Have you ever changed some of your (political) views?

[epicstruggle]

Have any of you ever changed your opinion/view on a certain issue? Something that you thought you would never do. Here are some examples of views that I have soften/changed:
ban on prostitution-Im starting to view this as a necessary evil, and maybe having some govermnental control (ie require health testing, safety from pimps,...) would be benefitial.
ban on using marijuana-I think the best thing to do with this for the short term, is legalizing its use, and taxing it. Have stiffer penalties for other more powerful drugs.

Ill add more to this list if this thread starts getting popular.

I do have views that I hope I never change my stance on:
severly limiting abortions
complete belief that there is a god.
microsoft is a necessary evil

later,
epic

 

[Humus]

Yup, many times.
I was once anti-capitalist, now I'm very pro-capitalism (though I still strongly believe in equal opportunities, even for capitalistic reasons). I had some philosophies about how an ideal society could work without money. Then it kinda hit me that my ideology wasn't all that different from the communistic view, which led me to look if I had any flaws in my ideology. After a while the need for currency became apparent. I had too much faith in the human kind, that everyone would want to do what's good for society. The system could be misused, and there was nothing that could motivate progress. Something to reward hard work, innovation etc. So the more I thought of it, the more capitalism made sense. It's not perfect, but it's the best we got.

 

[zurich]

Center to Left

 

[pax]

My views used to be strongly anti abortion then realized how such social engineering was unworkable in the judicial sense. I now only support fiscal issues that would alleviate a womans financial desire to kill her unborn child.

I used to be very pro gun control. Now I only support background checks and yearly licenses which would include new background checks but would give acccess to anyone of most guns. This view mostly changed after the 2000 election.

Fiscally Im still left of center after 20 years of politicking hhe...

 

[John Reynolds]

Lord, this thread reminded me of an extremely cheesy pick-up line I used on occasion in the '80s: "Would you care for a sexual experience so intense it could conceivably change your political views?".

 

[Sabastian]

Yup, many times.
I was once anti-capitalist, now I'm very pro-capitalism (though I still strongly believe in equal opportunities, even for capitalistic reasons). I had some philosophies about how an ideal society could work without money. Then it kinda hit me that my ideology wasn't all that different from the communistic view, which led me to look if I had any flaws in my ideology. After a while the need for currency became apparent. I had too much faith in the human kind, that everyone would want to do what's good for society. The system could be misused, and there was nothing that could motivate progress. Something to reward hard work, innovation etc. So the more I thought of it, the more capitalism made sense. It's not perfect, but it's the best we got.

In the past 15 years I basically followed the same track as you Humus. Creating an environment where equal prospects exist though needs to be done on the bases of qualifications etc. I dislike intensely government programs that advance discrimination against anyone. A government before any other organization ought to be the one treating everyone the same and there is a substantial difference between equal treatment and equal outcomes. I think that AA type programs have really run their course and they ought to be ended as an active policy and let corporations, small business even government positions etc... be allowed to take applications solely on the qualifications of the applicant. I used to be very collectivist in my political thought. It seemed as though the case for it was cut and dry. But the killer is when you consider the monetary individualism that you articulated above about hard work and innovation being rewarded. How much should we reward hard work innovation is the question.(taxes.) In a collectivist structure, taxation is always too high.

Also I found that individual responsibility and moral agency another nail in the coffin of collectivist type theories. These are key to having a system that is not so coercive and regulating of which I believe left wing collectivists systems are.

I consider myself in reality a centrist (well slightly right of center.) I base this on my view of collectivism and individualism being a part of the same thing.. society which is made of individuals. Of course if you are extremely collectivist you consider my views as extremely conservative and only an anarchist (A rare thing that someone whom is left wing does not really understand.) could consider me to be left wing. But even on individual responsibility you have to draw the line somewhere. You can't expect disabled persons to be fiscally responsible for themselves and so on. It is where you draw the line in the "grey areas".

I have gone from not knowing where I stood too extremely left. It was difficult to critique my left wing politics because I thought that they were correct. But after some difficult eye opening forced study ( This I had to do on my own BTW which is something that I still disliked having to do as a result of the education I received being so biased and one sided, left wing.) by reading numerous conservative/libertarian writings I found a lot of holes in collectivist theories. I think now my politics are more balanced in as far as collectivism vs individualism are concerned. (Though there are plenty of leftist that would severely disagree. ) I find now, and it is quite ironic really, that I am more of a rebel then I ever was. In other words if you are slightly conservative then you are more of a dissenter then if you were extremely left wing. It is funny though originally I had the impression that the reverse was true. On this subject I think I could really run off at the mouth.

 

[MfA]

I dont see how you can be completely pro-capitalist without faith in human kind (excepting for the egomaniacs).

I agree somewhat with libertarians who say socialists have no faith in man, I believe man given the individual choice will on average be egocentric ... whereas given a choice for collective action he will show solidarity. Tragedy of the commons and all that, it is easier to do the right thing if you arent putting yourself at a disadvantage doing it.

Without the faith in man as an individual I cannot see an alternative to interventionist government, so I only believe in capitalism with a minor c. Freedom is nice in moderation, the freedom to be completely egotistical is something we can do without.

Balance in all things.

As for politics, I used to believe the EU was a good thing. Now I just think it is a necessary evil due to its very small chance into not turning into a corporate bought cock up of a federal government ... I am pessimistic because I just dont believe democracy can operate at that kind of scale anymore, not with a federal government but not with a representative democracy either. It is still the only hope though I see against deregulation and the drive at pushing all labour/environmental/etc laws to the lowest common denominator, and the IP protection laws to the highest.

 

[epicstruggle]

Another area that i have softened my views on is free trade. Ive been a big free trader, but cant grimace everytime i hear jobs leaving to china and india. I dont mind india so much as they dont pin their currency on the US dollar, like china does. If china let their currency float it would cause goods produced there to become a bit higher priced, which is why they are doing that.

Free trade is only good when everyone plays the same game with the same rules. There might be a time where we might have to start taxing goods that come from overseas.

later,
epic

 

[Sticky]

I used to be left of center. I appreciated what the canadian government did for their people, universal health care, gay rights, etc.

Now that I have been in the US for a few years I find myself to the right.

A large part I beleive is due to the extremist left pandering that goes on down here. And the constant lowball politics from the left. Fear and pandering will not get my vote. That and druing war time you certainly want a conservitave government to handle things.

And of course I went from a Tax rate of 4o to 45% to like 30 to 35%. So that always helps as well.

 

[ByteMe]

I used to be pro-choice. But the older I got the more I realized it is a choice with responsibility. It seems to me the basis of being pro-choice all leads back to the "everyone is a victum" mentality.

And I am ZERO percent religious.


I am also very pro supply/demand ecnomics. I used to believe that if the USA government was cut atleast in half the country would be much better. Then I realized that a combination of two things kinda goes against this.

First is that people are corrupt most of the time when they get a chance.
Second is most people are too lazy/stoopid/unwilling to fight the above problem.

So as much as I hate a government telling me what I can/cannot do there is a need for some controls.

 

[Sabastian]

I dont see how you can be completely pro-capitalist without faith in human kind (excepting for the egomaniacs).

Personally I do not have a lot of faith in individuals whom believe that there is no need for individual responsibility in their own monetary and familial matters. If people are not accountable for their own well being then individualism, and sub-sequentially, capitalism will not survive and collectivist mentalities will prevail. In short I do not have faith in people to be responsible for their own well being as well as their families if there is a structure in place that removes the necessity for that responsibility. As a result I believe that the trade off will be a loss of monetary freedom and this will result in a loss liberty over all in favor for the collective "well being" of all, "from cradle to grave".

As a side note MFA this is not a critique of what you say but rather what I believe.

 

[Dr. Ffreeze]

Sabastian,

In short I do not have faith in people to be responsible for their own well being as well as their families if there is a structure in place that removes the necessity for that responsibility.

Very well said. I must say I agree with you.

Dr. Ffreeze

 

[Humus]

I dont see how you can be completely pro-capitalist without faith in human kind (excepting for the egomaniacs).

I agree somewhat with libertarians who say socialists have no faith in man, I believe man given the individual choice will on average be egocentric ... whereas given a choice for collective action he will show solidarity. Tragedy of the commons and all that, it is easier to do the right thing if you arent putting yourself at a disadvantage doing it.

Without the faith in man as an individual I cannot see an alternative to interventionist government, so I only believe in capitalism with a minor c. Freedom is nice in moderation, the freedom to be completely egotistical is something we can do without.

Balance in all things.

As for politics, I used to believe the EU was a good thing. Now I just think it is a necessary evil due to its very small chance into not turning into a corporate bought cock up of a federal government ... I am pessimistic because I just dont believe democracy can operate at that kind of scale anymore, not with a federal government but not with a representative democracy either. It is still the only hope though I see against deregulation and the drive at pushing all labour/environmental/etc laws to the lowest common denominator, and the IP protection laws to the highest.

It's one thing talking about darwinistic capitalism and another talking about what could be considered "normal" capitalism. There need to be some regulation, some laws and stuff to keep the system at its best. There need to be balance. There need to be some social programs to give people equal opportunities. Some social protection networks to help the less fortunate. But you can't have too extensive social programs, or people's will to work will go down. If you can live on wellfare and get a decent living standards, then many people will just choose to place themselves outside the labor market and parasiting on others through their tax money. Sure, there needs to be some unemployment benefits for example, but you can't have it too high, otherwise people won't look for a job.

 

[K.I.L.E.R]

Lord, this thread reminded me of an extremely cheesy pick-up line I used on occasion in the '80s: "Would you care for a sexual experience so intense it could conceivably change your political views?".

That's something I would expect from you.

 

[MfA]

Small f please SABASTIAN. Welfare wasnt really the only issue I was getting at, also things like consumer/employee/environmental protection laws.

In a Randian society contracts could be turned into legalized slavery, and the protection of unowned shared resources is not something pure Capitalism can deal with.

 

[Sabastian]

Small f please SABASTIAN. Welfare wasnt really the only issue I was getting at, also things like consumer/employee/environmental protection laws.

In a Randian society contracts could be turned into legalized slavery, and the protection of unowned shared resources is not something pure Capitalism can deal with.

I am sorry if the use of the capital f offended you in any way. It is simply an overlooked minor detail or so I would have thunk it too be.

In terms of consumer/employee/environmental protection laws I actually do not disagree entirely. As far as the consumer is concerned I usually stand behind the old buyer beware. With regards to employee protection laws I agree there should be some but I always keep in mind that individuals are free to find other work should a particular employer not be accommodating. I do not always create a victim of individuals who wind up in a poor circumstance rather often individuals are entirely responsible for their predicament and the state need not make amends for their meager choices. With regards to environmental protection laws I agree there should be some but to believe the doomsday environmentalist is to deny all reality in favor for of over regulation of the market of which should be free as possible but within reason.

I am not a Randian. I do not indorse a purely capitalistic system. Rather I think that Capitalism is supported by individualism and the other extreme Communism/Socialism is supported by collectivism. Nether extreme is desirable in its purity. I believe the engineering bias is collectivist because individualism is so imperfect on its own. I believe there is too much bias for collectivist mentalities presently and the balance in favor of collectivist thinking is becoming overweight and we ought to remind ourselves that big government social programs/spending/taxation are probably the most likely way we would ever see slavery re-evoked. I am not purely individualistic nor collectivist. When it all comes down to it the system you prefer depends on how much you want an individual to be responsible for their own well being. I believe however that individual responsibility is the real engine of freedom and not the reverse. We do not need the collective nor do we need anarchy to be a free and good society. What we need is a system that recognizes that fact despite the imperfection of it. Democracy will be a victim of its own success and the government employed ballot always bias for more of the same.

 

[Sabastian]

It's one thing talking about darwinistic capitalism and another talking about what could be considered "normal" capitalism. There need to be some regulation, some laws and stuff to keep the system at its best. There need to be balance. There need to be some social programs to give people equal opportunities. Some social protection networks to help the less fortunate. But you can't have too extensive social programs, or people's will to work will go down. If you can live on wellfare and get a decent living standards, then many people will just choose to place themselves outside the labor market and parasiting on others through their tax money. Sure, there needs to be some unemployment benefits for example, but you can't have it too high, otherwise people won't look for a job.

I agree with Humus entirely. Though we might draw our lines in the "grey areas" with slightly different objections.

 

[Saem]

I've shifted my views rather radically during my time here at beyond3d. I used to be rather left -- attempts to make things better for everyone. Now I'm floating around centre.

 

[diarrhea_splatter]

I basically go with the right and wrong approach. Can't get any easier than that.

 

[Nite_Hawk]

My views have probably changed the most since meeting my wife. I've always been pretty pro-individual, but I had a pretty conservative upbringing and I've mellowed out a fair amount. Here's probably how I'd say I've changed in the last 5 years:

Abortion: Used to be anti-abortion, now I'm probably more "I still feel it's morally wrong, but not the government's job to enforce".

Environment: Used to be fairly neutral about conservation issues, now pro environment. (Read Neal Stephenson's Zodiac as a good example)

Free Trade: Didn't have much of an opinion before, am fairly pro free trade now. It sucks in the USA at the moment (I should know, I just got laid off), but the increase in the standard of living of other countries will drive the global economy for the production of more goods in the long run. We might not make 6 digit salaries anymore, but that was a dream that couldn't last.

Government: Was pro-capitalist, anti big government. Now I'm quite a bit more capitalist-with-socialist-boundaries, and am willing to afford the government regulatory control in cases where it benefits the people.

Guns: Was very much pro freedom of use/ownership. I tend to be more pro regulation, but still heavily against banning. I am *especially* against banning unless there is an amendment or change to the constitution.

Overall, I still lean slightly toward rights of the individual versus rights of society. I'm more neutral on government, and still am very pro-consumer. I am generally against monopolistic business without regulation, but pro-capitalism with some reservations. I'm relatively pro-environment, but with the understanding that it's necessary to make some compromises (take nuclear energy for instance).

Nite_Hawk