Jump to content
Banner by ~ Ice Princess Silky

Do you consider yourself more liberal or conservative?


AEDAZ

Recommended Posts

Well I'm an Anarcho-capitalist, and I'm not quite sure if that's more liberal or more conservative ^^;

The closest political group would be Libertarian, which also doesn't really answer the question, but that's all I have... ^^;;

  • Brohoof 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a mixture of conservative and liberal views, but I despise most politicians.

 

I specifically hate America's two-party system. Both parties have to disagree on LITERALLY EVERYTHING. Since we have an even number of parties, there is never a majority rule. It's nothing but gerrymandering and polarization; therefore, nothing ever gets done.

 

A 3 or 5 party system would work much better, and I honestly think that even a one-party system would be the best overall.

Edited by Omega Centauri
  • Brohoof 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a liberal in the classical sense, so essentially I value social and economic freedom. I support small government that abides by John Stuart Mills' harm principle, has low taxes, and allows free trade and markets to flourish.

  • Brohoof 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A 3 or 5 party system would work much better, and I honestly think that even a one-party system would be the best overall.

 

I'm no fan of the two-party system myself, but one-party states are historically nothing but trouble.

 

What about a 0-party system?

  • Brohoof 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Liberal. Though I do agree with the conservative side sometimes.

 

But I try to have my own opinion and view on a subject instead of just going which side I lean more towards.

  • Brohoof 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm neither.

 

I think we need huge amounts of reform (so I'm not conservative), and social liberty is important, but economic liberty leads to inequality, and neither type of liberty is as important as our welfare and happiness.


 

A 3 or 5 party system would work much better, and I honestly think that even a one-party system would be the best overall.

British Politics FTW!

 

We've got 2 main parties (labour and conservative), but the balance is (usually) held by the other parties (SNP, Liberal Democrat, Greens, and now UKIP too), as they can form coalitions with one of the others.

 

We can be pretty sure that this year's election is going to be interesting with the alternative parties all being much more popular than they were at the last election...

 

 

 

What about a 0-party system?

What would that mean?

 

A completely socialist state? (a nice idea for small groups, but not feasible for a nation)

Absolute monarchy? (It can work well, but generally doesn't in the 21st century)

  • Brohoof 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

economic liberty leads to inequality

 

That's not necessarily a problem. 

 

 

 

A completely socialist state? (a nice idea for small groups, but not feasible for a nation)

 

Socialism is an economic ideology. You might be thinking of communism.

 

 

 

Absolute monarchy? (It can work well, but generally doesn't in the 21st century)

 

Doesn't have to be absolute. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

What would that mean?   A completely socialist state? (a nice idea for small groups, but not feasible for a nation) Absolute monarchy? (It can work well, but generally doesn't in the 21st century)

 

Or just candidates running on independent platforms, so voters don't just automatically gravitate to whichever candidate has the D or R next to their name.

 

In essence, people would have to actually research candidates instead of just towing the party line.

  • Brohoof 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's not necessarily a problem. 

 

 

Socialism is an economic ideology. You might be thinking of communism.

 

 

Doesn't have to be absolute. 

Inequality in itself is not a problem, but it can lead to poverty if it's not regulated and if there isn't enough money to go around. If there is no or too little regulation of industry it allows companies to exploit their workers (and the environment, and the government, and each other) in damaging ways.

 

Socialism is an economic ideology, but it also has social and political aspects, and it is what I meant. At a basic level, socialism is shared ownership of everything a society needs, while communism is state ownership of everything a society needs.

 

The only monarchy-based 0 party systems which have been done before have been absolute monarchies, but I guess it's at least theoretically possible for them not to be.

 

You could also have a democracy where everyone must stand as an independent, or one where there are no politicians and the general public simply suggest and vote on policies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

At a basic level, socialism is shared ownership of everything a society needs, while communism is state ownership of everything a society needs.

 

I'm pretty sure it's the other way around.

 

 

 

The only monarchy-based 0 party systems which have been done before have been absolute monarchies, but I guess it's at least theoretically possible for them not to be.

 

One can make it a constitutional monarchy.

 

 

 

You could also have a democracy where everyone must stand as an independent, or one where there are no politicians and the general public simply suggest and vote on policies.

 

Yeah, I'm not fond of democracy as a concept. A direct democracy (which is what you're suggesting) is the ideology taken to the extreme. No thanks. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure it's the other way around.

 

 

 

 

One can make it a constitutional monarchy.

 

 

 

 

Yeah, I'm not fond of democracy as a concept. A direct democracy (which is what you're suggesting) is the ideology taken to the extreme. No thanks. 

Nope, you can look it up if you want.

 

Yes, but we've never had a 0-party consitutional monarchy before.

 

I'm not fond of democracy either. It would work if we could count on people to put in the effort needed to understand what they're voting for, but they generally don't.

  • Brohoof 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since I consider myself a Libertarian, I'd say I'm more liberal.

 

I disagree a lot with conservatism nowadays (especially with the Conservative Party of Canada (they are the main party in power now) corrupting Canada federally ever since Stephen Harper (the current Prime Minister) was elected in office. He's doing more harm than good and it needs to stop!).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 years later...

Liberal, by a landslide, but at this point I would probably be considered a partial-nihilist liberal. There's many things that need to change to fix the completely broken system that is the entire US, but with how things are going, I have very little hope in anything actually getting better. Too much corruption, division and stupidity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Depending on the topic, I can be both since I found it more logical to be both righty and lefty without being blinded on one side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nope. I consider myself in between, as I have right-wing views on certain things and left-wing views on others (particularly economic issues). I'd like to call it a good balance but that'd just be an ego massage so let's not go down that road. I've been called both left-wing and right-wing by different circles of people, so I suppose it depends on who you ask.

  • Brohoof 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Join the herd!

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...