Where do you fall
 

Political classification is a tricky issue. One of the best takes on the issue that I have seen is <a href=http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2003/6/14/45425/6208>here.</a>

It puts it into three dimensions, which seem to devide the various ideologies pretty well. Personally, I don't completely agree with it, but it's the best one I've seen so far.

So where do you fall?

Where's the choice 'I don't know/care?'

According to a online test I was a Liberatarian all the way. While I think people should have as much social liberty as possible I dont think legalizing heroin will make America a better place. Its the only point I disagree with their philosophy on.

I chose that in your poll, but I consider myself an independent.

Don't vote, hit the back button, and forget about this thread forever. :|

Anyway, I voted liberal.

It seems strange to me that most people think only in terms of the right/left spectrum - and when I watch the news or politicians, they are content to play to that. You'd think that professionals who deal with these issues for business (politcians) would be more sensitive to some of the intricacies. I think it is also interesting how contradictory our two parties are. If I didn't know any better, I would expect a two party system to have more contrast - meaning a libertarian party vs. a populist one. Of course, then maybe no legislation could ever be passed because the parties would be far too diametrically opposed.

Anyway, as a libertarian minded individual, I have long been bothered by the fact that most people associate conservative thinkers with social restriction. I almost feel like the Republican party has hijacked the meaning of the term and no one else ever noticed. Do (true) liberals feel this way about the Democrats?

i prefer one called "liberal libertarian" found that on the libertarian site.

consider myself fiscally moderate, socially left.

You sound like an anarcho-syndicalist, also known as a left-libertarian.

Liberal, plain and simple. None of it matters in the real world anyways. :thumbsup:

Liberal is by far gives people the most freedom without oppressing the low class people.

I don't know how you reconcile this. Conservative ideology, by definition, attempts to maintian status quo--hence, the charge of social restriction.

I'm not sure what you mean by "true" liberals. Are you referring to classic liberalism or socialist/communist reformists? Regardless, I've heard libertarians (the closest political party to classic liberalism) argue that the Dems do not represent their interests and I've heard the left-leaning reformists claim the Dem candidates are too centrist for them--so the answer seems to be yes in both cases.

If you read the article, it listed, like virtually every other political spectrum I have seen, it listed liberal and conservative as complete opposites. On every issue presented, they are on opposite sides. They have just as much contrast as a "libertarian" and totalitarian.

As for hijacking of terms, I'm not a liberal or conservative so I can't say anything that. However I am a little miffed that "libertarian" now refers to classical liberalism as opposed to Paris Commune-esque "socialism without the state." Until around the late 1950s, whenever anyone talked about libertarians they refered to the type of ideology advocated by Bukunin, Kropotkin and Proudhon. Now whenever one talks about these ideas, they have to be refered to as "left-libertarianism" yet there is never a "right-libertarianism." It's just a little thing that I can't stand, so I know where people come from when they complain that the third-way stole the liberal term or that the neocons stole the conservative.

Where's the option for bury your head in the sand and believe everything your government tells you, especially when using the threat of a foreign nation buying enriched Uranium from Africa when an Italian tabloid wouldn't even use the information Republican?

Smooth -

My answer to you regarding reconciling conservation with conservatism is related to what I'll say to Pennington.

Pennington -

I did read the article - I forgot to thank you for the link. Sorry, my comments were not a reaction to the article you referenced. I thought that it was a refreshing look that allowed for the complexity that real people's political ideas reflect.

I can buy the idea that liberal and conservative are complete opposites. That makes sense to me, because a true liberal or true conservative package of ideas seems to be quite self-consistent, unlike the "right" or "left" packages that are peddled by our two dominant parties. It is this polarity that is commonly accepted as being opposite that I don't understand, because the left and right alike both borrow from conservative and liberal ideas.

As far as my hijacking comment, this is what I meant (and should have taken the time to say more explicitly). I can deal with the idea that labels drift. That todays conservatives have the same ideas as yesterday's liberals doesn't bother me. This is seen in doctrine and in our political parties. What I mean is that the term conservative, which I believe to be used more effectively and with less contradiction by the libertarian party refers to a principle of thought and governmental roles that leads to positions such as favoring drug legalisation, banning capitol punishment, flat or no taxes, and reducing government's intrusion on our lives. The Republican party has been labeled conservative in the media (though now that I think about it I am not sure if that label was taken by them or given to them). However, the conservatism that their party planks embody is not an outgrowth of the idea of restricting governmental power. To be sure, it is there in some ways, such as fiscal policy, but I think in social policy, the Republicans seem to support more government interference, not less. So, I mean that it feels like the Republican party has hijacked the word conservative (but maybe it isn't just them - I mean look at Robertson and those guys too) but abandoned the principle behind less government when it isn't convenient to the social agenda of the party.

Heck, I don't really care whether my ideas are liberal or conservative, because they have been called both at different times. I'll have to try to read up on Bukunin, Kropotkin and Proudhon. I honestly don't know enough to make any comments on your observations.

Perhaps it is my understanding of conservatism equating to less governmental power that is causing the confusion between conservation and conservative. Classical liberalism is closer to libertarian. Anyways, thanks for the responses and please let me know if you can think of anything else for me to check out that will clarify this issue for me.

uber

Totalitarianism is bad morally, but in a world where technology is getting more and more dangerous, it is vital that the world unify until one state, and that culture become less important to people. This is because culture often spawns from religion, and people use religion as justification for killing. An option would be to use religion to control the masses, and to do it right this time.

ubertuber,

I don't know if you are aware of the origins of the terms "left" and "right" wing parties. Here's a synopsis:

The terms owe their origins to the manner in which the members of the French National Assembly of 1789 physically located themselves in the building.

The "right" wing members were from the nobility and sat on the right side of the assembly. They formed the First Estate and were in support of the King controlling issues.

The "left" wing members were from the Third Estate and consisted of revolutionaries--they wanted to turn control of such issues over to the people.

This historical perspective of the terms indicates that your "understanding of conservatism equating to less governmental power" is incorrect and may be, as you state, the cause of the confusion.

Smooth,

Thanks for the clarification - I'll try to look more into that.

uber

btw - your avatar is cool, but it is making me insane, especially the part with the running start!

I'm pretty liberal. I never did figure out what libertarian means but I might be a bit of that too. I'm definately not conservative. That is probably because I'm not religious. I find that religious people tend to be more conservative (tendency, not always true. I have a catholic friend who is very left wing except for maybe the abortion issue).

uber -

I'm sorry if it sounded like I was insinuating that hadn't read the article, I didn't mean too.

As for liberal and conservative, I never saw them as refering to the size or amount of interferance a govenment does. To me, liberal means progressive and open-minded and tolerant of other cultures while conservative is more traditional and resistant to change. Those of other cultures, eg immigrants, will like a party that respects their culture and since most immigrants are part of the lower class initially, they also favor the welfare state and taxes on the rich as it will greatly benefit them.
Those that want to maintain the status quo generally are happy with their situation and are generally in the middle or upper classes. If there is nothing wrong with their life, they see no need to change it. That is why they try to maintain family values and tradition, even if it mean more govenment intervention.
So basically, my definition of liberal and conservative center more around how accepting of change they are more than anything.