Are INTJ's more likely affiliated with a specific political party?

[viatranquilla]

I am interested if INTJ's are, in general, more likely to be affiliated with a particular political party. Republican? Democrat? Libertarian? What are your thoughts?

[Warrior]

There seems to be a wide variety of affiliations on the forum, even going beyond the traditional parties you mentioned. Someone posted a thread about party affiliation by MBTI type not too long ago, but I can't seem to find it right now.

[Synamon]

Someone posted a thread about party affiliation by MBTI type not too long ago, but I can't seem to find it right now.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

There is also an ideology poll here: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I won't answer the poll, since I'm not American. I'm not quite sure why Libertarian has been singled out and not other "third" parties, like Green and Constitution.

[Blse]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
I'm not quite sure why Libertarian has been singled out and not other "third" parties, like Green and Constitution.

Wondering the same, especially since the Green Party is roughly as big.

OP, I'm a registered Democrat, but I think you need to consider the self-selection bias on this poll.

[Pachystima]

It would have been more useful if you had included an "independent" category. One of the votes in your "other" category means independent.

[cjsmith87]

I was born within a republican family. Out of this I got my conservative foundations, but now that I have had a little time to better mature my political ideology I have become a die hard conservative libertarian. In my opinion we should have a very small federal government and the states shouldn't have to be so conformed. We should go back to a system of loose states held together in brotherhood by the federal government. A person has the right to property and the protection of his property. You can do whatever you want as long as you don't harm anyone else.

[rwm4768]

I think the reason Libertarian is included is that libertarian ideas seem to be overrepresented among INTJs.

Personally, I chose other because I consider myself an independent. My political views do not fall into any of the parties. In the one election in which I have voted, I voted mostly Republican with some Democrats sprinkled in. I like some of the Libertarian ideas, but I don't believe that isolationist foreign policy will work in today's world, and from what I've gathered, that is the Libertarian stance on foreign policy.

[drmiller100]

i think NT's are more conservative, F's more democrats.

[Brian125]

I actually chose Libertarian, but I didn't really mean the party. As an anti-statist I don't think it's right to participate in statist politics.

[Zelder]

I'm registered republican but my views are more constitution/libertarian. I love Ron Paul. I don't see any significant differenc between dems and republicans.

[Zombicide]

I wipe my ass with the constitution, it's just a piece of paper a bunch of stupid old monkeys (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) scribbled on, and all the other monkeys consider holy scripture.

I reluctantly want to say the government ought to be run on donation or voluntary subscription, and I hate that the state can incarcerate people over the sort of things that it can easily frame people for, things that shouldn't be illegal in the first fuckin place.

I mean, sure, the state is the most efficient means of doing some things / can at times technically be a means of making the best of a bad situation but it boggles my mind that we all have to pay for unjustifiable shit like e.g. failing state education camps because some statists twats think it's somehow acceptable to force civil children (who otherwise naturally learn on their) at gun point (truancy) to attend useless institutions that hold them back while force feeding useless knowledge down generic people's throats, they don't need a school to learn how to flip burgers, lay on their back and get fucked, operate a pick axe or pick fuckin fruit, and if they do need one, that's on them, their parents, and between the scholarship people and private education.

I don't even think I want a state to exist. To think one can be thrown in prison for over a decade for what they call vigilantism. The cops are illegitimately paid by the people they harass to look for excuses to ruin one's day To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. . State steals our munnies for unjustified purposes, if it wasn't for the excessive shit, and they just happened to have a monopoly on necessary stuff and humanitarian stuff, I wouldn't have a problem with states, that's the last thing on my list of concerns but the fact of the matter is they're given such power that they can even arrest you for being a tit too small To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. or female ejaculation/urinating as an example of the extent of their micromanaging our lives / their imposition. Who the fuck do these people think they are? Gods? Fuck the parties, and fuck the state.

Anarchist

[Mader]

Well, Zombicide, we certainly understand your position now. :)

We tend to vote based on facts, not emotions.

We usually did this with the Republicans, but the facts are getting in the way of that vote, now. Budget, what budget, let me put in my earmarks.

So, who will I vote for next, I don't know. I like my Senators very much, but my US Representative voted for the first Obama Stimulus, so he is out for me.

Term limits for Congress!

[Angel1]

I reluctantly call myself a Republican, but I prefer to say that I am 1st an American, 2nd a (true) Pragmatist, 3rd a Conservative, and only 4th a Republican.

I have the winning slogan for 2010 and 2012, "It's the budget, stupid!" I suggest we all make a move towards a Constitutional Convention to set debt limits and force congress to pay down the debt.

[Pachystima]

I wipe my ass with the constitution, it's just a piece of paper a bunch of stupid old monkeys (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) scribbled on, and all the other monkeys consider holy scripture.

I reluctantly want to say the government ought to be run on donation or voluntary subscription, and I hate that the state can incarcerate people over the sort of things that it can easily frame people for, things that shouldn't be illegal in the first fuckin place.

I mean, sure, the state is the most efficient means of doing some things / can at times technically be a means of making the best of a bad situation but it boggles my mind that we all have to pay for unjustifiable shit like e.g. failing state education camps because some statists twats think it's somehow acceptable to force civil children (who otherwise naturally learn on their) at gun point (truancy) to attend useless institutions that hold them back while force feeding useless knowledge down generic people's throats, they don't need a school to learn how to flip burgers, lay on their back and get fucked, operate a pick axe or pick fuckin fruit, and if they do need one, that's on them, their parents, and between the scholarship people and private education.

I don't even think I want a state to exist. To think one can be thrown in prison for over a decade for what they call vigilantism. The cops are illegitimately paid by the people they harass to look for excuses to ruin one's day To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. . State steals our munnies for unjustified purposes, if it wasn't for the excessive shit, and they just happened to have a monopoly on necessary stuff and humanitarian stuff, I wouldn't have a problem with states, that's the last thing on my list of concerns but the fact of the matter is they're given such power that they can even arrest you for being a tit too small To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. or female ejaculation/urinating as an example of the extent of their micromanaging our lives / their imposition. Who the fuck do these people think they are? Gods? Fuck the parties, and fuck the state.

Anarchist

It seems that I detect a faint note of hostility here. My recommendation? You should stop hiding behind these pleasant evasions and learn to speak your mind.

[Geminii]

I'll generally vote for the leftmost local party capable of winning an election. Affiliations are for suckers who don't want their local politicians running scared.

[Causa Mortis]

I reluctantly call myself a Republican, but I prefer to say that I am 1st an American, 2nd a (true) Pragmatist, 3rd a Conservative, and only 4th a Republican.

I have the winning slogan for 2010 and 2012, "It's the budget, stupid!" I suggest we all make a move towards a Constitutional Convention to set debt limits and force congress to pay down the debt.

So debt at 3-5% interest when our debt to GDP is among the lowest in the developed world is serious business when ~10,000,000 americans are out of work and when there's a borderline liquidity trap?

I'm a deficit hawk when things are going well, but there are bigger issues to worry about right now...like restoring price stability and employment, neither of which would be aided by the massive spending reduction/tax hikes that would be necessary to take a chunk out of the deficit. That's a recipe for a 2nd Great Depression.

[AnnoyingPony]

I'm more on the liberal side, favoring a government that is as small as possible and general all-around freedom. :P Ever heard of minarchism?

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[freeeekyyy]

I'm more on the liberal side, favoring a government that is as small as possible and general all-around freedom. :P Ever heard of minarchism?



I don't know what country you're from but you use liberal in a different sense from most americans. In america, the term doesn't really mean that anymore, most americans of that persuasion today use the term libertarian, myself included. Liberal means something closer to socialist in the US today.

[freeeekyyy]

I don't know what country you're from but you use liberal in a different sense from most americans. In america, the term doesn't really mean that anymore, most americans of that persuasion today use the term libertarian, myself included. Liberal means something closer to socialist in the US today.
Well, after checking, I see that you are not only from the same country as me, but we're practically neighbors. Only about 40 miles apart. But yeah, minarchist philosophy is generally more associated with libertarianism than with modern liberalism. Maybe people should use the word liberalism the way you use it, it's definitely more historically correct, but they don't.

[meanlittlechimp]

A lot of the "libertarians" on this poll are really Republicans in hiding.

My theory is many are slowly realizing most of the nonsense the right has been spouting since Reagan is a complete failure. It's finally occurring to them that rampant defense spending funded by massive deficits is finally catching up with us (which fueled most of the growth during his years). Health reform, one of the obvious solutions to alleviate much of our skyrocketing fiscal problems (from unfunded Medicare and Social Security) is still blocked by Republicans at every turn.

All the threads about liberals being the real racists; aren't only laughable but shows how many dumb hillbillies frequent this place. 6 republicans on this site? yeah right....

INTJs do indeed have a considerable affinity to steer right when it comes to politics (relative to other NTs). We've discussed this at length in the MBTI section, but it's funny how many republicans use this bullshit libertarian cloak to disguise their true affiliation.

[t3hrubikscube]

I chose Republican, but I choose to not identify with any of the parties, as I don't like any of them. I just like to consider myself conservative.

[freeeekyyy]

A lot of the "libertarians" on this poll are really Republicans in hiding.

My theory is many are slowly realizing most of the nonsense the right has been spouting since Reagan is a complete failure. It's finally occurring to them that rampant defense spending funded by massive deficits is finally catching up with us (which fueled most of the growth during his years). Health reform, one of the obvious solutions to alleviate much of our skyrocketing fiscal problems (from unfunded Medicare and Social Security) is still blocked by Republicans at every turn.

All the threads about liberals being the real racists; aren't only laughable but shows how many dumb hillbillies frequent this place. 6 republicans on this site? yeah right....

INTJs do indeed have a considerable affinity to steer right when it comes to politics (relative to other NTs). We've discussed this at length in the MBTI section, but it's funny how many republicans use this bullshit libertarian cloak to disguise their true affiliation.
Neither libertarians (in the american sense) nor conservatives would support democrat-style healthcare. We need reform, but of a different type. Allowing cross-state insurance purchasing is a good first step.

---------- Post added 02-05-2010 at 05:21 PM ----------

Neither libertarians (in the american sense) nor conservatives would support democrat-style healthcare. We need reform, but of a different type. Allowing cross-state insurance purchasing is a good first step.
Btw, I'd like to know your basis for your statement that "A lot of the "libertarians" on this poll are really Republicans in hiding." Republicans and libertarians are very different yes, but there is also some common ground. I don't know that a person can't be both anyway, like ron paul. Unless you're using republican as a synonym for conservative.

[Angel1]

A lot of the "libertarians" on this poll are really Republicans in hiding.

...

All the threads about liberals being the real racists; aren't only laughable but shows how many dumb hillbillies frequent this place. 6 republicans on this site? yeah right....

INTJs do indeed have a considerable affinity to steer right when it comes to politics (relative to other NTs). We've discussed this at length in the MBTI section, but it's funny how many republicans use this bullshit libertarian cloak to disguise their true affiliation.

Explain to me please which party truly wants to help people more...the one that demands results or the one that merely placates a portion of the electorate to keep them voting on their side in elections? It seems to me that there is no voting block more solidly behind one single party (in general) than the one that Democrats like to keep placated on government sponsored perpetual poverty (Welfare). If this is not an extreme case of racism...a conspiracy of racism and/or complete mental incompetance, then I don't know what could be called a conspiracy. On this note, those people that automatically declare that someone can't be a racist because they are liberals must also draw my suspicion that they are either an idiot or a racist themself. Speaking of which, stereotyping people as "hillbillies" is discrimination and racism in and of itself; really what you are saying is that only hillbillies could believe that liberals could be racist. That is racism!

[ya lyublyu tebya]

Registered Democrat, only so I can vote in the primaries. If America had a good Socialist Democracy Party, I'd be all over that.

[LogicLady]

I'm hard for others to place and have been called a lot of contradictory names. Maybe you guys can label me!

I believe government should stay out of marriage completely so long as things are between consenting adults (just have separate government contracts for the legal parts but don't call it "marriage"). Moral judgments about sex should stay out of the classroom -- just the facts, but give them the facts.

I believe in capitalism, but I believe that it cannot work without people being able to make informed choices and the government should work to make sure that is what people are able to do. Ingredients should be labelled, labels such as "organic" should be understandable and not watered down or gotten rid of, the phrase "chemical-free" should outlawed, GMOs should be listed, and companies should not be able to hide behind mouseprint and/or no-sue clauses.

I absolutely do not trust big business to regulate itself, and this puts me at odds with a lot of libertarian types. I'd like to think that businesses wouldn't get so big and especially not "too big to fail" if it wasn't for government assistance, but I don't trust that's true in all cases. I would like to see more regulation of such big businesses, especially when they pass on the cost of their business practices to citizens through environmental risks that affect our health and wellbeing.

However, I believe that regulation as it is now often hinders small business and I'd like to see it relaxed on small business, which I think would be better for the economy, for consumers, and citizens in general. For example, I shouldn't need a licensed commercial kitchen to make a little side money selling muffins to my neighbors. When I'm selling thousands of muffins a day, then we can talk about more regulation since there's a greater chance of something really bad happening versus with a few muffins. And as a small business owner, I'm likely to be closer to my customers and would have to take them more seriously if even one said they got sick.

I would like to see a public option in the U.S. for healthcare. We spend far more seeking revenge for a few thousand lives than we should spend helping and eve saving millions more. I believe that everyone should have affordable access to things such as healthful food, clean drinking water, consultations with doctors and nutritionists, and reasonable treatment when those things aren't enough to prevent disease. To me, those sort of things are what government should be about (that and building roads, ensuring the majority doesn't oppress the minorities, defense, and just generally protecting the little guy while improving living conditions for all). No one should ever have to decide between taking their meds or feeding their children, having needed surgery or losing their home.

Unfortunately, I don't believe that the government we have currently is -- for the most part -- willing to put the people first. They'd much rather put on a show for election time and talk in soundbytes and snark rather than have meaningful debates.

I do appreciate the work the president is doing and think he is a good man. I do still believe that his heart is in the place and that we need more people like him in government. However, I worry that there are too few people like him and that harsher tactics may be necessary, which I find very regrettable as I truly wish we could get some bipartisan compromise and not have to have an overly powerful executive branch.

[paleoeco]

Green Socialist, all the way. I would ideally prefer to see the US break-up into a "mini-Union" with some "overall" riding trade and mobility agreements, but allow for more regional "socialist" governments providing the basic necessities for the population (as chosen by the population).

The problem I have with Libertarianism, is rather simply, where do you draw the line. Why is X an appropriate function of a limited State, and Y not? I mean, what about Fire Departments? Ya know, in the 1800s, they tried "private fire insurance", and well, that didn't work so well. So, we have "public fire departments". Why is this different than healthcare? or police? or schools? or roads? or garbage collection in major cities?

[Kisai]

Sovereignty => me. I am insane enough to consider that I am qualified to rule.

[freeeekyyy]

Green Socialist, all the way. I would ideally prefer to see the US break-up into a "mini-Union" with some "overall" riding trade and mobility agreements, but allow for more regional "socialist" governments providing the basic necessities for the population (as chosen by the population).

The problem I have with Libertarianism, is rather simply, where do you draw the line. Why is X an appropriate function of a limited State, and Y not? I mean, what about Fire Departments? Ya know, in the 1800s, they tried "private fire insurance", and well, that didn't work so well. So, we have "public fire departments". Why is this different than healthcare? or police? or schools? or roads? or garbage collection in major cities?
Personally, I consider myself a libertarian, but mostly just on the national level. There are some necessary or beneficial services that a government can and should provide, but not the federal government. The EPA is a good example of an inappropriate, and I would say unconstitutional, federal bureacracy which performs an absolutely necessary function but which would be much better performed by individual states, and that would also clear up the constitutional issues. Not everything good is good for the federal government.

[LogicLady]

@freeeekyyy

I certainly think that states and local governments should have more power. I don't want every state to be like the next and I think local governments have a better understanding of what is important to their constituents and not just the big corporations. The problem is figuring out which powers can and should be ceded to the states.

Personally, I think environmental issues do deserve a strong national oversight. The reason is that environmental issues in one state can quickly become another state's problems through the natural movement of air and water. Of course, that isn't to say there aren't many problems with the EPA. But I generally believe that it is too weak if anything.

[ElstonGunn]

I'm not registered with any party. I'm wary of the whole concept of political parties. I'm not dead-set against them, but I am leery enough that I'd rather not join an organization that I might be opposed to on principle.


Registered Democrat, only so I can vote in the primaries. If America had a good Socialist Democracy Party, I'd be all over that.

So are you a social democrat or a democratic socialist? There's a lot of differences, there. :p

I'd probably call myself the latter, but I'd consider the former better than most other options when it comes to political ideologies.


There are some necessary or beneficial services that a government can and should provide, but not the federal government.

I'm not sure about that aspect of it myself. I could see myself going either way with it. I'm of course very different from you ideologically in that I'm a socialist, but the whole "local or national" debate is interesting either way.

Would you (or anyone else who agrees) mind briefly running through the main reasons why you prefer power at the local or state level over the national? I'm not trying to get into an argument at all. Just curious, because I haven't been able to make a decision on that issue in my own mind.

[paleoeco]

Personally, I consider myself a libertarian, but mostly just on the national level. There are some necessary or beneficial services that a government can and should provide, but not the federal government. The EPA is a good example of an inappropriate, and I would say unconstitutional, federal bureacracy which performs an absolutely necessary function but which would be much better performed by individual states, and that would also clear up the constitutional issues. Not everything good is good for the federal government.

Ok - again, where's the bright line? What makes X an appropriate function for a local government, but not the state or federal? What makes Y appropriate for the state level, but not the local or federal?

What your describing isn't libertarianism (limited government in general), but rather a system of Federalism and Communitarianism. You don't seem to have issues with government being involved in these various functions, so much as you disagree with the "level" at which the government is involved.

I also have to agree with LogicLady on the environmental issue. The National government is the best place to deal with this oversight. One state can have lax environmental standards, but if they're up-wind from a state with tighter restrictions, their pollution can still impact the state that has protections. Same with rivers, etc. The acid rain damage to forests in New England wasn't because of factories in New England - it was from the factory discharge from smokestacks further west in the industrial Midwest and Mid-Atlantic.

[seeyouatx]

I'm a registered Democrat, but I'm not firm in party lines.

I do agree that there are functions currently being performed by the national government that would perhaps be best at the state level. And I think sometimes our bleeding hearts and our self-interests get us into financial straits. We, as a country, need to refocus, because our debt is going to sink us, regardless of our political convictions.

[Moxie1]

Consider myself a libertarian, but typically vote Republican. I refuse to be a registered member of the Republican Party until they take more moderate positions on social issues (ex: gay marriage, abortion)

[ArtistTyrant]

US political parties are far too leftist for me to stomach, but that might have something to do with me being in favor of an oligarchical corporatist state that exists for the function of its people, and not the other way around

[Rainlead]

I am a strong supporter of Ayn Rand's objectivist philosophy. I think that an anarcho-capitalist society is the answer.

[creepycolt]

I really need to systematically figure it all out, but for the sake of this thread... I'm going with libertarian: socially liberal (stay out of my marriage), fiscally conservative (stay out of my wallet). There's much to consider theoretically and realistically, but, in general, libertarian governance seems most logical and thus fairest.

Part of the inefficiency wreaked by political parties is that most folks fail to differentiate one spectrum for social issues (x) from a second for fiscal issues (y). As depicted here (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.), this amounts to four political quadrants that reveal the inadequacy of our single liberal vs conservative political spectrum. Theoretically, a fascist is just as much a "moderate" as a libertarian... :thinking:

[Beulah]

Since my country has mixed member proportional govt I join all influential parties so as to influence their policies. Some find my multiple loyalties odd. I think its INTJ though as its getting the result that counts, who cares what party vehicle is used.

[Weirdo87]

I am a strong supporter of Ayn Rand's objectivist philosophy. I think that an anarcho-capitalist society is the answer.

LOL! Damn, that's hilarious....

But, seriously, what are your actual political leanings?

---------- Post added 03-09-2010 at 11:50 PM ----------

US political parties are far too leftist for me to stomach, but that might have something to do with me being in favor of an oligarchical corporatist state that exists for the function of its people, and not the other way around

What? I've heard American political parties called many things, but never leftist.

[shoken]

If I had to place my political views in a party, it would probably be more Libertarian (although I support certain state-sponsored industries), but most of all, what I want is a multi-party system, in which all political parties, including Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Green, etc. get a fair share of media coverage. None of this "Are you a Republican or Democrat?" bullshit. That would at least be a step in the right direction.

[tooboku]

I like to think I'm a bit on the conservative side. I definitely am in regards to how I conduct my own going abouts and such. Even more than that though, I believe in liberty.

The level of authority that a social institution such as the state is given must be kept under control as it is the only social institution we have empowered to "wield the sword". This power has been granted to the state for the sake of protection and not to wage war for reasons of greed. Although we do have programs in Canada regarding welfare and universal healthcare, and they are good things, I do not believe that the government's job is to be the "nanny" of it's society. I believe the government should play as minimal of a roll in people's lives as possible.

A society that is comprised of people who are governed by their own good ethics and good faith does not need a government. That of course is impossible but it is my ideal.

I am therefore a libertarian.

[Mind Marauder]

I am not affiliated with any political party. I do not trust politicians to be tools of significant social change. The vast majority serve their own interests and that sometimes helps the people.

[ArtistTyrant]

LOL! Damn, that's hilarious....

But, seriously, what are your actual political leanings?

---------- Post added 03-09-2010 at 11:50 PM ----------



What? I've heard American political parties called many things, but never leftist.

when you are so far right you become leftist in several ways, there is no mainstream party for you...the political left-right dichotomy doesn't work for me, because i have strong leanings both ways, much like the Nazis did

[Charmed Pop]

I'm a registered Democrat and usually tend to support their candidate. I'm somewhat supportive of libertarianism as well. I'm very anti-Republican for the fact that more often than not they resort to fear-mongering. I hate when people play on other people's emotions and sadly it works in many cases.

[Weirdo87]

when you are so far right you become leftist in several ways, there is no mainstream party for you...the political left-right dichotomy doesn't work for me, because i have strong leanings both ways, much like the Nazis did

If you can't find a party that's right-wing enough for you in the US, then probably your only option is to travel 50 years into the past and move to Spain.

How are extreme right-wingers leftist? I don't understand what you mean by this.

P.S. I think it unwise to compare yourself to the Nazis. In any case, the left wing of the Nazi Party was purged long before they ever came to power.

[creepycolt]

when you are so far right you become leftist in several ways, there is no mainstream party for you...the political left-right dichotomy doesn't work for me, because i have strong leanings both ways, much like the Nazis did

If you can't find a party that's right-wing enough for you in the US, then probably your only option is to travel 50 years into the past and move to Spain.

How are extreme right-wingers leftist? I don't understand what you mean by this.

P.S. I think it unwise to compare yourself to the Nazis. In any case, the left wing of the Nazi Party was purged long before they ever came to power.

ArtistTyrant: hence this (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.), four quadrants derived from two spectrums (fiscal vs social issues)

Weirdo87: right-wingers socially yet leftist fiscally (fascist?), or vice versa (libertarian?), might be what he means

This (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) illustrates why, here in America, most folks conceptualize a left-right dichotomy

[Weirdo87]

I think this (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) is a better visualization of the political spectrum than the one creepycolt linked to, as it doesn't describe politics solely in terms of morality.

[ArtistTyrant]

If you can't find a party that's right-wing enough for you in the US, then probably your only option is to travel 50 years into the past and move to Spain.

How are extreme right-wingers leftist? I don't understand what you mean by this.

P.S. I think it unwise to compare yourself to the Nazis. In any case, the left wing of the Nazi Party was purged long before they ever came to power.

i believe in an all encompassing state and eugenics, with the Anglo-Saxon rule of law (due process, free speech, etc.), for my people (Europeans)...in that respect i am leftist

[Weirdo87]

i believe in an all encompassing state and eugenics, with the Anglo-Saxon rule of law (due process, free speech, etc.), for my people (Europeans)...in that respect i am leftist

Sounds like you'd be a fascist if fascism hadn't fallen so far out of favour.

[ArtistTyrant]

Sounds like you'd be a fascist if fascism hadn't fallen so far out of favour.

more like a National Socialist ;)

[vshagoyan]

HAHAHA I KNEW IT!

What is funny is that I took my first Meyer-briggs test many years ago, close to 8, and I was a clear cut INTJ. At the time I was a liberal. (Raised in Southern California, went to a public school. How can you blame me?) When I heard Ron Paul in 07, it was a complete awakening for me. Libertarianism IS the answer. Since then, I have decided to get completely consistent with my ideology. Since the main axiom of libertarianism is the non-aggression principle, I have decided that this principle should be consistent across the board. Why should coercion be allowed sometimes? And the answer is that it shouldn't. All people should be able to live in a society where they are not coerced. Government by its nature is coercive, since it must tax(theft) to exist. Therefore the existence of government by nature, is against libertarianism. Anarcho-capitalism is the way to go. That being said I would be ok with a federal government with a budget the size of George Washington's. The states provide most goods anyway. The federal government is just a giant destroyer of wealth. I signed up for this site to ask this very question, and luckily it was already here. My hunch was that most INTJ's would be libertarian, and sure enough, they are. AWESOMENESS!

[shoken]

HAHAHA I KNEW IT!

What is funny is that I took my first Meyer-briggs test many years ago, close to 8, and I was a clear cut INTJ. At the time I was a liberal. (Raised in Southern California, went to a public school. How can you blame me?) When I heard Ron Paul in 07, it was a complete awakening for me. Libertarianism IS the answer. Since then, I have decided to get completely consistent with my ideology. Since the main axiom of libertarianism is the non-aggression principle, I have decided that this principle should be consistent across the board. Why should coercion be allowed sometimes? And the answer is that it shouldn't. All people should be able to live in a society where they are not coerced. Government by its nature is coercive, since it must tax(theft) to exist. Therefore the existence of government by nature, is against libertarianism. Anarcho-capitalism is the way to go. That being said I would be ok with a federal government with a budget the size of George Washington's. The states provide most goods anyway. The federal government is just a giant destroyer of wealth. I signed up for this site to ask this very question, and luckily it was already here. My hunch was that most INTJ's would be libertarian, and sure enough, they are. AWESOMENESS!

While I do believe in some government control for certain industries which aren't profitable, I tend to agree with most libertarian ideals. I actually had the same hunch about INTJs and libertarianism. Sadly, INTJs make up a very small percentage of the general public and therefore our political leanings will always go unfulfilled.

[Weirdo87]

more like a National Socialist ;)

Do you know anything about Naziism or fascism? Did you skip all your history classes in school? (Or are you just being a smartass, and I'm too obtuse to realize it? If this is the case, I applaud you.)

[freeeekyyy]

I'm not registered with any party. I'm wary of the whole concept of political parties. I'm not dead-set against them, but I am leery enough that I'd rather not join an organization that I might be opposed to on principle.




So are you a social democrat or a democratic socialist? There's a lot of differences, there. :p

I'd probably call myself the latter, but I'd consider the former better than most other options when it comes to political ideologies.




I'm not sure about that aspect of it myself. I could see myself going either way with it. I'm of course very different from you ideologically in that I'm a socialist, but the whole "local or national" debate is interesting either way.

Would you (or anyone else who agrees) mind briefly running through the main reasons why you prefer power at the local or state level over the national? I'm not trying to get into an argument at all. Just curious, because I haven't been able to make a decision on that issue in my own mind.


I think the best argument for localized government is that it's better at representing the people of that area. What's good for people in my own state isn't necessarily good for the people of Iowa, for instance. Also, waste and efficiency is a big issue. Large, centralized governments are incredibly inefficient. Let's use the Department of Education as an example. What's the benefit in taking money from a state, giving it to the feds, only to have them eat up a chunk of it and then give the rest back to the very people they took it from? It makes no fiscal sense, and even less sense when it comes to functionality. I think a state knows what it's people need much better than washington does. Even disregarding all that, there's no constitutional allowance for much of our government. The 10th amendment says specifically, that any rights not granted to the federal government are reserved for the states and the people. If something really is particularly important, amend the consitution. Don't go and put it in there in absolute violation of the document that's supposed to be the ultimate legal authority in the country.

[HAL 9000]

It comes as no surprise to find that most of us are either leftists or libertarians. I for one am neither, holding to conservatism of a more Buckleyite variety. My sister (another INTJ) is oddly the same way.

I suppose we owe some of this to environmental factors having grown up in a house politically inclined to the Religious Right. Combine parentally instilled traditional values with a natural proclivity to liberalism/libertarianism, and conservative-libertarianism would be a likely byproduct.

What a rebel I am :)

[Thinktress]

I have a viewpoint that consenting adults should be able to do what they choose and they should be able to sanction it within the law (i.e. there should be able to be gay marriage), however, I don't want to have to pay for all of the things done by consenting adults.

Also, I think we could have a welfare system that is run by the people who receive welfare and is limited in duration and scope.