What would you be...

flja

Liberal or conservative if:

1. You support welfare programs and government make-work programs as emergency measures during periods of economic hard times, but you believe that the government should not otherwise be in the welfare business because the government dole acts like a narcotic that destroys the human spirit, saps the vitality of its recipients while government make-work programs erode a person’s work ethic. And under no circumstances are you willing to support government welfare or make-work programs when you have to borrow money to pay for them.

2. You support higher tax rates for the rich in principle, but you won’t make any real effort to have higher tax rates written into law.

3. You favor a mildly inflationary monetary policy as a means of increasing the amount of money in circulation in order to spur economic activity during times of economic distress, but you would rather let a bad economy continue than cause hyper-inflation.

4. You support labor unions’ right to collective bargaining with employers, but you generally support employers whenever a union goes on strike because you fear the social unrest and economic disruption that strikes can cause.

5. You support minimum wage laws, but you don’t actively work towards their adoption.

6. You support government spending as a means of spurring the economy when the economy is bad, but only as long as you don’t have to go into debt to do it.

COMMIE!!!

flja

Deleted User wrote: »

COMMIE!!!

Why?

Well i was gonna go through the post line by line, but tbh, ill just send you to the Political Compass

And, it'd be more Liberal/Authoritarian and Progressive/Conservative..
And Depends whether you're talking about Social/Economic issues..

But if you support Min Wage/High Tax for the wealthy...why not work towards it?
If we had a well structured Tax base, in a just money system, lots of other problems fade away..
Yeah, there are a few left leaning(kinda socialist) points in the OP..


And, well, all the neo liberals and conservatives of old, well, they're all Libertarian now..

Eliot Rosewater

Centre-right, if you ask me, but then I'm using Ireland as a base point which means in terms of America you mightn't even be on the right.

Deleted User wrote: »

And, well, all the neo liberals and conservatives of old, well, they're all Libertarian now..

They're, not actually. Conservatives and libertarians probably differ on more policy ares than they agree on. Libertarians are anti-war and pro-gay marriage, for a start, two areas where conservatives take the opposite view.

As for the "neo liberals", well that has just become a buzz word on these forums. When people use that word they're not making an attempt to describe a particular point of view. All they're trying to do is get the upperhand through a kind of smear tactic; as if sticking "neo" in front of an ideology gives them points.

imported_guy

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

They're, not actually. Conservatives and libertarians probably differ on more policy ares than they agree on. Libertarians are anti-war and pro-gay marriage, for a start, two areas where conservatives take the opposite view.

name one libertarian who supports gay marriage should be allowed by each state?, they will all answer its not for the federal government to decide, it should be left to the state

libertarians arent really "anti-war" per se, they just believe the war was not authorised by the congress through a declaration so it is unconstitutional.


OP, you sound like obama, so i'd say liberal, more towards socialist.

Iwasfrozen

imported_guy wrote: »

name one libertarian who supports gay marriage should be allowed by each state?, they will all answer its not for the federal government to decide, it should be left to the state

libertarians arent really "anti-war" per se, they just believe the war was not authorised by the congress through a declaration so it is unconstitutional.


OP, you sound like obama, so i'd say liberal, more towards socialist.

I don't think you understand what socialist is.

kev9100

That sounds pretty conservative. I'd say you're a moderate Republican.

Eliot Rosewater

imported_guy wrote: »

name one libertarian who supports gay marriage should be allowed by each state?, they will all answer its not for the federal government to decide, it should be left to the state

I was talking about libertarians in the general sense, not specifically American libertarians.

This is a wiki extract from an article about Ron Paul:

Paul opposes all federal efforts to define marriage, whether defined as a union between one man and one woman, or defined as including anything else as well. He believes that recognizing or legislating marriages should be left to the states, and not subjected to "judicial activism".

[...]

Paul has said that federal officials changing the definition of marriage is "an act of social engineering profoundly hostile to liberty." Paul stated, "Americans understandably fear that if gay marriage is legalized in one state, all other states will be forced to accept such marriages." He says that in a best case scenario, governments would enforce contracts and grant divorces but otherwise have no say in marriage. Paul has also stated he doesn't want to interfere in the free association of two individuals in a social, sexual, and religious sense. Additionally, when asked if he was supportive of gay marriage Paul responded "I am supportive of all voluntary associations and people can call it whatever they want."

orourkeda

Terrorist.

Einhard

I don't really get this obsession with labelling people and dividing them into seperate categories according to their social beliefs. There are very few people left who could be classed absolutely "liberal" or unwaveringly "conservative". Most of us have opinions and stances from the Left and the Right, and we often hold views which contradict one another. Individuals are too messy and complicated to be absolutey deemed a member of one side or the other.

Lockstep

Einhard wrote: »

I don't really get this obsession with labelling people and dividing them into seperate categories according to their social beliefs. There are very few people left who could be classed absolutely "liberal" or unwaveringly "conservative". Most of us have opinions and stances from the Left and the Right, and we often hold quite contradictory views which contradict one another. Individuals are too messy and complicated to be absolutey deemed a member of one side or the other.

Extremely true (I'm economically left wing and socially moderate). In theory, I'd be a Christian Democrat but not in reality, given the dominant ideology in European CD parties.

However, most people can be put into one camp. While they will differ on a lot of issues, there will usually be one label that can be applied as it conforms with the majority of their opinions.

Iwasfrozen

Einhard wrote: »

I don't really get this obsession with labelling people and dividing them into seperate categories according to their social beliefs. There are very few people left who could be classed absolutely "liberal" or unwaveringly "conservative". Most of us have opinions and stances from the Left and the Right, and we often hold views which contradict one another. Individuals are too messy and complicated to be absolutey deemed a member of one side or the other.

Because political systems wouldn't work if we didn't label people.