What Is Your Political Ideology? - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com. The only online debate website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the leading online debate website. Debate popular topics, debate news, or debate anything! Debate online for free! DebateIsland is utilizing Artifical Intelligence to transform online debating.


The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

What Is Your Political Ideology?
in Politics

By MacMac 28 Pts
Tell me the political ideology you subscribe to so as to kick off this discourse.
My agenda is to study the human mind.

Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place

Details +


  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 2532 Pts
    Anarcho-capitalism: essentially a free market running everything, with no public institutions in place.

    I doubt it is going to be achieved in my lifetime, however, so to be more practical, I will say that I am a libertarian/minarchist: a very limited government, the only function of which being protection of the individual rights, and everything else being subjected to the unconstrained free market forces.
  • I am a centrist Republican.
  • TKDBTKDB 400 Pts
    The definition of:

    "Anarcho-capitalism is a political philosophy and school of anarchist thought[a] that advocates the elimination of centralized state dictum in favor of self-ownershipprivate property and free markets. Anarcho-capitalists hold that in the absence of statute (which they describe as law by arbitrary autocratic decrees, or bureaucratic legislationswayed by transitory political special interest groups), society tends to contractually self-regulate and civilize through the spontaneous and organic discipline of the free market (in what its proponents describe as a "voluntary society").[1][2]

    In an anarcho-capitalist society, law enforcementcourts and all other security services would be operated by privately funded competitors selected by consumers rather than centrally through "confiscatory" taxation. Money, along with all other goods and services, would be privately and competitively provided in an open market. Personal and economic activities under anarcho-capitalism would therefore be regulated by victim-based[clarification neededdispute resolution organizations under tort and contract law, rather than by statute through centrally determined punishment under "political monopolies", which they believe tend to become corrupt in proportion to their monopolization.[3] Business regulations, such as corporate standardspublic relations, product labels, rules for consumer protectionethics, and labor relations would be regulated voluntarily via the use of competitive trade associationsprofessional societies, and standards bodies; this would, in theory, establish market-recourse for businesses' decisions and allow the market to communicate effectively with businesses by the use of consumer unions, instead of centralized regulatory mandates for companies imposed by the state, which anarcho-capitalists and other libertarians argue is inefficient due to regulatory capture.[4] "

    I'm an Independent, because neither the Democratic Socialists, the Democrats, or the Conversatives, do enough for the country as a whole.

    When the Socialists Democrats, and Democrats, make a public comment, they're talking to their individual constituents, or follower fanbases, with their rhetoric, that the United States tax payer is going to pay for.

    And when the Conservatives make a public comment, they get sneered at by the Democratic, and Democratic Socialists constituents, or fanbases, because they don't want the Conservatives getting in the way of their promises, being interrupted by a Conservative, in a political position, instead of their preferred Democratic, or Socialist Democratic choice?

    It's amazing how some don't mind, others paying for their needs, and wants, as a citizen, via on another U.S. citizens dime?

    Free healthcare, your student debt being forgiven, maybe more Sanctuary Cities, continued open borders, with no Border barrier, or Wall in place, but border security is ok?

    Look at how California's Governor, Mr. Newsom is managing his state? 

  • Libertarian
  • Jesus Christs righteous theocracy.
  • I like to call myself a "Geolibertarian with mutualist leanings". Since these are typically ideologies people haven't heard of, I'll go ahead and offer you definitions of these terms according to how I view them:
    1) Geolibertarianism is a branch of libertarianism, usually left-wing or center-left, which views land as a commodity that can't be defined as property in an economic sense. The reason this view is held is we have an interpretation of the Lockean proviso which would exclude land from being considered property. To paraphrase the Lockean Proviso, John Locke argued that land can only be personal property so long as there is enough for everyone. Geolibertarians argue that the simple fact that people die of poverty, when they didn't during ancient times in which humans didn't have the concept that land could be property, is indication there is not enough land. Indeed, you can say there are billions of acres of land on earth, and there are. But that is not what is important but rather A) if the land is habitable(this alone brings the amount of land to about half) and B) if the person can get to that land(many people live in urban centers where all the land for dozens of miles are all already claimed). For this reason we do not believe land should be considered sole private property anymore.

    We remedy this issue by demanding a land value tax be levied on landowners which will fund what is known as a "Citizen's dividend" as suggested by economist Henry George(this is where the "geo" in geolibertarianism comes from. It's short for Georgism). The citizen's dividend is a type of Universal Basic Income. Since land has a market value on its own, and since we view land as common property, this entitles everyone to the value of all land, and this is our justification for a UBI.

    2) Mutualism is an anarchist school of thought as proposed by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon. While I am not fully convinced that anarchy would work in today's world, there are many other aspects of mutualism I agree with: namely occupancy and use property norms, mutual credit systems, and market socialism. In this instance market socialism means a free market economy in which workers or society owns the means of production. For me, I support economic democracy as defined on wikipedia here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_democracy .
    "Nobody realizes that some people expend tremendous energy merely to be normal."
    -Albert Camus, Notebook IV
  • @GeoLibCogScientist "...For this reason we do not believe land should be considered sole private property anymore."

    I could get on board if it was a tax on land held above a certain (large) amount, in order to disincentivize the use of property and land as an investment or as a store of value. Doing so could result in a more equitable distribution of land.

    On the other hand, taxing all land held would mean everyone who owns a house or farm etc. gets taxed more. In effect it's creating a hurdle in the mid-low end of wealth acquisition. I'm very much against creating hurdles in this period of an individual's wealth acquisition, because once you get above a certain amount of wealth your wealth begins to grow exponentially. It seems to me that such a measure, in and of itself, would actually increase wealth inequality over time.

  • I don't like the idea of prescribing to any political ideology, just as Jung stated "People don't have ideologies, ideologies have people". However I am most inclined toward libertarian principles of the minarchistic, not anarchistic, variety. Power corrupts, and it is only through a healthy balance of power between citizen and government that abuses of power can be minimized. This is why democracies treat their citizens better than dictatorships: because the citizen has some degree of power over the government.
  • WinstonC said:

    On the other hand, taxing all land held would mean everyone who owns a house or farm etc. gets taxed more. In effect it's creating a hurdle in the mid-low end of wealth acquisition. I'm very much against creating hurdles in this period of an individual's wealth acquisition, because once you get above a certain amount of wealth your wealth begins to grow exponentially. It seems to me that such a measure, in and of itself, would actually increase wealth inequality over time.

    Well, geolibertarians typically believe in only one tax, and that is the land value tax. It's not unheard of for some to support taxes for environmental reasons though, since it does go along with the spirit of the planet's land and the planet as a whole belongs to everyone, so to pollute it would be doing damage to something everyone else holds in common. So, at most, we support only those two types of taxes. The Land Value Tax(LVT) would be replacing most of the taxes we have today. I personally also only support those two forms of taxation.

    Certainly there can be further ways to make the LVT more progressive(it is fairly progressive as is). Perhaps there could be a rule where the first X amount of dollars of land is tax-free. Or we could put tax breaks on people who use land in a way that benefits all of society(i.e farmers). In many ways, people like farmers already provide a value back to society we could argue pays for the LVT they owe to society. I'm definitely open to the idea of having exceptions made like this.

    Since I'm not personally the one implementing a land value tax, I can't tell you specifics of how much could be tax-free and what groups we may need to give tax breaks to. It all depends on how badly if hurts others. Since no one would be paying any other taxes but those two, off the top of my head, I would imagine everyone would be receiving a tax break over all, in terms of how much of their own income goes to taxes. Again, I've not done the specifc math though, and of course we need a rate we tax land at to also determine that.

    And keep in mind, many poor people don't even own land. I would say it's fair to say that most homeowners fall into at least the lower middle class(could be wrong), and almost the entirety of the lower class rents, and doesn't own the land.
    "Nobody realizes that some people expend tremendous energy merely to be normal."
    -Albert Camus, Notebook IV
  • @GeoLibCogScientist Taxing land over a certain amount is certainly an idea I could get on board with.

    I'm rather skeptical of economic democracy, though. In my estimation socialist systems fail to recognize several important facts. Firstly: the importance of the Pareto principle; 20% of people do 80% of the useful work. Second: the value of management. Third: the value of the resources and ideas of the entrepreneur. Fourth: the difficulty and inefficiency of centralized planning. Fifth: the value in being able to implement one's ideas without having to convince a central body that the ideas are worthwhile. Finally, such systems don't seem understand what motivates the people who are working the hardest.
  • I don't adhere to any specific ideology, depends on the issue... I'm quite left on most social issues but more conservative fiscally... I'd say I'm a social-pragmatic-centrist...
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • WordsMatterWordsMatter 473 Pts
    edited July 2019
    Libertarian socialism, which is why even though I am fairly left, I find a lot of overlap with the likes of Rand Paul, or @MayCaesar

    I believe in the decentralization of power and the dismantling of authoritarian institutions. While socialism is in the name the huge difference which begins to distinguish libertarian socialism (L.S.) from Democratic socialism and bolshevism/Leninism, is that L.S. do not believe in a state owned and run economy. That would be counterproductive to our philosophy as we seek to dismantle all forms of narrowly concentrated power. A government run economy would just shift the power being in the hands of a few CEOs across a few mother corporations, to the hands of a handful of politicians. It would be a lateral move.

    Instead we find that the best way to increase personal freedoms is to break as many things down to collective scales. Give the workers the freedom to decide amongst themselves how the business should be run. This would be achieved through worker's council's and trade unions, where the lead positions consist of randomly appointed members of the group, rotates, and where ones power in decision making can be easily revoked.

    Now when I speak on unions I am not talking about most modern unions. Having worked in both a company that was unionized, and another that tried to unionize, I despise those unions. These were "collectives" (not really a collective or Democratic in the slightest) where they either took money from me and gave me nothing in return, and instead used that money for a small groups benefit, or they would protect a lazy or poor performing employee. The kind of Union I am speaking of, and would result in a workplace that shares The totality of what is generated, is one that would say to the person who is lazy "get the hell out you are hurting literally every one of us." It is a union where if you have a good idea that makes the business grow yes you share the benefits across the union, but if someone else has a good idea you get some of the benefits from it. Ideally every worker is invested in the business improving because it inherently improves themselves, and anyone who is just along to benefit from others work is kicked out by the majorities decision. As opposed to a capitalist workplace where if a worker has an idea that increased profits by 15% they don't get any benefit except for a thank you while another individual gets to reap the benefits.

    current capitalism leads to workplaces, like Wal-Mart or Target or Amazon, where employees could give two shits about improving the business. If the business does better the workers don't share in the benefits. If the workers owned it collectively they would recieve a slice of the pie whenever the business grows, creating an incentive for the workers to constantly try to improve but also incentive to lick anyone out of the group who isn't just as invested in improving the business themselves.

    On the political side we seek to break down political power from the federal level down to municipal levels, and never larger than a county, for the vast majority of political decisions. Again the political bodies would be similar to worker's council's, where they are made up by a random cross section of the public into easily revokable positions. This maximizes the different perspectives into the decision making body and prevents long term power. The importance of keeping it to small scales preferably municipalities or cities, keeps the political process on a face to face democracy level where political actors are more easily held accountable for their actions. Preferable most of all national issues would be settled on this level. Decisions around abortion, drug policies, healthcare, social security, would all be handled on these levels.

    federal government would be insanely limited. Even the military would be made up of thousands of local groups run by soldier's council's which then fall into larger groups with their own soldier's council's. This would allow for the large scale coordination required but would leave decisions around the benefits for being a soldier, or if a gay person can serve, up to the lowest levels. One town could pay for free healthcare to the soldiers from their town, while the next one over could give no such benefits.

    So I agree with libertarians on weakening the federal government and giving people the most control over their own lives, while I find their economic views to be lacking as large corporations run by very few people can be just as detrimental to a person's individual freedom as political power in the hands of few that affects the many.
  • Also to American conservatives or libertarians, those words have strayed very far away from their real meanings. You call taxes theft. But why are they theft? Is it because you are giving your hard earned money away to a large number of people? Is it because you are giving your hard earned money away to even a single person at all? Tax is easily seen as they because you get it printed out on every single paycheck, because the government is more transparent that probate companies even if it is still authoritarian. You will make the argument that under capitalism business owners deserve a bigger share because they risked more or put more work into the business and created the very opportunities their employees have to complain about. But imagine if the profits you generated vs what percentage went to those above you was written out every single paycheck like taxes are. Even at big box stores, capitalists would argue that the CEOs deserve such a massive share because they make the big decisions.

    But what does it mean to the floor salesman who generates 50% more value than anyone on their same level, to be paid exactly the same as those coworkers? Under capitalism shouldn't the employee that can sell the most product in $ value make the most? But those at the very top decide that no matter what company you work for you make the same salary as every employee on your same level. So sure you can "freely leave the company and go work somewhere else" but the conditions don't change because the power holders, the wealthy have every incentive not to change them.

    This is why do many workplaces discourage salary discussions of any kind. If you saw it written out every single month that even though you are twice as productive as every employee on your same level, you make the same amount, or at best 2% more, wouldn't you view that as theft? If a person works hard on their own accord to provide twice the value of another person in their exact same position (equality and self determination) don't they deserve to be compensated more than 2% over their coworkers? 

    Taxes are theft because your own personal hard work goes to pay for people who don't work nearly as hard, as it would be under a Burnie presidency, but isn't it also theft that the private power holders don't pay you proportionally more than your less hard working counterparts? Even if you have the freedom to leave that specific private business but no other business will pay you proportionally for the work that you do and the situation would not change. Is it not also theft for every single employer to pay you extremely similarly to everyone on your same level regardless of your output, under our capitalist system? The only difference between the government tyranny and the private business tyranny is that only the government specifically says what they take out from there value that you personally produced on every paycheck.
  • Leftist, Globalist, Social Democrat. (Social dem-expansion of social programs through an increased tax burden on the higher classes, not socialism)
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top


| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2019 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

Awesome Debates
Terms of Service

Get In Touch