rewarded for the value you offer, and having a safety net until you can get back on your feet apply to people like this? (not the company at the website but the places they visit).

Therapy Dog Training Animal Assisted Therapy Dog Trainer Sirius Healing Seattle Washington - Welcome

Ladies and Gentleman...here is the single largest straw man argument in the history of USPOL.

__________________

The government cannot give without first taking.

It is the duty of government to provide every needful thing impractical for the individual to provide for themselves for the society it represents.

__________________
January 21, 2013: The End of an ERROR.

"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters."
"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."
"The Constitution only gives people the right to pursue happiness. You have to catch it yourself."
---Benjamin Franklin

Interestingly, and just as I thought, so far weve had only conservatives able to quickly express their philosophy. Liberals have remained silent, or phrased it in too specific terms. Which reinforces my opinion that liberals dont think or know why they do things. Prove me wrong.

__________________
"To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his father has acquired too much, in order to spare to others who (or whose fathers) have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, "to guarantee to everyone a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."

-Thomas Jefferson

That is a valid point, and why many liberals are one of two things - young or separated from society.
They tend to be "surface-oriented" people. They try very hard to enact policies based on what they want to happen rather than what is likely to happen.

I say to my kids all the time "A child will act and do based on what they want to do rather than what they should be doing, they will base decisions on a whim rather than considering what the effect of that decision will be". - a persons maturity, I believe, at any age can be defined by this sentence.

Same goes for political philosophies. It is either based on reality, or on a fantasy. Liberal policies, primarily social engineering and social programs, are based on a fantasy - they are simply without reality.
History is very clear on this.

__________________

The government cannot give without first taking.

This explains why our Government was established and ordained. I think our Founding Fathers did an excellent job.

This enumerates what our Founding Fathers thought our government should accomplish with the powers delegated.

I also subscribe to these concepts concerning individual liberty and social justice.

My opinions do not vary on a daily basis, but I have two philosophies inside me as well; one good/normal whether philosophy so to speak and another one, when things were ever to get real ugly and chaotic.

The good whether philosophy is the prevailing one; believe in the democratic system, as much personal/economic freedom as possible, low taxes, a balanced budget, government/citizens taking care for defense (mix of draft and professional military) and security (with the least possible interference in people's private life) and in general a believe that people do the right thing due to their freedoms and personal responsibility.

The other philosophy comes into play, if my country were ever to go down the toilet again; maybe after 1- 2 decades of economic turnoil, mass unemployment, intolerable high crime rates, disfunctional pseudo democratic governments and a total lack of general stability.

Even although this sentiment of mine seems to be getting weaker the older I get, but during times like this, I could imagine myself to turn away from democracy, give a shit about freedom and wanting a strong government to wipe out all elements causing trouble and instability. Hell as long as I'm not part of the victim list a few culprits being executed would be fine as well. Stability and order would be my priority during such times, especially as long as taxes are lowered/kept low and the budget is balanced as well. Anway I don't expect myself to ever endure conditions worse enough, to fall back on this rather extreme outlook on society and government, so it's irrelevant but for the sake of being honest and frank, I've mentioned it as well.

__________________
"Homo Homini Lupus"
Thomas Hobbes

I think our tax money should only be raised for the general welfare and not the general warfare.

Funded UN initiatives could provide for the general welfare of any regions experiencing excessive anarchy. Ensuring a republican form of government could be a power delegated to the UN for such purposes.

In the US, we could have "public sector means of production" provide "conduits to markets" for the private sector. Hoover Dam is one example. Mass transit could be another, especially if it is underground. Such a conduit to markets could provide revenue from general forms of taxation and could lower our tax burden. Zero percent income tax is a worthwhile fiscal policy goal regardless of political ideology.

To me politics revolves around freedom and rights; I belief in the basics, right to life, right to liberty and so forth. However, my conception of quite what those mean is different to a lot of people. Right to life, for example, to me that means healthcare (hard to live if you get ill), food, shelter and so forth. The necessities. My conception of freedom is different as well; I believe in enabling freedom, subscribing to a similar theory to Rousseau. I don't see freedom as being left alone by the state to rot in a depressed area with no hope of improving myself or getting out. I think freedom is the freedom to excel, to improve yourself and fufil your potental, then you can really extend your options, your knowledge and your abilities and you'll have a lot more freedom than if the state had simply left you alone. Other than that I'm pretty socially liberal and would try to avoid government intrusion into too many areas.

__________________

My political philosophy can be summed up in one phrase: cooperation before conflict. In all things seek a collaborative and cooperative effort first and a conflictive and competitive effort last. We work best when we work together.

__________________

Which is my thoughts on war; last resort.
However when that choice is made - do it without hesitation and do it ruthlessly.

__________________

The government cannot give without first taking.

Sounds like what you're alluding to here is a return to Nazi fascism without, I assume, the ethnic genocide. If it's true, it's oddly refreshing coming from a German. My understanding is that it's pretty much considered a sin there to accept any aspect of the path taken under Hitler's guidance as good. In my view, Hitler's government (with the one glaring exception, enough to wipe out the government but not the model, and possibly a second in the imperialism) was actually a very useful tool in developing a strong and prosperous nation. Fascism is always a good thing for those who are not being oppressed. If a government could pull it off in a way that everyone had the same opportunity to rise from the bottom to being a corporate head or lawmaker that we have in free states, it's not that objectionable. Just so long as you use a conceptional enemy intruding against the state (sloth, rap music, etc.) rather than a group of people.

__________________
During the journey we commonly forget its goal. Almost every profession is chosen as a means to an end but continued as an end in itself. Forgetting our objectives is the most frequent act of stupidity.
-Friedrich Nietzsche, The Wanderer and his Shadow

All good socialists have villas in Southern France. That's not the point.
-Eurosocialist

The only issue I have with that is that we already have a social contract and Constitution, which purports to be the supreme law of the land.

What could fascism accomplish better than our own form of political-economy?

Eliminating official poverty via the mechanism of unemployment compensation that conforms to the federal at-will employment doctrine and existing state at-will employment laws; better conforms to the concept of individual liberty enumerated in our Ninth Amendment. Such a social safety net would preclude generational forms of poverty due to the at-will nature of employment relationships.

Why would fascist (or other national and socialized) public policies be better than public policy which conforms to our Constitution?