Why do you believe what you believe?

kev9100

What makes you a liberal, conservative, socialist, communist, libertarian, moderate or whatever?

nesf

I'm a liberal (in terms of economics) because I find it the most logical position. I'm not particularly convinced that it's a very good way to run a country only that the alternatives are worse.

I'm a liberal (in terms of social policy) because that's how I feel about most issues. I see no reason for not allowing gays to marry, I see little reason to ban drugs when all it does is create a market for criminals to exploit.

I'm tough on crime because I feel that criminals should be punished, within reason. I've never been a victim of crime but I feel that we need to crack down hard on career criminals because the only way to protect society from them is to remove them from society altogether.


By the way kev, please detail your own reasons for your own positions, an OP shouldn't just ask a question they should provide an answer too.

kev9100

nesf wrote: »

By the way kev, please detail your own reasons for your own positions, an OP shouldn't just ask a question they should provide an answer too.

Oh sorry, I forgot about that:o.

In economics, I suppose I'd be a left-of-centre liberal as I believe society has a duty to help those who are less fortunate. I don't want to abondon capitilism, but I do think we need to regulate it a lot more than we have so it can help the many and not just the lucky few.

As for social policy, I'm a liberal again as I hate the idea of me telling someone what they can do. The only real-exception to that is that I don't think we should de-criminalise all drugs.

mike65

I blame my parents.

Links234

socially liberal, I support more rights for LGBT people. T especially, no surprises there.

Byron85

I'm from a single parent and lower working class background. Myself and my sister grew up with enough to get by but that was it. We were pretty poor on occasion and most of our youth was a struggle for our mother to raise us. That is the reason why I would be classed as rather liberal or left wing leaning or whatever way you want to describe it.

Without relatively "free" education and free healthcare etc, I don't know what would have happened to me and my sister. The poorest in society need to be looked after when they need it. Is it abused? Of course it is but so is everything else in society. With better regulation things will improve but for some reason, most people in power are more than happy to keep the status quo.

nesf

kev9100 wrote: »

In economics, I suppose I'd be a left-of-centre liberal as I believe society has a duty to help those who are less fortunate. I don't want to abondon capitilism, but I do think we need to regulate it a lot more than we have so it can help the many and not just the lucky few.

a) a liberal in economics means right of centre!!

b) one can be right of centre and still hold that society has said duty. One merely sees the need to temper that against society's duty not to burden those who help themselves overly (which are the vast majority of people). So for instance I support free education and universal healthcare (though I'd prefer to see universal insurance + subsidies rather than State run hospitals like we have at the moment, I'd just temper that with the need to try and minimise spending and leaving the private sector provide that which it is capable of providing (i.e. without Government intervention the poorest in society would not get educated or get healthcare, therefore the State should step in but the State shouldn't step in to provide healthcare and free education for the middle classes etc).

kev9100

nesf wrote: »

a) a liberal in economics means right of centre!!

Not necessarily. I've always considered the term liberal to be mean very different things to different people. Sure, you can be right of centre in economics but you can also be left of centre.

kev9100

mike65 wrote: »

I blame my parents.

I'd say a lot of people would say the same thing. My dad was/is an old school socialist and he's probably the main reason I have any interest in politics.

yoshytoshy

I'm still open season on politics because I don't think people and myself know what we're doing at the moment.

I think religion plays as much apart of political decisions as policies do. I don't care for religion much and I don't hold any religion in contempt ,everyone is entitled to their opinion.

That's my 2c

round tower huntsman

i generally believe anything thats the opposite to what ff/green/fg say...cos they're all quisling lying scumbags and history and current events have shown that to be true.

CokaColumbo

I strongly advocate a return to free market capitalism because under this system economic efficiency and prosperity is maximised; and everybody becomes better off as a result. Less red tape, lower taxes, abolition of the minimum wage, no gov. + big business love affairs. No more Crony-Capitalism. More Reagan, More Thatcher (economically speaking).

I favour the downsizing, over time, of the welfare state and public entitlement schemes and in their place, a greater emphasis on private, voluntary charitable donations to the needy. Not only is this method much more efficient, as the majority of tax-payers money isn't wasted on bureaucracy, it also allows individuals to decide for themselves if they want to help others.

I believe in limited government because the government is not very good at anything it does; it can't even deliver the post without making a loss. It should be responsible for defence, law and order, the judiciary and a small number of other key areas in society. Privatise the economy, end government monopolies, break the trade unions, sell off state controlled enterprises etc. etc. Maybe then this country could experience actual prosperity, based on sound economic growth and development.

Milton Friedman all the way!

Hazlittle

I'm an anarchist because I dont like being told what to do nor do I have particular desire to tell other people what to do.

Manach

A conservative with monarchist leanings. Having studied history - we are an evil bunch and so strong traditions being a bulwark against chaos.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

kev9100

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

But the simple fact remains that most poor people cannot afford private education. Without public education, many poor kids wouldn't get an education.

Boskowski

I'm a pretty strong left wing man myself I reckon and I wonder is it because my parents were pretty uneducated in a political sense but very conservative and it all started with rebelling against them. I also 'majored' in politics at secondary school (I'm foreign - different school/LC system) and spent a few semesters at University studying political sciences and strongly believe the more political education you have the more you would tend naturally to the left. I'm also agnostic and think as a race we're doomed because of our inability to move on from exploiting everything and everyone for personal gain.

Valmont

kev9100 wrote: »

But the simple fact remains that most poor people cannot afford private education. Without public education, many poor kids wouldn't get an education.

Huh? Many of the poor people in these countries are already paying for private education in lieu of the alternative that is poor or non-existent public education. There seems to be this unexamined presumption that all private education= Blackrock college cost.

I'm a recently decided libertarian. I read Atlas Shrugged a few years ago and even then I would still have been your average undergraduate lefty but I only started to read up on politics, society, morality and economics this past year and of all the arguments on here and in various books that I've scrutinised, the free-market option presents some of the most consistent and rational arguments. I'm still learning, mind you, but I would be very surprised if something were to come along and sway me at this stage. Maybe a few more Paul Krugman columns:pac:

nesf

kev9100 wrote: »

Not necessarily. I've always considered the term liberal to be mean very different things to different people. Sure, you can be right of centre in economics but you can also be left of centre.

Not on this side of the Atlantic. It is an American bastardisation and misuse of the term that liberal in economic terms means left of centre. In Europe, and much of the rest of the world, it retains its original meaning, i.e. that of classical liberalism which is right of centre.

kev9100

nesf wrote: »

Not on this side of the Atlantic. It is an American bastardisation and misuse of the term that liberal in economic terms means left of centre. In Europe, and much of the rest of the world, it retains its original meaning, i.e. that of classical liberalism which is right of centre.

Fair enough. I guess I'm a social democrat then:D.

CokaColumbo

Boskowski wrote: »

I also 'majored' in politics at secondary school (I'm foreign - different school/LC system)...and spent a few semesters at University studying political sciences and strongly believe the more political education you have the more you would tend naturally to the left. I'm also agnostic and think as a race we're doomed because of our inability to move on from exploiting everything and everyone for personal gain.

I disagree 100%. If you lap up everything your political lecturers feed you in college then yes, you will become a leftist; because they are all generally leftists themselves, and that's not an exaggeration.
If you educate yourself on politics and read people like Thomas Sowell or Milton Friedman, you open yourself up to a world which is neglected by teachers and lecturers. Being a leftist is the default mode for many people until they actually challenge the doctrines which were fed to them in secondary and third level education. Ronald Reagan being one funnily enough!

Also, what do you mean by "exploiting everything and everyone for personal gain"?

Pete_Cavan

CokaColumbo wrote: »

I disagree 100%. If you lap up everything your political lecturers feed you in college then yes, you will become a leftist; because they are all generally leftists themselves, and that's not an exaggeration.
If you educate yourself on politics and read people like Thomas Sowell or Milton Friedman, you open yourself up to a world which is neglected by teachers and lecturers. Being a leftist is the default mode for many people until they actually challenge the doctrines which were fed to them in secondary and third level education. Ronald Reagan being one funnily enough!

Also, what do you mean by "exploiting everything and everyone for personal gain"?

I have to agree with CokaColumbo here. To quote one of the great social commentators of our time, Homer Simpson, "Marge, I agree with you -- in theory. In theory, communism works. In theory." I realise that communism if the most extreme form of left wing politics but I think this is true of all left wing politics, they work in theory but not in practice. If everyone bought into it it would work perfectly and would be the best way for society to operate, but in the real world this wont happen so it is going to fail.

By the way, in case you haven't noticed, I'm a liberal, in terms of economics at least.

bmaxi

I am Socialist to the extent that I believe the converse is to suggest that ultimately, one person has a right to all things. Even the strongest lion will leave some of the carcass.
I support the Welfare state but not the Nanny state, I don't accept the entitlement creed.
On crime I would probably be right of centre, I think the punishment should fit the crime and the debt should, in the majority of cases, be paid in full.
On society, I would be Liberal to the extent I accept people can be different. Gay people exist, they probably always have and there is nothing I can do about it, even if I wanted to but I have a hard time accepting it as "normal" behaviour.
I have no time for religion in any form but if that's what you want to believe, so be it. I know that's hard to equate with the tough on crime thing, as people might say , "Where would you draw moral standards from?", that is a bit of a dilemma as I do draw my moral standards from Christianity but I don't see any of the sects today as a mirror of Christianity.

Lockstep

I'm fairly hard to pigeonhole politically.

Economically, I'd be a social democrat. My own family benefited from the welfare state (my father receiving grants enabling him to go to university) as well as a few efforts on my part enable me to attend myself (I go to the nearest university to my house and work part time)
The idea of a social-welfareless state is anathema to me, albeit our current one could do with some reform and I favour certain moves such as a lowering of VAT to boost consumer spending as well as a high minimum wage and an increased higher tax band.
I've an interest in economics (especially political economy and economic history) and would broadly agree with Keynes, with Krugman and Stiglitz being two of my favorite contemporaries.

Socially, it's a bit more difficult to call. I'm pro-life and have mixed views about a lot of issues. For example, I would view a two parent heterosexual family as better for a child, although would still support gay adoption as being better than trying to raise a single child. I'd also be fairly big on law and order but would support legalisation of things like marijuana and prostitution as banning them makes little sense. Things like the licensing laws make no sense to me at all, it just seems to discharge hordes of drunks on the streets, all at once.

My family itself is more mixed. One sibling is a libertarian socialist (big fan of Noam Chomsky, but for his views on positive liberty rather than his critique of American foreign policy), another is very conservative (to the point of xenophobia) and yet another is centerist. Parents are Labour-leaning and Fine Gael respectively.

Deep Easterly

I don't think I really ascribe to any particular political ideology but I guess my leanings would be towards social democrat.

View

kev9100 wrote: »

What makes you a liberal, conservative, socialist, communist, libertarian, moderate or whatever?

I have always wanted to be a conservative. I live in hope that one day I'll be rich enough to be one.

View

kev9100 wrote: »

Fair enough. I guess I'm a social democrat then:D.

Free-market liberal to social democrat in two posts!

Is that you, Bertie (Ahern)?

simplistic2

I accept anarchism as the most rational position to hold as I support the non-aggression principle , full property rights and free markets.

I am an anarchist in my personal life because I dont steal from the rich to give to the poor or wish an act of aggression against any human. It works on an individual level so I believe it will also work on a large scale.

amacachi

Drifting slightly in from economic liberalism, though not too close to the centre yet. :pac: Socially I'm liberal though some of my views would seem to contradict that on the face of it.

EDIT: Also, just because I was lucky to get the benefit of something doesn't mean that it's how things should be.

kev9100

View wrote: »

Free-market liberal to social democrat in two posts!

Is that you, Bertie (Ahern)?

Although in my defence, I never really described myself as free-market liberal. Just a left of centre liberal:).

Boskowski

CokaColumbo wrote: »

Also, what do you mean by "exploiting everything and everyone for personal gain"?

what I mean with that is that the human race seems unable to reach a self sustainable state. Our whole existence is based on expansion and growth and the places we expand to we then suck dry and turn every stone over to get our hands on every single ressource available which we then consume. Unfortunately that's not even good enough for us. In the midst of all this we are also in a rat race as to who can consume the most and we tear those ressources from each others hands at every opportunity. Every individual is in a constant competition on many levels. Competing with other individuals, families, parishes, companies, nations etc. Unlike all other species on this planet were not content with survival, we need more, bigger, better, everything. Capitalism is the political manifestation of this problem and at the moment it seems we are about to give up even trying to find alternatives. We seem to have resigned to the fact that that's just how we are which is effectively a cancer to this world and ourselves and that we will keep going until we have consumed everything - destroying the very foundations of iour existence.

Sorry this has become rather 'big' but since this is about beliefs and since you were asking....

me_right_one

Boskowski wrote: »

what I mean with that is that the human race seems unable to reach a self sustainable state. Our whole existence is based on expansion and growth and the places we expand to we then suck dry and turn every stone over to get our hands on every single ressource available which we then consume. Unfortunately that's not even good enough for us. In the midst of all this we are also in a rat race as to who can consume the most and we tear those ressources from each others hands at every opportunity. Every individual is in a constant competition on many levels. Competing with other individuals, families, parishes, companies, nations etc. Unlike all other species on this planet were not content with survival, we need more, bigger, better, everything. Capitalism is the political manifestation of this problem and at the moment it seems we are about to give up even trying to find alternatives. We seem to have resigned to the fact that that's just how we are which is effectively a cancer to this world and ourselves and that we will keep going until we have consumed everything - destroying the very foundations of iour existence.

Sorry this has become rather 'big' but since this is about beliefs and since you were asking....

There's a generalisation and a half:eek: SOME people behave as you have described above, not by any means the entire human race!!!!

Dr. Baltar

I believe that economically the freer the market, the freer the people and that's always a good thing! Howevever, I do think that the government has a duty to provide education and health to the poorest in society.

Socially, I believe in total personal & political freedoms. The freedom to do anything that you wish so long as it does not harm another person or their property.

I guess this would make me some sort of Social Libertarian?

Denerick

I'm a natural born cynic and skeptic. At a stretch I'm a Burkean conservative, in terms of my loathing of revolutionary violence and the loss of humanity and civilisation associated with it. In practise I'm probably vaguely centrist, with enough misanthropy thrown in to make me despise every political party, every politician, every political hack, and every partisan commentator on message boards.

I'm definately quite permissive on social issues though. I see no need, nor want, the State to intervene on private or cultural issues.

Denerick

Boskowski wrote: »

strongly believe the more political education you have the more you would tend naturally to the left.

Thats rather insulting. There is no correlation between intelligence and politics. Thats the one political position I'm prepared to throw out there.

whatawaster

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I think the problem is moreso that the government has been throwing money left, right and centre at this areas, but in a completely wrong way.
Huge public sector wage increases could have instead built schools and hospitals and employed more teachers, nurses, doctors etc.

Is there not already competition in the education and health sectors with private schools and hospitals?

Economically - i believe in free markets and capitalism and all that.
However, i do strongly believe that education and healthcare should be free for everybody, and should be run by the state. There's absolutely no reason why both systems can't be run more efficiently and effectively when they are today.
But that's really a whole debate on it's own

Socially - extremely liberal on all the usuals - gay marriage, cannabis, abortion etc

It's extremely difficult to even think about voting for anyone in this country. I guess i, like many others, am crying out for a new political party to come along to meet my voting needs.

Problem is, many liberal parties don't seem to walk the walk when it comes to many of the hot social issues. And privatisation of healthcare and education i'd find difficult to accept.

The Corinthian

I believe that the moment you ascribe to an ideological label, you diminish the pool of possible ideas you may draw from for the sake of faith.

Sergeant

It can be difficult to assign yourself to a particular label.

For example, I see myself as being economically right-wing. I don't believe in large government, an overarching welfare state, or the proliferation of regulation in all aspects of the economy.

But to even that out, I don't believe that a completely free-market laissez-faire system would be the answer to all gripes either. The privatisation of Eircom is a good example, this has not served the republic well.

I also see myself as a social liberal. Anything that minimises state involvement in a persons life. Strong believer in the self-sufficiency and personal development of the individual.

To put yourself rigidly into one particular camp is to ascribe to a dogma. Better to choose from the À la carte menu.

Laminations

The Corinthian wrote: »

I believe that the moment you ascribe to an ideological label, you diminish the pool of possible ideas you may draw from for the sake of faith.

I agree. I like to think of myself as a social capitalist in economic terms and a liberal in social terms but then like nesf I have strong views on justice and punishment.

Why do I believe what I believe?

Well I try to keep it as evidence-based as possible but at the end of the day, evidence requires human/individual interpretation. So my beliefs come from my interpretations which I hold as correct. If my interpretations are shown to be incorrect, I adopt a new inerpretation on which to base my beliefs, so my beliefs to my are fluid but always correct. If I didn't think a belief was correct then I wouldn't believe in it, so I'll continue to hold my beliefs until someone proves me wrong.

irishh_bob

whatawaster wrote: »

I think the problem is moreso that the government has been throwing money left, right and centre at this areas, but in a completely wrong way.
Huge public sector wage increases could have instead built schools and hospitals and employed more teachers, nurses, doctors etc.

Is there not already competition in the education and health sectors with private schools and hospitals?

Economically - i believe in free markets and capitalism and all that.
However, i do strongly believe that education and healthcare should be free for everybody, and should be run by the state. There's absolutely no reason why both systems can't be run more efficiently and effectively when they are today.
But that's really a whole debate on it's own


Socially - extremely liberal on all the usuals - gay marriage, cannabis, abortion etc

It's extremely difficult to even think about voting for anyone in this country. I guess i, like many others, am crying out for a new political party to come along to meet my voting needs.

Problem is, many liberal parties don't seem to walk the walk when it comes to many of the hot social issues. And privatisation of healthcare and education i'd find difficult to accept.

sounds like thier are several parties where you could find a home , the greens , labour

irishh_bob

Sergeant wrote: »

It can be difficult to assign yourself to a particular label.

For example, I see myself as being economically right-wing. I don't believe in large government, an overarching welfare state, or the proliferation of regulation in all aspects of the economy.

But to even that out, I don't believe that a completely free-market laissez-faire system would be the answer to all gripes either. The privatisation of Eircom is a good example, this has not served the republic well.

I also see myself as a social liberal. Anything that minimises state involvement in a persons life. Strong believer in the self-sufficiency and personal development of the individual.

To put yourself rigidly into one particular camp is to ascribe to a dogma. Better to choose from the À la carte menu.

the telecomunications industry is not fully private in the true sense of the word , eircom still have a complete monopoly on ground work and supplying hardware , no telephone service provider can avoid dealing with them in some shape or form at the present time

The Corinthian

irishh_bob wrote: »

the telecomunications industry is not fully private in the true sense of the word , eircom still have a complete monopoly on ground work and supplying hardware , no telephone service provider can avoid dealing with them in some shape or form at the present time

You don't have to be in the public sector to be a monopoly.

hinault

I'm a social conservative, economic liberal.

Make of that what you will.

Denerick

hinault wrote: »

I'm a social conservative, economic liberal.

Make of that what you will.

Thatcher? Is that you?

scr123

I believe in FF because FF believes in me

One certain belief in life is, DO NO HARM TO ANOTHER. Follow that simple rule and the world would be a much better place and social, political and economic issues would be redundant

meditraitor

I make it up as I go along, points made by ardent followers of most of the popular political systems have enlightened and annoyed me equally.

kev9100

scr123 wrote: »

I believe in FF because FF believes in me

Yes, they believe that you will blindly support them no matter what they do.

Wide Road

kev9100 wrote: »

Yes, they believe that you will blindly support them no matter what they do.

What party do you believe in?

Laminations

Wide Road wrote: »

What party do you believe in?

Well I dont believe in any party, I believe in the right of citizens to have good governance, I hope for good governance, and I'll judge each party based on their performance in catering for society on the same 'good governance' grounds. Obviously what people deem as good governance will differ between each person but I think the majority would agree FF have failed on these grounds. The minority on the other hand believe in FF, and like the religious their beliefs will never be dictated to by evidence.

Liam Byrne

Laminations wrote: »

Well I dont believe in any party, I believe in the right of citizens to have good governance

+1,000

Even the question "what party do you believe in" is flawed, because it assumes that everyone has to "believe" in some "party", which is ridiculous.

Not only that, but by it's nature "belief" is intangible, and has no bearing in reality or facts.

Some people "believe" in God.
Some people "believe" in aliens.
Some people "believe" in fate.
Some people "believe" in an afterlife.

The common thread in all of the above is that there is no actual proof. If there were proof, then they would no longer be "beliefs".

People once believed the Earth was flat, and that the sun went around the earth. They were wrong, and now if anyone still believes that they are viewed as delusional.

Beliefs can be held, and should be respected, even in the absence of proof one way or the other....that's their nature. But when it goes one step further and there's actual irrefutable proof which 100% contradicts the belief, and people choose to ignore that proof, then such beliefs should be challenged and opposed for the fallacies that they are.

Denerick

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Beliefs can be held, and should be respected, even in the absence of proof one way or the other....that's their nature. But when it goes one step further and there's actual irrefutable proof which 100% contradicts the belief, and people choose to ignore that proof, then such beliefs should be challenged and opposed for the fallacies that they are.

Will Fine Gael bring about the salvation you're talking about here?