Do you label yourself Right or Left-Wing and if so, why?

Eve_Dublin

I live in a city where political opinions are very divided and anyone who has any interest in politics would label themselves as either Right or Left-Wing and there doesn't seem to be a middle ground. I know it's mainly down to their recent history and being under a dictatorship until 1975 that opinions would be very divided even now. The newspapers are very biased and you can usually judge someone's political persuasion by the paper they read or even how they dress or where they live. The political parties are also very divided and there doesn't seem to be any happy medium. I don't think I ever really questioned my own political beliefs and what I'd call myself until I moved here although I know myself that I'm a Leftist. I took it for granted that most people in Ireland thought like me. It was not something I questioned when I lived in Ireland as most people I knew would have had similar politics to me and it's only since I moved here that I've felt the need to define myself so as not to be associated with people whose politics I strongly disagree with. It seemed like people's opinions in Ireland were never as extreme as they are here. I live in Madrid by the way.

Sorry if this is not making sense but I've a bad hangover.

What I want to know from you guys is whether or not you define yourself as either Right or Left-Wing and if you do, why?

Sunnyisland

I like to take all the good parts from left or right or anywhere else,dont know what that makes me.

cleremy jarkson

economically centre right ie. pro capitilism with a bit of redistributive taxation to curb the gap that naturally grows between rich and poor

socially, it depends on the issue, mostly centre left though

also: i don't know if this is arrogant, but to me it seems that the objectively correct economic position to take is a right wing one, as opposed to a left wing one. left wing policies simply don't make society as a whole better off.

Denerick

I find the labels unhelpful. I'm not hinged by ideology so I'm not afraid to embrace left or right wing ideas. I like to think I'm constantly shaping my own, personal ideology.

There are breeds of people who won't compromise their principles not because they are in the right, but because it would challenge the rest of their dogmatic ideology (E.G. Once you start peeling off Marxism you're pretty much a social democrat. There are certain 'fundamentals' you have to agree with... Its more like a religion really.)

irishh_bob

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

I live in a city where political opinions are very divided and anyone who has any interest in politics would label themselves as either Right or Left-Wing and there doesn't seem to be a middle ground. I know it's mainly down to their recent history and being under a dictatorship until 1975 that opinions would be very divided even now. The newspapers are very biased and you can usually judge someone's political persuasion by the paper they read or even how they dress or where they live. The political parties are also very divided and there doesn't seem to be any happy medium. I don't think I ever really questioned my own political beliefs and what I'd call myself until I moved here although I know myself that I'm a Leftist. I took it for granted that most people in Ireland thought like me. It was not something I questioned when I lived in Ireland as most people I knew would have had similar politics to me and it's only since I moved here that I've felt the need to define myself so as not to be associated with people whose politics I strongly disagree with. It seemed like people's opinions in Ireland were never as extreme as they are here. I live in Madrid by the way.

Sorry if this is not making sense but I've a bad hangover.

What I want to know from you guys is whether or not you define yourself as either Right or Left-Wing and if you do, why?

irish politics and people are for the most part , terminally centrist , myself , im probabley on the right by irish standards

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Denerick

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Pinko.

Dudess

Most of my views default to the left but I don't make a point of defining myself as left-wing. I get irritated by people who do (left or right) and wouldn't dream of agreeing with anything that opposes their ideology, even if it means foregoing supporting the decent thing - e.g. right-wingers fervently backing Israeli atrocities (it's possible to object to them AND Hamas) and left-wingers refusing to condemn brutal customs on the grounds of "cultural relativism".

cleremy jarkson

Yes, I should say that I didn't sit down one day and go "right, I'm going to have this set of beliefs and I'm going to stick to them". Instead my stance on different topics has been moulded gradually since I was young and has changed as I go about my life. Any stances that I take, I just do, regardless of what side of the spectrum they fall.

Shulgin

Left or right is too limiting, it is what has held us back for so long.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

FlutterinBantam

I would expect to be considered right wing.

Like, I expect people to do things for themselves, avoid being dragged into the mores of 'let the state help me out' stuff.

We are in a deep hole right now and to get out we need value for money.

HSE is the prime example, you get gimps flutterin' on about 'frontline this' and 'frontline that' but all just adds up to a pan of oven baked goat shite.

What matters is value for money, bang for your buck,and sure as hell, the HSE ain't giving much of a bang.

There's the problem.

annoyingbeast

economically left wing... capitalism is ok, but a more equal share of wealth is good, but on things like immigration i would be more right wing.

dlofnep

Economically left-wing, socially liberal.

theg81der

Far left on most things bar abortion which I am against....maybe that is far left thou in a way. I`m generally for childrens rights whatever shape they come in left or right.

silverharp

I dont like the labels, if you put people on that scale then Hitler and Stalin are on opposite ends which makes no sense. Also imo many people have very confused views, they maybe solically liberal eg may want to see drugs decliminalsied yet economically not liberal eg want high taxes. So in one situation they see individal rights as key yet in a heartbeat will trample on them for some perceived common good.

krd

cleremy jarkson wrote: »

also: i don't know if this is arrogant, but to me it seems that the objectively correct economic position to take is a right wing one, as opposed to a left wing one. left wing policies simply don't make society as a whole better off.

Oh right, the pompous right-wing wobble neck rampant capitalism has made Irish society better off as whole.

Massive private debt has not become public debt and everything is gravy.

Right wing economic policies have absolutely failed. They've beggarised the majority and have only enriched a few.

And the enriched few have their boosters and lickspittles who talk up the right-wing ideology, thinking they'll get some of the swag for helping the scam.

krd

annoyingbeast wrote: »

economically left wing... capitalism is ok, but a more equal share of wealth is good, but on things like immigration i would be more right wing.

Why what's your problem with immigration? You feel that only pure blooded salt of the ignorant Irish people have some God given right to be here.

Millions of Irish people have immigrated to all corners of the world (often illegally). We have absolutely no moral grounds for refusing anyone who wishes to come live here.

Or do you believe we do have the moral right on the basis of our racial superiority. The Paddy is the master race.

How do you say Sieg Heil as gaelige?

The Scientician

krd wrote: »

Why what's your problem with immigration? You feel that only pure blooded salt of the ignorant Irish people have some God given right to be here.

There aren't all that many people who live in a country that experiences inbound migration that thinks that unfettered immigration would be a good idea. Conversely, I doubt there's many people in this country who would choose to completely eliminate immigration.


I'm lefty on economic issues, socially liberal, I think the state should butt out in many non-economic areas.

krd

irishh_bob wrote: »

irish politics and people are for the most part , terminally centrist , myself , im probabley on the right by irish standards

This centerism is right-wing propaganda. It's completely meaningless. Being right-wing is nasty. It means you're a greedy and selfish person. By claiming to be centerist you can cover your tracks - throw people off the scent or the stink of being right-wing.

Our media claims to be centerist. It's actually very right-wing. Most people who work in the Irish media are there because they come from well-connected right-wing families - they want unfairness and inequality, they wouldn't have such nice lives without it. During the election Fine Gael were boosted at every turn - Labour were given bad press. The Irish media have always done everything in the power to stop a left/right divide opening in Irish politics. Instead we're given the "choice" of two right-wing parties, virtually ideologically identical to each other.

The right control the propaganda mechanisms of the country. The people are largely kept ignorant. The right keeps them ignorant - because that's how they rule. That's why we're such an anti-intellectual country. Ignorance is strength to the right.



"The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in times of great moral crisis maintain their neutrality" Dante

Get off the fence - you're either left or right. You're either with us or against us. With forces of the good and light or with the forces of darkness, greed and death.

And if you're right wing, embrace who you are: A greedy, self-centred pig. Oink oink.

old hippy

If I had to label myself I'd say I'm a utopian, sending out the love vibes to quell all the negative energy out there. Man. :cool:

krd

The Scientician wrote: »

There aren't all that many people who live in a country that experiences inbound migration that thinks that unfettered immigration would be a good idea. Conversely, I doubt there's many people in this country who would choose to completely eliminate immigration.

I think absolute unfettered migration would be a great idea. People could flee slavery and oppression in their countries, those regiemes would collapse without their slaves - global wealth would redistribute quicker.

We have free movement of capital - what's wrong with free movement of people?

The situation we have at the moment - even in the wealthy countries - unless you're in the top ten percent of earners - you're being manipulated or screwed largely for the benefit of the wealthiest people. Literally, if working people start eating more meat and bread - the banks will put up the interest rates to make them cut back on their consumption. If we were true economic free agents - and allowed freedom in that agency then if we were more economically productive we could have more stuff like milk, meat and bread - but as soon as we start enjoying more of the wealth we create, our system transfers this wealth, our wealth, to the rich.

We will only have true democracy and freedom when people are truly free to vote with their feet.

There's a story - I've been trying to find out if it's true for years. In the early 60s, the American government offered the Irish government freedom of travel and to work in the US for all Irish people. The Irish government refused the offer, because they didn't want all their cheap labour running off to America. The Berlin wall was built to stop Eastern doctors, plumbers, bakers and candlestick makers from running off to west to earn more money - there was freedom of movement for years before, nearly 20 years. If the flow had been in the opposite direction - and for a period the Soviet economy looked like it was growing much faster then the west - the Western elites would have built their own wall to trap what they see as their cattle in.

Oh, give me land, lots of land, under starry skies above
Don't fence me in
Let me ride thru the wide-open country that I love
Don't fence me in

We need free movement otherwise we're just cattle. And in this country, cattle milked for the cowboys.

krd

old hippy wrote: »

If I had to label myself I'd say I'm a utopian, sending out the love vibes to quell all the negative energy out there. Man. :cool:

"You know what the fellow said – in Italy, for thirty years under the Borgias, they had warfare, terror, murder and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci and the Renaissance. In Switzerland, they had brotherly love, they had five hundred years of democracy and peace – and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock."

- Harry Lime

Brotherly love is getting us nowhere fast. Ireland has become a scuzzy tip - where most people think it's good, right and normal to screw over as many of their brothers as they can.

Scanlas The 2nd

krd wrote: »

This centerism is right-wing propaganda. It's completely meaningless. Being right-wing is nasty. It means you're a greedy and selfish person. By claiming to be centerist you can cover your tracks - throw people off the scent or the stink of being right-wing.

Our media claims to be centerist. It's actually very right-wing. Most people who work in the Irish media are there because they come from well-connected right-wing families - they want unfairness and inequality, they wouldn't have such nice lives without it. During the election Fine Gael were boosted at every turn - Labour were given bad press. The Irish media have always done everything in the power to stop a left/right divide opening in Irish politics. Instead we're given the "choice" of two right-wing parties, virtually ideologically identical to each other.

The right control the propaganda mechanisms of the country. The people are largely kept ignorant. The right keeps them ignorant - because that's how they rule. That's why we're such an anti-intellectual country. Ignorance is strength to the right.



"The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in times of great moral crisis maintain their neutrality" Dante

Get off the fence - you're either left or right. You're either with us or against us. With forces of the good and light or with the forces of darkness, greed and death.

And if you're right wing, embrace who you are: A greedy, self-centred pig. Oink oink.

We are far more of a left wing country than a right wing country. Look at the generous social welfare and high minimum wage. We are a nanny state. We lack personal responsibility. Why should wealth be spread evenly around. Let people earn whatever they can. Let them have personal responsibility. The wealthy are taxed too much imo. We need to incentivise wealth.

krd

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

We are far more of a left wing country than a right wing country. Look at the generous social welfare and high minimum wage. We are a nanny state.

What's "generous" about of social welfare system? Most people get out what they put in. You have people who are persistently unemployed - but that's more to do with them being economically undesirables. Wrong age, wrong sex, wrong social class. It's not even to do with qualifications - I know plenty of people with IT degrees and experience who can't get a job right now - even though supposedly employers are crying out for them.

Every economic event, is an interaction of two parts. It's not enough to chose to take a job - you must be chosen. And if you're not chosen, there's nothing you can do.

We lack personal responsibility.

Pompous middle-class guff.

Why should wealth be spread evenly around.

Why shouldn't it? Because you're greedy?

Let people earn whatever they can

.

In other words, let the economically most powerful decide how much the economically less powerful can earn.

Let them have personal responsibility.

More meaningless balls.

The wealthy are taxed too much imo.

Not in this country. They pay less tax than anywhere in the developed world.

We need to incentivise wealth.

Wealth is it's own incentive. You'd be very hard pressed to find someone on the street who wouldn't jump at the chance to be wealthy. Working for poverty wages is not much of an incentive. Better wages would incentivise people to work harder. Most places of work in Ireland pay the same wages to nearly all their workers - you're only rewarded the same as the laziest and stupidest worker on the factory floor. Where's the incentive to work? There is an incentive to lick bottoms and climb the ladder - become an non-productive little boss man. A little aristocrat.

The system is rigged to force people to work for ****ty wages. The vast majority of people in jobs would run out the door given access to better economic opportunities. The system only works if people are denied opportunities.

How can people be expected to be "responsible" for their own lives, when they have little choice over their own lives. The economic choice most people have is take it or leave it. There is no magical pot of gold waiting for everyone if they just work hard enough or take responsibility for their lives or other bolloxes. You can only work with the economic opportunities you are given - if no one gives you any, you have none.

The idiot Quinn became a billionaire not through his genius but because his daddy was a very rich man. He lost it all because he gambled the family farm like a drunk. The man was rich in the first place through the blind luck of being born into a rich family. All his children are senior managers in the Quinn group - all because they were his children. They didn't work for it - it was handed to them on a plate.

I could become a buy to let millionaire in the morning if some bank would lend me the cash to buy up properties. Sit on my fat arse while people who are not allowed mortgages or property at an affordable price work a few months of the year to fill my pockets. Then if it all goes sour I can just walk away - my tenants will just have to pay my bad debts through their taxes. A rigged game where the pigs can't lose.

Oink oink.

Free market my arse.

cleremy jarkson

krd wrote: »

Oh right, the pompous right-wing wobble neck rampant capitalism has made Irish society better off as whole.

Massive private debt has not become public debt and everything is gravy.

Right wing economic policies have absolutely failed. They've beggarised the majority and have only enriched a few.

And the enriched few have their boosters and lickspittles who talk up the right-wing ideology, thinking they'll get some of the swag for helping the scam.

Your post is full of sh'it. Ireland in the 80's was so left wing that people paid 70% of their gross incomes in tax and people always refer to that time as grim. Socialist policies lead to poorer standards of living. I'm not talking about the social democratic policies found in Scandinavian countries (in my own opinion, the reason those policies work so well there is because the people there are more naturally hard-working then most other countries and quite averse to social welfare dependency. In my opinion, the standard of living experienced in those countries wouldn't be experienced in most other countries if the same policies were implemented.)

I don't think banks should have been bailed out... that's a left wing thing to do. The bondholders should have been allowed lose their money as they made a decision themselves to buy shares in a bank. They gambled and lost. People are free agents who should be responsible for the decisions they made.

Of course I believe bankers and politicians should be held accountable but this would only be for the sake of of it, rather than a money saving exercise (it annoys me when an enormously disproportional amount of time is devoted to the pay of bankers and politicians during discussions in the media on the economy .. there are perhaps 500 people this applies to and the saving made would be miniscule ... again, obviously the savings should be made but so much time is spent talking about this and not the necessary cuts to the pensions for example )

Also, with left wing policies there is greater equality but greater all round poverty. With right wing policies, there is greater inequality but greater incomes for all. The decision is what level of trade off would you be prepared to have? You can't have both, it's just not possible without whipping talented people into working harder for less money.

Also, I'm not a devout right winger. I just believe that centre-right is better than centre left. Do you believe Sinn Fein could set the countries finances straight, for example? I believe that they are full of sh'it.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

irishh_bob

krd wrote: »

This centerism is right-wing propaganda. It's completely meaningless. Being right-wing is nasty. It means you're a greedy and selfish person. By claiming to be centerist you can cover your tracks - throw people off the scent or the stink of being right-wing.

Our media claims to be centerist. It's actually very right-wing. Most people who work in the Irish media are there because they come from well-connected right-wing families - they want unfairness and inequality, they wouldn't have such nice lives without it. During the election Fine Gael were boosted at every turn - Labour were given bad press. The Irish media have always done everything in the power to stop a left/right divide opening in Irish politics. Instead we're given the "choice" of two right-wing parties, virtually ideologically identical to each other.

The right control the propaganda mechanisms of the country. The people are largely kept ignorant. The right keeps them ignorant - because that's how they rule. That's why we're such an anti-intellectual country. Ignorance is strength to the right.



"The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in times of great moral crisis maintain their neutrality" Dante

Get off the fence - you're either left or right. You're either with us or against us. With forces of the good and light or with the forces of darkness, greed and death.

A if you're right wing, embrace who you are: A greedy, self-centred pig. Oink oink.

your deluded if you think the irish media is rightwing , rte , the irish times , tv 3 , are all left leaning and statist in editorial , oh and very pro labour

Dudess

krd wrote: »

Get off the fence - you're either left or right.

No you're not - sometimes you can have a stance that's neither left nor right.

You have proven far-left zealots can be as aggressive and hate-filled as far-right ones.

Shulgin

irishh_bob wrote: »

your deluded if you think the irish media is rightwing , rte , the irish times , tv 3 , are all left leaning and statist in editorial , oh and very pro labour

I saw nothing but GO ENDA! in the media all through the election build up.

What a loada sh1te.

Denerick

Shulgin wrote: »

I saw nothing but GO ENDA! in the media all through the election build up.

What a loada sh1te.

Remarkable. Enda Kenny was regularly portrayed as a bufoon (Particularly around the time he dodged the TV3 debate) I don't understand why partisans so frequently drown themselves in their own ideologies and biases and loose the ability to see fairly or rationally, without that dreaded ideological prejudice.

Shulgin

Denerick wrote: »

Remarkable. Enda Kenny was regularly portrayed as a bufoon (Particularly around the time he dodged the TV3 debate) I don't understand why partisans so frequently drown themselves in their own ideologies and biases and loose the ability to see fairly or rationally, without that dreaded ideological prejudice.

The fact is, the media for the most part were behind fine gael for this election, the debate thing aside.

prinz

Floating voter, I tend to go back and forth between the traditional divisions of right and left, so generally I'm in the centre. Right in some areas, left in other.

Shulgin wrote: »

The fact is, the media for the most part were behind fine gael for this election, the debate thing aside.

RTE have rules about that sort of thing. As for any other private media outlet, they are allowed to get behind whoever they like.

Shulgin

prinz wrote: »

As for any other private media outlet, they are allowed to get behind whoever they like.

Well we are in trouble if things continue like this. Impartial media, and not just RTE is very important in a democracy.

Denerick

Shulgin wrote: »

Well we are in trouble if things continue like this. Impartial media, and not just RTE is very important in a democracy.

You (Anti FG) presume RTE has a FG bias. Someone of the FG cloth presumes RTE has a FF bias. DO you see how stupid this all is? If any of you partisans were capable of seeing outside your box you'd see that the media did a pretty alright job anyway. And I'm not a fan of impartiality anyway. For a start its impossible (Some are right and some are wrong, c'est la vie)

Shulgin

The media should deal with the facts and not getting actively behind politicians, cheering them like a football team in the world cup, be they left or right.

Denerick wrote: »

And I'm not a fan of impartiality anyway.

We profoundly disagree so.

Denerick

Who was cheering who during the election? Ireland has absurdly strict media laws and restrictions on free speech as it is. You'll never get shock jocks on Irish radio like you do in America because broadcasters aren't even allowed to express political opinions!!!

Methinks the lady does protest too much.

FlutterinBantam

Denerick wrote: »

Who was cheering who during the election? Ireland has absurdly strict media laws and restrictions on free speech as it is. You'll never get shock jocks on Irish radio like you do in America because broadcasters aren't even allowed to express political opinions!!!

Methinks the lady does protest too much.

Thank God for that.

irishh_bob

Shulgin wrote: »

I saw nothing but GO ENDA! in the media all through the election build up.

What a loada sh1te.

the labour guy from dublin south east ( who came 2nd to george lee 2 yrs ago) practically lived in RTE this past number of months , labour were never really grilled on thier lack of policys in the months running up to the election and all the focus and discussion was centred around the ( fear ) idea of a FG overall majority , what with interviews with unions chiefs ( since when were they up for election ) during the last week of campaigning , enquring as to what effect a single party goverment would have

Camilo

I dont think about these things much
but im a Neo-Trotskyist-Radical-Maoist-liberal-facist-imperialist-petit-Bourgeois-socialist-revolutionary-neo-colonial-Brown shirt-communist

Aye but seriously, Far(yet pragmatic) left for me. Reading Issac Deutchers fantastic 3 part biography series on Leon Trotsky and it is such a pity that his teachings have been largely forgotten.

krd

Denerick wrote: »

Ireland has absurdly strict media laws and restrictions on free speech as it is.

You'll never get shock jocks on Irish radio like you do in America because broadcasters aren't even allowed to express political opinions!!!

You're wrong. RTE may be covered - as there have always been civil service rules regarding the political involvement of civil servants.

As for other parts of the media, journalists are allowed voice preferences.

On Newstalk, pompous George Hook backed Finn Gael openly. Again and again.

Marc Coleman, newstalk, is pretty close to an American right-wing shock jock. He's openly right-wing. Finn Gael is too far to the left for him. I'm not exaggerating. He was once a member of Finn Gael, and a member of a group within the party who wanted to take it further to the right.

Ivan Yates, Newstalk, is dyed in the wool Finn Gaeler.

Media bias is generally very subtle and surreptitious. It's more effective when it's not explicit. Someone like Sarah Carey is never explicit in her support for Finn Gael. People think of the Irish Times as being to the left - it just isn't. They're just careful not to be too vulgar in their snobbery. The Indo is more scuzzy - they're a little more brazen. But forgiven them, for they do not know what they do - they are ignorant people.

Media is about presentation. Typically, the Irish media will present Finn Gaelers as smort and sharp. Labour have to very very careful not to ever give them a hostage. If they give the media any opportunity they'll be torn to shreds. Finn Gaelers are given easy rides. And Finna Fail, in the election coverage were just exposed for what they are; greedy flatulent hob-goblins.

What is presented by the Irish media as centerism is actually well to the right. Labour are far closer to the centre than even their own core supporters like.

During the 80s, the British media backed the Conservative party. Michael Foot, the Labour leader at one point, was made to look like a senile dirty old man. He was once, foolishly, filmed walking his dog, and the dog pissed up against the wheel of a car. The British media ran it on a loop.

The Irish Labour party would have had a landslide win in the election if it had not been for the Irish media. The left in the election expanded their share of the vote by a massive margin. By following the Irish media you'd get the impression there had been a massive swing to the right.

Denerick

krd wrote: »

The Irish Labour party would have had a landslide win in the election if it had not been for the Irish media. The left in the election expanded their share of the vote by a massive margin. By following the Irish media you'd get the impression there had been a massive swing to the right.

You were going well until you made this point. The reason Labour didn't win a landslide is because they simply don't have the tradition in most parts of the country to make any significant inroads. Your analysis of Irish politics overlooks the parochial; and Irish politics is insanely parochial by European standards.

I listed to Colmans show and I largely agree with you regarding his politics; but I find him to be a generally fair minded broadcaster (In no way is he comparable to a right wing American shock jock by the way, if you listen to his show at all you couldn't come to that conclusion)

Overall Labour didn't do well because the irish people are generally culturally conservative and were suspicious of Labours social democratic tendancies. Blame the media all you want (Which is the constant gripe of idealogues of left and right - someone on the right side of the prism would make an identical argument to the one you made; but suggesting instead that the media has an inbuilt left wing bias)

I could list people like Vincent Browne, Damian Kiberd etc. etc... But what would be the point? We'll only go around in circles, and you'll convince yourself that the only reason Labour didn't win a landslide was because the media were backing Fine Gael during the election. Its depressing really that so many otherwise intelligent people convince themselves with such theories.

Boskowski

I'm a lefty, always was always will be. Just think there must be more to us than making money and slowly digging up the planet. I think as a society we have to evolve from capitalism as that's simply a more elaborate version of survival of the fittest. That's on the macro scale.
On the micro scale I see that view confirmed. Right wing, capitalist people are generally speaking looking out for themselves and the worst examples are prepared to cross lines to get whatever they want to achieve which is rarely something that involves ideals but mostly evolves around materialistic stuff. Left people get it wrong a lot of the time too but at least for the right reasons.
Gross generalisations so don't pull me on it cos I know. Just answering to the thread in bullet points.

liah

Basically, at the core of it, I believe people should be free to live as they please, however that may be. As a result, I support secularity in government, free speech even in media, multiculturalism (though not affirmative action; meritocracy is important), pro-choice, the right to bear arms, net neutrality, LGBT rights, the right to euthanasia, drug legalization-- the whole gamut. As long as everything's consensual (and non-violent), it should be legal, bottom line. I don't believe in punishing for victimless crimes.

I believe education, healthcare, and any company that produces something consumable/potentially damaging to internal/mental health (e.g. food, drugs, anything that can be applied to the body, etc) should be regulated (insofar as held to the highest quality of standards set down by the government), but otherwise, I'm pretty much all for small government and the free market in any other arena. Competition is incredibly important to encourage development in many fields. Education and healthcare are my two biggest ones, simply because you cannot have a healthy, happy, productive, progressive, intelligent, mutually beneficial society for very long without them. Education is the most important thing for progression, personal or national, especially when it comes to controversial or taboo topics and learning critical and objective thinking skills, which are sorely, sorely lacking as of late in many places.

As far as foreign policy goes, I tend to lean to the side of 'stay the hell out of it and let them sort it for themselves.' No country has any right to decide what happens to the people of another, they have to decide it for themselves, and certainly, no country has the right to invade another for its own personal gain. It's only in the event of genocides or other major international human rights violations or that I believe in intervention of any kind.

TL;DR: I'm not entirely sure where that leaves me when it comes to what label to apply. I'm sure there's bits of Libertarian, Liberal, and Conservative in there. But I'm more or less left wing, when you add it all up.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

liah

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I don't think classical right-wingism is actually even necessarily a bad thing, it's just the New Conservatives who have ruined the name by going off in a completely different direction from what their parties should represent-- classical (American, anyway) right-wing is surprisingly more or less pretty sensible. I think it's the most individualist choice that works for everyone, the only problem is it's a bit too individualist and in being so forsakes the idea of a mutually beneficial society. So I'm sort of a Libertarian-Socialist blend. I think any government program should be opt-in, rather than opt-out, it's the best way to keep everyone happy as far as I can see it.

My Libertarianism has the caveat that education and healthcare should be national and funded through taxes (obviously, with the option of using private companies), as well as at least some level of welfare-- but much less than, for example, Ireland, which imo is too high, and it should be reviewed on an individual basis more efficiently. Leaving them to rot entirely leaves you ending up with massive ghetto populations, like some areas of the U.S.

Also think there should be a law in most places (like in Canada) that bans news channels (and exclusively news channels) from propagating misinformation; as much as I appreciate free speech in literally any other context, politics in/and news need to be honest.

I don't know. I pick and choose from a lot of different views and have built my own which makes sense to me, feck the labels anyway :pac:

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

krd

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Because you are an extreme right-winger.

Free-market libertarianism, anarchism for rich people, is the belief, power should be dictated by economic advantage - and not by collective democratic decision. And government should just exist to protect the property and privileges of the wealthy.

It's a gross distortion of enlightenment ideals of freedom. (In fact, many libertarians are counter enlightenment - as well as believing 911 was a government job and fluoride in the water is there for mind control purposes)

Adam Smith, was not a free market libertarian - though the wing nuts adopted him as one of their own.
“People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.”
, is not an Adam Smith quote you'll hear often repeated by right-wingers.


On the collapse of the Soviet union, free-market libertarianism was forced on the Russian people - by foaming at the mouth American right-wing nutjobs. The result: Millions faced terrible hardship, and a tiny minority of bandits became billionaires. One reason Putin is so popular is for his reversal of ultra-liberalism in Russia. Under Putin, the standard of living for the average Russian has risen greatly. Under free-market libertarianism, the average Russian was robbed, starved and raped. Roman Abramovich, is feted here as an entrepreneurial hero. Read into his history, to see how he accumulated his wealth, and you'll learn he was conman, a thief, and even a murderer.

At the core of Free-market libertarianism, is a grossly illiberal black heart, pumping cancerous blood around any system that adopts it.

Irish banks were run under free-market libertarian principles. As were European, US and British banks. And look where it got us. The "system" worked if you were a banker - I have yet to find one sleeping rough among the hundreds you'll find sleeping on the streets of Dublin today.

krd

Camilo wrote: »

I dont think about these things much
but im a Neo-Trotskyist-Radical-Maoist-liberal-facist-imperialist-petit-Bourgeois-socialist-revolutionary-neo-colonial-Brown shirt-communist

Aye but seriously, Far(yet pragmatic) left for me. Reading Issac Deutchers fantastic 3 part biography series on Leon Trotsky and it is such a pity that his teachings have been largely forgotten.

Trotsky's teachings haven't been forgotten. The ideologues of American neo-conservatism were Trotskyists. Leo Strauss was a Trotskyist. Paul Wolfowitz was a Trotskyist.

The ideological aim of neo-conservatism was to create permanent revolution - a society controlled by a cadre of elites. Poet/warrior kings.

A permanent revolution is more or less what conservatives everywhere want - that's why they're conservative - they want to copper fasten a world of inequality, because they have all the nice stuff and all the power and want it kept that way. Permanently. A right-wing permanent revolution.

krd

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Which means minimum wage jobs are appalling badly paid - if it's better or just as good as the dole. $12.10 goes a lot further in the US, than €8.65 goes here. It's completely fallacious to make that comparison. Also, when people make the minimum wage comparison with the US, they always pick the lowest state minimum - wealthier US states have higher minimum wages - and they also have stronger unions.

Why is it a good thing people should be forced to work for less money?

Driving down wages to be "competitive" does not benefit the people who are having their wages driven down. The benefits of the "competition" are only disbursed to the employers.

In Ireland, the less well off are expected to carry the entire burden of fixing the economy only so the wealthy of Ireland can reap all the benefits.

We could be more competitive if the cost of living was lower - then wage cuts wouldn't be such a problem. But that would mean hurting the gouging rentier classes.

irishh_bob

krd wrote: »

Because you are an extreme right-winger.

Free-market libertarianism, anarchism for rich people, is the belief, power should be dictated by economic advantage - and not by collective democratic decision. And government should just exist to protect the property and privileges of the wealthy.

It's a gross distortion of enlightenment ideals of freedom. (In fact, many libertarians are counter enlightenment - as well as believing 911 was a government job and fluoride in the water is there for mind control purposes)

Adam Smith, was not a free market libertarian - though the wing nuts adopted him as one of their own.
“People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.”
, is not an Adam Smith quote you'll hear often repeated by right-wingers.


On the collapse of the Soviet union, free-market libertarianism was forced on the Russian people - by foaming at the mouth American right-wing nutjobs. The result: Millions faced terrible hardship, and a tiny minority of bandits became billionaires. One reason Putin is so popular is for his reversal of ultra-liberalism in Russia. Under Putin, the standard of living for the average Russian has risen greatly. Under free-market libertarianism, the average Russian was robbed, starved and raped. Roman Abramovich, is feted here as an entrepreneurial hero. Read into his history, to see how he accumulated his wealth, and you'll learn he was conman, a thief, and even a murderer.

At the core of Free-market libertarianism, is a grossly illiberal black heart, pumping cancerous blood around any system that adopts it.

Irish banks were run under free-market libertarian principles. As were European, US and British banks. And look where it got us. The "system" worked if you were a banker - I have yet to find one sleeping rough among the hundreds you'll find sleeping on the streets of Dublin today.

abramovich is a personal friend of putin

ps , i consider abramovich to be nothing but a mob king