What political ideology do you identify? And why?

[sgtbaker]

I wonder how many of the people reciting Republican party talking points verbatim in these forums will actually come forward as Republicans.

I identify with ideals of liberty, very rough economic and political equality and secularism with a heaping handful of government intervention in cases where it's shown to be socially beneficial.

I am a republican leaning independant. Why would that be something that I would hide? Just like the left, there are varying degrees of each group and things I agree and disagree with from both sides. Just because my views lean to the moderate side of the right, does not mean I agree with the people who are currently representing the party. Basically, I am a capitalist, I believe in smaller govt, flat tax, I don't agree with socialized medicine, and I think the union is outdated. I will admit that my knowledge about socialized medicine is of limited understanding and my view on that is not concrete. I don't agree with allowing people to vote on the right to marry (and I think that the insurance argument is a joke), it should be a given. I don't agree with affiliating our govt with any god, nor should our decisions be based on a book written 2000yrs ago. Yeah, the short narrow definition is: I am an atheist-Republican - yeah, I am that girl.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I am a republican leaning independant. Why would that be something that I would hide?

"Why" is a hard question. It seems to be part of the on-line Republican cheerleader script to repeat Republican talking points verbatim while claiming to be a swinging voter or a libertarian. Presumably they think that their claims are more likely to be believed if they position them as coming from "independent" sources.

Whereas pro-Democratic party talking points regurgitators seem generally to be more open about their affiliation, although they're not doing anything substantially different to the pro-Republican ones.

I don't know why that is, just that it's been that way long enough that on some internet forums it's become a bit of a running gag.

 

[jimtron]

Social democracy. Secular and participatory.

Checks and balances for all systems. Social agreement that some situations require collective action while others require individual action. Input from multiple sources and perspectives is helpful.

In this thread I asked the question, "what is my economic ideology?" (I described my views and asked which ideology is the best fit.) Social Democrat makes the most sense to me.

 

[mikeyx]

Poly: more than one
Tick: blood sucking bug

I suspect we are done here

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

What political ideology do you identify? And why?

Live and let live.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Live and let live.

You forgot the why.

 

[PixyMisa]

If by "socialism" you mean "something other than what socialism actually means" then yes, you are right.

No. I'm referring to socialism. I don't know what you think you're talking about.

Socialism, as an economic system, does not and cannot work. J. B. S. Haldane, himself a socialist, pointed out why in 1926. It's hardly headline news. It's a simple function of scaling laws. All centrally-managed enconomies fail. The only choice in the end is whether to transition to a market economy or to simply collapse completely.

A market economy can still function with some degree of added socialism. A purely socialist economy will always fail.

 

[PixyMisa]

In answer to the original question, I'd say I'm either classical liberal or neoliberal.

 

[PixyMisa]

You forgot the why.

Because dying is too much effort.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

No. I'm referring to socialism. I don't know what you think you're talking about.

Socialism, as an economic system, does not and cannot work. J. B. S. Haldane, himself a socialist, pointed out why in 1926. It's hardly headline news. It's a simple function of scaling laws. All centrally-managed enconomies fail. The only choice in the end is whether to transition to a market economy or to simply collapse completely.

A market economy can still function with some degree of added socialism. A purely socialist economy will always fail.

Nobody uses "socialism" to refer to total socialism any more than people use "capitalism" to refer to absolutely unrestricted capitalism.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

No. I'm referring to socialism. I don't know what you think you're talking about.

Socialism, as an economic system, does not and cannot work. J. B. S. Haldane, himself a socialist, pointed out why in 1926. It's hardly headline news. It's a simple function of scaling laws. All centrally-managed enconomies fail. The only choice in the end is whether to transition to a market economy or to simply collapse completely.

A market economy can still function with some degree of added socialism. A purely socialist economy will always fail.

Well, there is a thing called "market socialism". I think the reason claims like "socialism doesn't work" don't work is that there are fifty different varieties and they all hate each other and claim to be "True Socialism" .

 

[Manopolus]

What political ideology do you identify? Why do you advocate this philosophy?

What political structure allows for the greatest level of individual liberty, while still protecting human rights, social standards, and economic entrepreneurship?
What political structure incubates a status quo that is relatively free of bureaucratic, corporate, and socialistic corruption?
What political form leads to the most economic prosperity, technological development, and cultural progression?

What ideals should be included in this ideal political philosophy?

What political ideology is to be considered the inheritor of the noninterventionist ideals regarding the movement where reason was advocated as the primary source and legitimacy for authority?
What political ideology is to be regarded as the successor of the liberal ideals of the Age of Enlightenment?

The focus of this thread is to identify political ideals that preserve, protect and defend individual liberty and economic freedom and recognize the hindrances to those basic human rights. It is to distinguish political principles that maximize individual liberties and those that jeopardize the right to life, liberty, and happiness.

In a society shaped by industrial, technological, and scientific advancements - what political philosophy do you consider to be the proper and true extension of classical liberalism?

I think that the ideal political structure would be for the world to proclaim me both God and Dictator. Free the masses of their self - imposed democratic capitalist tyranny, and the ills of immoral media. Only someone as divinely attributed as myself can truly lead us to utopia! The ignorant masses are not intelligent enough to make their own decisions.

 

[jimtron]

A purely socialist economy will always fail.

A purely capitalistic society would fail too, no? I think most of us here are talking about mixed economies, like the U.S. and Denmark, that are not "pure" capitalism or socialism.

 

[The Fallen Serpent]

Socialism, as already been pointed out, refers to more than just one method of property/labor controls. That is why most of us are being specific.

In the same vein democracy is such a word. Democracy includes such things as democratic republics in which people vote for representatives to run the government (US Federal Government), republican democracies in which people can directly vote on issues but leave the day to day to representatives (US state governments), democratic dictatorships in which the people vote on a president for life with near absolute power, pure democracies in which all participants can vote on every decision (which runs into logistical nightmares even with only a thousand strong community).

As technology eases labor and increases the minimal threshold for skilled professionals I believe the importance of social markets and a welfare state increases. I am not saying I forsee in the near future a Star Trek like society in which the basics of a satisfactory lifestyle are almost effortlessly produced, but technological advancements are increasing the cost of training an effective work force while diminishing the importance of basic labors and increasing productive yield. Look at food production in the industrialized world. This is an industry that used to consume the efforts of the brunt of humanity. In the parts of the world with the right infrastructure a very small portion of the population needs to be dedicated to this work. The labor that is necessary is considered low in value. Whereas professional labor, such as equipment design is highly valued as it reduces the necessary unskilled labor by leaps and bounds. This effect is spreading to other sectors. Increasingly there will be more people who offer little in terms of productivity.

I think that economic strategy is a very important part of political alignment.

 

[slingblade]

"None of the Above"

Same.

 

[beeksc1]

I believe he was joking. "Monanarchy" is supposed to be a cross between Anarchy and Monarchy, which would be paradoxical and humorous.

Cool.

Social democracy, because it's rad.

A Social Democracy is close to Libertarian Socialism.

Socialism, as an economic system, does not and cannot work. J. B. S. Haldane, himself a socialist, pointed out why in 1926. It's hardly headline news. It's a simple function of scaling laws. All centrally-managed enconomies fail. The only choice in the end is whether to transition to a market economy or to simply collapse completely.

A market economy can still function with some degree of added socialism. A purely socialist economy will always fail.

Yes.

Not only are purely planned economies doomed to fail. Historically, planned economies have been employed by the people in power to bring about Malthusian catastrophes; state orchestrated economies have been used to artificially create famines.

A purely capitalistic society would fail too, no? I think most of us here are talking about mixed economies, like the U.S. and Denmark, that are not "pure" capitalism or socialism.

Right on. A market incubating small business success and trust busting is a kind of economy advocated through Libertarian Socialism.

 

[beeksc1]

According to Wikipedia, Libertarian Socialism is composed of principles such as

Counter-economics
Dispute resolution organization
Economic freedom
Egalitarianism
Free market
Free society · Free trade
Free will · Freedom of association
Freedom of contract
Homestead principle
Individualism
Laissez-faire
Liberty · Limited government
Methodological individualism
Natural rights
Night watchman state
Non-aggression
Non-interventionism
Non-politics · Non-voting
Participatory economics
Polycentric law · Property
Private defense agency
Self-governance · Self-ownership
Spontaneous order
Stateless society
Subjective theory of value · Tax resistance
Title-transfer theory of contract
Worker's self management
Voluntary association
Voluntary society

I am unable to define each and every principle off the top of my head; but, I understand that Libertarian Socialism espouses moderate-high economic freedom and high individual liberty. The history of Libertarian Socialism primarily originates in classical liberalism and then secondarily in anarchism.

Classical Liberalism entails both limited government and preservation of individual liberty. Anarchism is the political ideology that strives for minimizing the state, dismantling illegitimate authority, and maximizing individual liberty.

Anarchism is not a synonym of anarchy or anarchist. Anarchy is the lack of government; in practice, anarchism represents a form of government in it's smallest state.

 

[sgtbaker]

"Why" is a hard question. It seems to be part of the on-line Republican cheerleader script to repeat Republican talking points verbatim while claiming to be a swinging voter or a libertarian. Presumably they think that their claims are more likely to be believed if they position them as coming from "independent" sources.

Whereas pro-Democratic party talking points regurgitators seem generally to be more open about their affiliation, although they're not doing anything substantially different to the pro-Republican ones.

I don't know why that is, just that it's been that way long enough that on some internet forums it's become a bit of a running gag.

I hope you don't think I present myself as more independant than party that I think I come off as more enlightened. It seems that the older I get, the more gray area I see, than black and white.

It's just important to remember that not all republicans are conservatives, not all republicans feel it's right to vote on the rights of other individuals, and not all republicans think that laws should be credited to or derived from the bible. People may be hesitant to admit they are a republican for the same reason I am hesitant to offer up that I am an atheist; it's just not fun to always have to live on the defensive. Both reps and dems are guilty of blind party support and both are guilt of demonizing the other sides talking points. The general attitude in this thread is the very word republican is vilified.

 

[Manopolus]

I hope you don't think I present myself as more independant than party that I think I come off as more enlightened. It seems that the older I get, the more gray area I see, than black and white.

It's just important to remember that not all republicans are conservatives, not all republicans feel it's right to vote on the rights of other individuals, and not all republicans think that laws should be credited to or derived from the bible. People may be hesitant to admit they are a republican for the same reason I am hesitant to offer up that I am an atheist; it's just not fun to always have to live on the defensive. Both reps and dems are guilty of blind party support and both are guilt of demonizing the other sides talking points. The general attitude in this thread is the very word republican is vilified.

Unfortunately, the more secular Republican Party seems to be dying out at both local and national levels. Kansas used to be said to have two distinct Republican parties, and when the wrong one won the Republican nomination for governer, we end up with a Democrat as a governer because of the opposition that exists within the Republican party, itself. This is still true to a degree... but Republicans are in a position -- especially at the national level -- where they must pander extensively to the religious right in order to get elected.

(added) I suppose that's why I almost exclusively vote for Democrats. I am not all that Liberal, but the tactics to which the Republican side of the aisle resorts is offensive to my sensibilities.

 

[Schrodinger's Cat]

I don't like to limit myself by labeling myself as belonging to a particular ideology.

I certainly lean liberal. I have lived all over the world. The places where I experienced and felt the people around me were experiencing the best quality of life were in liberal societies such as the Netherlands.

However, there were certainly aspects of these liberal societies I did NOT like. And I just have problems with plenty of liberal ideologies in general. And then there are liberal ideologies I DO agree with...but see practiced by few actual liberals, so I have a hard time accepting those as true liberal ideology.

And I could say the same about conservativism.

The problem with both political parties, as I see it, is that their supposed values often do not match up with their actions.

So for instance, liberals will typically bill themselves as the pro science crowd and mock creationists and the religion for believing in things there are no proof of...but go over to uber liberal the Huffington Post and they are filled with new age medicine and anti vaccine posts which have no more basis in science or reality than biblical beliefs do.

Or conservatives are constantly saying *they* are the ones who believe in the rights of an individual to be a self determined individual. Yet then on conservative websites, I see homosexuals derided specifically because they are "deviants." You can't say that you're for individuality and against conformity, and then complain about people who don't conform.

So I would classify myself as a left leaning moderate. There are plenty of things that both sides say that I agree with in theory...it's just that I don't see that group actually holding to the beliefs they claim to have.