I created a political ideal. It is based on liberalism and environmentalism. It is called Visitarianism, coming from the latin stem "vis" or to view or see.

Here it is, broken down:

-Minimalistic government
-Government regulations on businesses and the ecosystem
-Illegalisation of hunting/stress on animal rights
-Tolerance of all lifestyles
-Stress on the preservation of the environment, with the future in mind.

Here are a couple things ("hot button issues") that would be addressed by Visitarianism:

-Abortion: legal
-Gay Marriage: legal
-Hunting: Illegal
-Alternative Fuels: encouraged/subsidized
-Immigration policies: loose-moderate
-Recreational drugs: legal
-Iraq/war in general: avoidable/avoided
-Capital Punishment: banned
-Euthanasia: legal


Here are some ideas that are very different than those of traditional liberalism:

-Schooling is not required, and the decision of education lies with the parent(s).
-National religion is rejected, but we do not shut off from religion completley, nor do we make Atheism the official religion.

Here is a brief description written in prose:

Visitarianism encourages light government rule, and complete freedom of the people that are governed by it. It applies to more of the social dynamic of a society, and the economic issues are yet to be adressed officially. Liberalism is adapted much more than conservatism into Visitarianism, and a traditional Visitarian is more concerned with the natural order than the social order. Naturally, things such as murder and thievery are would be illegal, and greatly discouraged, but there would be no deterring of criminals, instead, rehabilitaion at taxpayer's expense.

I don't understand why hunting would be illegal, but most every other activity legal. It seems to go against the theme of "little gov't intervention in our lives." Same thing with subsizdizing fueling, it would seem out of the relem of libertarism.

Furthermore, taxes would be an interesting issue in this gov't.

I may have been not as clear as I had hoped. While libertarianism is where a large part of it comes from, it is perhaps less than I let on. My fault.

Hunting would be illegal due to its effect on the ecosystem and the drastic issues it has caused in the present-day. As for alternative (eco-friendly) fuel sources, that would be under the category of environmentalism.

I don't care for it, mainly due to the fact that hunting itself doesn't really negitivly affect the eviroment. Overhunting and hunting of some animals, sure, but not hunting in and of itself. That, and I don't want to see another gov't subsidity to people like...corn farmers and the like (ethonal).

So I voted not enough info/bad. I don't mean purely bad, but I (personally) wouldn't go much farther with it. Its not purely bad, just not my cup of tea ;)

Well, some very popular hunting animals provide vital roles in the ecosystem. Such as the elephant:

• They modify their habitat by converting savannah and woodlands to grasslands
• Elephants can provide water for other species by digging water holes in dry riverbeds
• the depressions created by their footprints and their bodies trap rainfall
• Elephants act as seed dispersers by their fecal matter. It is often carried below ground by dung beetles and termites causing the soil to become more aerated and further distributing the nutrients
• Their paths act as firebreaks and rain water conduits
• An Elephants journey through the high grass provides food for birds by disturbing small reptiles, amphibians or insects.

You probably wouldn't think they do this, though. Maybe I'm just insane. :P

What about deer?

The elephant is an endangered animal, so its already supposed to have some form of protection.

Animals are cool, but I don't see the need to base a system of gov't around protecting them though.

I'm Taoist, so I place a high value on nature. (or vise-versa)

As for deer, in certain areas of the globe, there are wolfpacks and mountain lions that rely primarily on deer for food.

Gay marriage, recreational drugs, abortion, to name a few of the things I don't agree with in that regime, but it has some potential, even if it's microscopic potental, I won't ignore it.

Thank you. I appretiate this sort of attitude.

As for the hunting thing, that's some of my religion rubbing off. It is a large part of Taoism that the natural order be continued.

Why should others be forced to comply with your relgious ideals, which would be, in effect, what happens if you make this a form of gov't?

Goodwill towards animals did not originate with Taoism.

No, but you admit that it is the basis for your "gov't" system, and I fail to see any other real reason as to why there should be such strict laws on it (note: I'm not saying there should be no laws, but such strict laws...thats what I'm commenting on) other than your relgious ideals. It seems to be the only proof you offer up.

It seems like it'd be difficult to integrate a minimalistic government with such things as extensive government regulation on businesses and the environment. I like the stress on the environment, although I definitely agree with Delta that the ban on hunting really doesn't make sense (and I don't agree with it besides). I also don't like the legalization of abortion, which seems to me to go against the respect for all living things and the natural order which is stressed in other aspects of the ideology (and which I like). Basically it's a mixed bag for me.

Am I to understand that under visitarianism I can't fumigate my home for termites, I can't hang a fly tape for those little flies that always come in during the summer, nor destroy any roach or mouse in my abode, nor swat the mosquito biting me? It's the impression I get. If so, not for me.

While I don't care what gender you choose to copulate with, there are certain life styles that I can't tolerate living near in openness.

Minimalist government on social issues, and government intervention on environment and business... sounds like a liberal Democrat.

Save the whales, kill the babies.

I'm sorry, bad.

"Tolerance of all lifestyles"...?

I quite like the system, however I think criminals are treated too lightly.

These are the only ones I agree with.

I would support legislation making wasteful hunting more restricted...but not outright banning hunting.

but umm i think school is very necessary, otherwise a lot of people would be dumb, it should be mandatory

I agree with some of the ideas, but as other people have pointed out, outlawing hunting might be a little too much. And I'm not sure the world is ready for such a liberal party. In general, politics in the West seem to move toward the left, but it will take a decade or two before we can consider moving THAT far.

I have always divided the left into four parts: the pacifist left (anti-guns, anti-capital punishment), the liberal left (in favor of the gays', womens' and minorities' rights, in favor of abortion, etc.), the green left (protection of environment) and the socialist left (pro-syndicates, pro-nationalization). Your Visitarianism is part of the three first lefts, but not of the fourth one, and that's a flaw in my opinion.

Everything idealistically looks good, except for this part. I hadn't hunted in years and years. But if I want to go shoot small game (rabbit, squirrel, quail, dove), I don't want some nature-loving tree-hugger telling me I can't... and especially the government.

Did you know that much of the deer population in the Southwest U.S. would starve every year? There is a problem with over-population due to a certain predator or two being on the endangered list - namely wolves and cougars.

The hunting laws are pretty solid and the punishments severe for poaching/illegal taking of game. Ask anyone that's been busted by a game ranger. And did you know that while city police officers or sheriff's deputies... or even the FBI has to obtain a search warrant to enter your home while the game warden can walk right in and open your freezer??

P.S. I tend to be an environmentally concerned individual... i.e. one of the tree huggers.