Well, beat me with a political pole!

[Honor]

Ok... Think of it as part of this ongoing study I'm doing...

Problem with the above poll being, of course, that radio buttons are the only option. I would have preferred check boxes with a much wider variety of possibilities... That way I could cover spectrums like conservative - progressive, republican - democrat, other governmental systems & philosophies, etc...

So... Just fill that part in, please?

The poll above is only the header... The real question here is what are political/sociological tags you identify with and, more importantly, what do those identifiers mean to you and why do you identify with them?

Like: I would classify myself as a ______, and that means, to me, ______. I'm that, because ________.

Thank you in advance.

[Orwell]

Should I go with my ideology, or my practice?

[Honor]

Should I go with my ideology, or my practice?

Um... Perhaps a paragraph for each?

I should add to the above... I don't specifically, particularly, see this as a thread for the debate of which ideology is "best", so much as a place for personal definition...

I keep running into people who brand themselves as "conservative" or "liberal" or "republican" or "democrat", and I find myself interested in the "why"s of it all.

Sometimes, the reasons they give aren't in keeping with the generally accepted principals of the "philosophy" they identify with... Sometimes, they don't really have any good reason "why"...

It all makes me very curious.

[Xero]

I'm a Canadian Soviet
where the fuck is my option >:R

-prepares hockey stick and beer bottle-

[ManaUser]

Hmm... I don't know if there's a label for people like me. Progressive-Libertarian?

I think the government needs to be cut way back, but the things I think it should keep doing are mostly "left-wing" kind of things.

Does anybody happen to know a name for that? It doesn't seem like it should be such a weird combination.

[LeftTentacleGreen]

Egalitarian Socialist... and damn proud of it.

I believe it is personal responsibility (not personal greed) that separates adults from children. Also, I believe a man is not measured by the actions he takes, but by the responsibility he accepts. Finally, I believe there is no greater responsibility than knowing when to place the whole of society ahead of oneself.

I believe that bureaucracies are essential to keeping people safe from abuses of power. I believe limiting the number of government agencies will not limit the amount of power that government controls. I believe that taxes and government programs should exist to help all people achieve a level playing field in economic, political, and social situations.

I believe parasites that act to feed off social benefits without giving anything back should be exiled from the society - whether they are a welfare cheat or a corporate CEO that either sells or dumps poison. The only ethical difference between the two is how much money they have before they become a parasite.

I believe corporations that act like hostile sovereign nations should be treated as such.

I also believe that elected members of a representative government should only be paid as much as the average salary of the average citizen within the position's area of political representation.

[Swordsman3003]

Before Sept. 11, I believed in God, reprimanded my mother for not taking me to church, and bought and read every "Left Behind" book currently and print. I prayed every night. I was fairly certain I would die in a nuclear war, or be abducted by aliens.

Please recall, for the sake of impressions, that my birth date is 4/27 1990. I was young.

I was in sixth grade at the time, and my homeroom teacher was tuning into the news, and I saw, live on television, the second plane hit the other tower. I really, couldn't understand what was going on. I did not even know that Islam was a religion; I thought Arabs believed in genies and flying carpets.

I came of age, politically, socially, spiritually, whatever, in the aftermath of 9/11.


In 2002, I started reading newspaper and watching the evening news. I took my first college course. By 2003, I was enrolled full time in college. I read the paper every day, and developed a love-hate relationship with the editorial page. And I mean "the editorial page" in the sense of the ethereal concept of editorials. But I digress.

In 2004, I thought a Catholic Sunday school class for 6th graders. They did not know I was only 2 years older than they were, because I was pretty tall for my age and spoke with some authority I suppose. By the end of that year, I became an atheist.

In that same year, I took a college course called "American Government" and I engrossed myself in politics. I scooped up magazines, newspapers, and watched every political debate. Interestingly, the big project for that class was to volunteer for a political campaign (any campaign would do) and then write about personal experiences.

It's relevant here to point out that my father and his family are either militant theocons or businessmen with apathy to social freedom and all voted Republican fairly consistently. My mom, and most of her family are pretty liberal, mostly Catholic, and nearly always vote democratic.
As I was growing up, it wasn't that I had somebody trying to ram ideas down my throat, but rather that I had everybody trying to ram ideas down my throat.

Back to the Poli-Sci class:
Since I had to volunteer, even though it could be for any level of election, I knew that I hated George W. Bush. I didn't even know anything about John Kerry other than he was a "flip-flopper," but I didn't care. I knew Iraq had nothing to do with any terrorist attacks on America, and that my country was being run into the ground by a shit-for-brains president, just as he destroyed companies without enough sense to give him largely rubber-stamper positions.

I was 14 years old, and I showed up at the Democratic regional headquarters in Orlando (some building they rented or whatever) and asked to volunteer. Most of the people I worked with were astounded that I even cared about politics at my age. I was always quick to explain that regardless of any other mumbo-jumbo, everybody in this room will be dead and buried before the federal debt is paid, and that even if I wasn't 18, it didn't mean my predecessors couldn't shackle me and my generation with a mortgage on our entire country.

2004 was an important year for me; it was also the year that I started reading Ghastly's Ghastly comic and soon joined the forum, where my personality started to really develop. I met people who thought and acted differently, as I did, and also made a couple of really meaningful friendships. My life is radically different today.

So in 2002 I was a God-fearing Catholic 6th grader, and now in 2007 I'm a rational, Senior student at a well-respected university.*

On political tests I take, my views are always leftist, but not overly so. I always rank very very low on authoritarian viewpoints as well. Some tests or people have tried to call me marginally libertarian, but I have great distaste for para-anarchists.

I'm in favor of nearly all social freedoms, it would take a while for find something that I would oppose in law (that is not to say I indulge myself; non-medicinal drug I ever intend to take is caffeine...and only because it's so darn useful). I have no religion. These two points alone should be enough to throw me into the Democratic camp, but there's more.

I fucking sick and tired of corporations and the rich people who own them (is there a difference?) whining about any shit at all. Multi-billion dollar companies have been happy to find out, not so many weeks ago, that they have the right, under the Constitution, to pour their money into political funds as part of their "freedom of speech." After all, a corporation is an "artificial person." The same people pleased about this decision are the same ones fucking pissed off when a corporation falls under any kind of regulation. Wait...real live breathing humans don't fucking trust each other, that's why we have laws regarding things like theft. Why in the name of non-religion should people trust a soulless corporation any more than a fellow human? Any rich person who complains about economic shit makes me sick. If people have any wealth at all, they should be spewing hymns of praise for the wonderful society that permitted them to acquire such wealth at all.

Just so you know, it's not like I don't have money, or that my family is poor. Quite the opposite in fact.**

*just to be a jerk, I'm going to tell you that my state pays me thousands of dollars per semester just to remain in one of their schools.
**the amount of money the state is paying me has nothing to do with the fact that my parents already paid in full for my college tuition. Everything they pay me, I get in cash. WTF...? I know.

edited for clarity

[Fnyunj]

Yep, you guessed it;

Socially liberal, fiscally conservative.

In that:
By Socially liberal - I may or may not agree with what you do in the privacy of your own home with your own body. . . but as long as it doesn't hurt anybody (you know, lasting harm, not pain), and as long as no non-consenting, minors are involved, then damn, it's none of my business, and I have no right to stop whatever it is you may be up to in there. (can I watch?)
And should anyone have any special rights that anyone else does not have? hell no! And should anyone be able to take away anyone else's rights? For any reason? No.

By fiscally conservative - I mean that, we shouldn't spend money on dumb things, when smart things are going unfunded. Is public education a dumb thing to spend money on? No, ignorance is far more costly. Is national defense a dumb thing to spend money on? Of course not, just don't get carried away with the hucksters, fearmongers, and hype who want to con you out of 30% of everything you make for gee-whiz jets that don't really solve your national security problems. Is corporate welfare a dumb thing to spend money on? Why, yes it is, they can make their own damn money, and if they can't, then we're really doing them a disservice by subsidizing failure. Right? Very dumb!

But this doesn't really say it all - because one also has to say what one believes is the role of government. For example, a typical (small-l) libertarian argument is that it is not the government's business to say, regulate air-traffic, that it can be done much more efficiently by private interests. Where as a typical (small-l) socialist would say that everyone should have a right to very basic living necessities like food and shelter, and health care, and that the government can best provide that.
Where do I stand there? I don't think there's an ideological statement that covers all situations. There's very sound, pragmatic arguments, for example, for government-provided health care, in our current situation in the US. Even on a National Security basis - the idea of having 45 million citizens who are not under any kind of health care, in an age of bioterrorism, is just nuttier than squirrel turds. On the other hand, one can imagine a world, where even a lowly janitor commands a market-rate-salary sufficient to pay for his basic needs. Wouldn't that be nice? You'd have to change a whole lot of other things, human behaviors, to make that happen. But it would sure be nice not to keep having to have this discussion, as we've been having since the 1940's in this nation.
My belief is that the role of government is not set in stone on any given issue - it changes, depending on the situation, depending on what the people believe and decide, depending on how our best and brightest honestly and openly argue, and of course, all observant to our individual rights and liberties. (ie: FUCK eminent domain - you want my property? Pay the fair market value).

In America - what is the ROLE of government? Well, it's 230 some odd years old, but somewhat relevant; here's what they were thinking: "We the people, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, secure the blessing of Liberty, to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution. . . (etc.)"

Does not sound like "every man for himself" to me.

Then, you've got to say what the individual's responsibility is. And I feel that individuals really ought to be held to that level of responsibility. And I know that we're not all really created equal - some are born handicapped. Well - we can toss them in a meat grinder and eat them, or take responsibility for them. I know which society I'd rather be a part of. And individuals are, of course, responsible for paying taxes. And in return for those taxes, they get to vote.
And I think that most Americans agree that having a lot of government services is better than not having ANY government services. (example of government with no services: Iraq). Those services cost money, money raised by taxes, and taxes are most efficiently collected via income at progressive rates - until someone comes up with a more efficient or more fair system.

[Honor]

Hmm... I don't know if there's a label for people like me. Progressive-Libertarian?

I think the government needs to be cut way back, but the things I think it should keep doing are mostly "left-wing" kind of things.

Does anybody happen to know a name for that? It doesn't seem like it should be such a weird combination.

Probably "progressive", depending on what parts of government you want trimmed... possibly a civil rights progressive.

Sounds like you've bought into the myth that Republicans favor small government and democrats favor big government. Republicans favor -huge- governments, and -huge- government spending... just not on or for social services or social investment.

The largest increase in the size of the Government belongs to a Republican... The two largest debt increases in history belong to republicans... And just about any Democrat you elected right now would, first rattle out of the box, decrease the size and spending of our government, forcefully.

[ManaUser]

Sounds like you've bought into the myth that Republicans favor small government and democrats favor big government.

Well I wouldn't say I bought into it. I don't believe it for a minute. But we're talking about labels here. (partly anyway.) Progressive is a fine label though. It just don't quite capture the extent to which I would like government power cut back.

[Seth Marati]

I went with the Python quote, since being a smartass isn't all that helpful, and neither is my position.

I've been described by various people as a conservative liberal, and that sounds about right. "Conservative" in this case is more a literal descriptor than an indicator of alignment; "reserved" or "scaled-back" would be similarly apt descriptors, and the first term describes a personal aesthetic, as well; I'm generally very quiet, secretive, and self-contained. My political beliefs are somewhat ill-defined, though I find myself identifying and sympathizing with causes and ideals associated with the left much more than the right. I place a lot of emphasis on personal ethics and responsibility, which doesn't do much since people are scum anyway, and it's also ironic given my own general lack of industry and occasionally questionable morals. But at least no one can accuse me of fabricating a belief system designed to accommodate myself.

Politically, I don't identify with a particular group - when I registered to vote, I left the party selection field unchecked. This is probably because I don't really understand what the parties represent, and my faith in the system is pretty fucked, anyway, so I wasn't eager to make any sort of commitment to a subset thereof. It's not very mature, I know, but I haven't been motivated to get involved in the political scene. I care, definitely, but I can never bring myself to do anything.

I have a lot of problems with how issues of moralization tend to creep into politicizing issues, e.g. "Our party embodies this virtue, and since that other party is opposed to us, they're also opposed to this virtue." I don't see why things like courage, compassion, or a strong work ethic have to be tied to political parties (well, okay, as evidenced above, I do see why - they're trying to make the other guy look bad, but I can't defend that sort of practice). This probably has a lot to do with why I avoid politics; I've preferred to deal with issues like these at a personal and a smaller interpersonal level, and never managed to focus on a larger picture.

Basically, I've been too focused on how to conduct myself to focus on how society ought to be conducted.

As an aside, and this may sound a little off: I'm glad in a way that September 11th led at least one person to abandon their belief in God.

[Warmachine]

Social Democrat. Everyone should, ideally, be able to improve themselves within their ambition and talents, whether its art, amateur football or science. Such pursuits can trample on other people, so democracy and the law handles that. This is not much of a problem and doesn't need much attention.

What needs attention is distribution of wealth and power. Freedom means jack for those below the poverty line. Such people are forced to merely pursue survival. Not only is this cruel but if those with the wealth and power regard this as acceptable, then we have institutionalized cruelty and humanity will become something awful. The trouble is wealth production and ambition aren't clearly distinguished from greed and cruelty, so we'll always get employers abusing buyer's markets, factories dumping pollutants that they don't have to clean up and insurance companies wriggling out of paying through obscure contract clauses or the client's inability to pay court costs. It is the job of government to regulate this and contain the collatoral damage of the free market within acceptable limits.

Natural disasters are also devastating and victims should be picked up for the same reason. Experience shows insurance companies cannot be relied upon to do this. Besides, I trust a democratic government, run by ambitious people trying to more votes, than insurance companies, run by ambitious people trying to cut costs. This includes healthcare. Indeed, ill people who are treated are more productive, as well as happier. It is in a nation's self interest to run a universal health service.

To encourage self improvement, which is good for the nation, it is the job of government to provide a more rungs on the ladder. Education, public transport, communications, subsidies - all encourage growth and tax-and-spend for this is cost effective. Few like paying taxes for these as they won't see much obvious benefit. Indeed the higher tax payers, the rich, will see the least benefit. It is the job of government to see the big picture and distribute wealth in the interests of the whole.


To put it another way.

From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs.

[BriHahn]

I don't know that there really is a label for me. I honestly haven't paid all that much attention to politics in my life until I started working in a small capacity for the government, and I don't really know enough to say if there is a label for my stance. Hope one of you can help me; I'm pro-choice, pro-same-sex marriage, feel that the troops should remain for a few more months, at least, in Iraq (I'm speaking as a soldier myself there, and if I were over there now, I'd be willing to stay as long as I felt needed), want the country to be safe and feel it's worth giving up some EXTREMELY SMALL liberties to ensure that (in other words, I don't want the government to have obscene amounts of power (any more than they already do, at least), but I don't think it should be so bad to give up a few things we've taken for granted.) I don't know if I can really elaborate on any of that, but if you have an idea what label to stick on me, feel free to let me know.

[Lowky]

Again I didn't quite see a place for my beliefs. I definitely believe less government is better. A socially responsible government is better. I agree with alot of the principles of being libertarian but at the same time, I don't agree that Might makes Right which is what that can often devlop into due to common human behaviors such as greed.
1) Personally when it comes to sex, as long as all parties are consenting then more power to you.

2) Abortion, the government shouldn't have a right to say you can't, if you give them that right, then they also have the right to say you must have an abortion. I would rather see an unwanted, ill-afforded pseudo-person be terminated than have to support an unwanted child, who is ignored at best/abused at worst for 18 years, and then usually longer due to socio-economics where they wind up in the prison system.

3) Self Harm (for lack of a better word) So long as It doesn't affect others, who cares if you wear a helmet on your motorcycle, don't wear a seat belt, take drugs/drink/smoke. It's not Governments job to infringe on your rights to do what you want with your own body so long as you are not doing things that will harm others, such as operating heavy machinery/driving, etc while under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

4) I do believe in Sin Taxes. Use money collected from sin taxes on cigarettes, alcohol, and drugs (which I feel should ALL be legalized), for education and rehabilitation programs. I think if drugs were legal, that you would have less associated crime. I also think that if drugs were legal you would have less people getting into drugs in the first place, as they would not be "rebelling" by taking them.

5) Prostitution and Drugs should be legalized. People have sought out both since the start of recorded history. If legal, things can be regulated so that sex workers and their customers can both be better protected. Drugs can be regulated so that people aren't getting unsafe/mislabeled/etc drugs. Quality can be regulated enough to help prevent accidental overdose, not get strichnine instead of LSD, etc.

6) Religious Freedom includes both freedom from religion as well as freedom to practice what ever religion you chose to practice. That is what was called for in the original constituion/bill of rights/declaration of independence, and that is what we should have. I personally feel that Under God should not have been added to the Pledge of Allegiance, and it needs to be removed. I also don't think In God We Trust belongs on our currency. My personal religious beliefs would place me in the born again pagan camp.


To put it all in more Geeky Terms, I think most people should operate somewhere in the Neutral to Chaotic Good alignment range, and as a result the world would be a much better place.

[Eosha]

Social liberal, fiscal conservative, a-smaller-government-is-a-less-inefficient-government-leaving-more-resources-to-be-managed-efficiently-by-others libertarian...

Hey, I live in China. My sociopolitical ideas are pretty well scrambled.

[Toawa]

Well, anyone who's been around for a while knows I'm a libertarian (small L; the big L Libertarian party has serious leadership issues).

(Yeah, this is partially a response to the posts in a certain other thread, which I'm bowing out of because I think it's reached the end of its useful life.)

Bullet points:

• I subscribe to the "The best government is that which governs least." school of thought.
• I believe that the free market isn't given its fair shake, in a lot of areas. (I recognize that free market competition can't solve everything, at least while we're still stuck on one planet, but it will solve a lot more than its given credit for.)
• I am not an anarcho-capitalist (though I know several people who are), as several here have painted me. I have never used the term laissez-faire.
• I believe that (the US) government tends to cause more little problems than it solves, but that it (currently) solves a few big problems which make up for that; however they've expanded far more than they ever should have.
• I recognize taxes are a necessary evil (much to the chagrin of my anarcho-capitalist buddies), but I believe that they should be collected in a manner which is simple to understand (even the IRS admits they don't fully understand our tax code) and which cannot be (easily or readily, owing to the nature of the legislative process) twisted into a tool by politicians to reward supporters, or to direct our behavior in any but the most general of terms (recognizing that taxing will effect behavior; that's a given. It's like Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle; the fact that there is a tax, changes the behavior of people compared to a situation where it didn't exist.)
• I believe that many of people who are asking the government to take over areas that are currently left to a broken market (healthcare), rather than fixing the market, genuinely don't understand the consequences of what they're asking for.
• I do not believe in hating the rich because they're rich, or the poor because they're poor. I believe we should study the rich to learn why they are rich, to emulate them; and study the poor to learn why they are poor, so as to avoid that behavior if possible.
• I think holding a victim mindset has never benefited any person who has held such a mindset; it has only benefited those persons who that put that mindset into place.

[Swordsman3003]

Oh yeah, I'd just like to point out something about libertarians I know:

As libertarians, they care about social freedoms as well as removing economic regulations. However, neither of the two American political parties support both of those ideas. Democrats are for social freedoms, and Republicans try to remove economic regulations.

When push comes to shove, every libertarian I've ever met thinks that removing regulations is much more important, and usually votes Republican. I've come to the generalization that libertarians want freedom from government economic control, and are simply apathetic to personal social freedom. Claiming to be a libertarian seems like a more sexy way to be a Republican, since libertarians aren't supposed to be religious wackos.

I'm sure there are legit libertarians out there!!! **disclaimer***

[Toawa]

Oh yeah, I'd just like to point out something about libertarians I know:

As libertarians, they care about social freedoms as well as removing economic regulations. However, neither of the two American political parties support both of those ideas. Democrats are for social freedoms, and Republicans try to remove economic regulations.

When push comes to shove, every libertarian I've ever met thinks that removing regulations is much more important, and usually votes Republican. I've come to the generalization that libertarians want freedom from government economic control, and are simply apathetic to personal social freedom. Claiming to be a libertarian seems like a more sexy way to be a Republican, since libertarians aren't supposed to be religious wackos.

I'd argue with you on the "Democrats are for social freedoms" point; they may be more for some, but they are less so for others; but that is besides the point.

As a libertarian, I see economic freedom (fewer economic regulations, as you put it) as the basis for social freedom, and as long as you lack the former, you can't hope to attain the latter; thus it's a more pressing need to increase economic freedom now, and worry about social freedom later; particularly because social freedom will become less threatened as economic freedom is restored.

[Swordsman3003]

As a libertarian, I see economic freedom (fewer economic regulations, as you put it) as the basis for social freedom, and as long as you lack the former, you can't hope to attain the latter;

According to what? In my knowledge and experience, the two are independant variables. There is definitely some correlation, since most governments are authoritarian, but you've definitely taken a huge leap in logic to somehow say that economic freedom is a requirement for social freedom.

On this point, I'm not saying you're wrong, just that I fail to see the reasoning. Can you elaborate? How does the right to start your own business lead into the right to have anal sex?

thus it's a more pressing need to increase economic freedom now, and worry about social freedom later; particularly because social freedom will become less threatened as economic freedom is restored.

Yeah well, the way libertarians have been voting, the social freedom will come much later...especially since they keep voting for a party which attempts to take those freedoms away. Why would abolishing a progressive tax system lead to the legalization of cocaine? What mysterious factor am I missing?

[ManaUser]

Wow, Seth Marati, you sound way too much like me. Maybe we shoulds tart our own political party or something.

I'd argue with you on the "Democrats are for social freedoms" point; they may be more for some, but they are less so for others;

Who do Democrats want to take social freedom from? I can't think of an example.