Political Identity
I'm sure we've had this thread numerous times, but let's have another go. What is your political identity?
Part of the reason I want to put this up is I have such an issue classifying myself politically... Nowadays I'd probably be classified as a progressive, but for whatever reason, I don't particularly like that term, in part because I'm not hugely in favor of unions (I'm not against them, but I favor democratic government regulation over organize labor - the latter is important, but I think the former should take precident); I'm also at odds with the Progressive emphasis on identity politics. It's even worse with the Democratic party, which has continually emphasized social issues while adopting 1990s Republican fiscal policy. I'd call myself a socialist, however I'm necessarily in favor of government ownership, I simply believe that there is a role for government (namely public necessities which are inherently unprofitable or whose value supercedes any profit motive IE schools, prisons, and even the arts etc.) that needs to be maintained, but the private sector should be otherwise maintained.
Subsequently, I awkwardly refer to myself as a liberal, though I'm largely at odds with the Democratic Party...
Comments
I'm registered to vote with no party affiliation. I've voted for Republican, Democrat, and Independent candidates in elections, as I vote based on the candidate rather than on party lines. That's the number one reason why I don't like political parties, as so many people base their votes on what party affiliation they belong to rather than by the values of the candidate.
I very much agree with George Washington (the only US president who didn't have a party affiliation) when he warned against bringing the political party system to the then newly formed United States ("the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and the duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it"). Elections would be a lot different if everyone voted based on what candidates brought to the table rather than so many people voting simply by party affiliation.
I'm a registered Democrat, but like you, I rarely see eye to eye with neither the 'Clinton democrat' or 'tax and spend liberal' wings of my party. I personally think identity politics and elitism are killing the American left and unfortunately, both are the bread and butter of Obama, Clinton and many others. As a white guy who grew up in a hick town and owns guns, I can't help but feel like mainstream Democrats would look down on me and my opinions.
I'd probably call myself a libertarian-leaning progressive. I find it ridiculous that the government seemingly wants to regulate its citizens personal lives, while turning a blind eye to multi-national corporations and its own operations. I don't like Mike Huckabee very much, but he was absolutely right when he said there was a Washington-Wall Street pipeline of favors and money.
American politics seems crazy to me, I saw a bit of the republican conference it was like a sports event
I agree with Jennifer, political parties are stupid, it's a way to separate us. I am an Independent, I vote for whoever I find as the best person for the job despite their affiliations. Of course, it may be a burden to be Independent, so when Independence isn't an option, I would call myself a Democrat. That's a bad stance in a primarily Republican household but whatever, I learned from the mistake of my parents.
Several tests and registries would probably put me around a left leaning libertarian but that's whatever you make of it.
As someone who grew up in a very conservative area, I actually think that's a good thing. It makes it easier to agree to disagree and not get butthurt in debates.
A lot of people hate/shy away from politics because they feel like they are personally under attack when someone disagrees with them. I never grew up in a liberal circle-jerk, so having my beliefs challenged is nothing new or distressing.
Politics have never been something I've been exactly well versed in.
I would agree with a social form of anarchism, but I truly believe that something that's so radical couldn't coincide with a world built through such a tightly regulated oppressive system. So, in the end, I drop political terminology and live with a more non-defined independent stance.
Should've directly replied so I could've seen this. My parents aren't people to want to discuss politics for a number of reasons, I personally like to discuss my opinions and other's.
I'm a bleeding heart liberal. Tax the rich more, tax the corporations more, expand healthcare to everyone, wage less war.
Oops thought I was replipying directly.
How drunk?
1 beer a couple hours ago. Just clicked the wrong button, I swear!
The "que sera, que sera" mentality doesn't really work for me. The way I see it, the citizens of a democracy have an obligation to call attention to policies they find objectionable.
I did that once during the G8 summit in Pittsburgh when I was younger (though I didn't brick anything). I got a face full of tear gas for my trouble; to say it curbed my enthusiasm would be an understatement. Rioting is a course of action for the young and stupid.
i remember watching that whilst switching through channels and thought i would watch this
enter link description here
I tend to disagree with the notion that parties are inherently bad. Where I live, parties are officially banned from municipal elections, but you end up with informal voting blocs forming. Formal or otherwise, parties are inevitable, so we may as well formalize it (with weak whips, ideally). They have some good qualities. In theory at least, parties help prevent vote splitting (eg, a leftie doesn't automatically win because there happens to be two right-wing candidates), provide an extra layer of scrutiny via the nomination process, and allows their nominee to focus more on the big picture (the party can provide donors, volunteers, and strategies that a rookie candidate would lack). The last point also helps reduce the incumbency advantage.
I'm a conservative. If you want to understand where I stand you should read Frank Meyer's "In Defense of Freedom", its a bit outdated cause it touches on the cold war as well, but its core still rings true to me. I tend to trust local governments to solve local issues, and prefer to have natural rights defended by the federal government. I guess you could say when it comes to government I'm pretty much a Madisonian, most of my ideals comes from the belief in natural rights. .
Im leaning towards the Far Left but I have no official standing with any political party.
.
I lean democrat mostly, but I'm not party affiliated.
Last couple of times I voted for Partij voor de Dieren (party for the animals). Don't laugh.
Animal Rights is the only issue I give a crap about these days.
Not sure what that makes me.
ARE YOU FUCKING SORRY?!
Did you visit this thread for a reason? Or just to make a nuisance of yourself?
Did you visit this thread for a reason? Or just to expose your dull personality and inability to detect humor?
Yes, I came for a reason. To share my political views, as the OP intended and to see what other people said. You seemingly just came here to spam.
Also, what was so funny about what you posted?
In my country I vote for a party that identifies as a "center" party, not left-wing and not right-wing. In the USA I think that party I vote for would be considered left-wing, though. It is called "Partido Verde", directly translated to "Green Party".
I generally vote for this party because they focus mainly on the preservation of the environment, and I think that's the most important and urgent issue we need to deal with at the moment. My region suffered a huge flood four years ago, thousands of people died, I saw all the destruction first-hand and it is awful to know that if only my country cared a little more about the environmental issues, it could have been prevented, or at least maybe it wouldn't have been so strong.
There's a Green Party in the U.S., too, but they don't have a large following. Their most famous candidate was probably Ralph Nader in the 2000 election, who some people think is the reason why Al Gore lost and George W. Bush was elected. Telltale makes a little side joke about Nader in Sam & Max episode 104.
NAAAAAADDDERRR!
That man.....errr!
"Libertarian" best describes my stance. I want the maximum amount of liberty possible while ensuring that basic rights such as life, liberty, and property are protected by a government of minimal size and all other issues are handled by the private sector and the free market.
If you'll indulge me... I'm genuinely curious.
What about the poor? Or those with severe mental/physical disabilities, who can't work?
How will old, sick people pay for healthcare?
And the environment? How will we ensure that coal and nuclear power is being used safely? Will there be complete laissez faire attitude for climate change?
Here's the big one : What about basic infrastructure like roads? If the taxpayer isn't fronting the bill who is? How will the companies in charge of these projects cover costs and turn a profit?
I believe that makes you weird
I'd be happy to indulge you (and apologies for the late response, as I've been working on some last minute reading for AP US History):
The issue of the poor is surprisingly simple: poverty would be drastically decreased. Those who can work, will, as there is no longer a system encouraged by the government (welfare) which keeps them in poverty, and those who are incapable of working would be supported by altruistic, privately funded organizations, many of which already exist today.
Very simple. Privately run pension plans called annuities. Look into them, they're actually quite interesting, and they're becoming ever more popular in the insurance market.
Yet again, quite simple. In a private, free market, those who the public favors will be dominant in the economy. It will be up to the journalistic investigating community to report upon who is and isn't using precaution environmentally, and those who do will be revealed to the public for what they are. From that point, it is the responsibility of consumers to keep the abusing company in line by refusing to do business with them. Economic punishment, it is called.
Ah, this one is a classic. The question as to what will be done with the roads in a libertarian society is always one that is raised. The thing of it is, we already have roads built: now it is just a matter of maintaining them. The way I would propose to make the transition is by selling off certain roads/sets of roads to investors and entrepreneurs. While they would be in charge of maintaining the roads, they would also reap the benefits of setting road "laws", such as speed limits, whether or not certain types of driving are permitted on the road, etc etc. They could also arrange toll booths, so as to increase their profits, and could hire private peacekeeping companies to enforce the laws of their road.
Any new questions raised? I'd be happy to answer any you have.
Pretty standard libertarian answers, I was more looking to see if you knew you're stuff about the philosophy, which you do. There's just one problem...
This sounds like a commuter's absolute worst nightmare.
-- Wealthy road investors would be setting up toll booths right and left to cover costs. That's sounds like a MUCH heavier burden on commuters than a highway tax. Furthermore, the working class would be disproportionately and unfairly burdened by the cost of these tolls, in contrast to the people who have enough money that a toll fee is if no concern.
-- Everyone gets to set their own traffic rules? That seems like a recipe for accidents and general mayhem.
-- For profit law enforcement = incentivizing corruption. The chaotic nature of traffic laws, as I mentioned above, would make it very easy to entrap drivers or pull them over for some obscure violation as a pretext for a shakedown.
Here's the thing of it: roads are expensive to maintain. If people are going to constantly driving on them, the roads conditions will progressively worsen, making it more costly for the managers. If road managers are hiking up the toll costs/frequency too much, then people can take different routes. It is a competitive business, and like any business, to keep up competition, the prices either need to be low or the quality has to be higher. A faster route, logically speaking, should be more costly. Also, environmentally speaking, it would encourage people to carpool and use alternative transportation (such as buses), reducing Carbon Dioxide emissions.
More accidents, more road reparations. It is in the interests of road managing companies to set laws that will reduce crashes and encourage people their roads are safe to drive on.
As previously stated, there is competition in a free market. If a road company is shaking people down for obscure violations, other routes are available, and people will more often than not take the cheaper, more consumer-oriented route.
(I must add, I do appreciate you having the patience to hear out and intellectually respond to my arguments. We all know how easy it is to get heated on here.)
Good weird, or...
...really good weird?
Great weird.
A couple problems here...
-- As you mentioned, the cheaper roads will become much more crowded, forcing the commuter to decide between paying out the nose and being stuck on overcrowded, poorly maintained roads.
-- What about monopolies. There are some cities that can only be easily access by only one road. If commuters have few alternatives, there's really no incentive for the stewards of said road to set a competitive rate.
-- I can see a system where the rich who aren't hassled by high tolls zoom from place to place on the good roads, while the middle/working class putters along in the slow lane. An interesting analogy for libertarianism as a whole, eh?
A very good point, but I think that the constant gridlock on the peasant roads would significantly outweigh the benefits.
I have another question about states' rights. As you know that states rights are a cornerstone of American libertarianism. However, is it fair to allow them increased sovereignty of they can't stand on their own two feet, States currently receive billions in federal aid for everything from building projects to Medicaid. If we're giving them more sovereignty, shouldn't they be taken off the government teat? If so, how will we keep the state's com collapsing when the federal money goes away? Who's going to pay for state programs? Will the burden fall on state taxpayers? Because in that case, it's going to cost taxpayers a lot more than it did when it was a federal expenditure.
Same here! I've always found libertarianism interesting and it's enlightening to discuss it with some who knows their stuff.
I have no idea of my political identity. I just want liberty, equality and fraternity; although I was once called a "sans-culottes" by a friend of mine.
Independent.
It is a natural cycle of the economy. If somebody hikes up the prices, they lose business, and less business=less customers, so for them to be able to continue making profit, they would need to set their prices lower again. I wholeheartedly understand the concern for the commuter, but it is in their power (along with the rest of the consumers) to empower certain business over others, who treat them better, making it so that they will receive more profits than the abusing business. It is, as I said, in the interest of the producer to appeal to the consumer with better road conditions, fast travel, lower prices, and safer road laws.
I congratulate you, you have certainly posed quite the good question.
Now, to begin, one has to understand the means by which road managing companies would keep up business. In this market, there would not only be road managing companies, but also road building companies as well. If a road building company notices that a monopoly has been established by a road managing company, they could easily build another way into the city, set the prices lower than their competition, and reap the benefits of having the majority of people come to their road instead of their competitors. When the initial "monopoly" company begins losing business, they too will have to set their prices lower to stay in business, making it essentially impossible to establish a monopoly and keep it. When there are infinitely many possibilities for a competitor to arise, even if it is just a small coalition of entrepreneurs, one cannot continuously maintain a monopoly.
Haha, very funny xD
In all seriousness, as mentioned before, endless competition will keep abusive business in line. Even the rich don't like paying exorbitant prices endlessly.
Hey, every road gets traffic, man. Even in a libertarian society. Also, with new roads being built, there would overall be more potential routes for people to take.
I completely agree that federal funding should be generally cut to states. In a libertarian society, a federally run government would be minimally sized to nonexistent, left with the responsibility of organizing the defensive military if still in place. If not, the country would be divided into smaller, much more locally run states, which in times of crisis may work together to defend against foreign threats.
By vastly reducing the number of programs run by the government and transferring them to the private sector. The smaller the government, the less money it requires. It would be primarily focused on defensive military, and composed of humanitarian aid groups donated to by the private sector. With a military completely removed from intervention and more focused on simply defending oneself when an attacker makes a formal declaration of war, the costs for defense will be astronomically lowered.
I must say, I'm curious. Where do you fall on the political spectrum? I've seen hints of liberalism, dashes of conservatism, but nothing quite concrete in determining your political identity.
I'm not deep into politics, but I think I'd like to be a Libertarian like Ron Paul.