Jump to content
The Education Forum

My Political Ideology


Recommended Posts


I was brought up in a home where my foster father was an intellectual conservative, but (as I have found out through the years) not strictly for the political beliefs but more for the preservation of an accustomed lifestyle.

Even though he came from a line of stonecutters from the western part of Sweden his father had "made it" as a butcher - he did the "classtravel" within one generation. My grandfather was then able to give his children an education. My father became a Medical Doctor so the home I grew up in was a typical upper middle-class home.

I have a four year older sister that showed great political interest early (she's born 1951). Through discussions with her and her friends I came to some early political conclusions - all inspired from the radical left. In the end of the 1960's (as a young teenager) I participated in my earlist political debates as a representative of the Communist Party Youth of Sweden (too young to join the party though which was quite good). I wasn't very comfortable with this affiliation (with a party who supported a totilatarian system) and therefore I started to look towards the organized "free left" - SAC (the Syndicalists). It was in this environment I came to continue my active poltical "carrier". I'm still counting myself as a syndicalist - not as active as I once was but definitely not desillusioned. Over the years I have been involved in many smaller political projects - from early activities which included demonstrations, house occupations, etc... to the formal burning of my pension papers, debates against the "establishment" and still demonstrations as a not so young person anymore.

My early inspirations came from the courses I took in the interpretation of different ideologies, especially Marxism. I read works by Marx, Lenin, Bernstein, Mao as well as Bakhunin, Kropotkin, Goldman, Berkman, Oppenheimer, etc... Since this is a post of political ideology I thought I would mention some of the main ideas behind my interpretation of syndicalism.

Main aim – to take over the means of production: Since capitalism uses all means necessary to increase productivity and profits we see a ruthless exploitation of both people and the environment. Therefore it’s necessary to make the means of production a property of all.

Federations instead of parliaments based on political parties: For me the bourgeois concept of a parliamentary system built on political parties is very limited and unfair. It should be replaced by the principles of federalism. This means that all those who are affected by a decision have the right to participate in the decision-making process.

True representation instead of political elite: Larger groups of people must reach decisions via representatives. The representation should rotate within the entire group structure. Representatives should be given limited authority and their powers should be revoked, thus ensuring that no elite arises and promotes its own interests.

Internationalism: Syndicalism is international by nature and strives for solidarity and co-operation among wage earners the world over – not only inside “fortress Europe”. That’s why I was against Sweden joining the European Union!

Organizing and educating all wage-earners: It’s very important to make all wage-earners aware of the principles of exploitation and oppression from a power elite. Workers of all kind must therefore be brought up with a union of solidarity, awareness and good organization.

Direct action: Direct action is one of the great means for changing society and living conditions. I believe that this is the basis for creating political literacy.

My political beliefs has had an impact on my personal lifestyle. I became a vegetarian over 30 years ago (my wife is also a vegetarian and our 5 children has been raised vegetarian), we try to avoid using a car (as much as possible we use public transportation and we don't own a car), we try to support local ecological farmers and smaller "solidarity stores" and if possible avoid anything produced by multi-national companies. I'm also a strong believer in gender equality but I realize that we still have a long way to go.

I'm now 50+ and several of my friends over the years are still waiting for me to grow up... :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 70
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Hypocritical Green/Social Democrat

I joined the Ecology Party and Greenpeace in the late 1970s putting up fly posters. I've voted Labour, Liberal and Ecology / Green party whenever possible. Often thought about getting more involved at party level, but time, family ......

The state of transport is a real disappointment as political reality sinks in - "we'll produce a transport stategy" they said! I travelled to London yesterday by car at short notice - the cheapest rail ticket £89 one way Wigan-Euston.

I'm a hypocrit on two counts:

1. Greece for a holiday, but we do not fly every year.

2. PC is permanently on - SETI@Home

Results Received 10068

Your rank out of 5436301 total users is: 30978th place.

There is now more emphasis on global health and transport is key to this. We have surburban airports claiming international status? And India are not surprisingly opening their skies with crazy priced tickets. Now is the time to think personally about the UN, future World Government (Governance!). Political views need to be global, not just national.

I found time for some reading recently, The Age of Consent, George Monbiot; No Logo, Klein; A Bed for the Night, David Rieff (UN!); Roaring Nineties, Stiglitz. As ever need to read more!

A key task is to educate individual's on basic health (PSHE) people must take some (there's the politics of the matter) responsibility for their health status. Demographic trends are shaping more than population pyramids. I see a key to this to having a universal conceptual framework for self-reflection and group engagement, our problems demand new ways of sharing ideas, potentially supported by informatics.

A paper on this:


The site below provides a framework - you may find the political links page relevant to your discussion and studies.

One ambition? To take the model to the World Social Forum.

Please consider health and social care for your future careers!

Best wishes

Peter Jones (an optimist!)





Hodges' Health Career - Care Domains - Model

h2cm: help 2C more - help 2 listen - help 2 care

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Andy writes:

In the meantime what would be great if more members would post (we are especially lacking any conservatives thus far :P)

Yes, where are all the Thatcherites, pro-fox-hunting lobbyists, members of the National Rifle Association of America, et al? I suppose I am a bit of a Capitalist insofar as I own and run own my (very small) home-based business, and I might be inclined to shoot anyone who tried to take my means of production away from me (if I had a rifle), but in other respects I am quite a nice bloke. I own a greyhound but I don’t use him to hunt – although he occasionally escapes from our house and attempts to do terrible things to our neighbours’ cats. We are just about to enjoy a nice long walk in the woods…

Seriously, though, this Forum is not really representative of people’s views. Consider the two following personalities – people I actually know. What is THEIR ideology?

1. Bricklayer: Trade union member. Has usually voted Labour but hates Tony Blair. Works part-time as an employee of a local firm but does a lot of work “on the side” (no VAT, no income tax). Generally believes that the government wastes money gathered in taxes, but has taken advantage of the National Health Service on several occasions over the last two years when he has fallen ill. Lives in a council house and pays a very low rent. Owns a trained labrador that he takes on shoots at local country estates to retrieve game – earning more money “on the side”. Hates asylum seekers.

2. Salesman: Has always voted Conservative. Hates asylum seekers and continually bangs on about “scroungers” in spite of the fact that he has been on benefit and “job seeking” for as long as I can remember, Doesn’t like people who talk “posh” and live in big houses.

And there are dozens more that don’t seem to fit into any particular category. Most people don’t subscribe to ideologies – and neither do I, if I were honest. Most people have a pretty mixed set of often contradictory beliefs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Revolutionary Marxist/Socialist (aka dinosaur) :P

It's pretty clear from the above posts that everyone has an ideology (although many on the right argue that they don't, that their beliefs are just natural ways of the world). Probably encompasses two areas: how you view the world and how you'd like it to be. Implicit in this is a means to change if 'how you'd like it to be' doesn't equal 'how it is'.

For all the claims that class has been eradicated, I still feel class exists and is a fundamental division in society. Similarly with Marx, I agree that there are two basic classes - those who produce the wealth (directly and indirectly) and those who simply use the wealth created by others. The first category would include those who 'oil' or 'feed' the machine' of capitalism (eg play a part in making workers fit for their purpose). You don't have to be blue collar to be working class - ask most teachers if they feel outside the working class, and challenge those who claim to be 'other' to show how much control they have over their working lives!

Marxism has, essentially, an economic basis: the Labour Theory of Value. In a nutshell, this can be explained as nothing having value unless it is the product of human effort. So the chair I'm sitting on and the table my pc sits on would not have any value if they were still parts of trees and iron ore in the ground. It is the process of transforming them into useable objects that gives them a value. In capitalism, this process is carried out by the worker and the value appropriated by the capitalist. The worker, because s/he does not get the full value of the product s/he has created (ie the wages are less than the amount received for the product) is exploited. There are many social consequences, the most significant for Marx being alienation.

How I'd like it to be? That those who make the wealth get to enjoy it!

How did I come to have these views? Observation. I saw how much my parents worked (and their brothers and sisters) and wondered why many others appeared to do no work, at least not in the same way. It must have been very onerous, I always thought, for the Queen to have to go to all those parties, and live in those massive houses, and get paid all those millions. How she must have envied my parents, who worked from age 14 to their 60s, with a few years out each (mum to look after young kids, dad to adventure on the high seas - oh, he was in the navy during WW2).

The more history I studied (and I've studied quite a lot) the more I came to realise there are or have been an awful lot of nasty people in the world who have harmed in various ways their fellow human beings. Almost without exception, the biggest harmers have come from the exploiters, and those harmed have been among the exploited.

Again having studied history makes me aware of when to be scared, and when to be really scared about modern events. The violent ejection of an 80+ year old from a political meeting for shouting 'nonsense' at someone who was speaking nonsense, comes in the 'really scared' category. Compare with Olympia in 1936, Munich beer hall 1923, countless meetings around the German election of 1933.

There's a saying generally to the effect that all it takes for evil to flourish is for good people to do nothing. To that end I have been a life-long member of a trade union, always active.

Seldom have the 'exploiters' given anything to the 'exploited' out of the goodness of their hearts. The basic fundamental 'freedoms' we enjoy - from voting to holidays and whatever control we have over our lives - have been fought for and wrested from the exploiters. There is little indication that any future 'concessions' will be gained in different ways. This would probably include something as necessary as US CO2 emissions being reduced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Left-wing/Libertarian Socialist/Feminist (something vaguely like that)

My father was a member of the communist party here in Australia during the 50s and 60s when I was growing up and for years we received Soviet Woman in the post instead of the Women's Weekly. He was a railway shop steward and militant unionist most of his life and I have certainly followed in his footsteps in that regard. My grandfather was a Yorkshire coal miner during the Thatcher era and my cousin, his grandson, was one of the mounted policemen who rode against them in the streets, something he has never forgotten. My only sibling was born severely mentally disabled and was in a state institution all her 11 years of life.

With this sort of background it would be difficult to be anything else. However, I have not espoused my father's passionate belief in communism. (He still has them at 90 years old) I could understand the reasons he believed, having lived through the depression in England, but I could see the negatives in it and saw that he chose to ignore those aspects. He actually believed that the end justifies the means in relation to Trotsky etc and I couldn't accept that.

I do, however, believe strongly in a welfare system, hopefully well-run, but there has to be one. My parents could not have afforded to look after my sister without a free health system, I would not have gone to University without free tertiary education under Gough Whitlam here in Oz. I have a mildly brain damaged grand-son here who will probably never work - the state must look after such people.

We must pay sufficient taxes, all of us, to ensure we have jobs, a good health, education and pension system, after that let people who want to make profits, do it within reason. I seem to remember that when I was in Sweden they once had a system where profits over a certain level had to be put back into govt loan funds or something like that.

I believe that if we live in a society where the govt sets the example that people don't matter, that everyone is capable of looking after themselves, that ony ME counts, that profits and big business are the gods, then we will end up with a society which believes the same - maybe we're there already!

I also strongly believe that unless a country can solve the unemployment problem, society will suffer.

I have been a strong unionist all my working life and am now the elected full-time president of our state (Tasmania) teachers' union. Although challenging and difficult at times, I love doing something which hopefully at least makes some things better for workers. And I have to tell you that my old Dad is very proud of me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I seem to remember that when I was in Sweden they once had a system where profits over a certain level had to be put back into govt loan funds or something like that.

They're called 'employee investment funds' in English and were an idea people had in the pre-Thatcher era. The Swedish government actually implemented them (after pressure from the Swedish trade union movement) in the mid-1980s.

They were hated by the right, and the bourgeois government of Carl Bildt abolished them in its last month in office. The vast amount of money in them at the time was put into trusts, which the bourgeois government packed with its own supporters. Bildt also tried to create a structure which would make it impossible for any incoming government to get rid of the trustees he created (something seen as incredibly anti-democratic here). Ultimately he failed, as he did with nearly all of the policies his government tried to push through.

The trust funds, however, have invested a lot of money in technological developments in general, and in IT in particular since 1994 … which probably accounts for the incredibly fast development in these areas, compared with other countries. People tend not to know that much about Swedish involvement in the development of IT (it's embarrassing for 'red-blooded entrepreneurs' to accept that the Swedish nanny state has been so dynamic). Skype, for example, was started by a Swede and a Dane. Without money from the employee investment funds, I think that it's a racing certainty that there wouldn't have been any money for this development … which in turn would have left Sweden a poorer country than it is today … which is, in my ideology, one of the reasons for not being a Conservative, because if you leave it all up to the 'hidden hand of the market', the vast majority of people end up poorer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Skeptical Democrat

One of the reasons I joined the Education Forum was its excellent researchers of the assassination of John F. Kennedy. No other event in the 20th-century symbolizes the demise of American democracy than this murder. Even more than about unethical military or intelligence operations, this event also teaches us how modern media perpetuates a lie, despite compelling evidence, and controls its consumers by entertaining them, selling them products, and masterfully suggesting to them what should be their political ideology at the beginning of the 21st-century.

Those of us with an inkling for truth, not to mention a hope that some day democracy might be restored, are constantly on the watch for the lie, especially when it concerns political ideology. We recognize how the skillful pundits and shills of television spin. We are also vigilant, for example, when something called "the Libertarian Party" sparks the imagination of young thinkers as a sort of modern-day anarchy ("in the tradition of the 19th-century Social Revolution," says Milton Friedman), when in actuality it is an invention of the powerful American oil barons, including the Rockefeller family, among others, and their think tank for schemes to subvert democracy in their favor, the University of Chicago.

The wealthy rule over their acquisitions and want to do so without the fear of a Justice Department enforcing human rights. Today's popular "anti-government" sentiments are actually well-designed but deceptive anti-democracy sentiments, helping those who ruthlessly hold power to subvert the efforts of the less powerful trying to exercise their rights. If we want to preserve human rights and real freedoms, we should use our common sense, reflecting on situations where a group of people try to make a decision together, and not let bullies prevail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think my nearest description would be:


I have no inclination nor interest in joining any hierarchical political party or organisation. I distrust all politicians and most positions of management and authority. I believe that people achieve the best results when they work co-operatively and with a common goal, that of the common good.

Capitalism is a complete disaster, as is liberalism and its fake democratic processes. This is why I will not take part in their elections, nor read their newspapers for 'news' or comment, nor trust anything that their television and radio stations broadcast.

I am completely opposed to the European Union, and the United Kingdom as structures and states.

I believe in a tough law and order policy and the punishment of offenders. Liberal policies and ideas punish the innocent majority who have to live amongst recidivists and repeat offenders while the liberal elite live in well-off areas.

I believe in hugely self-sufficient defence, as in the Swiss or Swedish model, and reject any ideas about NATO/OTAN or the 'Coalition'.

I am against large-scale immigration as it damages the home countries of the immigrants, with the brain drain. It also foments mistrust and resentment in the host countries because liberal capitalism uses mass immigration to keep wages down.

I believe that the USSR up to 1953 was as near to an ideal model for governance as possible, save for Albania under the People's Will as represented by Enver Hoxha.

Hope that helps. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites


(only joking)

A Libertarian Armchair Anarchist?

I do find it very difficult to pigeon-hole myself into any category I am afraid. The above is more a label that some might attach to me.

I suppose that labelling myself will restrict me from approaching new ideas with an open mind.

I have a dislike of all forms of authority which is amusing given the fact that I am a teacher. I also have an optimistic view of human nature and believe that given the right circumstances, human beings can get along without a form of authority. This is one of the reasons why the Liberal idea of ‘the state of nature’ is not something I agree with. Consequently, I find myself attracted to many of the ideas within anarchism. I do have a hard job defending anarchism (especially to those who have a pessimistic view of human nature.) I don’t want to get into debating the ideas of anarchism here – the most common response to its ideas being ‘it wouldn’t work;’ however, I believe that many of my attitudes towards the world we live in are influenced heavily by anarchist thought. One of the values of anarchism as an ‘ideology’ though is to alter people’s views of the world without converting them to actual anarchists.

So I cannot describe myself as a liberal (although I am liberal) because of their acceptance that government – any form of government (even dictatorship) is necessary if the alternative is no government.

My belief in the capacity of the individual means that I also back away from the paternalism associated with socialism.

However, the desperate misery caused by capitalism has to be balanced by greater social welfare. Socialism wouldn’t exist without capitalism. However, socialism in practice often means greater government intervention; something which deeply disturbs me. (Effective socialism in practice struggles to achieve its ideals when it has to compete in a capitalist world. Capitalism is the perhaps the ultimate corrupting influence.)

I am also a pacifist and a feminist and I enjoy eating meat.

With regard to wanting some right-wing views - if you want I could ‘role-play’ a post as a supporter of the countryside alliance – they are largely misunderstood and suffer from an image problem……

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks to everyone who has posted thus far. My students will be debating this thread this coming week and may wish to ask questions which they will post on the forum.


In the meantime what would be great if more members would post (we are especially lacking any conservatives thus far :lol:)

I may well be a Conservative in the sense that I dislike social engineering carried out in the name of some abstarct noun like Liberty or Equality. Sooner or later any regime brought in to create a more equal society

by means of standardising our social and econimic relationships will lead to a power elite of the committed rather than the talented. This in turn will ignite a counter movement.

Politics as Aristotle knew well is a branch of Ethics. It should be concerned with the moral duty of people towards each other rather than about attempts to redefine their status or minimise their vaiety. That moral duty can only encouraged by a sharing of basic values which transcend class and wealth. Governement can encourage that moral sense but cannot impose it nor can it create it by political change. Human beings are not made good by revolutions violent otherwise and are capable in each generation of the same amount of good and evil.

On the wholeI favour principled pragmatism rather than visionary zeal. Its the latter that has a habit of spilling blood!

Socialists replace duties and obligations with impersonal taxes and benefits while Liberals fail to understand that one has to have a shared moral framework if a society is to function well.

Edited by John Palin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Terry Haydn: Socialist/Social Democrat

I grew up in a Labour household; my dad worked for the Labour Party all his life and was on the local council. He was a big Nye Bevan fan and one of my regrets is that I never got to hear Bevan speak.(I used to teach 'A' level government and politics and it is worth remembering that back in the 70s and early 80s, nine out of ten people voted the same way as their parents and voting behaviour was much less volatile).

It always seemed to me as I grew older, got interested in politics, read the papers as I was delivering them, that the Conservative Party represented the rich and privileged and that Labour stood for social justice and the more equitable distribution of wealth. It makes me smile when speakers at the Conservative Party Conference and in the right wing tabloids describe themselves as epitomising tolerance, 'fair play' and inclusive, 'one nation' Britain. Their policies, as in Bush's neo-Con corpocracy almost invariably favour those who have more or who are best placed to get more wealth and high quality primary social goods such as healthcare and education.

I am now 'middle class', but still believe that if you are lucky to have a good well paid job and are well off, the least you can do is pay more tax to help those who have been less fortunate, had fewer chances in one way or another. As J.K. Galbraith has pointed out, the idea that the poor aren't working because they are too well off on the dole, and the rich aren't working to optimum efficiency because they don't get sufficient incentives to work hard because of high taxation seems an implausible. The 'trickle down' theory of wealth doesn't work because the fat cats keep most of their money for themselves.

From what I read in the media, the Scandinavian countries seem to have the best systems of government, very good state education and healthcare, a concern for disadvantaged groups and a fairly tolerant, liberal and civilised society. If only they could move Scandinavia south about a thousand miles, I would want to live there.

I've added Social Democrat because I think that most of the awful things done in recnet years have been the fault of extremist groups, of both right and left. More moderate parties might be a bit 'wishy-washy', but they generally do less harm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The list of prospective contributors is interestings: Why on earth does ANYONE have to DECLARE a political preference? More than a century ago, common people made sacrifices in order to retain their preferences, their thoughts and their fears from the powers ' that be'. The current trend of nailing ones' affiliations to the public post is based on ....what? It reflects an assumption of the pseudo-security of one side of an almost polarized society where the common people follow allegiances which are traditional and accepted without any deep thought....very similar to football/rugby support!

Why does anyone wish to circumvent the PRIVACY of the ballot box? Maybe those whe declare their colours are playing a game i.e. 'look...I'm one of you..'. The exceptionally well paid politicians do appreciate your back-up!!!

Do those who CLAIM to be active/committed in a political sense really sit back and SERIOUSLY look at all the angles or are they seeking some sort of reassurance, a sense of belonging, a companionship.....?

I can appreciate the value of 'teaching' politics'....I worry when I see that the contributors do not reflect the wider spectrum.

Me?...I have never ever missed a voting oportunity.,even to spoil a vote.,and I have never belonged to any political group.....I vote with my conscience and stuff the media and the slick 'suits' and perhaps that is the message that young, emerging adults should hear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Conservative Republication

I am a Conservative Republican in the United States. I don't believe in socialism. I think the free enterprise economic system, as written by Adam Smith, is the best possible type of economic system in the world. There is no longer a pure free enterprise system, as some governemental interference has been put in place to protect consumers.

The Constitution of the United States should be the only document that runs the country. All basis of government must be held to account as to whether the laws passed are Constitutional or not. The establishment of the three distinct branches of government should remain seperate and powerful in their own right. The presidency, the executive office of the land, is checked and balanced by congress. The legislative part of the country is checked and balanced by the court system and the executive office. The federal court system is held in check through the threat of impeachment and removal from office by the congress.

The most important part of the Constitution are the first ten amendments, our Bill of Rights. These ten amendments spell out the rights of the people. It is vital that they remain intact to secure the people from the incursion of government upon their daily lives.

It is also very imperative that the Federal Government remain as a support element to the states,and the states as a support element to the counties and cities. States rights need to be strong and soverign as they are the most responsible to their citizens. It is obvious that some roles have to be undertaken by the Federal government, such as national defense. but education is purely a state and local responsibility.

In some states there are city wide school districts, in some county wide districts and even a few state wide districts. In Texas there are independent school districts that function under state guidelines. The teachers of Texas do not work for the state or the Federal government , but rather for their independent school district. This gives a lot of latitude for individual choices for teachers and districts.

I don't like unions. They were originally good in the protection of their members, but in the past 40 years have become a major factor in inflation in the United States and have forced the prices of products up. That has driven a lot of American companies to either move to sections of the country that have Right to Work laws that discourage union membership or forced the companies to move to foreign countries, like Mexico and Central America. As free enterprise is the economy of the land, the individual companies can re-locate where they will or can without governmental approval. In many cases local governments attempt to lure these companies to their locale by tax abatements and free land to locate there. Of course this improves the local economy by furnishing more jobs to the area.

The Supreme Court of the United States, originally set up under the Constitution as a law review agency, has become a law making body through legal review. The court needs to be returned to it's original role as that of judicial review and not as a law making body that is not elected. The members are appointed by the President of the United States and subject to approval by the Senate. These judges have an appointment for life. There are only nine of them, and that gives them tremendous power.

To present a political conservative viewpoint on this posting would require much more writing, and as I have already spent the day at school, I am ready to end. I will be glad to answer any questions and answer any critics I might have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Way on the "Right"

It appears that I'm the only one here, so far, on the other side and I'm so far on the other side that I may be able to balance the entire rest of you put together.

My political ideas come from a strong belief in the existence of the God of the Bible and the principles I see in the Bible concerning these things. If you start with the idea that there is a maker and you are made, and the maker has given you an instruction book, then the formation of a political idealogy is not a process of defining but one of discovering. I understand that God is not just the author but the definer of everything, including correct understanding of politics and every other idealogical sphere in our existence. Everything is obviously not stated explicitly in the Bible but there are many principles there that are gleaned and applicable, and sufficient to the need.

Government, it's charter, and it's proper functioning are all defined and must be discovered, not made up by each as they see fit (which is autonomy). For instance, if "You shall not steal" and "You shall not covet thy neighbors goods" then obviously "thy neighbor" can own property. When the government taxes me and gives it to you then the government is stealing. Therefore, I abhor all forms of wealth redistribution. Voluntary charity is an entirely different matter.

Nowhere does government's charter include public education, welfare, social security, defining right and wrong, or a myriad of other elements that governments around the world are involved in. Government is not supposed to be the world's nanny or take the place of God in people's lives. I see government's role as being very limited. One of the basic principles I see is that people are sinful and therefore should not be given much power over other people or abuses will follow. This is ably demonstrated daily by governments everywhere. The proper use of government power is not being adhered to, so tyranny results.

On the other hand, if you have a government that is minimal, then self-government comes to the fore. Our government in the US was envisioned to be minimal. A couple quotes from Founders illustrate the point:

James Madison said, "We have staked the future of our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government; upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God." John Adams said, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

People do not govern themselves according to these standards and inevitable problems result; and the statement by John Adams is proven correct. Government is called upon to fix the problems that are completely outside its sphere. This doesn't work, of course, but the alternative is not acceptable to people and so things continue as they are. Insanity is "doing the same things over and over again, and expecting different results". This country is in the remarkable position historically of being able to govern themselves individually and make a government that goes along with that notion. The opportunity is being lost.

I have touched on only a couple issues here as space and time do not permit going into others. You get the idea. In summary, I belive in self government according to God's Word and a very minimal external/national government.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in

Sign In Now

  • Create New...