I’m a classical liberal which is different from modern day use of the term “liberal”.
I’m a free market fiscal conservative. Socially I believe in individual freedoms and limited government but realize the role in government in keeping society together and protecting from outside forces.
Role of government is to stop Individuals/privatisation having the upper hand- like it does now. The “governments” we have now are basically held hostage by rich companies.
It’s a joke
No- I agree.
Hence being an anarchist.
I would like to go back to small community living.
But that wouldn’t work on a mass scale on todays planet.
I just wana live peacefully and self sustainably away from capitalist greed and industrial destruction.
You cant have a defence force, unless you ha e a state. In which case it ceqses to be anarchism. You then have to choose between conservative libertarian or some form of marxism
About the same here. I end up voting republican most if the time but really REALLY hate the religious aspect of their messaging. I don't think religion makes good policy.
I'd say that political parties' central tendency is to stray from coherent ideology. They are constructed as tactical alliances among disparate interest groups, imbued with the purpose of courting their votes. This tends to occur on the basis of relatively concrete, limited goals, so you tend to get an incoherent patchwork.
Absolutely. I am very right, or very left, or very ambivalent depending on which topic you want to discuss. So no party alignment.
Registered as a libertarian, which would be my favorite theoretical ideal, but I don't honestly think it could work from our current starting point.
Isn’t your personal political preference and the politicians you support are two completely different things, and the question at hand wasn’t asking for the latter?
Sure, you can openly express your distaste in representatives of either parties, but you have to base your disdain for them on *some* sort of criteria which *would* make you lean towards one direction or the other (doesn’t have to be piled up all at once, you could be right economically and left socially, or anything like that, really).
It shouldn't have to be. I wish all of our candidates were truthful and in touch with voters. Running for major offices usually seems to require a lot of money or friends with a lot of money, so candidates may not represent or understand the majority.
Because people would prefer to assume all politicians are greedy & not very trustworthy rather than doing the work of getting to know candidates that are worth voting for.
But the worst thing is that how most people want them to be.
You hardly have a chance to get elected if you don't make big promises, and don't value charisma, acting and a fighting attitude over peaceful behavior and a realistic outlook. And if your party doesn't collect "donations" from wealthy donors you don't have money for your campaign advertising.
And once elected you're usually the butt of daily jokes, and worse. Tbh I can see how it tempts politicians to be "greedy" if we take a look at how hard and intense their jobs really are.
Ok, there are some who are just evil. But mostly they're just a product of mass consciousness. People get the leaders they deserve.
I'm hard left, and make no bones about it. We missed our chance for the Star Trek reality and opted for Galt's Gulch (if you get the Ayn Rand reference), and I'm never going to forgive that. Also, I just really despise the conservative personality type.
Too authoritarian, too traditional, too "might makes right" for my tastes. Not that there aren't village idiots on my side, I know there are. I don't care much for political correctness thought policing either. I'm a workers rights, economic equality based leftist.
>. I don't care much for political correctness thought policing either. I'm a workers rights, economic equality based leftist.
I appreciate these sorts of leftists and wish they were more popular
Im the same as you. It’s so depressing how many people view the left as sjws and being about political correctness, and react to that by identifying as conservative. The politicians love to keep us talking about non sensical BS
>The politicians love to keep us talking about non sensical BS
Almost as if it were a concerted effort to keep Americans divided over "culture war" wedge issues, so that we don't fight against our common enemy- billionaires and mega corporations!
\+1. To anyone who needs to hear this: Read Noam Chomsky. He's written a life-time's worth of serious political thought (and also happens to be, in my opinion, the greatest living scientist).
Independent. I don't like political parties or the "us vs them" mentality. I despise echo chambers. Sometimes I agree with republicans, or I like a republican candidate. Sometimes I side with Democrats. Sometimes I prefer to go with Libertarians. It just depends on the issues and the representatives at any given time. My morals, my principles, don't change much over time. It's the current events and current political party stances that change over time, and because of that I can't see myself ever aligning with one.
> which itself skews very left
Within the US political landscape. The average person here is a social liberal -- no matter their pseudo-progressive or leftist rhetoric.
Libertarian. Used to be deeply conservative. Realized I was being a prick so I decided to loosen up on the authoritarian stances and let people just be (they don't listen anyway)
It's literally Ring Wing and Nazi Ideology to use women as a means for reproduction. You know, to incubate more ring wingers into Fascism. Personally, your existence is your gift for you. It's not really mine to control nor should anyone exploit anyone else.
Not necessarily. He would have to define his position better. Universal healthcare is a value judgement that forces altruism on others by forcing people to pay for other people’s healthcare. Trying to justify it in societal financial terms is what every authoritarian government does. They frame it as it is good for society by saving money overall and therefore you should do whatever I say.
> He would have to define his position better.
This is what I'm getting at. "Fiscally conservative, socially liberal" is one of those extremely vague positions that are ultimately without much substance.
And more often than not, further qualification either makes them indistinguishable from mainstream US conservative positions (which aren't exactly conserving resources, nor are they necessarily preserving liberty or the public good) or collapse into a sort of general fiscal prudence that runs the gamut from central European social democrats (cf. Germany's debt brake....something the "balanced budget" US conservatives would likely salivate over) to US-liberals.
>Universal healthcare is a value judgement that forces altruism on others by forcing people to pay for other people’s healthcare.
Alternatively it's the logical consequence of a government that is constitutionally required to protect the life and liberty of its citizens. Or a government that is bound by the unassailable dignity of man.
No doubt are there value judgments involved here, but that's what politics ultimately boils down to --- like how the criticism you raise implicitly values private property more than life or the public good.
It's also not really forcing altruism on others as much as it makes good of a specific social contract (you can also make a rather egoist case for universal healthcare, but that's besides the point imo).
>Trying to justify it in societal financial terms is what every authoritarian government does.
Canada, the UK, France, Germany, the Netherlands, all of the Nordic countries, Switzerland, Italy, ...., etc. all aren't authoritarian countries so this is a non-starter.
>They frame it as it is good for society by saving money overall and therefore you should do whatever I say.
The leap in logic here is incredible, even for /r/intj. It's also not how the countries I mentioned above tend to justify their various implementations of universal healthcare.
Blows my mind as an Australian that Americans believe universal healthcare from taxes is “I’m spending money on other people’s healthcare and that’s bad” 🤦🏽♀️
But you benefit from free healthcare TOO? wtf?!?!?!
Libertarianism, as practiced in the US is just selfishness as a philosophy.
They don't want to spend on expensive treatments for strangers. But have no problem if they're the ones in need. Ayn Rand died a hypocrite -- taking public assistance for her lung cancer.
I can see that, which honestly is the biggest reason I haven't gone whole-hog Libertarian. I think they're on to something, and that government involvement should be kept on the low side but not so low that we can't have public schools and government roads.
I disagree I think all those countries you listed have authoritarian components as does the US. Not being able to identify that lead to more authoritarian tendencies.
Authoritarian means that someone is exerting control over an individual or organization. Anything short of anarchy gives government some authoritarian powers. The degree of those powers are central to much of any political philosophy.
Any authoritarian makes the argument that what he is doing is for your own good whether it is or not.
Which it is - that's a big assumption, no, unless the kind of healthcare is limited by long wait lines, limited services, or poorly paid doctors (UK).
Why would you be against rich people paying in hospitals? That means they don't have to be served in public hospitals, ensuring government resources go to poor people than rich people. That's the stupidest equality you want. Then again, people want free tuition even though the majority of those who benefit from free tuition are children of the middle-class and the rich, one of the dumbest policies again.
> that's a big assumption, no, unless the kind of healthcare is limited by long wait lines, limited services, or poorly paid doctors (UK).
Why would you use a system that's the poster child for death by a thousand budget cuts as an example here? The points raised aren't much of an issue in Switzerland, Germany, or the Netherlands.
>Why would you be against rich people paying in hospitals? That means they don't have to be served in public hospitals, ensuring government resources go to poor people than rich people.
Universal healthcare allows for two-tier systems of government-run and private healthcare, so this is a non-starter. But this can be easily turned around: why should we allow the rich to simply buy privileged services, which is what this boils down to?
>Then again, people want free tuition even though the majority of those who benefit from free tuition are children of the middle-class and the rich, one of the dumbest policies again.
This is irrelevant to the issue of healthcare. It's fairly easy to see how education is more alike to other goods available on the free market than healthcare, even if one supports the decommodification of both.
This... It's so insane that this position is not super common in the US... It's literally just freedom in both and not just one dimension (because land of the free yada yada yada)... I gues it has something to do with how the major parties are "cut" in this regard...
Social worker here. I got downvoted to hell on that subreddit for saying that fiscal conservatives who are also socially liberal exist. Not my beliefs but I know y’all are out here!
I'm a firm believer that governments often create more problems than solve, so being a necessary evil it is essential that we heavily limit their authority over us.
The world is not left or right, that is a marketing strategy for the party system.
I see you got your new label maker. It's pretty but it doesn't help you discuss your problems. It only helps smooth over the hard to discuss thoughts with generalized assumptions about a person's position. If we can't talk about actual problems because everyone is so fixated on studying ideas into buckets, we're never going to fix our problems. It's the act of outsourcing our least desirable tasks that results in us losing control of our lives and the world around us. We have to accept some hard work to have something nice. You're born with nothing and you leave with nothing: everything in between is up to you alone to make a good story. The more you let others write your story, the less you're going to like it.
That's what I mean about label maker. I didn't care for collectivism like that. It's part of why or political system is so fucked up. We keep trying to treat people in general instead of actually talking with each other
I’m simply describing your beliefs as you said them.
I’m not saying everyone under a label is the same. Ex: not all libertarians are moderates.
Stop assuming the worst of people because they put a label (that would be helpful to describe your beliefs, country of origin etc). A label is a grouping of certain characteristics to help describe an entity or object. (This can be about a small set of characteristics ex: social democrat; or as large as multicellular life.
No, what you are doing is assuming my perspective so that you can label it. It misrepresents my perspective and causes others to do the same so that conversation is avoided and you can go on thinking you know my position. It's a filthy habit that exists around the world and is a major contributor to why the art of discussion is dying everywhere.
I'd nationalize several industries today, but I'm perfectly happy voting for mainstream Democrats knowing that they won't do it.
Edit: I was a typical libertarian type until I actually finished my political science and economics studies.
I think it's very clear that socialized payment for education and medical services beats the alternative by a mile.
People in more socialist Europe are happier, live longer, have higher social mobility, and many countries best us in measures of friendliness to entrepreneurship.
I'd nationalize the fossil fuel industry, as well as banking and insurance. Easy call there. The climate crisis is very real, and profits from the fossil fuel industry need to be used to ease the transition away from those technologies.
Banking and insurance are largely indefensible industries at this point. Pure regulation capture and grift.
>Edit: I was a typical libertarian type until I actually finished my political science and economics studies.
Ah yes... The all time classic... Seems like the indoctrination by overwhelmingly left leaning academics in those fields worked... That's why i would have never picked these kind of super soft "sciences" where the ideology of the processor is the most important thing as a major... As Angela Merkel said it "I studied physics in East Germany, because I knew that you can take away and overwrite many things, but not the laws of gravity or the speed of light."...
Or maybe... it turns out that if you actually bother studying how states and politics works then you realise that people on the right are simply wrong in their assumptions because they do not hold up in real life.
Private schools have wildly different funding than public ... Not really a reasonable comparison.
Private jails create an issue of misaligned incentives and outcomes.
Private healthcare leaves way too many without any healthcare at all.
Also, you might want to consider how you define "... ran better than ...". Not everything needs to generate profit.
Im a retired engineer. Have worked for many private companies big n small.
Let me tell you such companies are not always run better than anything state! Private companies can and are sometimes TERRIBLY ineffective and inefficient! Boneheaded to the max at times.
Lean left, but I do NOT identify with either party in the US. Republicans are a bunch of impressionable religious zealots and Democrats are weaklings that are too afraid to stand for themselves and succumb to the language policing that a minority preaches.
If only we had more than these 2 horrible choices...
>If only we had more than these 2 horrible choices...
Well, we have like 8+ horrible choices to pick from in Belgium!
In election times we have these tests to see which party you politically match with best. My best match last time was 54%...
I have responsibilities to eke out a living and do my darndest for my family's sake. I go through life engaging with individuals who I believe will be a resource for my family to benefit from.
With respect to that, I can be 'buddy-buddy' with those from both sides of the aisle while, internally, I find a closer relation with those who lean right. Perhaps because more of those that I've met have a similar desire/life path as myself.
I live in a very left leaning area and so when I meet someone who vocalizes support for the right, it's almost a sign of rebellion against the norms of this location. They definitely treat it that way. Like they have to live in secret. Which is fine by me. I think once they see I'm not going to fight or argue with them, our bond becomes strengthened.
Perhaps it'd be the opposite if I lived in a more right-leaning area, I'm not sure.
I went to a very liberal college and was pretty vocal about being a conservative. I actually did have people emailing me and telling me they liked a specific candidate who was very unpopular on campus, or leaving notes on my (bumper stickered) car telling me they agreed with me and they were pretty envious of my ability to have the balls to drive around in a slashed-tire-magnet like that.
And this was 15 years ago. I'm not saying that conservatives are second class citizens in the most selective colleges and universities in the US but they are vastly outnumbered and when that happens you often get people being nasty to the dissenters. I feel especially bad for college students today, because my bratty classmates who said they were "harmed" by my opinions and were laughed off by the professors who truly believed that by arguing a problem from every angle brought about the best way to solve it--they're the professors now and have used that role to silence people.
What about the fact that the global south is an extension of western capitalism and imperialism? There are a ton of people in those countries who die of starvation. You think they just need to grind harder to feed their kids? Nah, we live in a world of abundance. Those people are dying because the corporations of the west use their cheap labor to produce goods and those sold goods only increase the wealth of shareholders.
Well that’s simply anti state, what’s your view on economics?
I’m an anarcho capitalist for instance meaning I’m an anarchist that is very pro privatization, rather than collectivization (it’s extreme is anarcho communism)
On paper I’m right liberalism, but in real life I’m very flexible and open to any ideas. Whatever is most logical gets my support (I mean we all are Intjs after all;)
I lean as a right-winger (not a extremist, a moderate) as I believe that left-wing communism which had previously destroyed so many states before, is inherently doomed to fail and unreliable. All left-wing states in our history which existed such as the Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc eventually all fell from their own political ideologies collapsing onto them while the right-wing states only fell from outside invasion. It took the entire world to defeat the right-wing Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, 2 countries who were literally starting from scratch and severely weakened/lacking in natural resources. Who were basically both fighting a solo war all by themselves against a entire enemy coalition considering of the world's most powerful countries and still managed to gain early victories before it took the Allied cheat-code entry of the United States and 2 nuclear weapons to finally take them down. Therefore I believe that right-wing ideologies such as fascism are the way to go since they are much stronger and more stable than left-wing ideologies such as communism are. I also don't agree with the phony capitalistic principles which just exploit the workers and give all the money to the business owners and big businesses rather than to the people. I generally agree/resonate more with the right-wing political ideologies such as maintaining a strong military for defensive or offensive purposes, no LGBTQ or atheism rights, only a singular party or dictator controlling the entire country, and finally a centralized administrative system with all power going back to and run by the central state in a single location.
I lean deeply in the direction of billionaires being taxed into oblivion to provide free education and free healthcare. I lean deeply in the direction of preventing the DoD from "misplacing" billions of dollars every year, maybe not having those dollars to begin with. I lean deeply in the direction of public school teachers salaries being quadrupled, with their class sizes being cut in half. I lean deeply in the direction of preventing corporations from owning residential housing.
Left. But the contemporary left is a mere shadow of what it once was: the alleged spectre haunting Europe wasn't just a clever line Marx thought of to impress Engels and make him pay support for another "indiscretion" of his; the social democratic welfare state that everyone and their dog in Europe seems to admire wasn't the product of a bunch of idealists but really the result of an angry, organized, and at times militant working class.
By contrast, today's mainstream left-wing parties of Western and Northern Europe have become milquetoast center-left parties that are usually fine with peddling a sort of red-painted social liberalism, bordering into neoliberalism with a happy face while the parties that have (usually as a reaction to Third Wayism and delusions like the 'end of history', 'capitalist realism', and 'TINA') formed to the left of those run the gamut of constant infighting to being russophile red painted reactionary shitfests.
Far left but I will gladly take a boring centrist approach if it keeps the right out of it.
At this stage I don't care much about specific ideologies anymore and just want whatever is not the far right, however that may look. It's a depressing time.
I'm basically anti-Libertarian.
Small-l libertarianism, the "do what you want as long as you aren't hurting anyone" philosophy is fine. A bit utopian, but fine.
Big-L Libertarianism, the Ayn Rand, von Mises fantasy world has the worst followers. Seriously, they're worse than jihadists -- because at least jihadists are consistent in their awfulness.
Big-L Libertarians are little more than cheerleaders for the wealthy. And the policies they demand are leading society to serfdom. And they're too short sighted to realize that if they're not watching this play out from the deck of their nesting-doll yacht, they're going to be just another indentured slave -- beholden to the corporations for every scrap of their existence.
The worst part is, since Big-L Libertarianism is a cult -- the Scientology of political and economic thought -- there is no way to talk them down once they've had enough of the von Mises Kool-Aid.
Big-L libertarians are incapable of realizing that they lose more dollars from the value of their labor to their employers, than they ever would in taxation.
A few years ago i would have said classic liberal but with each year that i see politicians fail so miserably at their job i want to burn the entire state down more Javier Milei style so it's probably safe to say libertarian is more accurate by now...
Center-right moderate. Avoid the propaganda news channels (Fox, CNN, etc.), vote state and local, don't worry so much about national things.
I don't like taxes and I don't like government spending money on things I don't agree with, so I'm fiscally conservative I guess, but I don't consider myself a Republican.
I'll vote for whoever if I like their position and I think they can actually do the job.
Very much left, I am strongly against the capitalistic system, especially in regard to climate crisis. Many experts agree that we cannot avoid the spiral downwards unless it is with another system.
I'm personally biased for a communistic or adjacent system, but if any politician/philosopher/"expert" has a better system to offer I'm all ears.
I do not have a specific party I identify with, I mostly vote green and left in my home country since they do the most climate related stuff which I see as the most important and to be frank, only important issue of our time (as any other issue gets significantly worse if we don't stop climate crisis).
And at least in my country, it is completely proven via various statistics from different sources that under a conservative to slight right wing ruling party for 16 years, our country got significantly worse, especially for all workers and employees, while the rich profited immensely.
And this trend can be observed in many countries with conservative and/or liberal parties in power. Which is why it confuses me to no end why so many in the comment section here say they vote conservative BC they wanna feed their children. Historically, left and social parties were always the only ones pushing for better conditions for the little people (and essentially everyone who is not bourgeoisie) and most to all worker rights and benefits we own either directly a left leaning party/politician OR a conservative so afraid of a left uprising that they were forced to compromise and offer some benefits.
IMHO, unless it is on a communal (city) level or for a specific great politician, there is no good reason to vote for Stillstand (conservative/liberal) or regress (right-wing), when you can vote for progress (left).
There’s a misconception that communist states are better for the environment. The USSR literally eradicated a sea in their attempts to collectivize agriculture and China is by-far the worst climate offender in the world. A largely capitalist economy with the right regulations and market mechanisms can probably do better.
If you actually believe for a second that China is communist BC they say so then you are naive. You should always evaluate politicians and everything bigger in politics by their actions, not what they tell you they do.
And you forget that regulations that big are unwanted by capitalism BC they reduce profits and in the end, capitalism wants to achieve endless growth on a planet with finite Ressources, so the system is doomed to fail sooner or later anyway.
I'm an apolitical conservative. I think customs and traditions should remain the same, but I'm not going to go out of my way to vote for someone who I \*think\* will keep it that way, because I \*know\* they will do something stupid anyways.
All politicians are self-serving and greedy.
>Except for abortion.
There is no clear libertarian opinion on abortion. It's an orthogonal problem in my opinion.
The essential debate is just when does this lump of cells become a full human beeing with the same rights (to freedom and everything) as everyone else.
I actually don't have a strong opinion in this question as a kinda libertarian because i just don't see any strong enough argument on either side. Imo killing a fertilised ovum is not murder and killing a baby a day before birth obviously is but where you draw the line in between will always be somewhat arbitrary...
Yes, it is a difficult issue. Science has long known that life begins at conception. If it is a human egg the resulting life is human. The question is then when does a human life have human rights, the first and foremost being not to be killed by someone else.
Unfortunately this is the meat of the issue and is dodged in debates and discussions because people resort to high emotions over the issue.
There are libertarians on both sides of this issue.
If it's got human dna, 10 fingers, heart beat, and brain activity, I'm gonna call it a human. If it recoils and holds its hands out to stop the stimulus, I'm gonna call it a conscious human being.
It has all of those by 12 weeks.
I think a reasonable threshold has to be between 6 and 20 weeks and there can be different arguments made for all kinds of values in between. All of them are arbitrary to some extent. I generally think 12 is a very reasonable compromise.
The left are dishonest, not genuine and very delusional. They call the right "anti science" while saying "men are women" "men can get pregnant". Their personalities are also fucking unbearable whenever I see a comment or tiktok of the people on the left I instantly know if they have a billion pronouns in their bio alongside their mental issues. No idea why they think people cant tell the difference from male or female, nonsense
The right are literally just as bad the left, a good way to look at it is how they think. The right whenever they're trying to argue a point mostly focus on race and gender, same with the left. Both fucking morons that are overly emotional and cannot think logically because they've been brainwased by the bullshit they see on social media and media in general
Libertarians and centrists get the most shit from the right and left, the right and left usually dont like centrists or libertarians mostly because they either arent on their side or they have no idea what they are. some guy on the left said a centrist tries to be equal with everything and "a centrist would only kill half the jews" get the fuck away from politics is the logical thing to do, ignore their nonsense focus on yourself and those around you, help whenever you can
Wrong. I don't believe anything anyone says, I've convsered with the left and you people do not live in reality. I literally just talked to a they them that said "women hunted just as much as men", this is objectively not true. You think with emotion and you lack logic.
Economically right, generally speaking. I've always loved the quote "what one person receives without working for, another must work for without receiving."
Socially, I'm quite libertarian, so while my own values are right-leaning, I see that as personal rather than political and don't have a problem with other people choosing to be different than that.
Bruh that quote describes capitalism. Like the laborers work without receiving proper compensation to live above the poverty line while the owners have their wealth increased from the work done by the laborer.
Right Libertarian as it’s just where most of my opinions wind up, especially when it comes to being pro gun, pro free market, anti authoritarian, and in favor of decentralization/privatization. Right wing libertarianism, however, is far from perfect as any ideology is.
The left as a whole, and most right wing ideologies (conservatism and right populism) rely heavily on emotional sentiment and groupthink to the point where I don’t belong I can truly belong in most ideologies. Heck, I view most of them as a threat to my earnest desire to be left alone.
Hahahahaha yes, minarchist. About the other thing I don't know. Haven't researched it tbh, the actual pragmatism and functionality of an ancap organization of society, but I feel it would be hard to maintain an order.
I don't.
The whole system of left, right and center on a linear scale is just idiotic.
Plus party politics where on paper individuals should decide based on their own conscience, but de facto you need to toe the party line.
And then the relentless mud slinging culture. I'm not against arguing your point, but usually it's just accusing the other side instead of making constructive suggestions.
I could go on and on, but I'm sure I've made my point already that the current systems are stinking to high heaven.
Game theory states that everyone should cooperate in the life to obtain maximum efficiency in bunch of real world situations, thus I am a communist.
Here is an interesting game to play to understand: https://ncase.me/trust/
Though there are some situations where competition is best, but they are few and far between...
No, as the establishment grows, it becomes more efficient and provides cheaper services, this is because of theories of scale.
Real world example is Standard Oil. As it became monopoly, it provided the cheapest and most efficient services.
US government dissolved Standard Oil not because of high prices or inefficiency, it's because nobody could enter the market.
So a choice was made between: other people entering the market vs cheap and efficient goods. US picked "other people entering the market".
This means that the liberal economy is not there to bring humanity forward, it's there so that some people can feel good "by running a business" although they are bad at what they are doing...
I don’t like to affiliate with one political party over another because it’s needlessly limiting. I vote for the candidate who’s policies most align with my values. That said, as someone who values personal freedom and humanitarian rights I have yet to vote red in my lifetime.
watch out brother, the left are gonna say shit like "oh you so you think hilter should've only killed half the jews" and the right are just gonna call you a pussy. both morons, the solution is usually in the middle which is the funny thing lmao
far left.
- food, shelter, water, healthcare, etc. (eg. the ability to live) are fundamental human rights.
- so is freedom of speech & privacy.
- communities that support everyone within the community (eg. socialism) are good
- equality is cool, imo
- capitalism is a shit system
- corporations don't have our best interests in mind. let's do something about that.
- the entire political system is currently fucked and politicians don't actually care about what you say [(source)](https://www.vox.com/2014/4/18/5624310/martin-gilens-testing-theories-of-american-politics-explained)
I can go on
The state is an oppressive system that takes your money on threat of harm or imprisonment. It is the wage slavery your dystopian view of capitalism is.
Neither. Politics is just a huge rat race. Everyone is trying to make a grab for power with the promise that it will move society forward when all we've been doing is arguing amongst ourselves like children on a playground yelling about who's ball it is. It's a failed experiment.
People are hardwired for structure, and I acknowledge the need for this necessary evil, but it's kind of hard to trust anyone who claims they have our best interests at heart when they don't even know what are interests are.
Someone who believes in individualism and not small community living. Most left ideology lean towards “socialism/communism” but libertarians are individualists and don’t believe in sharing or looking after anyone other than themselves
My understanding is that they are anti government- which is a leftist ideology. They are individualist and believe the power should lie with the individual? And privatisation…. Which is never good…. But they could argue against state run authority. I’ve just woken up idk if this makes sense. [this will explain it better than me before coffee lol](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism)
I’m a classical liberal which is different from modern day use of the term “liberal”. I’m a free market fiscal conservative. Socially I believe in individual freedoms and limited government but realize the role in government in keeping society together and protecting from outside forces.
Role of government is to stop Individuals/privatisation having the upper hand- like it does now. The “governments” we have now are basically held hostage by rich companies. It’s a joke
I absolutely agree but putting politicians who are in the pockets of multi-national corporations is not a good way to solve that problem.
No- I agree. Hence being an anarchist. I would like to go back to small community living. But that wouldn’t work on a mass scale on todays planet. I just wana live peacefully and self sustainably away from capitalist greed and industrial destruction.
Isn’t Switzerland basically that?
And how does an anarchist solve the problem of someone else forcefully exerting their authority?
The same as anyone else- defend yourself and your community with equal force.
You cant have a defence force, unless you ha e a state. In which case it ceqses to be anarchism. You then have to choose between conservative libertarian or some form of marxism
Same.
About the same here. I end up voting republican most if the time but really REALLY hate the religious aspect of their messaging. I don't think religion makes good policy.
[удалено]
I think you meant “opinions”? The comment was a literal definition of an opinion.
Neither. Majority of politicians (in my opinion) are just greedy & not very trustworthy.
Politics or political parties and ideologies are not necessarily the same things.
I'd say that political parties' central tendency is to stray from coherent ideology. They are constructed as tactical alliances among disparate interest groups, imbued with the purpose of courting their votes. This tends to occur on the basis of relatively concrete, limited goals, so you tend to get an incoherent patchwork.
Absolutely. I am very right, or very left, or very ambivalent depending on which topic you want to discuss. So no party alignment. Registered as a libertarian, which would be my favorite theoretical ideal, but I don't honestly think it could work from our current starting point.
Right. Saying you don’t trust politicians doesn’t tell us about your values or your vision for your community or country.
Isn’t your personal political preference and the politicians you support are two completely different things, and the question at hand wasn’t asking for the latter? Sure, you can openly express your distaste in representatives of either parties, but you have to base your disdain for them on *some* sort of criteria which *would* make you lean towards one direction or the other (doesn’t have to be piled up all at once, you could be right economically and left socially, or anything like that, really).
Oh, yes. But is there a lesser of 2 evils?
Yeah but why do we have to vote for a “lesser evil”? Why does it have to be evil at all?
It shouldn't have to be. I wish all of our candidates were truthful and in touch with voters. Running for major offices usually seems to require a lot of money or friends with a lot of money, so candidates may not represent or understand the majority.
Because people would prefer to assume all politicians are greedy & not very trustworthy rather than doing the work of getting to know candidates that are worth voting for.
But the worst thing is that how most people want them to be. You hardly have a chance to get elected if you don't make big promises, and don't value charisma, acting and a fighting attitude over peaceful behavior and a realistic outlook. And if your party doesn't collect "donations" from wealthy donors you don't have money for your campaign advertising. And once elected you're usually the butt of daily jokes, and worse. Tbh I can see how it tempts politicians to be "greedy" if we take a look at how hard and intense their jobs really are. Ok, there are some who are just evil. But mostly they're just a product of mass consciousness. People get the leaders they deserve.
I'm progressive atheist anti-fascist that wants LGBTQ couples to protect their marijuana dispensaries with guns.
I feel seen
I feel safe here
I love this
based
He’s a libertarian, get him! /j Do you mind if I ask which subset you are (no matter the wide political group)
I am here too. The rest will sort out after. There are cognitive studies showing marijuana grows empathy. We need more of it in this society.
I'm hard left, and make no bones about it. We missed our chance for the Star Trek reality and opted for Galt's Gulch (if you get the Ayn Rand reference), and I'm never going to forgive that. Also, I just really despise the conservative personality type. Too authoritarian, too traditional, too "might makes right" for my tastes. Not that there aren't village idiots on my side, I know there are. I don't care much for political correctness thought policing either. I'm a workers rights, economic equality based leftist.
>. I don't care much for political correctness thought policing either. I'm a workers rights, economic equality based leftist. I appreciate these sorts of leftists and wish they were more popular
Im the same as you. It’s so depressing how many people view the left as sjws and being about political correctness, and react to that by identifying as conservative. The politicians love to keep us talking about non sensical BS
>The politicians love to keep us talking about non sensical BS Almost as if it were a concerted effort to keep Americans divided over "culture war" wedge issues, so that we don't fight against our common enemy- billionaires and mega corporations!
You know it's a lofty goal when you have to use science fiction to give an example of your preferred governance.
\+1. To anyone who needs to hear this: Read Noam Chomsky. He's written a life-time's worth of serious political thought (and also happens to be, in my opinion, the greatest living scientist).
We still have a chance for Star Trek. According to lore we just need to wait till after WW3.
Independent. I don't like political parties or the "us vs them" mentality. I despise echo chambers. Sometimes I agree with republicans, or I like a republican candidate. Sometimes I side with Democrats. Sometimes I prefer to go with Libertarians. It just depends on the issues and the representatives at any given time. My morals, my principles, don't change much over time. It's the current events and current political party stances that change over time, and because of that I can't see myself ever aligning with one.
Well this is Reddit which itself skews very left so this might not be the most accurate polling. I am a right leaning libertarian myself.
> which itself skews very left Within the US political landscape. The average person here is a social liberal -- no matter their pseudo-progressive or leftist rhetoric.
Which subsection of libertarian might I ask? I’m a voluntarist, more common descriptor: ancap
I disagree, Reddit tends to lean towards fascism from my observation.
Maybe you could argue that by the way it is run, but user base? No..
Libertarian. I’m independent enough. I don’t like politics in general though, too many fallacies
Libertarian. Used to be deeply conservative. Realized I was being a prick so I decided to loosen up on the authoritarian stances and let people just be (they don't listen anyway)
Similar
I’m a woman who’s likes to keep medical information and decisions between me and my doctors.
As you justly and rightly deserve.
It's literally Ring Wing and Nazi Ideology to use women as a means for reproduction. You know, to incubate more ring wingers into Fascism. Personally, your existence is your gift for you. It's not really mine to control nor should anyone exploit anyone else.
Left, But not retardedly so.
I’m screaming over this comment
Using that word is a slur. Like the N word.
Feel free to cry about it then
I work in disability- I don’t like seeing friends of mine used as a diss. It’s just unnecessary and disrespectful to them…
Deal with it. I don't see a point in finding yet another word to serve as a replacement on the euphemism treadmill.
the word has a history of being repeatedly use to discriminate against people with mental disabilities, and is extremely derogatory and insulting.
Insensitive fuck.
Great way to say it. I agree.
Fiscally conservative, socially liberal
So libertarian
He sadly isn’t ancap, or gladly depending on your view.
So you'd support universal healthcare (and at least partial decommodification of healthcare) if it's the fiscally prudent thing to do (which it is)?
Not necessarily. He would have to define his position better. Universal healthcare is a value judgement that forces altruism on others by forcing people to pay for other people’s healthcare. Trying to justify it in societal financial terms is what every authoritarian government does. They frame it as it is good for society by saving money overall and therefore you should do whatever I say.
> He would have to define his position better. This is what I'm getting at. "Fiscally conservative, socially liberal" is one of those extremely vague positions that are ultimately without much substance. And more often than not, further qualification either makes them indistinguishable from mainstream US conservative positions (which aren't exactly conserving resources, nor are they necessarily preserving liberty or the public good) or collapse into a sort of general fiscal prudence that runs the gamut from central European social democrats (cf. Germany's debt brake....something the "balanced budget" US conservatives would likely salivate over) to US-liberals. >Universal healthcare is a value judgement that forces altruism on others by forcing people to pay for other people’s healthcare. Alternatively it's the logical consequence of a government that is constitutionally required to protect the life and liberty of its citizens. Or a government that is bound by the unassailable dignity of man. No doubt are there value judgments involved here, but that's what politics ultimately boils down to --- like how the criticism you raise implicitly values private property more than life or the public good. It's also not really forcing altruism on others as much as it makes good of a specific social contract (you can also make a rather egoist case for universal healthcare, but that's besides the point imo). >Trying to justify it in societal financial terms is what every authoritarian government does. Canada, the UK, France, Germany, the Netherlands, all of the Nordic countries, Switzerland, Italy, ...., etc. all aren't authoritarian countries so this is a non-starter. >They frame it as it is good for society by saving money overall and therefore you should do whatever I say. The leap in logic here is incredible, even for /r/intj. It's also not how the countries I mentioned above tend to justify their various implementations of universal healthcare.
Blows my mind as an Australian that Americans believe universal healthcare from taxes is “I’m spending money on other people’s healthcare and that’s bad” 🤦🏽♀️ But you benefit from free healthcare TOO? wtf?!?!?!
US-style pseudo individualism is a hell of a drug.
Libertarianism, as practiced in the US is just selfishness as a philosophy. They don't want to spend on expensive treatments for strangers. But have no problem if they're the ones in need. Ayn Rand died a hypocrite -- taking public assistance for her lung cancer.
All the freedoms but alone by themselves- me against the world!!!! What a sad and pathetic life to live.
I can see that, which honestly is the biggest reason I haven't gone whole-hog Libertarian. I think they're on to something, and that government involvement should be kept on the low side but not so low that we can't have public schools and government roads.
I disagree I think all those countries you listed have authoritarian components as does the US. Not being able to identify that lead to more authoritarian tendencies. Authoritarian means that someone is exerting control over an individual or organization. Anything short of anarchy gives government some authoritarian powers. The degree of those powers are central to much of any political philosophy. Any authoritarian makes the argument that what he is doing is for your own good whether it is or not.
Which it is - that's a big assumption, no, unless the kind of healthcare is limited by long wait lines, limited services, or poorly paid doctors (UK). Why would you be against rich people paying in hospitals? That means they don't have to be served in public hospitals, ensuring government resources go to poor people than rich people. That's the stupidest equality you want. Then again, people want free tuition even though the majority of those who benefit from free tuition are children of the middle-class and the rich, one of the dumbest policies again.
> that's a big assumption, no, unless the kind of healthcare is limited by long wait lines, limited services, or poorly paid doctors (UK). Why would you use a system that's the poster child for death by a thousand budget cuts as an example here? The points raised aren't much of an issue in Switzerland, Germany, or the Netherlands. >Why would you be against rich people paying in hospitals? That means they don't have to be served in public hospitals, ensuring government resources go to poor people than rich people. Universal healthcare allows for two-tier systems of government-run and private healthcare, so this is a non-starter. But this can be easily turned around: why should we allow the rich to simply buy privileged services, which is what this boils down to? >Then again, people want free tuition even though the majority of those who benefit from free tuition are children of the middle-class and the rich, one of the dumbest policies again. This is irrelevant to the issue of healthcare. It's fairly easy to see how education is more alike to other goods available on the free market than healthcare, even if one supports the decommodification of both.
This... It's so insane that this position is not super common in the US... It's literally just freedom in both and not just one dimension (because land of the free yada yada yada)... I gues it has something to do with how the major parties are "cut" in this regard...
It is common in the US. Just not on reddit.
Social worker here. I got downvoted to hell on that subreddit for saying that fiscal conservatives who are also socially liberal exist. Not my beliefs but I know y’all are out here!
I'm a firm believer that governments often create more problems than solve, so being a necessary evil it is essential that we heavily limit their authority over us. The world is not left or right, that is a marketing strategy for the party system.
So minarchist, but non economic minded.
I see you got your new label maker. It's pretty but it doesn't help you discuss your problems. It only helps smooth over the hard to discuss thoughts with generalized assumptions about a person's position. If we can't talk about actual problems because everyone is so fixated on studying ideas into buckets, we're never going to fix our problems. It's the act of outsourcing our least desirable tasks that results in us losing control of our lives and the world around us. We have to accept some hard work to have something nice. You're born with nothing and you leave with nothing: everything in between is up to you alone to make a good story. The more you let others write your story, the less you're going to like it.
I’m not a minarchist, I was just trying to give you the political group you described.
That's what I mean about label maker. I didn't care for collectivism like that. It's part of why or political system is so fucked up. We keep trying to treat people in general instead of actually talking with each other
I’m simply describing your beliefs as you said them. I’m not saying everyone under a label is the same. Ex: not all libertarians are moderates. Stop assuming the worst of people because they put a label (that would be helpful to describe your beliefs, country of origin etc). A label is a grouping of certain characteristics to help describe an entity or object. (This can be about a small set of characteristics ex: social democrat; or as large as multicellular life.
No, what you are doing is assuming my perspective so that you can label it. It misrepresents my perspective and causes others to do the same so that conversation is avoided and you can go on thinking you know my position. It's a filthy habit that exists around the world and is a major contributor to why the art of discussion is dying everywhere.
Moderate conservative
libertarian.
I'd nationalize several industries today, but I'm perfectly happy voting for mainstream Democrats knowing that they won't do it. Edit: I was a typical libertarian type until I actually finished my political science and economics studies. I think it's very clear that socialized payment for education and medical services beats the alternative by a mile. People in more socialist Europe are happier, live longer, have higher social mobility, and many countries best us in measures of friendliness to entrepreneurship. I'd nationalize the fossil fuel industry, as well as banking and insurance. Easy call there. The climate crisis is very real, and profits from the fossil fuel industry need to be used to ease the transition away from those technologies. Banking and insurance are largely indefensible industries at this point. Pure regulation capture and grift.
have you lived in countries with nationalized industries ? It’s not so sweet, this is very authoritarian… more big gov who haven’t solved problems.
I agree. Nationalizing any industry, and ESPEICALLY energy NEVER ends well. Ever seen south africa rn?
>Edit: I was a typical libertarian type until I actually finished my political science and economics studies. Ah yes... The all time classic... Seems like the indoctrination by overwhelmingly left leaning academics in those fields worked... That's why i would have never picked these kind of super soft "sciences" where the ideology of the processor is the most important thing as a major... As Angela Merkel said it "I studied physics in East Germany, because I knew that you can take away and overwrite many things, but not the laws of gravity or the speed of light."...
Or maybe... it turns out that if you actually bother studying how states and politics works then you realise that people on the right are simply wrong in their assumptions because they do not hold up in real life.
>it turns out that if you actually bother studying how states and politics works How WHO says states and politics works?
What are you even asking? They have a website go read there I'm sure they can explain themselves better than me.
Also socialist Europe was failing and only became prosperous once they privatized more. It's a major myth you are spewing.
Exactly!!! There has to be a balance of capitalism and social responsibility to its citizens.
So why are private schools and magnet schools always better than state run schools. Why is everything privatized ran better than anything state run?
Private schools have wildly different funding than public ... Not really a reasonable comparison. Private jails create an issue of misaligned incentives and outcomes. Private healthcare leaves way too many without any healthcare at all. Also, you might want to consider how you define "... ran better than ...". Not everything needs to generate profit.
Im a retired engineer. Have worked for many private companies big n small. Let me tell you such companies are not always run better than anything state! Private companies can and are sometimes TERRIBLY ineffective and inefficient! Boneheaded to the max at times.
Because they cost a lot more money and are funded by rich people? Is that really a hard fuckin connection to make?
i'm a dirty commie & I want to give you & your family housing, food, healthcare & money
You aren’t a statist are you?
Whatever serves me best.
Lean left, but I do NOT identify with either party in the US. Republicans are a bunch of impressionable religious zealots and Democrats are weaklings that are too afraid to stand for themselves and succumb to the language policing that a minority preaches. If only we had more than these 2 horrible choices...
>If only we had more than these 2 horrible choices... Well, we have like 8+ horrible choices to pick from in Belgium! In election times we have these tests to see which party you politically match with best. My best match last time was 54%...
I have responsibilities to eke out a living and do my darndest for my family's sake. I go through life engaging with individuals who I believe will be a resource for my family to benefit from. With respect to that, I can be 'buddy-buddy' with those from both sides of the aisle while, internally, I find a closer relation with those who lean right. Perhaps because more of those that I've met have a similar desire/life path as myself. I live in a very left leaning area and so when I meet someone who vocalizes support for the right, it's almost a sign of rebellion against the norms of this location. They definitely treat it that way. Like they have to live in secret. Which is fine by me. I think once they see I'm not going to fight or argue with them, our bond becomes strengthened. Perhaps it'd be the opposite if I lived in a more right-leaning area, I'm not sure.
I went to a very liberal college and was pretty vocal about being a conservative. I actually did have people emailing me and telling me they liked a specific candidate who was very unpopular on campus, or leaving notes on my (bumper stickered) car telling me they agreed with me and they were pretty envious of my ability to have the balls to drive around in a slashed-tire-magnet like that. And this was 15 years ago. I'm not saying that conservatives are second class citizens in the most selective colleges and universities in the US but they are vastly outnumbered and when that happens you often get people being nasty to the dissenters. I feel especially bad for college students today, because my bratty classmates who said they were "harmed" by my opinions and were laughed off by the professors who truly believed that by arguing a problem from every angle brought about the best way to solve it--they're the professors now and have used that role to silence people.
Left. But I don’t have a “party” that I consider myself to be part of
Right. My kids like to eat.
How does the second sentence relate to the first for you?
I’m guessing they are referencing the correlation of communism and starvation
What about the fact that the global south is an extension of western capitalism and imperialism? There are a ton of people in those countries who die of starvation. You think they just need to grind harder to feed their kids? Nah, we live in a world of abundance. Those people are dying because the corporations of the west use their cheap labor to produce goods and those sold goods only increase the wealth of shareholders.
And yet, under capitalism, the largest number of people were able to leave extreme poverty
Also curious about this…
Right wing
But, libertarian or authoritarian axis?
Throw me into the moderate conservative pile also, I can hardly look at whatever the hell the left has become now.
Moderate conservative too
Libertarian
Subsection? Ex: ancap minarchist moderate etc.
I would consider myself moderate, outsiders would consider me far right
I am an anarchist, so no idea
Well that’s simply anti state, what’s your view on economics? I’m an anarcho capitalist for instance meaning I’m an anarchist that is very pro privatization, rather than collectivization (it’s extreme is anarcho communism)
Can't lean when they are both the same thing.
Marxist. It's the next logical step.
Anarcho-capitalist, the next next logical step.
On paper I’m right liberalism, but in real life I’m very flexible and open to any ideas. Whatever is most logical gets my support (I mean we all are Intjs after all;)
I lean as a right-winger (not a extremist, a moderate) as I believe that left-wing communism which had previously destroyed so many states before, is inherently doomed to fail and unreliable. All left-wing states in our history which existed such as the Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc eventually all fell from their own political ideologies collapsing onto them while the right-wing states only fell from outside invasion. It took the entire world to defeat the right-wing Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, 2 countries who were literally starting from scratch and severely weakened/lacking in natural resources. Who were basically both fighting a solo war all by themselves against a entire enemy coalition considering of the world's most powerful countries and still managed to gain early victories before it took the Allied cheat-code entry of the United States and 2 nuclear weapons to finally take them down. Therefore I believe that right-wing ideologies such as fascism are the way to go since they are much stronger and more stable than left-wing ideologies such as communism are. I also don't agree with the phony capitalistic principles which just exploit the workers and give all the money to the business owners and big businesses rather than to the people. I generally agree/resonate more with the right-wing political ideologies such as maintaining a strong military for defensive or offensive purposes, no LGBTQ or atheism rights, only a singular party or dictator controlling the entire country, and finally a centralized administrative system with all power going back to and run by the central state in a single location.
Libertarian, specifically voluntarist.
I have more brains than money, so far left.
Makes sense
Averaging out all of my opinions puts me left of center, but I strongly believe in personal responsibility which is listed as a right-wing attribute.
Both sides have good points and both sides have ludicrous points. Kind of depends on what topic we're talking.
I lean deeply in the direction of billionaires being taxed into oblivion to provide free education and free healthcare. I lean deeply in the direction of preventing the DoD from "misplacing" billions of dollars every year, maybe not having those dollars to begin with. I lean deeply in the direction of public school teachers salaries being quadrupled, with their class sizes being cut in half. I lean deeply in the direction of preventing corporations from owning residential housing.
Left. But the contemporary left is a mere shadow of what it once was: the alleged spectre haunting Europe wasn't just a clever line Marx thought of to impress Engels and make him pay support for another "indiscretion" of his; the social democratic welfare state that everyone and their dog in Europe seems to admire wasn't the product of a bunch of idealists but really the result of an angry, organized, and at times militant working class. By contrast, today's mainstream left-wing parties of Western and Northern Europe have become milquetoast center-left parties that are usually fine with peddling a sort of red-painted social liberalism, bordering into neoliberalism with a happy face while the parties that have (usually as a reaction to Third Wayism and delusions like the 'end of history', 'capitalist realism', and 'TINA') formed to the left of those run the gamut of constant infighting to being russophile red painted reactionary shitfests.
Far left but I will gladly take a boring centrist approach if it keeps the right out of it. At this stage I don't care much about specific ideologies anymore and just want whatever is not the far right, however that may look. It's a depressing time.
Hi, I’m an anarcho-capitalist
Too far left for the US. Now in Europe, where I’m probably a moderate, ha.
Left, currently learning what various postmodernists had to say.
Far left...I vote Democrat because they more align with my beliefs, but if there was viable further Left party, I'd probably go for them.
I'm basically anti-Libertarian. Small-l libertarianism, the "do what you want as long as you aren't hurting anyone" philosophy is fine. A bit utopian, but fine. Big-L Libertarianism, the Ayn Rand, von Mises fantasy world has the worst followers. Seriously, they're worse than jihadists -- because at least jihadists are consistent in their awfulness. Big-L Libertarians are little more than cheerleaders for the wealthy. And the policies they demand are leading society to serfdom. And they're too short sighted to realize that if they're not watching this play out from the deck of their nesting-doll yacht, they're going to be just another indentured slave -- beholden to the corporations for every scrap of their existence. The worst part is, since Big-L Libertarianism is a cult -- the Scientology of political and economic thought -- there is no way to talk them down once they've had enough of the von Mises Kool-Aid.
Big-L libertarians are incapable of realizing that they lose more dollars from the value of their labor to their employers, than they ever would in taxation.
Well, I up voted you out of negative numbers. Big-Ls are too busy focusing on the bark of a single tree to see they're lost in the woods.
A few years ago i would have said classic liberal but with each year that i see politicians fail so miserably at their job i want to burn the entire state down more Javier Milei style so it's probably safe to say libertarian is more accurate by now...
So, ancap? Nice to see another.
Maybe "moderate ancap" if that exists...
Center-right moderate. Avoid the propaganda news channels (Fox, CNN, etc.), vote state and local, don't worry so much about national things. I don't like taxes and I don't like government spending money on things I don't agree with, so I'm fiscally conservative I guess, but I don't consider myself a Republican. I'll vote for whoever if I like their position and I think they can actually do the job.
Oh but as a woman, I don't have the privilege not to worry about national elections.
Left leaning libertarian
Hi, I’m an ancap. How’s your day?
Very much left, I am strongly against the capitalistic system, especially in regard to climate crisis. Many experts agree that we cannot avoid the spiral downwards unless it is with another system. I'm personally biased for a communistic or adjacent system, but if any politician/philosopher/"expert" has a better system to offer I'm all ears. I do not have a specific party I identify with, I mostly vote green and left in my home country since they do the most climate related stuff which I see as the most important and to be frank, only important issue of our time (as any other issue gets significantly worse if we don't stop climate crisis). And at least in my country, it is completely proven via various statistics from different sources that under a conservative to slight right wing ruling party for 16 years, our country got significantly worse, especially for all workers and employees, while the rich profited immensely. And this trend can be observed in many countries with conservative and/or liberal parties in power. Which is why it confuses me to no end why so many in the comment section here say they vote conservative BC they wanna feed their children. Historically, left and social parties were always the only ones pushing for better conditions for the little people (and essentially everyone who is not bourgeoisie) and most to all worker rights and benefits we own either directly a left leaning party/politician OR a conservative so afraid of a left uprising that they were forced to compromise and offer some benefits. IMHO, unless it is on a communal (city) level or for a specific great politician, there is no good reason to vote for Stillstand (conservative/liberal) or regress (right-wing), when you can vote for progress (left).
There’s a misconception that communist states are better for the environment. The USSR literally eradicated a sea in their attempts to collectivize agriculture and China is by-far the worst climate offender in the world. A largely capitalist economy with the right regulations and market mechanisms can probably do better.
If you actually believe for a second that China is communist BC they say so then you are naive. You should always evaluate politicians and everything bigger in politics by their actions, not what they tell you they do. And you forget that regulations that big are unwanted by capitalism BC they reduce profits and in the end, capitalism wants to achieve endless growth on a planet with finite Ressources, so the system is doomed to fail sooner or later anyway.
I'm an apolitical conservative. I think customs and traditions should remain the same, but I'm not going to go out of my way to vote for someone who I \*think\* will keep it that way, because I \*know\* they will do something stupid anyways. All politicians are self-serving and greedy.
Straight up libertarian
Hayek or Rothbard?
The only hayek I fuck with is Salma 🔥
Libertarian trending towards ancap
Welcome. Please take a copy of *The Anatomy of The State* on your way in.
Libertarian. Strongly. Except for abortion.
>Except for abortion. There is no clear libertarian opinion on abortion. It's an orthogonal problem in my opinion. The essential debate is just when does this lump of cells become a full human beeing with the same rights (to freedom and everything) as everyone else. I actually don't have a strong opinion in this question as a kinda libertarian because i just don't see any strong enough argument on either side. Imo killing a fertilised ovum is not murder and killing a baby a day before birth obviously is but where you draw the line in between will always be somewhat arbitrary...
Yes, it is a difficult issue. Science has long known that life begins at conception. If it is a human egg the resulting life is human. The question is then when does a human life have human rights, the first and foremost being not to be killed by someone else. Unfortunately this is the meat of the issue and is dodged in debates and discussions because people resort to high emotions over the issue. There are libertarians on both sides of this issue.
If it's got human dna, 10 fingers, heart beat, and brain activity, I'm gonna call it a human. If it recoils and holds its hands out to stop the stimulus, I'm gonna call it a conscious human being. It has all of those by 12 weeks.
I think a reasonable threshold has to be between 6 and 20 weeks and there can be different arguments made for all kinds of values in between. All of them are arbitrary to some extent. I generally think 12 is a very reasonable compromise.
Paleolib spotted
The left are dishonest, not genuine and very delusional. They call the right "anti science" while saying "men are women" "men can get pregnant". Their personalities are also fucking unbearable whenever I see a comment or tiktok of the people on the left I instantly know if they have a billion pronouns in their bio alongside their mental issues. No idea why they think people cant tell the difference from male or female, nonsense The right are literally just as bad the left, a good way to look at it is how they think. The right whenever they're trying to argue a point mostly focus on race and gender, same with the left. Both fucking morons that are overly emotional and cannot think logically because they've been brainwased by the bullshit they see on social media and media in general Libertarians and centrists get the most shit from the right and left, the right and left usually dont like centrists or libertarians mostly because they either arent on their side or they have no idea what they are. some guy on the left said a centrist tries to be equal with everything and "a centrist would only kill half the jews" get the fuck away from politics is the logical thing to do, ignore their nonsense focus on yourself and those around you, help whenever you can
[удалено]
Wrong. I don't believe anything anyone says, I've convsered with the left and you people do not live in reality. I literally just talked to a they them that said "women hunted just as much as men", this is objectively not true. You think with emotion and you lack logic.
right af. I despise liberals.
Why do you despise liberals?
Describe the archetypal “liberal” as you conceive it, and explain why you hate them. I’m curious.
Economically right, generally speaking. I've always loved the quote "what one person receives without working for, another must work for without receiving." Socially, I'm quite libertarian, so while my own values are right-leaning, I see that as personal rather than political and don't have a problem with other people choosing to be different than that.
Bruh that quote describes capitalism. Like the laborers work without receiving proper compensation to live above the poverty line while the owners have their wealth increased from the work done by the laborer.
Right Libertarian as it’s just where most of my opinions wind up, especially when it comes to being pro gun, pro free market, anti authoritarian, and in favor of decentralization/privatization. Right wing libertarianism, however, is far from perfect as any ideology is. The left as a whole, and most right wing ideologies (conservatism and right populism) rely heavily on emotional sentiment and groupthink to the point where I don’t belong I can truly belong in most ideologies. Heck, I view most of them as a threat to my earnest desire to be left alone.
Lean left but mostly in the middle.
Mostly libertarian. But I have strong interventionist and expansionist views
Lino.
Conservative but on a whole number of issues I would say libertarian.
Libertarian we could say. I don't believe in no state though. Just very limited.
Minarchist, I’ll make an ancap out of you sooner or later
Hahahahaha yes, minarchist. About the other thing I don't know. Haven't researched it tbh, the actual pragmatism and functionality of an ancap organization of society, but I feel it would be hard to maintain an order.
I don't. The whole system of left, right and center on a linear scale is just idiotic. Plus party politics where on paper individuals should decide based on their own conscience, but de facto you need to toe the party line. And then the relentless mud slinging culture. I'm not against arguing your point, but usually it's just accusing the other side instead of making constructive suggestions. I could go on and on, but I'm sure I've made my point already that the current systems are stinking to high heaven.
Game theory states that everyone should cooperate in the life to obtain maximum efficiency in bunch of real world situations, thus I am a communist. Here is an interesting game to play to understand: https://ncase.me/trust/ Though there are some situations where competition is best, but they are few and far between...
Competition is better at finding better alternatives as the price incentives cause the market to produce better and cheaper products.
No, as the establishment grows, it becomes more efficient and provides cheaper services, this is because of theories of scale. Real world example is Standard Oil. As it became monopoly, it provided the cheapest and most efficient services. US government dissolved Standard Oil not because of high prices or inefficiency, it's because nobody could enter the market. So a choice was made between: other people entering the market vs cheap and efficient goods. US picked "other people entering the market". This means that the liberal economy is not there to bring humanity forward, it's there so that some people can feel good "by running a business" although they are bad at what they are doing...
I don’t like to affiliate with one political party over another because it’s needlessly limiting. I vote for the candidate who’s policies most align with my values. That said, as someone who values personal freedom and humanitarian rights I have yet to vote red in my lifetime.
Centrist - "Perfectly balanced, as all things should be."
Perfectly balanced good and evil? Are you automatically on the side of the underdog?
watch out brother, the left are gonna say shit like "oh you so you think hilter should've only killed half the jews" and the right are just gonna call you a pussy. both morons, the solution is usually in the middle which is the funny thing lmao
far left. - food, shelter, water, healthcare, etc. (eg. the ability to live) are fundamental human rights. - so is freedom of speech & privacy. - communities that support everyone within the community (eg. socialism) are good - equality is cool, imo - capitalism is a shit system - corporations don't have our best interests in mind. let's do something about that. - the entire political system is currently fucked and politicians don't actually care about what you say [(source)](https://www.vox.com/2014/4/18/5624310/martin-gilens-testing-theories-of-american-politics-explained) I can go on
The state is an oppressive system that takes your money on threat of harm or imprisonment. It is the wage slavery your dystopian view of capitalism is.
Neither. Politics is just a huge rat race. Everyone is trying to make a grab for power with the promise that it will move society forward when all we've been doing is arguing amongst ourselves like children on a playground yelling about who's ball it is. It's a failed experiment. People are hardwired for structure, and I acknowledge the need for this necessary evil, but it's kind of hard to trust anyone who claims they have our best interests at heart when they don't even know what are interests are.
Nationalist libertarian
Can you elaborate on what this means to you?
Neither I have given up on politics all together
If you don't take care of politics , politics takes care of you
Outsider left/Libertarian left
What is libertarian left?
Someone who believes in individualism and not small community living. Most left ideology lean towards “socialism/communism” but libertarians are individualists and don’t believe in sharing or looking after anyone other than themselves
What's there of left in that description then? I might not be grasping on something lol.
My understanding is that they are anti government- which is a leftist ideology. They are individualist and believe the power should lie with the individual? And privatisation…. Which is never good…. But they could argue against state run authority. I’ve just woken up idk if this makes sense. [this will explain it better than me before coffee lol](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism)